Weapon Ranges and Gamestyles

User avatar
Aenno
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 3:59 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Weapon Ranges and Gamestyles

Postby Aenno » Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:29 am

gribble wrote:Also, while we're on the topic of 40k, you do realise that weapon ranges already have effectively been doubled, right?
In 40k, a lasgun is 24" range, and a guardman has a move of 6".
In W&G, a lasgun has a range of 48m, while a guardsman has a speed of 6m.

Just for standing check. Are you implying that lasgun range, modeled in WH40 tabletop as 24'', is 24 metres?

gribble wrote:So while it might not generate the same number of attacks as 40k, it would have the same effect (excepting overwatch, which is not present in W&G and would be best implemented as a held action).

It's not, and it can be easily seen through rerolls and wounding mechanics.
As overwatch is free attack against everybody who is charging against a unit, that isn't blocked by any kind of movements or actions, which can be executed more then once in round (just to keep in mind - on tabletop, if you declare charge against somebody, it doesn't mean , it's not nicely represents as hold action, as hold action prevents you to execute action in your turn. That's, by the way, another example of current ruleset bias for melee characters.

Still, again, it's not mine main point. I'm asking - how long do you believe "actual" WH lasgun can shoot? By lore accounts, fluff description, with understanding that Basilisk Earthshaker cannon on tabletop is 240'' (is it 240 metres?), and antipersonnel sniper rifle range is 36'' (36 metres?).
I argue fiercely, but I never believed disagreement should be capital offence.

I'm editing my posts often. English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes; that, with thoughtful rereading, I often found and want to edit.

gribble
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:55 pm

Re: Weapon Ranges and Gamestyles

Postby gribble » Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:29 am

Aenno wrote:Are current rules works? Well, they do. They would work even if you make lasgun range 20 m. Or 10 m. Or close combat only. So yes, I don't defend changings in the rules because current ones "don't work". They're not crumbling mechanically.

This is simply not correct. The rules would not work as well if weapon ranges were reduced, any more than they would if weapon ranges were increased. Reducing weapon ranges would tilt W&G too far in favour of melee.
You seem to be of the impression that the devs chose the ranges they did just to personally offend your sense of what the ranges should be, but there would have been a lot of thought go into picking movement and weapon ranges during development to achieve the balance they have with the rules. Chucking out the work they have done on a whim just because you feel that ranges should be longer would disrupt this balance.

Aenno wrote:Are they work "fine" (whatever "fine" is)? It's subjective, but, until players don't argue some decision, it works fine. As you can see here on forums, players definitly ARE arguing, so no, current rules doesn't work universally fine

I have not seen one argument that the weapon ranges as they currently stand have any adverse effect on the game. Not a single one. I've heard a lot of complaining from people that they feel weapon ranges should be longer, but no one has shown that the game doesn't work with the ranges as is. In fact, I have personal experience and a lot of talk from others that it works exactly as people would expect for a game emulating 40k.

Aenno wrote:And yes, current rules tend to make every fight to a melee fight (if melee combatant wants it), which is bad.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but I have to ask again what actual play experience you're basing this on? Because this is so far from the reality of what I and others have seen in play that I can only assume if you found this in actual play you must have misunderstood something in the rules. And if it's not based on actual play, then you'll forgive me for just dismissing it as the garbage it obviously is.

Aenno wrote:I believe you don't really understand my point.

First, please don't try the weak argument of tarring me with the "roll-player vs roleplayer" brush. It's just as relevant as the argument you made about your version of 40k "reality" vs mine. In fact, it's even less relevant because at least my version of 40k reality is based on the tabletop wargame (the "ultimate truth" when it comes to 40k), whereas yours seems to be based on some obscure minutae in the fiction combined with your conception of how real world modern day combat works.
I have never once said that the rules shouldn't be changed for "tactical gaming" reasons. My point is that the current rules, in play, feel like 40k to me, and are fun. The changes you propose would neither feel like 40k to me, nor would they be more fun. I've used rules from actual play experience to back that up, but that doesn't mean I think the rules are king.

Second, I understand your point perfectly. I just can't agree with it. Ultimately in 40k, the "reality" is the tabletop game. Everything else you see, Black Library, Computer games, etc. is based on that "reality". Some writers write crap that should be dismissed.
And looking at the 40k tabletop game, the relative effective ranges in W&G are already twice the maximum ranges of the wargame. So anyone claiming they are too short just isn't interested in the reality presented by the "ultimate reality" in 40k - they want something that matches another reality. But more importantly doubling weapon ranges would make the game less fun. For me, that is ultimately what gaming is about, and I simply can't get behind any change that would make the game less fun just to match up some obscure minutae of the lore.

User avatar
Aenno
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 3:59 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Weapon Ranges and Gamestyles

Postby Aenno » Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:40 am

gribble wrote:Second, I understand your point perfectly. I just can't agree with it. Ultimately in 40k, the "reality" is the tabletop game. Everything else you see, Black Library, Computer games, etc. is based on that "reality". Some writers write crap that should be dismissed.

Sure. In this secondary reality, what would be range of lasgun in meters, in your opinion? Do you believe that tabletop inch is a meter?
I argue fiercely, but I never believed disagreement should be capital offence.

I'm editing my posts often. English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes; that, with thoughtful rereading, I often found and want to edit.

gribble
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:55 pm

Re: Weapon Ranges and Gamestyles

Postby gribble » Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:17 am

Aenno wrote:Just for standing check. Are you implying that lasgun range, modeled in WH40 tabletop as 24'', is 24 metres?

I'm not implying anything - I honestly don't know what scale the devs used to convert 40k ranges to W&G ranges (though 1" = 2m seems sensible to me).
I'm applying basic maths. If, in 40k, a guardmans basic move is X (in this case X = 6", but that is irrelevant to the maths), then a lasguns *maximum* range is 4X. Converting those same values to W&G, when a guardmans basic move is X (in this case X = 6m, though again the exact value is irrelevant), then a lasguns range is 8X. Ergo, the relative range of weapons in W&G are already double what they are in 40k (really much longer, because 8X isn't the maximum range in W&G, it's actually the effective range - the maximum range is twice that or 16X - four times what it is in 40k).

So let me make this 100% clear. What you are arguing for is making the maximum range of weapons in W&G 8 times greater than the maximum range they have in the tabletop game. Does that seem like an accurate depiction to you?

Aenno wrote:Still, again, it's not mine main point. I'm asking - how long do you believe "actual" WH lasgun can shoot? By lore accounts, fluff description, with understanding that Basilisk Earthshaker cannon on tabletop is 240'' (is it 240 metres?), and antipersonnel sniper rifle range is 36'' (36 metres?).

What I believe doesn't matter. What the values are in 40k is really the only thing that matters. Everything else (Black Library, comics, computer games, etc) is beholden to that, and if they aren't consistent, they are simply wrong.

Regardless, I have no problem with the effective range, in battlefield conditions, and with no penalties to attacks, being 48m for a lasgun. Nor do I have a problem with the same value being 150m for a sniper rifle. The maximum ranges are twice that, in the same conditions. And as already stated, I'd have no problems with continuing to double those ranges and penalties as a house rule, or treating a really long range shot as a narrative effect. It works in the game, and it seems reasonable to me for a game seeking to emulate 40k.
Last edited by gribble on Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Aenno
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 3:59 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Weapon Ranges and Gamestyles

Postby Aenno » Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:48 am

So, your basic math gives:
artillery effective range being 12 times longer then human movement, being (taking 1 inch = 2 metres) 480 metres; and supersonic aircraft, using its supersonic capability, is roughly 10 times faster then human movement?

Are you sure nothing wrong is here?
I argue fiercely, but I never believed disagreement should be capital offence.

I'm editing my posts often. English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes; that, with thoughtful rereading, I often found and want to edit.

gribble
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:55 pm

Re: Weapon Ranges and Gamestyles

Postby gribble » Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:20 am

Aenno wrote:So, your basic math gives:
artillery effective range being 12 times longer then human movement, being (taking 1 inch = 2 metres) 480 metres; and supersonic aircraft, using its supersonic capability, is roughly 10 times faster then human movement?

Are you sure nothing wrong is here?

There is a lot wrong there, but I'm not sure it's what you think it is...
To start with, 480m/6m = 80 - so the artillery's effective range is actually 80 times longer than human movement... (or 40 times in 40k tabletop).
But artillery pieces aren't present in W&G yet, so we can't say for sure what their range will be. Regardless, yes, I'm pretty comfortable with artillery having that effective range, bearing in mind we're not talking about modern day highly automated, radar guided, artillery pieces, but something more akin to WW2 manually aimed and fired equipment. Even then, I know it isn't inline with the real world, but that is what GW have chosen to portray it's effective range in the tabletop game as, and who am I to question GW? They invented the whole thing after all.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of the supersonic aircraft, but looking at the rules for the only aircraft we have (and I'm pretty sure they are subsonic), there are speeds of 40m for the Storm Raven, and 45m for the Valkyrie. Doubling those to get maximum speeds, we have a maximum speed of 80m, which is over 13 times walking distance.
Plus we have to bear in mind these are the speeds for vehicles in combat situations against soldiers on foot. I can live with those values as effective/maximum combat speeds. Sure a supersonic plane can fly faster, but at that speed it would have zero appreciable impact on the battlefield.

Furthermore, if we look at the vehicle speeds relative to weapon ranges, a character armed with a basic weapon (lagsgun/boltgun), would basically have 1 round of attacks as a vehicle moved from outside their maximum range, to "adjacent" in one round, then from there to outside their maximum range the following round. In the meantime the flyer would get 3 rounds of attacks, assuming bigger than personal scale guns (one at long range, closing from outside personal weapon range, one while "adjacent", and a final one at long range as the vehicle moved away again). That may not be "real world" realistic, but it's about what I would expect to happen during a vehicles strafing run in a game (from both sides).

User avatar
Aenno
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 3:59 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Weapon Ranges and Gamestyles

Postby Aenno » Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:54 am

gribble wrote:To start with, 480m/6m = 80 - so the artillery's effective range is actually 80 times longer than human movement... (or 40 times in 40k tabletop).

Yes, you right here, it's stupid mistake from my side. 40.
But I'm not saying about W&G now, I'm saying about 40K. Because I really feel your approach of using direct conformity between 40K Movement characteristic and W&G basic speed isn't right methodologically.

gribble wrote:but something more akin to WW2 manually aimed and fired equipment.

Something like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_FK_38
11 km max range.

Maybe it's WW1 gun?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6-inch_siege_gun_M1877
7 km+ range.

Modern ones gives you, like, 30 km.
Not to mention that Imperial artillery quite possibly would have "radar" (or something more sci-fiish) systems, called "augur arrays" and allowing to reroll one miss per battle. Astra Militarum Codex, 8 ed., p. (I beleive) 130.

gribble wrote:I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of the supersonic aircraft, but looking at the rules for the only aircraft we have (and I'm pretty sure they are subsonic), there are speeds of 40m for the Storm Raven, and 45m for the Valkyrie. Doubling those to get maximum speeds, we have a minimum of 80m, which is over 13 times walking distance.

Looking in WH40.
65'' for advancing Valkyrie. 45+20, because it's never rolling on Advance, and it's directly written under Supersonic ability. Astra Militarum codex, 8th Edition, p. 117. You can question why would supersound craft use it's full speed in combat, but, well, it's what we got from rules.
Human Movement is 6.
65/6=10.8333333333
65/7=9.28571428571
65/12=5.41666666667
So, until I'm doing another stupid mistake, and please show me if I do, on in WH40, which is declared as basic source (and I do agree!), supersonic venicle moving 10 times faster then a human moving normally. This kind of movement isn't exactly steerable (moving allowing Valkyrie to turn once per turn and move straight). Taking (for simplicity) speed of normally moving human of 6 km/h, it gives us speed of supersonic (directly declared as supersonic!) craft, when it's using Supersonic ability, something like 70 km/h.

I'm trying to show that Movement characteristic of WH40 isn't about "how fast is X moving", but "how many non-defined units it can move in non-defined time", and therefore can't be used as a basis of ranges and speeds.
I argue fiercely, but I never believed disagreement should be capital offence.

I'm editing my posts often. English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes; that, with thoughtful rereading, I often found and want to edit.

gribble
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:55 pm

Re: Weapon Ranges and Gamestyles

Postby gribble » Sat Nov 10, 2018 3:41 pm

Aenno wrote:Something like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_FK_38
11 km max range.

Yes, exactly like that. You do realise that "maximum firing distance" is not the same thing as maximum effective distance under battlefield conditions, right? Artillery, especially non-guided WW2 artillery is lucky to land the shell in an area the size of a football pitch at those ranges. Artillery used without direct line of sight is typically fired in batteries with barrages, to cover as large an area as possible. To be as accurate as it appears in the tabletop game, a single artillery piece would pretty much need direct line of sight, which vastly reduces those ranges.

Aenno wrote:Not to mention that Imperial artillery quite possibly would have "radar" (or something more sci-fiish) systems, called "augur arrays" and allowing to reroll one miss per battle.

One re-roll per battle? Yes... seems effective and reliable...

Aenno wrote:I'm trying to show that Movement characteristic of WH40 isn't about "how fast is X moving", but "how many non-defined units it can move in non-defined time", and therefore can't be used as a basis of ranges and speeds.

Ok... so let's look at it from the other perspective then. If you assume that 65" is actually intended to be moving at supersonic speed, then you have to accept that human walking speed (1/10 of that speed) is approx 125 km/hour. Seems reasonable to you?

Or, we can accept that the ability is just called "Supersonic", like a lot of other tongue in cheek ability names in 40k, and that it doesn't actually represent the Valkyrie moving at supersonic speed, but rather a sudden burst of acceleration...

FWIW, I agree with you that translating 40k values into absolute terms is nonsense, however, any game that wants to feel like 40k needs to preserve the relative values as closely as possible. When you read my posts, that's what I'm referring to. Doubling weapon ranges would take the relative values too far away from 40k, making the game feel less like 40k (besides the negative effect it would also have on the - currently great - balance between melee and ranged combat).


Return to “Tangents and Miscellany (W&G)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests