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.