Weapon Ranges: Can we simplify this?

[Barbossal]

For me - this is an all too common - huddling around a scrum of models, hunched over and trying vainly to see if my model can get into range with a 1" weapon. I'm in the gap between models, and it's oh-so-close! Agh but not enough!

There's got to be a better way! 😮

Is it time to rework that 1", 2" range to Rank Attacks? All it really needs to replicate is the 40k Model: Are you in base combat of someone in base contact with an enemy? If so - swing for the fences. We could even keep the differences in 1",2". Some weapons can simple be base contact only, 1 rank, 2 ranks. 

Any thoughts? This is a bugbear in my gaming groups but I don't see it discussed to broadly online.

[mmimzie]

I agree and it's been shipped around here a few times. 

 

GW just has to pick the idea up. Would make measuring ranges a lot easier. 

[Carnelian]

The rank system is elegant but I wouldn't want to lose the fact that you don't need to be in base to base to attack as that increases the tactical decisions made when piling in and deciding who to attack. 

Also its flavoursome that horde units on small bases get more attacks in

[mmimzie]

1 minute ago, Carnelian said:

The rank system is elegant but I wouldn't want to lose the fact that you don't need to be in base to base to attack as that increases the tactical decisions made when piling in and deciding who to attack. 

Also its flavoursome that horde units on small bases get more attacks in

This is true, but that could be fixed on a per unit bases. 2" range skaven could get 3 ranks of attacks, while 2" range stormcast only get 2 ranks. 

 

Could also require that models be within 1/2" an inch of each other to count as being a rank away. That way you can still have the scrunched in, but allow you to be more lax on piling in.

 

[Killax]

Considering certain bases I think that in some update in the future we should see more 1-2 and 3" attack distances instead of the common 1-2". The prime reason why it feels like a hassle from time to time has to do with 32mm bases, who are common, but is ever so slightly more as 1" and that piles up to certain models, seemfully being able to reach it can't.

In Warmachine/Hordes this was usually solved with 2" attack distances. I believe it would solve the issue here aswell. It would also pair up easier with pile ins.

At the same time however I don't feel this is a massive issue in the game, instead it also adds tactical depth. What could be a solution for some to experience how to preform this more easier is pre-meassure and using proxy bases to see what would fit and what wouldn't. It thakes more time, but the game does allow for premeassurement so you should be allowed to use it to your advantage. 

[Overread]

I think the rank system worked best in the old fantasy where you had specific rank and file formations and could easily calculate which ranks to include. Otherwise you're just shifting the problem and inch or two back so you're not really resolving the small measuring distance issues. 

Sometimes things like this are solve with better tools - eg measuring widges which are far smaller and easier to get into tight spots than huge tape measures or rulers. Lasers might one day also come to ones rescue (thus far then tend to be limited to line of sight rather than measuring distances). 

Another aspect is that I suspect the idea of introducing "rank" battle systems into AoS would be a marketing flaw for GW because it would just be kicking the beehive that is Old World fans. Better to leave it alone rather than pick at sore wounds of the past. 

 

[JPjr]

I mean pretty much every iPhone, and I guess other inferior phones, have a fairly decent measuring app as standard these days. And it’s only going to get better, someone crack the API reskin it with a GW logo and charge a tenner for it, job done.

[JackStreicher]

I‘d Keep the range but update it like this

2“|1

 2“ reach if you decide not to „support“ another model‘s attack. 

1 you can attack enemies across one base (has to be the same base size as your own base or smaller) if you are in basecontact with a model which  is within 1/2“ of  an enemy model. This counts as supporting attack.

 

1“|2

1“ reach this counts 

2 you can support another model which is already supporting a model which is within 1/2“ of  an enemy model (your base size has to be equal to or less than the both base sizes you are supporting). This counts as supporting attack.

 

 

this would also open up new spells and mechanics which reduce an enemy‘s support range or attack range.

Edited April 21, 2019 by JackStreicher

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, JPjr said:

 pretty much every iPhone, and I guess other inferior phones, 

There are worse phones than those toys Apple makes? Never heard of them, but I'll take your word for it.

You learn something new every day. 😉

Edited April 21, 2019 by Sleboda

[XReN]

Never since I bought this cute little thing

I've had any problems measuring my movements (to stay outside 3"), making my pile-ins or measuring which models can attack
And IMO changes to current rules of who can fight are unnecessary complications. 

[Overread]

I honestly really like the combat gauges by GW - not cheap, but they (at least the AoS one) is all metal! 

[XReN]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

I honestly really like the combat gauges by GW - not cheap, but they (at least the AoS one) is all metal! 

Same, it just feels amazing in hand and very pretty!

[kenshin620]

Maybe since base sizes are in MM, use MM ranges. So like "short range" is 35mm, perfect for having 2 "ranks" of 32mm bases.

Or increase the range of weapons by 1/2 an inch.

 

Why do people mix imperial with metric anyways!

[NurglesFirstChosen]

Seems a little daft to have combat range decided by base size.... a dude on a 32mm base with a sword should not have the same range as one with a spear. 

Its pretty simple as is - check the scroll, and use a combat gauge.

 

[Lucio]

I prefer the measuring system and the combat gauges definitely make the difference

[Dead Scribe]

Combat gauges are definitely required tools.

[sal4m4nd3r]

I realize the example I’m about to give is very specific, but it highlights a problem I would have with a simpler system.

I often use the Glottkin and a huge block of maruaders. Sometimes, I’ll fit the Glottkin “inside”’the unit of maruaders 2” behind the front lines. When opponents charge, the 3” range weapon (flailing tentacle) of the Glottkin makes the chcarge on the maruaders much more dangerous, and gives them some extra punch!

I like this nuance.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by sal4m4nd3r

[Unit1126PLL]

Indeed, as someone recently coming from 40k, the weapon ranges are part of AOS that I love and really help with the tactical movement before, during, and after the Fight Phase.

Pls don't go to a 40k style system. I ran away from that stuff.

[PJetski]

Weapon ranges are one of the reasons this game is so interesting. Charging, combat, and pile-in are much more engaging when you are dealing with different base sizes and weapon ranges.

[ledha]

The current system is simple and flavorful (spears and pike strike on several ranks). 

The 40k system is absolute dogshit and doesn't make sense. Nearly all the propositions here just make it more complicated and would force a complete rebalance of the game.

Edited April 22, 2019 by ledha

[Sleboda]

7 hours ago, kenshin620 said:

Maybe since base sizes are in MM, use MM ranges. So like "short range" is 35mm, perfect for having 2 "ranks" of 32mm bases.

Or increase the range of weapons by 1/2 an inch.

 

Why do people mix imperial with metric anyways!

Keep in mind that in the actual rules, base size is irrelevant.

[Charleston]

Althrough I enjoy 40k-close-combat due to "first Rank fights, second fights too" ruling, I guess it wouldn´t work well with AoS. The current system is a bit of a tricky measuring task which can easily be done with a combat gauge

[Forrix]

I've never really had an issue with it personally but I try not to over think it. 32mm base and 1 inch attack range mean they attack in 1 rank. 2 inches = 2 ranks. On 25mm round 1 inch =2 ranks. If there's a base size/attack range distance your unfamiliar with its easy to just check with the combat gauge.

That said, I've had a couple games in tournaments where the other player will meticulously pile in his models in order to maximize attacks through the gaps. It makes me want to gouge out my eyes because it massively slows the game down and normally has very little impact on the game overall.   

[kenshin620]

2 hours ago, Forrix said:

I've never really had an issue with it personally but I try not to over think it. 32mm base and 1 inch attack range mean they attack in 1 rank. 2 inches = 2 ranks. On 25mm round 1 inch =2 ranks. If there's a base size/attack range distance your unfamiliar with its easy to just check with the combat gauge.

That said, I've had a couple games in tournaments where the other player will meticulously pile in his models in order to maximize attacks through the gaps. It makes me want to gouge out my eyes because it massively slows the game down and normally has very little impact on the game overall.   

The problem arises though when base sizes are assigned arbitrarily.

Chaos Marauders are on 25mm for example while Bloodreavers are on 32mm. Yes modeling wise I think Bloodreavers would look very cramped on a 25mm base, but seems weird that a Horde unit is punished due to base sizes. (not that maruaders are superior to bloodreavers, but I'm sure BR would enjoy having more "attacks")

Another example is BoC Gors who are on 32mm bases, very awkward when ungors get better "rank" attacks and bestigors are superior at msu.

And I think Skryre Acolytes keep bouncing between 25mm and 32mm for some reason.

[angrycontra]

I have no problem with measuring distance or the fact that you can attack from 2 ranks with 1" weapon when you have 25mm bases. I used to have problem with it but I've made my peace with the system.

But... what I do have problem (as mentioned above) is that Gw is doing extremely poor job calculating point values based on base sizes. Now I'm not saying that unit with 25mm bases should cost twice more or anything crazy like that but I could see 10p increases to some unit (and 10-20p decreases to some units with 32mm bases). Best example is indeed gors vs ungors. Now gor warscroll is terrible even without this, but it's made far worse by their bigger base size. Large unit of ungor will outdamage large unit of gors simply thanks to their base size. But I can understand dilemma it creates for gw: why should this more elite muscular gor unit cost same as "weaker" ungors? This is why I actually want gw changing warscrolls more frequently as points alone are not good enough for proper balance changes.

Edited April 23, 2019 by angrycontra