Weapon Ranges: Can we simplify this?

[Kramer]

I don’t think it can be any easier than 

a. Going back to ranked blocks of units and deciding how many ranks can fight per unit  

b. Every weapon has a range and you measure per model.

everything else will complicate it so much. And I way way way prefer option b. It adds a lot of tactical choices and you can still explain it in one sentence without any if’s or but’s. That’s close to the definition of a good rule in my book  

 

[Seraphage]

Start using a combat gauge my friend, can't suggest this enough. That's all  your problems solved !

[EMMachine]

Hm, I have the feeling one point is forgotten or ignored here. I only read "attacking from multiple ranks" in this thread.

One thing that is possible in AoS but impossible in 40k is that a separate unit can attack if they have models in range. If you have a unit with one 1" Range in the first rank and behind this another unit with 2" Range, the Unit with 2" Range can attack a unit that charged the unit in front of them because of the range, but can't be attacked if the attacking unit doesn't have 2" Range as well.

If there would be a change like in 40k we would lose this.

Edit: here with a picture from above (dark green with 2" weapons, light green with 1" weapons. Red unit charging).

Edited April 23, 2019 by EMMachine

[AaronWilson]

I think it currently works and doesn't need fixing but I can appreciate it small niche situations you can't measure hugely accurately who is in / out. 

[SolomonHelsing]

It takes a few games to settle in, but the bases are good for knowing what can reach already without needing to measure up to 50mm bases then they pretty much convert into how many ranks can fight depending on weapon range anyways. Cases when you don't have things particularly base to base happen but then there's plenty of combat gauges to deal with those. 

[Smooth criminal]

I don't like how 40k handles things. A lot of their rules make positioning meaningless. I like when moving models around table means something and the game isn't just a dice-off.

 

What I'd do in AoS is give everyone who has shorter than 3" melee range an additional inch of range. This way everyone can fight in 2 ranks and spears can fight in up to 4 ranks.

The fact that skeletons/rats/etc. can fight with their swords in 2 ranks and sigmarines can't just because their base is bigger is highly counterintuitive.

[The World Tree]

1 hour ago, Smooth criminal said:

I don't like how 40k handles things. A lot of their rules make positioning meaningless. I like when moving models around table means something and the game isn't just a dice-off.

 

What I'd do in AoS is give everyone who has shorter than 3" melee range an additional inch of range. This way everyone can fight in 2 ranks and spears can fight in up to 4 ranks.

The fact that skeletons/rats/etc. can fight with their swords in 2 ranks and sigmarines can't just because their base is bigger is highly counterintuitive.

There is some definite weirdness with how ranges were calculated for some units. You compare weapon sizes and you just wonder what the hell they were thinking (although a part of this comes down to verisimilitude vs balance).

Generally I think range works very smoothly.

[firebat]

On 4/23/2019 at 12:07 AM, kenshin620 said:

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.

Both 25mm and 32mm bases can attack in 2 ranks with 1" attacks against similar sized bases. The 32mm only lose out with 2" attacks or when fighting models that are on larger bases as long as you're not ranking the models up fantasy style

Maths (Just to be precise like and because I have nothing else to do at 1am it seems)

We know x is 16mm and y is 32mm because we know the size of the base so using Pythagoras we can work out how far the centre of the 2nd rank is from the centre of the first:

x² + z² = y² 

y. 32² = 1024 and x. 16² = 256

so z = sqr(1024-256)

=27.718

But then it's the edge of the base to the edge of the base so we need to remove the base radius from that which gives 11.713. We then double that to get the distance between the edge of the base in the 2nd rank and the edge of the enemy base so 23.426. Google says  1" is 25.4mm so you almost have a whole 2mm to spare 

I did it for if the enemy is on a 40mm base too and the distance between is 23.96 so you can still attack with a 2nd rank against models on 40mm bases in theory but in practice it won't work out as well because the models don't rank up against each other so cleanly. in fact even a 100mm base only makes it 0.3mm out from the 2nd rank being able to attack.

I also checked on the 3rd rank of 32mm bases if you had 2" weapons (but cheated and used CAD to do it) and the 3rd rank, closest point to closest point is actually only 1.86mm away from being able to attack too. So that was close enough that I checked with 32mm bases fighting against 25mm bases and that ends up still being 1mm away from being able to attack with the third rank with 2" weapons if you had them. Closer than you might think though.

What was that about simplifying weapon ranges again? If you haven't been attacking with a 2nd rank with 32mm bases though chances are you're doing yourself out of attacks if the models are base to base.

[JPjr]

I honestly can't believe that some people still view this as a bit of a nerdy hobby.

 

 

EDIT: oooh... 666 posts... 🤘😈🤘

Edited April 24, 2019 by JPjr