PDA

View Full Version : Distance Between Armies.



WallyTWest
27-11-2007, 06:26
In 40k it is advised to set armies 24" appart before a battle. 40k is based off fantasy.

In warhammer fantasy 24" is considered the value of a bow-shot. Thus how the distance between armies was chosen. Outside of the range of shortbows, well within the range of a cannon shot.

Logicaly in the "warhammer" system armies dont set up within the killing zone of another armies assets. The battle begins when this 24" zone is about to be or is being crossed. Similar to how the distance between trenches in WW1 was the equivilent of the rifle/mortar range of the combatants.

In short, do 40k players start the game too close togther? Should they be seting up at 36" (Sniper Fire, HMG, Bolters) or even 48"(Lascannons) but within range of battlecannons and the like? At 24" havent the zombies/gaunts/guardsmen been advancing for a while?

azimaith
27-11-2007, 06:29
48" is off the table on long board edges and 36" gives you very little room. You'd have to drasitcally cheapen (and improve) close combat troops if you were going to start them so far away as you'd delay them by a turn to 2 turns, (meaning a 3rd to 4th turn charge with the fastest of units, a 4th to 5th turn charge with fleeting units, and no charge at all for foot sloggers, IE orks.)

big squig
27-11-2007, 06:29
Well, if you set-up further apart, it screws up th balance of the game a little. Also, for every 6" your adding to no man's land, you should add another turn to the game.

The main problem with 36" or 48" no mans lands is that you need huge tables.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
27-11-2007, 06:30
40K may have been based off of Fantasy in the begining, but it is now its own seperate entity, and has been for quite some time. It has been through at least 4 different rules incarnations that I'm aware of. People like to think that everything in the rules is there for a specific reason or correllates to a real-life situation or aspect of warfare. I'm sure a lot more of it is simply for ease of play. Which, when you get right down to it, is what 40K is all about. If you want reality, there are many more realistic gaming systems out there. 40K is about space monsters and super humans blasting and hacking away at each other, simplified as to enhance play and bloodshed. At least, that's certainly what it appears to be.

ankara halla
27-11-2007, 06:32
It's over 24" so basically all the basic weapons (some exceptions, naturally) are out of range.

Also, most of the really shooty stuff (again, exceptions) is set up first so you can set up your own stuff accordingly.



That's the idea anyway.

Elric101
27-11-2007, 06:33
I would love to set up further away (being IG), as I really hate 1st turn charges. Just the other day I was playing against marines (ravenwing or deathwing I think), the very first went to the marines and boom! first turn charge (6" scout, 12"move, 6" charge), I practically lost the game there and then.

It's one of those situations where if you make the distance between armies bigger then it favours shooting armies, keep it the same or less and 1st turn charges are possible. I'd rather keep it as it is (I usually get at least one shooting phase in).

azimaith
27-11-2007, 06:36
You do know your not required to deploy at the edge of your deployment zone, right?

Anyhow, its much easier to solve problems with a per unit basis rather than changing one rule that changes every army without any plans to make it work.

I assume you meant a 12" scout, since they can scout as far as they can move normally and marines can't fleet. I also assume that if the above numbers were correct, you were playing cleanse, because otherwise you'd need to be at least 24" away.

Furthermore we assume the space marines were on the exacty opposite side of the board if the above numbers were correct or they would have fallen short.

For the most part first turn charges are only a huge issue when the unit charging is something disgustingly bashy and resilient (which may be the case) and your opponent is playing a horde army, thus unable to leave gaps large enough to avoid consolidation. (Or they are fiendishly lucky with killin on the second round of CC.)

WallyTWest
27-11-2007, 06:51
Am I trying to justify reality in 40k? Nope, thats dumb.

Actualy this comes from me trying to play with diffrent ways to run campaigns with my new board at home. That 24" idea actualy is an issue with basic game design and ballance. A pistol and a Boltgun should not cost about the same in 40k. One is much better at killing.

Imagine Guard vs. Guard at 48"
Imagine Tyranids at x2 points vs. Guard at x1 points at 48"
Think about how much more powerfull and usefull it makes deep strike.
Think about how important terrain becomes.
Incoming reserves are basicly deployed "48+x" inches away, if you think about the turns it takes to come onto the board.

big squig
27-11-2007, 06:54
I would love to set up further away (being IG), as I really hate 1st turn charges. Just the other day I was playing against marines (ravenwing or deathwing I think), the very first went to the marines and boom! first turn charge (6" scout, 12"move, 6" charge), I practically lost the game there and then.

It's one of those situations where if you make the distance between armies bigger then it favours shooting armies, keep it the same or less and 1st turn charges are possible. I'd rather keep it as it is (I usually get at least one shooting phase in).
Then why not deploy 25" away?

azimaith
27-11-2007, 07:44
Am I trying to justify reality in 40k? Nope, thats dumb.

Theres nothing dumb about trying to propose ways you think would be more realistic if they don't override balance. Otherwise it could be claimed lasguns make you grow flowers from your ears and a third nose out of your arm pit because: "Hey 40k isn't realistic." The argument that just because somethings aren't realistic that nothing can be and its never an argument is foolish.



Actualy this comes from me trying to play with diffrent ways to run campaigns with my new board at home. That 24" idea actualy is an issue with basic game design and ballance. A pistol and a Boltgun should not cost about the same in 40k. One is much better at killing.

A pistol gives you an extra attack when combined with a CCW, a bolt gun does not unless you have true grit, in which case you trade off charge bonuses. Put a bolt pistol with a powerfist and suddenly the bolt pistol weilder is doing measures more damage than the boltgun.



Imagine Guard vs. Guard at 48"

Uh, a couple turns of slogging then a couple turns of shooting while heavy weapons are hurt more than usual because they need to close to range with a huge no-mans land.



Imagine Tyranids at x2 points vs. Guard at x1 points at 48"

I'm imaginging my tyranid army at 2x points. Its telling me: "Eat nothing but top ramen for the next year and you can afford to play 40k!" :P.



Think about how much more powerfull and usefull it makes deep strike.

Not by much, you still need to strike close enough to do anything at all, and in that case your still close enough to be mauled horribly. The only units that are really going to benefit are the units that mostly benefit from it already.



Think about how important terrain becomes.

No more important than now, except perhaps you need more of it to cover the board and less of it gets used.



Incoming reserves are basicly deployed "48+x" inches away, if you think about the turns it takes to come onto the board.
Yes, because units like hormagaunts who are beasts should be told to pike off for daring to play in escalation.

Leonidas300
27-11-2007, 07:44
I use a 5' by 9' table at home. And we set up 36" away from each other which leaves us 12" deployment zones. This may seem unbalanced giving a large advantage to gunline armies, but really its all in the way terrain is set up. With such a large space you could use larger area terrain larger and more interresting line of sight terrains like large hills.

I set the terrain up so that there are lots of area terrain right outside of each players' deployment zones ( that way to gain cover you have to move into that terrain, it also means that you could set your units so that there is no first turn line of sight). I also put hills in the middle of the terrain so that line of sight is broken up. The hills are large enough so that even large models can't see over them although there are still narrow fire lanes to shoot down.

On the sides of the board I scatter a number of area terrain so that fast units could choose to go the long way around to flank.

We have played many, many games on this table (and always at 2k points). If the terrain is set up like this and objectives are used, no one has an advantage. But it's important to set the terrain up right!

Personally with a big table like this (it's a ping pong table with a black felt draped over it) I think that you can use more dynamic terrain and therefore a have more dynamic game play. The size of the board actually allows you to move tactically.

You may think that with 36 inches to cover foot slogging units are useless, well if what you are trying to do is charge a unit into the opposing deployment zone, then yes you are right, they aren't going to make it till at least the 5th turn. However if you use objectives and assign them a point value as victory points that is worth something (we usually assign objectives 200 to 500 vps depending on how many of them there are) then they are by no means useless especially since the objectives are somewhere towards the middle of the table.

Also I like the give the objective some sort of beneficial property. Maybe its in a reinforced bunker area terrain, giving units in it a 3+ cover save, making your opponent either send in a CC unit to clear them out or spend a huge amount of fire power to clear the terrain. Or maybe you can use the objective to fire an impressive ordnance weapon, We've even done it where it can summon a greater deamon anywhere on the table! The point is make it so that you have to get to that thing. We have had great games, and they are usually never over until the 6th round is done.

IJW
27-11-2007, 09:36
In 40k it is advised to set armies 24" appart before a battle. 40k is based off fantasy.

In warhammer fantasy 24" is considered the value of a bow-shot. Thus how the distance between armies was chosen. Outside of the range of shortbows, well within the range of a cannon shot.
It's worth pointing out that when 40k 'split off' from WFB neither of them had missions, fixed game lengths, deployments zones, recommended distances apart. Most 40k weapons (especially heavy weapons) also had much longer ranges than they do now, such as Missile Launchers being 72".

Unless the GM had written a scenario, you just plunked your stuff down and played on whatever size playing area was available. For 40k this was often the floor.

Getting to the point of my ramble, current '24" apart' deployment zones have little to do with earlier versions of 40k, and nothing to do with WFB.

Dais
27-11-2007, 10:17
30-36" seems to feel about right. you can get closer with heavy terrain and 2 shooty armies but close combat units get alot from a few extra inches at the start so corners deployment may be in order. i would say 31" is ideal to balance gameplay and space.

Bunnahabhain
27-11-2007, 14:23
24" between deployment zones works. It's very nice to have 5 or 6 foot wide tables and so have deeper deployment zones though. I find the game benefits from extra turns if the table gets significantly wider though. You have more space to manouver, so need the time to use it well.


Table quaters is a nice deployment though. Nothing say 'get away' quite like a demolisher placed as close to the centre as possible. Against most opponents it buys an extra turn of shooting for the rest of the army as they try to deal with or avoid the S10 blasts of doom.

EVIL INC
27-11-2007, 15:33
24" is the set distance because that is the medium that allows all armies to be effective.
That is also why you see gaurd armies wanting further and bugs wanting to be closer. Both are wanting an unfair advantage that is not allowed for in the points cost of thier army. To change the distances would mean a neccessity to change the points cost of the armies.

Grazzy
27-11-2007, 16:56
24'' is the standard range for infantry guns. Boltguns, lasguns, kroot rifles, plasma guns, gauss flayers and storm bolters all have 24'' range. Other armies, such as nids, eldar, DE or orks (pistols) have shorter range weapons that are move and fire. Basically the 24'' zone means that only heavier weapons can fire on turn one. It also prevents thinhs like hormagaunts from getting first turn charges.

JonnyX
27-11-2007, 19:05
What about earthshakers (120") and seekers missiles (unlimited) how long would you make the table, 120 inches?