So, I'm not getting how the engaged range works. Does it apply to both melee and ranged? If someone could break it down for me with examples, I'd really appreciate it. I found that most of the time when I play I just treat short range as close enough to swing or fire, and just go with it. The extra fiddly bits about engaged seemd to slow things down, or force players to not be able to use their action for a swing if they didn't plan for being "engaged" even though they were in short range.

Thanks!

Kuda

Yes, Engaged applies to both Melee and Ranged attacks. Typically, melee (as in Melee/Brawl/Lightsaber) only works in Engaged (with minor exceptions), and most Ranged weapons will work within Engaged (with the exception of Gunnery weapons).

Default difficulty for melee attacks is 2 Difficulty. Default for Ranged (Light) is 2 Difficulty (1 more than if firing from Short Range), Ranged (Heavy) is 3 Difficulty (2 more than if firing from Short Range). This is basically because it's harder to maneuver around your weapon in a smaller space where the enemy is close enough to just physically move your weapon away (which is easier to do with larger weapons) and is close enough to you to see very clearly where you're aiming at them. It also gives melee fighters an actual chance to not be obliterated when getting close to a shooter.

In terms of getting into Engaged range and out of it, it's just a Maneuver when you're already in Short range, pretty much the same as switching between Short and Medium. So it doesn't spend an Action as I think you seem to think it does.

So, do you have to be "engaged" with an enemy to shoot from short ranged with a ranged weapon? What I mean with the engaged thing is this.

Player A moves from medium to short range, and then pulls out his lightsaber for an attack. I then have to tell the PC that they need to take 2 strain to be "engaged" with the npc first, and it feels weird thematically.

So, do you have to be "engaged" with an enemy to shoot from short ranged with a ranged weapon? What I mean with the engaged thing is this.

Player A moves from medium to short range, and then pulls out his lightsaber for an attack. I then have to tell the PC that they need to take 2 strain to be "engaged" with the npc first, and it feels weird thematically.

Being engaged with somebody is like being within ~5 feet of them. Being in short range of somebody is like anywhere between ~6 feet and ~40 feet.

So if you want to fire your blaster in engaged range, you can, but it's harder than if you're a little bit further from your target (short range) than if you're right in their face and they have the ability (narratively and mechanically) to swing at you and mess with your ability to aim properly.

But yes, if they're at Medium, they need to spend 2 maneuvers to get up close and be able to swing their Lightsaber/melee weapon. It's just one of the costs of dealing with melee weapons in the first place, having to chase around people who can keep moving and fire at you from a distance with little issue. Which is a good reason why you don't typically see average people wielding melee, or ONLY melee weapons in Star Wars unless they're Jedi/particularly skilled/brawny.

The difference between engaged and short range is important for mechanical reasons. Players should be hindered by having to move into melee range. Lightsabers are extremely powerful so that extra movement helps to serve as a balancing factor.

thanks!

"Engagement" works best when you think of it not as a range band in itself, but as a subcategory of the short range band. In other words, when you are engaged with your target, you are also within short range of your target. It functions as a range band, but also functions like a "status."

• Close range (melee)* attacks all require you to be "engaged" with the target to use them. The default difficulty for any melee attack is Average ( ) Difficulty.
• Being engaged increases the difficulty of your ranged attacks. Ranged attacks at short range are Easy ( ). However...
• Ranged (Light) increases the difficulty by +1 Difficulty when engaged (so essentially, the default Difficulty is ).
• Ranged (Heavy) increases the Difficulty by +2 (so a starting Difficulty of when engaged)
• Gunnery attacks cannot take place against an engaged target, as the weapons are too unwieldy.

Other pertinent rules:

• It takes a maneuver to engage with anything or anybody.
• It takes a maneuver to disengage from an enemy before you can move around freely.
• When you are engaged with an enemy and make a ranged attack against anyone, that enemy who's engaged with you gets a Boost die on his next attack against you.
• When you're engaged with an enemy, and your ally shoots into the engagement, his Difficulty is upgraded once (purple turns to red). If he rolls a Despair and hits, he hits you instead of your opponent

--

In short, I'd recommend you use engagements. They balance things.

*That is, any close range attack; not just the Melee skill. Brawl and Lightsaber attacks are also considered "melee" attacks.

And don't get too locked onto Engaged as a set distance. While it typically will be 5 or so feet, it can reach out further in some situations. A squad of 10 troopers can all be in engaged with each other without being crammed together like sardines.

Also why it's wise to bring grenades...

"Engagement" works best when you think of it not as a range band in itself, but as a subcategory of the short range band. In other words, when you are engaged with your target, you are also within short range of your target. It functions as a range band, but also functions like a "status."

If engaged is a subcategory of the "short range band" why would it require and additional move action to move from Medium to engaged? The character is still just moving to a specific position in the short range area.

"Engagement" works best when you think of it not as a range band in itself, but as a subcategory of the short range band.

I absolutely treat Engaged as another range band.

As for Engaged being a subcategory of Short, I agree with that in a way - just like you could say that Short is a subcategory of Medium.

Just like Medium is a range band entirely within Long, and Short is a range band entirely within Medium, Engaged is a range band entirely within Short. Nice, neat concentric "circles".*

I need to spend maneuvers to change range bands from engaged to short and back, just like I have to spend maneuvers for short to medium, medium to short, medium to long, etc.

To me, it just makes much more sense to treat Engaged as just another range band. In my very short time as GM, I haven't seen an example where this doesn't fit.

In other words, when you are engaged with your target, you are also within short range of your target. It functions as a range band, but also functions like a "status."

If I were also within Short range while I was Engaged, I would choose to shoot my blaster with 1 purple die for being in Short range.

Using this logic, one could argue that if they were in Short range, they were also in Medium range. I don't know why anyone would, but it holds true.

To me, it seems overly complicated to work it this way. I cannot see any benefit.

* - Yes, I know they're not really circles, or squares, or hexes, but more like amorphous shapes based on circumstance and terrain. But the point is, they all lie completely within their longer-range parent.

Thanks Lifer, I think your comments have helped me wrap my head around the reason for requiring the extra move from short to engaged.

Another question regarding "engaged". Say you're engaged with several enemies, so you just spend one manoeuvre to disengage from all of them, or do you spend one manoeuvre per enemy you want to disengage from?

Another question regarding "engaged". Say you're engaged with several enemies, so you just spend one manoeuvre to disengage from all of them, or do you spend one manoeuvre per enemy you want to disengage from?

I'm not sure if the devs have ever covered this very logical question, but given the design and intent of this game I suspect that a single maneuver is sufficient to clear the 'engaged' status versus all opponents at once. FFG SWRPG isn't like d20 Saga where you suffer a penalty to move through the threat zone of each and every enemy nearby. Besides simplicity, this is also due to the nebulous (and longer) nature of the duration of combat rounds in FFG.

Thanks Lifer, I think your comments have helped me wrap my head around the reason for requiring the extra move from short to engaged.

Engaging (which takes a maneuver) is just like moving around within short range—which is also a maneuver.

"Engagement" works best when you think of it not as a range band in itself, but as a subcategory of the short range band.

I absolutely treat Engaged as another range band.

As for Engaged being a subcategory of Short, I agree with that in a way - just like you could say that Short is a subcategory of Medium.

Just like Medium is a range band entirely within Long, and Short is a range band entirely within Medium, Engaged is a range band entirely within Short. Nice, neat concentric "circles".*

I need to spend maneuvers to change range bands from engaged to short and back, just like I have to spend maneuvers for short to medium, medium to short, medium to long, etc.

To me, it just makes much more sense to treat Engaged as just another range band. In my very short time as GM, I haven't seen an example where this doesn't fit.

In other words, when you are engaged with your target, you are also within short range of your target. It functions as a range band, but also functions like a "status."

If I were also within Short range while I was Engaged, I would choose to shoot my blaster with 1 purple die for being in Short range.

Using this logic, one could argue that if they were in Short range, they were also in Medium range. I don't know why anyone would, but it holds true.

To me, it seems overly complicated to work it this way. I cannot see any benefit.

* - Yes, I know they're not really circles, or squares, or hexes, but more like amorphous shapes based on circumstance and terrain. But the point is, they all lie completely within their longer-range parent.

You're free to make house rules whether you feel they're appropriate, but one of the reasons I wouldn't treat "engaged" as its own range band (off the top of my head) is that when you're engaged with an ally (or anything that isn't an enemy), you are also at short range from them, and can therefore perform one maneuver to move to medium range from that character/object.

However, if you're engaged with an enemy, you must first perform a maneuver to disengage, and then you move out to medium range.

So that's one difference at least.

This is part of what makes Draw Closer and Hawkbat swoop awesome. i would also allow force leap to be a bit of an exception to this rule. You can force leap into and out of engaged range with just a maneuver. If you can force leap as a maneuver.

You are in short range of anything you are engaged with. Both you and anyone engaged with you become "engaged." It's a status more than a range band. In fact the rulebook calls it a "special range status." The rulebook also says the best way to think about engaged is as a subset of short range.

Example: Firing a pistol--There are three potential targets: one is engaged with you, one is at short range (but not engaged with you), and a third is at medium range. Because of your engaged status all shots fired will be at +1 difficulty. The target engaged with you is also at short range of you, making the base difficulty one die, with one extra difficulty for engaged. It's the exact same difficulty to shoot at the target at short range who is not engaged with you. To shoot at the the target at medium range would be hard (3 difficulty die).

Example: Firing a pistol--There are three potential targets: one is engaged with you, one is at short range (but not engaged with you), and a third is at medium range. Because of your engaged status all shots fired will be at +1 difficulty. The target engaged with you is also at short range of you, making the base difficulty one die, with one extra difficulty for engaged. It's the exact same difficulty to shoot at the target at short range who is not engaged with you. To shoot at the the target at medium range would be hard (3 difficulty die).

Not quite... The Difficulty increase only comes into play if your target is engaged with you.

However, any engaged enemy gets a Boost die to attack you when you make a ranged attack while engaged, regardless of your target.

I t's a difference of "Making Ranged Attacks Against Engaged Targets" and "Making Ranged Attacks While Engaged." They are neighboring sections in the rule book. One increases Difficulty, and the other gives your eneny a Boost die.

Edit: redacted

Example: Firing a pistol--There are three potential targets: one is engaged with you, one is at short range (but not engaged with you), and a third is at medium range. Because of your engaged status all shots fired will be at +1 difficulty. The target engaged with you is also at short range of you, making the base difficulty one die, with one extra difficulty for engaged. It's the exact same difficulty to shoot at the target at short range who is not engaged with you. To shoot at the the target at medium range would be hard (3 difficulty die).

Not quite... The Difficulty increase only comes into play if your target is engaged with you.

However, any engaged enemy gets a Boost die to attack you when you make a ranged attack while engaged, regardless of your target.

It's a difference of "Making Ranged Attacks Against Engaged Targets" and "Making Ranged Attacks While Engaged." They are neighboring sections in the rule book. One increases Difficulty, and the other gives your eneny a Boost die.

If you look carefully Table 6-4 "Ranged Modifiers" is referenced by "Making Ranged attacks while Engaged." Due to the wording of the section, I can only interpret it to mean all ranged checks made while engaged with an opponent, and not just those made against an engaged opponent.

Oh dang! You're right! I can't believe I've been reading that wrong all these years.

Wow, well that really elevates melee combat in my eyes.

Oh dang! You're right! I can't believe I've been reading that wrong all these years.

Wow, well that really elevates melee combat in my eyes.

I actually realized I'd been doing it wrong, when I went to comment on this thread, so you're not the only one. It's one of those things...