Someone advised me, as a new member here on the forum, to search out any questions before posting as in all likelihood most have been asked before and I could benefit from the previous discussions. After my first cover to cover reading of the EotE Core Rules was completed last night I found I had a few minor questions and one or two major ones and hit the forums this evening looking for answers.

My first question is in regards to the various range bands used during structured gameplay (combat). After reading a few threads I can see there has been all kinds of opinions voiced but I believe I understand the following as a majority.

• Range bands are not meant to represent hard distances but abstract perceptions of distance by the participants. They may therefore be established differently per encounter by the GM.
• Rounds are not actually a minute in duration but may vary based on the actions taken.
• Both are meant to be used to provide a little structure to the narrative, not replace it with a tactical simulation.

I believe I understand these and will attempt to avoid the pit-fall that seems to have ensnared so many and not assign actual distances to the bands above the abstract suggestions given in the rules. I believe I understand too that the GM can interpret and describe the distances of the bands based on the circumstances of the engagement, essentially laying them out as needed to provide the area necessary to envision the action.

However, even while accepting the bands as abstract measures of variable distance, I’m having difficulty coming to an understanding on how certain constants (such as the rate of movement from one band to another) or the range of a weapon (as listed on the chart) can vary so much based on the very descriptions given in the rules?

My rough perceptions of the Personal Range bands is something like this.

Engaged .__

Short . ____

Medium . _________________

Long . _____________________________

Extreme . ___________...

It would appear that all other things being constant, range bands are not. A constant movement speed fetches increasingly more ground covered the farther one goes away.

I know I am missing something here and would appreciate some help.

The various actions and maneuvers listed in the game (standing up, drawing a weapon, opening a door etc.) would seem to fall in line with the explanation of a Round measuring roughly (but not necessarily exactly) a minute long. If you compare this to the movement rules, individuals (even slow ones) attain disproportionate speeds at the more distant range bands. (I won’t even mention the planetary ranges which seem to take this same misunderstanding of mine to all new heights!)

Similarly, if range bands change from one engagement to another, then so do effective weapon ranges. I can imagine how a blaster rifle might reach across a street on one setting and down an entire block in another.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t want to make the mistake several Thread Starters seem to have in the past. I completely understand the narrative aspect of the game and am thrilled by it. I would like to hear however how some of you conduct your structured play without these inconsistencies appearing in your narrative.

Oh, and I will say that after only one good reading there is a chance I’ve missed something crucial but at this point the only answer I myself could provide would be to ignore the suggested distances for the various range bands entirely and set up the distance parameters of each encounter at the time. (This would put the responsibility of consistent use of weapon ranges, vehicle speeds etc. in the hands of the GM as they would have little baring in the rules as stated but I, like most others, am up to the challenge, I think!)

Don't try to apply a velocity formula to the distances. The range band rules are designed not to accurately measure velocity, they are designed to speed PCs movement from irrelevant ranges to relevant ranges more quickly for the purpose of the narrative.

It's all based around narrative, not accurate simulation.

It may actually take you longer to move from long range to Extreme range compared to moving from Medium to Long. But you do less things that are important in that time, so time dilates for you and it still only takes a single full round to cover the distance.

Then once you get closer to a target you need to be more precise, and your doing more "stuff" so it takes you longer to cover less distance.

Then finally there are no Attacks of Opportunity in this system, disengaging takes care and that's represented by the maneuver required to get away from someone.

TBH, I think you're overthinking it. In my sessions (and I appreciate not every party is the same) the GM says "these guys are at Medium Range" or "this building is at Extreme Range" and the players just say "OK, great". That's it. Trying to apply physics to it - or, in fact, to pretty much any of Star Wars - is not going to work.

Ok, I see the intent is to provide some tools for a theatrical representation of the action, not necessarily a mechanical representation of movement, distance and so on. Actually I think the rules would have been clearer had they not included the distance suggestions at all. When reading that a Light Turbolaser fires out to medium range, and that range is specifically described as up to a few hundred kilometers it kind of places my own perception of Star Wars space battles askew.

In the movies the ships don't seem to engage at 'tiny pin point of light' ranges as in harder science fiction settings, rather even the capitol ships appear to be only a few kilometers distant at the most.

If medium range is actually intended to be several hundred kilometers, it changes the entire dynamic of space combat, not to mention gives the fighters taking only a couple rounds to cross that distance at absolutely incredible speeds.

Again, Im asking from a standpoint of getting the images right in my head, not moving ships on a graph. I have to relate these scenes accurately and in detail when GMing, I want to get it right.

1. "The sensors show an Imperial Star Destroyer at medium range, you can almost make it out through the viewport, a twinkle there amid the stars just outside the orbit of the planet. You can tell that's it because a barrage of high-energy bolts are streaking past you from that very spot!"

2. "The sensors show an Imperial Star Destroyer at medium range, and at that range its as imposing as ever, a city long construct of the Empire's will looming over you, bracketing you with blaster and turbo laser fire."

If we consider acceleration to be constant, traveling a greater distance (going to further range bands) allows for greater acceleration and, therefore, higher speed during travel.

So when a character goes from engaged to short, they're stopping almost as soon as they're starting, so they don't go very fast. When a character goes from short to long range, though, they can reach top speed and are literally running, rather than jogging or walking.

At least that's how I make it work in my head.

Same thing applies to vehicles as well (and why vehicle speed factors into the range bands they're allowed to move in a single maneuver).

Heres an example

Close

Medium

Long

Extreme

That looks about right to me, theatrically but has no correlation whatsoever with the book's descriptions.

(edit) Looking at these again I think I may have them a bit too close but the point is that they are a whole lot closer than hundreds of kilometers no matter what the range, or even several dozen kilometers which is short range by the book.

If we consider acceleration to be constant, traveling a greater distance (going to further range bands) allows for greater acceleration and, therefore, higher speed during travel.

So when a character goes from engaged to short, they're stopping almost as soon as they're starting, so they don't go very fast. When a character goes from short to long range, though, they can reach top speed and are literally running, rather than jogging or walking.

At least that's how I make it work in my head.

Same thing applies to vehicles as well (and why vehicle speed factors into the range bands they're allowed to move in a single maneuver).

Hmm, I thought you had to go through short range to get to medium and then long. It could be as you say of course, according to the pilot's intentions, but if I am at engaged range with a superior enemy and attempt to run away Im using the chase rules to the max, not stopping every range bracket but accelerating the heck out of there.

I can see your point though, one could assume that movement in the longer bands is actually at higher speeds, even at planetary scale by ground vehicles speeding over the dunes or whatever rather than maneuvering around one another. It doesn't explain two similar stationary vehicles though, one at close range to a target, another at long and both using 2 maneuvers... the one at close moves a short distance while the one at long moves a very very long distance.

but the point is that they are a whole lot closer than hundreds of kilometers no matter what the range

They only appear closer because the ether in space refracts the light between two objects. So what really looks to be 300 feet apart is really 49.8 million kilometers away.

There - problem solved with pseudoscience! Genius!

Well it doesn't appear to bother many others using the system so I will assume its just something I need to get used to. I have absolutely no hands on experience in the game yet so I am not about to argue with anyone. It just sort of jumped off the page at me when reading.

To demonstrate my point and perhaps just let the topic go, I provide the following ridiculously simplistic and admittedly inaccurate paraphrase. This is what it FEELS like I am reading, although admittedly, I am not.

A round is a minute

Every round your ship can move from one range band to the next

Moving from Close to Short range = 30km

Moving from Short to Medium range =300km

Moving from Medium to Long range = 3000km

Moving from Long to Extreme range = 30,000km

And yet the movement rates of the ships are supposed to be consistent

There is another factor involved here somehow, something that accounts for the discrepancy I am sure. Perhaps a distortion of the Round duration and the speeds of the various vessels.. which would make sense accept that other actions taking place during those same rounds are not distorted. ( a pilot applies a stimpak, an engineer runs a few meters to a maintenance cabinet)

You can ignore the hard distances in kilometers certainly, and I plan to as much as possible, but a comparison to other actions in the round illuminates the same oddity of scale. (My co-pilot ran from the cockpit to the gun turret in the same time it took a fighter to close from what appears like hundreds of kilometers away.)

The range comparisons in the book are obviously not meant as movement tools but as a hint toward visualizing the range bands during an encounter. In my case they don't appear to give me enough information to do that, or worse, seem to give me a visualization completely at odds with the structured rules.

I will differ to you veterans and your explanations. From reading through the forums this topic seems to have been visited enough. I wont be the cause of another dead equine.

Yeah, there are oddities all around. Don’t look too close at anything, otherwise it will start to fall apart. Don’t get out any kind of measuring device and expect it to be accurate or useful.

This game is all about Space Opera, not Science Fiction. Do what works for the plot and the story, and whatever you do, don’t pay any attention to physics.

I mean, this is a Universe where a ship that is heavily damaged will start to “sink”, even though it is in the vacuum of space and there are no planets or other objects anywhere remotely close by to cause any kind of a gravity well to be formed.

This is a Universe where fighters bank in the vacuum of space, just like they were propeller driven aircraft in atmosphere during WWII.

This is a Universe where “laser swords” have a short and fixed length, can cut through virtually anything with little or no effort at all, and while they appear to have no mass, they are definitely solid when they come in contact with another “laser sword”.

This is a Universe where “laser guns” have beams that can be seen, and move slowly enough to be dodged. And where more powerful laser guns have beams that move faster than less powerful ones.

In this game, make sure that you throw math, science, physics, and all that other real-world stuff out the window, before you ever open any of the books.

Well said bradknowles and understood.

I believe I will handle the ranges the only way I can imagine it working, by setting up the given bands individually at the onset of an engagement.

I may have to dicker with the movement maneuver requirements at times or the weapon ranges to make it work but it shouldn't prove too hard and I believe my players will accept it as just more 'theater of the mind'!

This is also a universe where a ship can blast off from the surface of a planet, escape the atmosphere, and get sufficient distance from the gravity well of the planet to "jump" to hyperspace in less than an hour.

This implies delta-V on the order of hundreds if not thousands of G. I still maintain that "rounds" and distances moved within them are bounded not by absolute distance between two points, but, rather, by the amount of time spent accelerating and decelerating. To go further, the ship needs to commit more time to acceleration/deceleration. They then, essentially, spend the same amount of time traveling, just at different speeds.

Does this coincide with the existing acceleration rules. How about chases? If so I'm in.

Mechanically speaking, remember that in personal scale, moving from medium to long, and from long to extreme, each takes two maneuvers. Engaged to short, and short to medium take only one. It gets more complicated with vehicles, since vehicles can have varying speeds, and the number of maneuvers it takes to move through range bands is based upon speed.

Also remember that range bands are used to estimate relative distances between two persons, vehicles, or objects. There's not a single set of hard-and-fast range bands assigned to a combat. Range is determined between two points only when it is needed for some action, such as firing a weapon, or moving relative to another point. For instance, say a PC wants to shoot at a stormtrooper. Only then does it matter what the range actually is, as determined by the GM and, hopefully, common sense. If the stormtrooper is determined to be at long range from the PC, the PC can spend two maneuvers to get to medium range (taking strain), and then firing. If another stormtrooper decides to shoot at that PC, then range is once again determined between him and the PC after the move. Maybe that stormtrooper is determined to be at medium range from the PC after his move, so the stormtrooper uses his free maneuver to aim, and just fires his weapon at medium range without moving.

In other words, just worry about keeping an exciting narrative during combat, and only think about range when it's needed for some action to take place. And even then, remember its only used to determine the relative distance between two people or vehicles in order assign a difficulty to a skill check, or to figure out how many maneuvers it'll take for one of them to close in on the other.

Thanks guys, I think Ive narrowed down the area of my misunderstanding and have a solution.

The rules are fine, and I appreciate all of your explaining them to me. The problem I have is in visualizing the Star Wars style of combat, especially regarding vehicles, using the suggested ranges provided in the books.

I realize that space is big but it would not seem so much in Star Wars. Even capitol ships engage each other in visual range. Fighters bracket their targets from only what appears to be a few dozen meters away. Ships maneuver around one another in less space than our current naval vessels typically utilize. As many of you have reiterated, its not hard science fiction and certainly isn't supposed to follow the laws of physics or even logic... its Star Wars.

When using the suggested distance equivalents for structured play we (or should I say "I") come up with some distracting and in my opinion very non Star Wars appearing scenes. In the Clone Wars the vehicle combat scenes took place over a couple kilometers or so visually, yet in the rules we would have vehicles engaging with Short or Medium ranged weapons at several if not dozens of kilometers. Similarly in space the rules would have Star Destroyers utilizing laser cannon to pummel targets hundreds of kilometers away, far FAR beyond visual range. And to add insult to misery participants in these battles can close and escape from these huge distances in the time it takes a character on any of the vehicles to perform perhaps 4 or 5 simple actions. (open a door, move to the hall, grab your suit and bang! The ship that was a pin prick of light is now on top of you. Possible at the speeds of spacecraft I know but not very Star Wars friendly)

Its not the rules I trouble with at all now that Ive had more time to consider it, its the arbitrary distances.

You will recall the images of the SD above for scale purposes. The smallest, most distance example would be Close range as described in the rules now, while to me it appears to be at least at Medium if not Long. Ships just don't engage specs of light in Star Wars, or at least they don't appear to.

And that's what this game is all about isn't it? Recreating the imagery, the drama and excitement of the movies? I think we lose something if fighters are chasing each other in combat at kilometers distance.

I believe the easy fix for me, and one not requiring to change the core rules at all, is simply to restructure the recommended distance equivalents to better suit my vision of Star Wars combat. Close Range for a ship to ship engagement for example is probably well under a km, perhaps 500 meters or so tops. Extend out to Short Range, that of the lighter ship gunnery and typical ship to ship maneuvering and perhaps that reaches a kilometer or so. Move all the way out to Long Range, the distance at which the big capitol ships engage one another and we are talking about maybe 25 kilometers or so maximum. These distances also make ships moving through them in the short period represented by a typical round of structured play, more acceptable.

This is how we see Star Wars space battles, or at least how they appear in the films. I just want my descriptions to match it.

I've posted this before, but it's worth repeating:

With the engaged status and the range bands, the GM is free to describe things dynamically and set scenes without having to worry about exact distances. Exact distances in meters do not matter. The details and adventure come first, creating a vivid picture in the minds of the players while allowing the GM to quickly provide the mechanical information they need to use their actions and build strategies.

Force and Destiny CRB, Page 215

Or in other words: don't try to bend the spoon. Instead, realize the truth: there is no spoon The "trick" isn't in changing how many meters you're picturing for the range band. The real trick is realizing that exact distances in meters do not matter.

You're still coming into this with a tactical mindset. SWRPG isn't tactical, it's narrative. In narrative combat, it's sufficient for game purposes to use range bands. I wouldn't even use meters for describing the scene, since numbers, while being exact, are dry and boring. "The stormtroopers are 32.5 meters distance at a 22 degree angle from the edge of the street, 0.2 meters below the top of a landspeeder" is a horrible description of a scene. "You see a squad of stormtroopers crouched down behind a landspeeder down the street a ways, the glint of the morning sun shining on their white helmets as they hold their blaster rifles at the ready." is much more narrative, and more cool. Remember: combat should support the story, not the other way around.

So again:

Oh, and this is a Universe where you can see “laser blasts” moving through hyperspace while you are in “realspace”, and you can watch those “laser blasts” split up to take out multiple targets spread across the galaxy, and you can see planets at ranges of many, many light years as they are blown up — all as it happens.

So, yeah — there is no part of physics or mathematics that applies correctly or properly or consistently in all or even a majority of cases, when it comes to things like distance and time.

If you can keep your description of distances and ranges down to the range bands, and know that the range bands themselves can be very flexible, I think you’ll be a lot happier.

What we see on the screen isn't an accurate representation of anything in regards to pretty much anything or how it would actually work in outer space. Capital ships are meant to be sailing ships in space broad siding one another. Smaller craft, planes of WW2. It's all completely absurd but that's ok because it's meant to be fun to watch, not science class.

To my knowledge the only unit of distance measurement ever uttered in the films is the parsec and that's used incorrectly. Seems appropriate to not use them in the RPG for the genre as well.

Plus we do see the close range slug fests in the OT but even in the PT we see the introduction of guided munitions with clearly much more range potential. In TFA we now have weapons being referred to as missiles, cannons, turbo lasers, mag pulse, ventral cannons, all separate from one another, so who's to say what ranges capital ships are really capable of engaging one another.

Cool, it seems Ive come to the right conclusion then.

" Ignore the dang distance equivalents in the book and provide your own vision of the scene!"

It does beg the question though, why did the designers include them? It seems nobody pays attention to them and crafts their battles around a much MUCH smaller scale. What were they thinking?

"Plus we do see the close range slug fests in the OT but even in the PT we see the introduction of guided munitions with clearly much more range potential."

That's true but I would probably handle an extreme range missile exchange in the regular narrative format. I cant see going to structured rounds. It just has a different flavor than a laser battle and would be more cinematic than tactical. At least that's my opinion.

Cool, it seems Ive come to the right conclusion then.

"Ignore the dang distance equivalents in the book and provide your own vision of the scene!"

Sounds about right.

EDIT: The one thing I would add here is that you should avoid all references to real-world distances or measurements, to the greatest possible extent.

Always keep your answers and descriptions vague and in-Universe, and if anyone pushes for more concrete answers or descriptions then you need to have this same discussion with them.

It does beg the question though, why did the designers include them? It seems nobody pays attention to them and crafts their battles around a much MUCH smaller scale. What were they thinking?

I think your original question is actually the answer to this one — because everyone is going to expect that some sort of equivalents are provided, in order for it all to make sense.

They correctly anticipated that everyone was going to come up with that question, what I think they missed is that this question itself just doesn’t really make sense in the Star Wars Universe, and therefore you shouldn’t try to make these things “make sense.”

Someone advised me, as a new member here on the forum, to search out any questions before posting as in all likelihood most have been asked before and I could benefit from the previous discussions. After my first cover to cover reading of the EotE Core Rules was completed last night I found I had a few minor questions and one or two major ones and hit the forums this evening looking for answers.

My first question is in regards to the various range bands used during structured gameplay (combat). After reading a few threads I can see there has been all kinds of opinions voiced but I believe I understand the following as a majority.

• Range bands are not meant to represent hard distances but abstract perceptions of distance by the participants. They may therefore be established differently per encounter by the GM.
• Rounds are not actually a minute in duration but may vary based on the actions taken.
• Both are meant to be used to provide a little structure to the narrative, not replace it with a tactical simulation.

I believe I understand these and will attempt to avoid the pit-fall that seems to have ensnared so many and not assign actual distances to the bands above the abstract suggestions given in the rules. I believe I understand too that the GM can interpret and describe the distances of the bands based on the circumstances of the engagement, essentially laying them out as needed to provide the area necessary to envision the action.

However, even while accepting the bands as abstract measures of variable distance, I’m having difficulty coming to an understanding on how certain constants (such as the rate of movement from one band to another) or the range of a weapon (as listed on the chart) can vary so much based on the very descriptions given in the rules?

My rough perceptions of the Personal Range bands is something like this.

Engaged .__

Short . ____

Medium . _________________

Long . _____________________________

Extreme . ___________...

It would appear that all other things being constant, range bands are not. A constant movement speed fetches increasingly more ground covered the farther one goes away.

Yep.

I'll note that switching to a real movement rate doesn't hurt the game at all, but FFG for some reason refuses to make that an official option.

I've used range band starts at range step number squared...

Close (1) 1

Short (2) 4+

Medium (3) 9+

Long (4) 16+

Extreme (5) 25+

Works fine for me. YMMV.

Speed is number of steps moved per turn free in a straight line.

A maneuver is needed to turn.

EDIT: The one thing I would add here is that you should avoid all references to real-world distances or measurements, to the greatest possible extent.

I will admit I may not be capable of this, especially given the background of my potential players. If I describe the spaceport landing bay with vague references to distances such as "There is a large stack of crates to one side a few strides away and the door is just a bit past them." I am invariably going go get hit with "About how big is this bay? How far away is that door?" Especially if a combat is threatened and the players are beginning to think tactically. I can just as easily see it all but impossible to give a distance of the Hutt's Castle up on the ridge as merely "a good ways off" or "perhaps a 10 minute walk." After years of gaming the players are going to look at me like I am nuts! Laugh

They will expect a distance measurement, even a very rough one, so they can picture the scene accurately. Its the way we as people typically perceive our environment. If they ask I will probably give it to them without issue.

Its not that important really, whatever distance I give will be used to set up the associated range bands anyway so no harm done. Its trying to do it in reverse, making everything fit into one mold, that feels odd.