Herr Arnulfe said:

Actually you could take a lot of that into account, just use a map or the terrain. It is up to the players to use what is availble, such as the crates or the elevation of the roof, to thier advantage (perform a stunt card). I am sorry that my alternative wouldn't "measure up," but your example is laughably complex for what I am looking for in an RPG. Like I said before, if I wanted to play a tactical miniatures game I would do so.

There are bunch of good ideas here. However, it sounds like a bunch of situational, off the cuff rules and modifiers.

One way to help would be a web-article with "official" abstract movement rules/modifiers/suggestions. A quick reference sheet that gives guidelines on common terrain issues.

Ekek said:

IMO the situational off the cuff rules and modifiers is why the system is so great and easy to use. An official list (like every other RPG) would just bog it down. I don't want to have to memorize an arbitrary list of modifiers just to play the game and would hate to have to stop to look them up.

The great thing about this system is there is nothing stopping you from making your own list if that is what you want.

szlachcic said:

So what you're proposing is exactly what I did, except replacing real space with chits separating each combatant? I don't see how that would've made the fight run more smoothly - it would've only slowed things down.

szlachcic said:

Szlachcic, that's certainly one playstyle. However, we prefer more consistency. And, having an official list that's been playtested would be nice.

Why didn't you just take the time and make it up yourself? I mean, Warhammer gives you a guide of how many inches things can move. Why not just use that system. Moving an extra inch or two inches or whatever costs a fatigue? I really don't get how one rule forced a return, especially one that is so easy to implement yourself. I think you could bang it out in about fifteen-twenty minutes top honestly.

Oh well, looks like you shot the messenger before you even debated what he had to say.

One thing I'm toying with is grabbing up a bunch of Magic mana cards or suitable art cards or printing out some appropriately sized scenes or whatever (maybe chopping them down to fit in the little card sleeves that I'm *not* going to use for wound cards), and doing away with the chits entirely. If there's water between you and your opponent, slap down a blue mana card or appropriate vista with a number of cards equal to the range bands. Open ground? Plains. Dungeon hallway? The passageway card from Dungeoneer. I think it would keep things nicely abstract while reinforcing the mood. If I wanted to play highly detailed tactical combat I'll crack out a miniature game or D&D4e, but I don't play WFRP for that. I play it for atmosphere and a certain pestilential ambiance I don't get from any other system...

CaffeineBoy said:

I prefer both at the same time. The whole enchilada, baby.

Commoner, I just didn't feel like designing a house rule movement/range system for a new game.

Obviously Ekek and Herr Arnulfe both have different preferences when it comes to movement systems. I seriously don't have a problem with that at all. I do however have a problem with people trying to say that the system is incapable of dealing with more complex situations b/c I don't think that is the case at all. If you don't like the system and don't want to play the game that is fine too. I don't see the need for any further discussion if that is the case.

I actually enjoy reading more on this subject, as everyone makes their own suggestions to address making the abstract movement more appealing to me.

This thread has convinced me use some of the ideas here to see if my group would be more interested.

szlachcic said:

Clearly you do have a problem with our playstyles, or else you wouldn't be so defensive. Calling v3's movement system "abstract" is misleading, because the chit-stacking is actually more onerous than measuring distances. v3's movement system is better described as "compact". Abstract would be making X's on a piece of paper, or simply describing positions without any visuals at all.

Herr Arnulfe said:

Yes I do!

Herr Arnulfe said:

I think "compact" is a nice way to describe part of the emphasis of the range system. It also allows you to be fast and loose with range, which improves speed and response at the expense of tactical clarity. The system certainly allows for using a more fine-grained approach, but it reaches a point where if you want true tactical fidelity, you need to import or develop your own system and bolt it on.

I personally don't see why adding a (modified) range implementation from another system would be very difficult or time consuming. You already know what the close, med, long, ext range value of weapons are from prior incarnations or other systems. Use those, add a movement characteristic to your PCs (possibly modified by agility) and away you go. If you want to incorporate special moves (like acrobatics style D&D moves around enemies) they should also be fairly easy.

Of course, I am very content with the range system as is so I am unlikely to offer a solution, but I can see why some people would want it.

HedgeWizard said:

As I mentioned earlier, it's not just a matter of time but also of table space. If you're familiar with my fan community involvement, you'll be aware that I have no problem investing time to houserule WFRP (although admittedly there are other things I'd rather spend my time writing). To play v3, I'm forced to make a choice between filling up my table space with minis and terrain, or filling it up with cards and dice - but not both. I don't see how this can be easily solved with houserules. There are lots of things I like about v3 (and some things I dislike) but I do wish the system wasn't asking me to make that particular choice.

H.a.,

There's way too much crap. That's why I'm using DOc Cthulhu's character sheet. Just make a mark on your character sheet for fatigue, reg.wounds, stress, and stance..plus sockets on the side of the CHARACTER SHEET for talents instead of having all that other crap out there. Screw chits! I"m with you guys, I like my table to be taken up by pizza boxes, visuals and character sheets..not chits. Now the cards..that hasn't changed much since playing D&D 4e. In fact, our goal is to condense standard actions on to a SMALL sheet of paper instead of 6 differen't cards.

No house rules. Just a character sheet.

jh

Emirikol said:

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give that a try when we play the Gathering Storm adventure in the new year.

In regards to space for gaming systems.. I've actually gone and scaled down my gaming system to use 6mm miniatures rather than the standard size we're all used too.

I've had a custom grid printed off and laminated (so we can use wet erase markers on it) by some local printers - it was very cheap for the various sizes I got (A3, A2 and A1).

Now we can do very large scale combats in a minimum of space, so it should help you if space is an issue.

Ekek said:

Welcome to Warhammer, where each new situation requires an off the cuff modifier.

I have the exact opposite opinion as the OP. After years of playing games with tactical combats, I've finally put my finger on what things with those games always felt off to me and lessened my enjoyment: Tactical Combats!, I want fast, dirty, quick combats. I don't need 60 minute chessmatches. If this game had tactical combats I wouldn't be interested, plain and simple.

CMtheGM said:

I am with you there. I do not even draw maps or layouts unless it is absolutely necessary. I even let my players make up terrain as they go along as long as the feature fits the setting, like they cannot find magical fairy mushrooms in a bar for instance. But in a bar they can create banisters, by simply saying "I hop the banister" or stairwells and the like. It gives a much more cinematic feel and I reward great stunting and player imput with dice. They stunt everything and every roll when we fight add flavor to the fight. We stopped doing task resolution all together and focus on conflict resolution and I find it is not only faster, but more engaging. Players love to be able to grab the story, the setting and scenario and shake it around. Warhammer lets me do just that. We use the range system simply to say, you are close to that guy. That guy is farther away, medium or so, or you are engaged with three guys. Just that simple. It really helps when we do not have to confine combats to grids and every game we have played we scrap the grid immediately and takes, low and behold, ten minutes.

To the OP, hey, I am glad you had us write your range system for you since you did not want to do it yourself! LOL, sarcasm intended and I am Totally kidding of course. I am glad we brought you to look at it a different way.

Honestly, if you want a detailed range and movement system dropped ontop of this system you do not create yourself, check out a little game called Mordheim. It is totally free, downloadable from Games Workshop. It has nearly every race imaginable outlined in terms of how many inches (just convert them to squares if not using inches) they move. The range for each type of weapon listed in the Warhammer Roleplay Core. They have just about everything you could want in terms of giving it a system. If players want to advance their movement, just let them buy for 1 Advance +1 inch (1 Square of movement) per rank. Oh, did I mention since Warhammer is a detailed tabletop-rpg hybrid of sorts, it has tons of detail for death from above, cover, defending your comrade, etc. Some of that is in the Warhammer core, but if you want details, hit up Mordheim. I would probably kill the run move in Mordheim and stick with a run sort of move costing fatigue for each additional 2 inches you want to run up to a maximum double your move (which is how far people can run in Mordheim).

Different strokes for different folks. Me, abstract movement is one of the things that most sold me on this game. I like DnD4, but the requirement for minis and a grid is just so much hassle, and slows the thing down, that I don't want to run it.

Abstractly, the terrain features (activated on banes/boons/chaos/comet) just allow a lot of surprises to be placed into terrains without worrying whether someone is within a step of the feature, and encourage stunt descriptions, and you can easily fit its rules terms into natural conversation such as 'they are Close to you, while their leader is on a pedestal a bit farther away, and the terrain here looks Slippery From Blood'.

It's just so full of neat stuff that should regardless run well. I'm happy with what they did.

Well, I wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't abstract movement - otherwise it would actually be a wargame like D&D 4th edition. I have wargames for that.

It is a good system already, what you mean is a 'different' system. I prefer the style in which movement is used in the core ruleset.

Everybody can have a valid opinion. Some people like their tactical combat.

I, like some here, do not. I find it interesting that some people can be so opposite.

I find when you include the board and the squares you get into what most people will call tactical. You get into the precision of actions. I have never been into moving my figure X squares and looking at the combat in a game as a means to outthink the situaiton and maximize my benefits.

Tactical combat can be fun, but it's a totally different game. I tend to find it dull. My last D&D campaign that I played was Ravenloft. The last game I ran was Midnight. In both worlds are highly immersive and emotions and tensions run deep. It seemed a crime to have to break combat into something that was so against the passion of the game. In the Ravenloft game the DM used a lot of maps. In my Midnight game, I tried to avoid maps as much as possible and just descrbe things. That works sometimes but sometimes, it was confusing and the players needed me to bust out the maps.

In generally, to me, it destroys entirely the immersion of the scene. You break from one style of gaming (role-playing in what Warhammer would call Story mode) and move into a different style of gaming (tactical war game).

Everything Warhammer brings to the table, with it's abstract movement to it's variable results to it's critical hits brings a more viseral experience to me. There are still tactics to be had, but they are not as precise. Just the focus isn't on things like Flanking or maximizing everybody's To Hit bonus.

A lot of what works for Warhammer is it's dice mechanics. It's dice promote narrative game play, with the GM adding dice to promote the story elements that happen during combat.