By looking through this forum i came to think that i might be using the movement through range bands in a wrong way, so please answer my questions:

1) I have an enemy at medium range from me and i want to attack him with a melee attack, do i need to spend two maneuvers to attack him or one?

2) I see a big crate at medium range and i want to use it as cover, do i need to spend one maneuver to get the benefit from the cover or two?

3) I want to hack a terminal in order to lock down the room i am in so that enemy reinforcements can't get in, do i need to spend one manuever or two (before spending an action to try a computers check)?

1. Two

2. Are you at Long or Short from the crate? 2 if from Long, 1 if from Short.

3. There's no Maneuver to engage willing/inanimate objects so it's just how far are you from it.

1. Two

2. Are you at Long or Short from the crate? 2 if from Long, 1 if from Short.

3. There's no Maneuver to engage willing/inanimate objects so it's just how far are you from it.

I am at medium from the crate.

It would technically be a Maneuver to get to the crate and one to 'Interact with the Environment' for taking cover. Your slicing example also falls under interact with the environment technically sorta, personally I think the interacting is more or less encapsulated in the Skill check and I don't bother. It's up to your GM how much they want to nitpick the accounting on all those Maneuvers.

Forum user/contributor Gribble has a collection of fantastic reference sheets (found throughout this thread, or in his signature block in the first post). In particular, the sheet here has a handy range diagram that really simplifies the movement cost between bands.

Forum user/contributor Gribble has a collection of fantastic reference sheets (found throughout this thread, or in his signature block in the first post). In particular, the sheet here has a handy range diagram that really simplifies the movement cost between bands.

While useful, it doesn't answer the questions about engaged range.

You can move one range band per maneuver. Range bands start at Engaged, and go to Short, Medium, Long, then Extreme at the farthest end. If you want to take cover behind something at Medium range from you, it will probably* take a minimum of 2 rounds to take cover behind it. It takes 2 maneuvers to get up to it (Medium -> Short, Short -> Engaged) and a third maneuver to take cover. Since you're limited to 2 maneuvers per round you won't be able to take cover until the following round.

* Exceptions exist. For example, a Tactician with the Field Commander talent (AoR core book) can allow allies to take an extra free maneuver. So you could theoretically spend 2 maneuvers getting to the box on your turn, then later in the round a Tactician could allow you to make one more maneuver to take cover.

You can move one range band per maneuver.

I thought it takes two maneuvers to move from Extreme to Long and from Long to Medium?

It does.

You can move one range band per maneuver. Range bands start at Engaged, and go to Short, Medium, Long, then Extreme at the farthest end. If you want to take cover behind something at Medium range from you, it will probably* take a minimum of 2 rounds to take cover behind it. It takes 2 maneuvers to get up to it (Medium -> Short, Short -> Engaged) and a third maneuver to take cover. Since you're limited to 2 maneuvers per round you won't be able to take cover until the following round.

* Exceptions exist. For example, a Tactician with the Field Commander talent (AoR core book) can allow allies to take an extra free maneuver. So you could theoretically spend 2 maneuvers getting to the box on your turn, then later in the round a Tactician could allow you to make one more maneuver to take cover.

After re-reading the range bands part of core rulebook it seems that you correct (which means i have been playing it the wrong way), so to answer my own questions:

1) Two

2) Two

3) Two

Ok i can understand the attacking with the melee, brawl or lightsaber skill, it's there to do a little checking on the power of close quarters combatants, it also makes some narrative sense (you approach somewhat carefully in order to not let yourself open for an attack).

What i am having a hard time accepting is the cover part and the engage innanimate objects (and i am assuming the same goes for engaging allies in order to assist them, activate powers etc.).

Ok in one hand it creates consistency with the attacking part, and it also doesn't allow for the whole "it takes me one manuever to move to specific spot if i am at medium range but it also takes me one manuever to move to a specific spot if i am at short range" arguement to happen, on the other hand it "forces" a character to suffer 2 strain for an extra maneuver too often and while this might be ok for PCs; it does mean that non important rivals become quite less usefull, which i am not sure if it's bug or a feature.

You can move one range band per maneuver.

I thought it takes two maneuvers to move from Extreme to Long and from Long to Medium?

Luckily I think 90%+ of our combat is from Medium or closer so it's not a big deal. But I appreciate being set right on that.

The point I was making with the whole inanimate object thing is that if the object is something not requiring a skill check to interact with, like opening a door in their example, it's technically a Maneuver. However if you're going to be making a skill check, like your slicing a terminal example, I find it a little redundant that I'm billing a PC a Maneuver and an Action which is essentially a double charge for 'interacting with an object'. The skill check descriptions for things like Mechanics, Computers, and Medicine already point out when you're doing that you're interacting with them and 'engaged'

In regards to moving to cover I personally also find it a little silly that someone is covering distance and then is taking cover and I have to bill them two Maneuvers. It seems to me you can just look at a pillar you want to move to between you and a target and do it. I don't see why that would be anymore arduous mechanically or narratively. Now I wouldn't say it's an always or never approach either, because say there's movement into a room and on entering you realize it's on and want to take cover, I think that decision is made after the movement and two Maneuvers is appropriate.

These sorts of minutiae have to be handled table by table I think and each GM decide with their PCs how they all like it handled.

What i am having a hard time accepting is the cover part and the engage innanimate objects (and i am assuming the same goes for engaging allies in order to assist them, activate powers etc.).

Ok in one hand it creates consistency with the attacking part, and it also doesn't allow for the whole "it takes me one manuever to move to specific spot if i am at medium range but it also takes me one manuever to move to a specific spot if i am at short range" arguement to happen, on the other hand it "forces" a character to suffer 2 strain for an extra maneuver too often and while this might be ok for PCs; it does mean that non important rivals become quite less usefull, which i am not sure if it's bug or a feature.

You can move one range band per maneuver.

I thought it takes two maneuvers to move from Extreme to Long and from Long to Medium?

Son of a ***** you're right, we've been doing that wrong.

Luckily I think 90%+ of our combat is from Medium or closer so it's not a big deal. But I appreciate being set right on that.

Hey, no problem man. That is what is great about these forums it keeps us all straight. And that is true of my players as well, normally when a combat encounter starts they are medium range from the enemies so it isn't that big a deal. The only reason I ever realized this was because I had a Wookie sniper, so he was always hanging back at extreme and long ranges, which made me double check it.

What i am having a hard time accepting is the cover part and the engage innanimate objects (and i am assuming the same goes for engaging allies in order to assist them, activate powers etc.).

Ok in one hand it creates consistency with the attacking part, and it also doesn't allow for the whole "it takes me one manuever to move to specific spot if i am at medium range but it also takes me one manuever to move to a specific spot if i am at short range" arguement to happen, on the other hand it "forces" a character to suffer 2 strain for an extra maneuver too often and while this might be ok for PCs; it does mean that non important rivals become quite less usefull, which i am not sure if it's bug or a feature.

I think of it as a feature. Let the heroes be creative and use the environment to their advantage rather than just standing there shooting everything that moves until it stops moving.

While the non important NPCs have a lesser ability to do so.... interesting.

Range bands start at Engaged, and go to Short, Medium, Long, then Extreme at the farthest end.

Just me being nit-picky but when you really dig at the rules Engaged is more a condition that can occur within Short Range and not so much an actual range band.

Not only is engaging/disengaging called out as it's own maneuver, but since you can ignore it in certain situations dealing with things like inanimate objects and allies that really frames it as "being engaged" as opposed to "at engaged range."

Range bands start at Engaged, and go to Short, Medium, Long, then Extreme at the farthest end.

Just me being nit-picky but when you really dig at the rules Engaged is more a condition that can occur within Short Range and not so much an actual range band.

Not only is engaging/disengaging called out as it's own maneuver, but since you can ignore it in certain situations dealing with things like inanimate objects and allies that really frames it as "being engaged" as opposed to "at engaged range."

That conflicts with melee/brawl weapons having their range as "Engaged". I'm not saying I disagree with you, because the books do generally try to avoid referring to Engaged as a range band. And it explicitly is called a ranged "status" rather than band, and is a subcategory of Short range. But in reality that's all semantics, it is treated as its own range band the way it works in practice. It's just a rose by a different name to paraphrase the bard.

Range bands start at Engaged, and go to Short, Medium, Long, then Extreme at the farthest end.

Just me being nit-picky but when you really dig at the rules Engaged is more a condition that can occur within Short Range and not so much an actual range band.

Not only is engaging/disengaging called out as it's own maneuver, but since you can ignore it in certain situations dealing with things like inanimate objects and allies that really frames it as "being engaged" as opposed to "at engaged range."

That conflicts with melee/brawl weapons having their range as "Engaged". I'm not saying I disagree with you, because the books do generally try to avoid referring to Engaged as a range band. And it explicitly is called a ranged "status" rather than band, and is a subcategory of Short range. But in reality that's all semantics, it is treated as its own range band the way it works in practice. It's just a rose by a different name to paraphrase the bard.

Also the books says THE FIVE RANGE BANDS.

RAW:

1. Two: One to get to short range, one to engage the opponent

2. Three: One to get to short range, one to move within short range (ending up engaged with the cover), one to take cover

3a. None: Assuming you're already at the terminal

3b. Two: Assuming you're at medium range like your other examples; one to get to short range, one to move within short range (ending up engaged with the terminal)

EotE p. 208 specifically under The Five Range Bands --> Engaged mentions your examples as some of its examples when making a point about needing to be close enough to some item to use them. If you move from Medium to Short of something you want to interact with, it's still several meters away.

RAW:

1. Two: One to get to short range, one to engage the opponent

2. Three: One to get to short range, one to move within short range (ending up engaged with the cover), one to take cover

3a. None: Assuming you're already at the terminal

3b. Two: Assuming you're at medium range like your other examples; one to get to short range, one to move within short range (ending up engaged with the terminal)

EotE p. 208 specifically under The Five Range Bands --> Engaged mentions your examples as some of its examples when making a point about needing to be close enough to some item to use them. If you move from Medium to Short of something you want to interact with, it's still several meters away.

Are you sure about 2?

I understand where are you coming from, you need 1 manuever to get from medium to short, 1 to engage the cover and 1 manuever to interact with the enviroment, i really don't think that this should be the case (especially since there is the 2 manuevers rule), i think that this ruling (which again i understand how you read it) will make cover too much a hassle to use.

What i mean is that one might very well think that so many manuevers for 1 or 2 setback dice? most of the times he would be better off start shooting or running straight ahead for melee; and only really viable way to use cover would be to spend triumph or destiny point to "create" cover.

I'm pretty sure that's correct RAW. When actually at the table I usually have enemies already in cover and if my PCs even think to go for it I usually let the maneuver slide for exactly the reasons you mention (and not derail the game flow).

For a thought experiment though, imagine an airlock which is only big enough for 1 or 2 people and both doors are closed. When a PC outside opens the first door they're close enough to interact with (engaged with) the second door. So I think it's clear this room only takes 2 maneuvers to go through.

To change it up, imagine a larger airlock which is short range long (meaning, if a PC in one doorway were to blast an NPC in the opposite doorway, the difficulty would be Easy) also with a closed door on each end. How do you see a character moving through this airlock? Is it still only 2 maneuvers (open door, move to the other door and close it)? Or is it now 3 maneuvers (open door, move down hallway, open other door)?

RAW both taking cover and opening a door are specifically called out under "interact with the environment" so -in theory- they should be treated the same. Whether it's worth it or not is obviously where it gets unclear, even more so when considering if it should get changed.

One other thing to consider is that with this being a narrative game it's not totally out of line if, for example, the GM says a room is full of shipping crates and a player states that there happens to be one nearby and uses one maneuver to take cover. I think that's what actually happens in most of our encounters in my game. If the GM takes the time to carefully map out a room layout with every object precisely placed with the express purpose of creating a challenge for the players that's a different situation. But I think most of the time people wing it (GM and players alike).

You can move one range band per maneuver.

I thought it takes two maneuvers to move from Extreme to Long and from Long to Medium?

I bow my head in shame... I have been doing this wrong ever since we started playing!

It does take two moving between extreme and long and medium and long.

AoR p. 215

"This also allows characters to move between medium and long range by performing two maneuvers, or between long and extreme range by performing two maneuvers"

​Personally, I don't worry about being "Engaged" with the cover. If there is cover nearby I let my players take it without having to engage with it. I will even let characters move from medium to short range other characters and grab cover for a single maneuver. It moves the action along.