My friends and I are playing this game with a whiteboard and miniatures. This has caused a lot of trouble when deciding how far a character can move with how many maneuvers. I was therefore looking to play with zones instead of "eyeballing it" or "range circles" which was what we did before. I've had problems with deciding the range with measurements such as inches/cm or a transparent disk with circles on it. My problem is explained in the example below.

Normally the rules allow you to change the range between you and another object from long to medium in two maneuvers, from medium to short in one and short to engaged in one.

With our measurement disk we have decided that all within 5cm is short range, 5-20cm is medium and 20-50 is long. (I know this is not meant to be measured like this, but we as a group agree that it is a method we want to use)

Example: A PC is standing in front of 2 NPC's (in a straight line), NPC-1 is 25 cm away and NPC-2 is 40 cm away. They are both in long range with the PC. The PC spends two maneuvers to change the range from long to medium to NPC-2 that is 40cm away. The PC will have to move 20cm for NPC-2 to be in medium range. NPC-1 will now be 5cm away which is short range. So in one maneuver the PC went from long to short range. This also applies in the zone rules I've seen.

I want to know if someone has a good ruleset that is compatible with a board and miniatures.
I do not want the classic "You aren't playing the game how it should be played" or "it's only meant to be played narratively so don't use miniatures"

One possible fix is maybe to change the way you move? Instead of moving relative to a target, you move a certain distance in cm. This might fix this problem although you wouldn't always be able to go from long to medium if the target is in the further end of long

Let me know if you guys have any ideas or how you rule it
Thanks :-)

My thought is, if you are going to stick to boards and ranges, discard the movement and range rules almost entirely, as they were never designed with grid moving in the first place, and adopt a variation of Imperial Assault's movement rules instead. If you don't own it, you can still read the Learn to Play guide and the Rules Reference on the product page.

You still have one action per round, one free maneuver per round, and can perform a second maneuver in the usual manners. Movement is simply a value (possibly based on Agility, such as AG + 1, or something; IA uses pretty small numbers, I think). Players can spend a maneuver to move a number of spaces up to that value. If they don't move the whole distance, in one maneuver, they can spend another maneuver to move the rest. For example, if a character has a movement of 5, they spend one maneuver to move 3 spaces, perform an action, suffer 2 strain for their second maneuver, then move 2 more spaces; they can't move more spaces than their movement value in a single turn.

Just a thought.

Ascribed maneuvers to fixed distance, then use maneuvers to convert distance to range bands. 1 unit of distance is short range unit 2-3 are medium range, units 4-5 are long range anything beyond 5 is extreme or out of range... my "that's not a coffee table it's a dinner table for hobbits" coffee table is 56 inches long an 34 iniches wide... I print maps on 11 by 17 sections/pieces... so 5 sections so I say 1 section = 1 maneuver. Extreme range is literally "off the table"

IMO, the mistake is trying to retrofit a grid-style of movement on top of a game that was specifically designed to NOT work that way.

Movement in this game should be cinematic and narrative, and whenever things get too complex then you should find a way to simplify them so that you don’t have to deal with that complexity anymore. Maybe group the enemies differently so that the range bands are easier to deal with, or whatever.

I’m not opposed to having maps to show you the flavor of what things look like, or rough sketches on paper or whiteboard, but IMO anything beyond that is going down a slippery slope in a direction that is likely to bog the game down in details to a point where neither you nor anyone else will want to keep playing.

This isn’t Imperial Assault, or X-Wing, or WH40K. You shouldn’t need measuring tapes, a movement grid, laser pointers to prove sight lines or anything like that.

And if you do, then IMO you should ask yourself what problem you’re really trying to fix and if there is a different and more cinematic/narrative way that you could solve it.

IMO, the mistake is trying to retrofit a grid-style of movement on top of a game that was specifically designed to NOT work that way.

Movement in this game should be cinematic and narrative, and whenever things get too complex then you should find a way to simplify them so that you don’t have to deal with that complexity anymore. Maybe group the enemies differently so that the range bands are easier to deal with, or whatever.

I’m not opposed to having maps to show you the flavor of what things look like, or rough sketches on paper or whiteboard, but IMO anything beyond that is going down a slippery slope in a direction that is likely to bog the game down in details to a point where neither you nor anyone else will want to keep playing.

This isn’t Imperial Assault, or X-Wing, or WH40K. You shouldn’t need measuring tapes, a movement grid, laser pointers to prove sight lines or anything like that.

And if you do, then IMO you should ask yourself what problem you’re really trying to fix and if there is a different and more cinematic/narrative way that you could solve it.

Regarding the "grid style movement" it depends on how big your grid is relative to a character, 1 grid cell for all of short range (more generally 1 grid cell per maneuver) really adds something useful without complicating the system any. Especially when there is a natural definition of grid (such as if you print maps in pieces, and each piece is used to define a grid cell)

Elias is on it. While still not 100% perfect, you do get a lot more consistency if you use a larger hex/grid that's big enough for multiple minis/tokens/markers to be together in a single marked segmant. That way in the same unit can be short, immediately adjacent/overlapping can be engaged, ect. one unit out is medium.

You have to kind of scale out your method of thought, and there will still be the occasional hiccup, but it's better.

Personally I find any reasonably interesting combat rapidly gets too complex for everyone to keep track of in their heads just with relative range bands form everyone else. I once ran a combat on a street, a nice linear environment that is easy to keep track of. We had to break session mid combat, so I drew a map so we could remember where everyone was a the start of the next session. When I presented the players it turned out every single one of them had a different idea of who had been where relative to each other. I dunno about everyone else but my players have a tendency to split up to use their different skills to the max, and my NPCs are never dull enough to all stand together. We have nice fun exciting and complex encounters. Since then we almost always use a map, just in a rough kind of way, to keep track of relative positions.

It's worth noting that every beginner's game comes with a few maps and some tokens you can use to mark character locations, heavily implying, in my opinion, that the use of maps and markers is expected to help keep track of things.

Even with maps and minis there is a mild conflict in that different people have different views about how big the range bands are and I often think it would be easier with a more specific set of distances everyone understands (with an understanding that they are guidelines not strict rules, so if you want to go one extra square to be somewhere interesting that's ok).

I'm in the camp of use a map, just don't use a grid. With a new game group, the referee can eyeball things and respond with what is Short, Medium, etc. A couple sessions later the players will get the idea. If you start with a grid on those maps, it will only bump up against the narrative system, in my opinion.

This discussion made me think of "location cards" from Warhammer FFG and how I used them to help with keeping tracks of ranges while still being narrative (not using a map). Location cards were small cards that described generic locations (Ruined Tower, Village, Busy Tavern, Dark Forest, Swamp, etc) with suggestions on them of environmental rules to implement while at the location. Someone made a supplement of such for Star Wars FFG. Think that with handy cards. Trying to get to the point, I made larger location cards about the size of large index cards. So if the players were ambushed in a Dark Forest, I plopped down the Dark Forest card on the table. We then had a set of basic rules to keep track of ranges. Minis were placed in the card to represent they were at that encounter location. If their bases were touching they were Engaged. Those on the location card but not touching were at Short. Those on the edge of the card were Medium. Off the card Long. Extreme was placed further off the card or off the card but on a poker chip if the battle got large and confusing. If the battle divided into more then one area (different environments or perhaps 2 different areas of the "Dark Forest") I flopped down another appropriate location card or pulled a blank large index card from a stack if I didn't have a second "Dark Forest". "These 2 cards are at Long range from each other" was common. It wasn't perfect but it kept the narrative feel while keeping things organized quickly. No need to draw out maps each time just grab a card. I admit I haven't used such for Star Wars. Locations cards would need to be printed, but you could use just large blank (no lines) index cards and mark some notes on them: "BUSY STARPORT. Large crowds, noisy, people bustling about. Setback to Perception checks, Despair can be spent by the referee for a person to bump into you requiring Easy Athletics not to go prone."

I'm in the camp of use a map, just don't use a grid. With a new game group, the referee can eyeball things and respond with what is Short, Medium, etc. A couple sessions later the players will get the idea. If you start with a grid on those maps, it will only bump up against the narrative system, in my opinion.

This discussion made me think of "location cards" from Warhammer FFG and how I used them to help with keeping tracks of ranges while still being narrative (not using a map). Location cards were small cards that described generic locations (Ruined Tower, Village, Busy Tavern, Dark Forest, Swamp, etc) with suggestions on them of environmental rules to implement while at the location. Someone made a supplement of such for Star Wars FFG. Think that with handy cards. Trying to get to the point, I made larger location cards about the size of large index cards. So if the players were ambushed in a Dark Forest, I plopped down the Dark Forest card on the table. We then had a set of basic rules to keep track of ranges. Minis were placed in the card to represent they were at that encounter location. If their bases were touching they were Engaged. Those on the location card but not touching were at Short. Those on the edge of the card were Medium. Off the card Long. Extreme was placed further off the card or off the card but on a poker chip if the battle got large and confusing. If the battle divided into more then one area (different environments or perhaps 2 different areas of the "Dark Forest") I flopped down another appropriate location card or pulled a blank large index card from a stack if I didn't have a second "Dark Forest". "These 2 cards are at Long range from each other" was common. It wasn't perfect but it kept the narrative feel while keeping things organized quickly. No need to draw out maps each time just grab a card. I admit I haven't used such for Star Wars. Locations cards would need to be printed, but you could use just large blank (no lines) index cards and mark some notes on them: "BUSY STARPORT. Large crowds, noisy, people bustling about. Setback to Perception checks, Despair can be spent by the referee for a person to bump into you requiring Easy Athletics not to go prone."

The cortext plus hackers guide suggests something similar in the section on using the leverage rpg rules for a fantasy game... one of the best quotes is that "a dugeon crawl is just a poorly planned heist" seriously the cortex plus hacker's guide (available for purchase online as a pdf) is an amazing source of inspiration even if you never play cortex plus (i've found it to be more stimulating narrative with inspired practical game mastering advice than the gnome stew ereuka plot ideas book/pdf)

Regarding the "grid style movement" it depends on how big your grid is relative to a character, 1 grid cell for all of short range (more generally 1 grid cell per maneuver) really adds something useful without complicating the system any. Especially when there is a natural definition of grid (such as if you print maps in pieces, and each piece is used to define a grid cell)

Grids are silly when characters are not static within the grid during the action, which is the case in this system. There are literally no classical mono-actions in the system. Each trench run against the death star is a single or two rounds top of combat. Characters, move, shoot, move shoot, move shoot, move shoot, move shoot, move, shoot, move shoot, move shoot, move sometimes in a single round with a single maneuver and a single attack action, etc

Init does not really determine the order of action either, but the order of which things can impact each other. So shooting a guy down on the first init slot does not necessarily prevent him from shooting, but stops him before he can actually hit something. All versions of han shot first are mechanical the same. Han always had init, no matter if greedo managed to get a blaster shot out or not, he never had a chance to actually roll. Han always shot first even when the narrative has 3 different versions of the story

And with all that said, I think grids are silly as the action is far to dynamic for this to work. You can still use minis to better express the action, you can even move around those minis and make pew pew sounds while describing the action. ;-)

You don't play the game like a miniature game though and exact positions become irrelevant. Its not imperial assault, it is still a narrative RPG.

I want to know if someone has a good ruleset that is compatible with a board and miniatures.

I do not want the classic "You aren't playing the game how it should be played" or "it's only meant to be played narratively so don't use miniatures"

Just going to bring attention to this, going forward.

I want to know if someone has a good ruleset that is compatible with a board and miniatures.

I do not want the classic "You aren't playing the game how it should be played" or "it's only meant to be played narratively so don't use miniatures"

Just going to bring attention to this, going forward.

Good to point out. Change the movement rules and range bands. to something grid based. Change all combat checks to exactly one thing you do. And maybe combine minion groups with squads so they minions can represented by a single mini on the board. Apply cover as additive factor to defense and maybe cap out defense at 4.

For the grid itself, I would create a basic grid the size of one mini as base unit, combine a 5x5 grid as short, define engaged as adjusting squares, medium range as adjusting 5x5s, long anything outside of that and extreme as outside of the grid or last 5x5 circle around it. Movement counts relative from character who moves to his target and all consequences of movement should be now clearly and easily visible. Any inconsistencies I would simply ignore.

Using a grid does not lock the character into place any more than the gridless maps that the Starter sets come with, it's just a convenient way for everyone to be able to measure distance and all be seeing the same thing. It's not different to having range circles or a measuring guide or anyhting else people use to all have the same frame of refference, it's just that the measurements are drawn onto the map.

Think outside the box!

Regarding the "grid style movement" it depends on how big your grid is relative to a character, 1 grid cell for all of short range (more generally 1 grid cell per maneuver) really adds something useful without complicating the system any. Especially when there is a natural definition of grid (such as if you print maps in pieces, and each piece is used to define a grid cell)

Grids are silly when characters are not static within the grid during the action, which is the case in this system. There are literally no classical mono-actions in the system.

You distinguished classical mono actions from ffg's initiative/action system, which really isn't all that different...

actions/maneuvers/incidentals/out-of-turn-incidentals vs

attack actions/move action/maneuvers/free actions/reactions in SAGA

(Basically Saga move actions and maneuvers got merged into a single category and the other categories got renamed and the set of universally available options in each category... attacks of opportunity still exist but now you need a talent like improved parry and a different trigger, the opponent rolling despair/enough threat on the attack roll to activate it). Initiative is a slightly larger change.

...but you don't make a distinction between a CLASSICAL saga style grid and a large grid that ONLY defines range bands on a map in terms of their by-the-book maneuvers cost? It's not even an addition/change to the official ffg rules it's just an easy self-consistent way to communicate/determine range bands on/from a map so the players never have to ask the GM "what's the range between my this npc and my character"

Your saying this "non classical" grid is silly is equivalent to your saying one (or more) of the following three things

1) ffg's range bands are silly

2) answering your players' question about how far they are from the target so they can determine the number of maneuvers to get to engaged with their opponent or their dice pool for their ranged attack is silly

3) it was silly for ffg to include maps and tokens in their beginner games and to include maps in their published adventures as a visual aid

Personally i'm curious which of those three things you were referring to when you said it was silly

Using a grid does not lock the character into place any more than the gridless maps that the Starter sets come with, it's just a convenient way for everyone to be able to measure distance and all be seeing the same thing. It's not different to having range circles or a measuring guide or anyhting else people use to all have the same frame of refference, it's just that the measurements are drawn onto the map.

Think outside the box!

Using a grid does not lock the character into place any more than the gridless maps that the Starter sets come with, it's just a convenient way for everyone to be able to measure distance and all be seeing the same thing. It's not different to having range circles or a measuring guide or anyhting else people use to all have the same frame of refference, it's just that the measurements are drawn onto the map.

Think outside the box!

The problem is not the characters. The problem is the people — players and GM alike.

If there is a grid on the map, that is going to tend to constrain everyones thinking to things that work within the grid. Even if the GM says to ignore the grid, that doesn’t change the fact that the grid is actually still there, and it still has a psychological effect.

If you want people to think outside the box, then it’s best not to put them in a situation where every single location on the map is inside of a box, and is surrounded by boxes.

I have no problems with using maps or tokens. But with this game system, I think you’re shooting yourself in the foot if you are using a map with grids.

And thus we now return again to that old proverb “Different strokes for different folks”.

The problem is not the characters. The problem is the people — players and GM alike.

If there is a grid on the map, that is going to tend to constrain everyones thinking to things that work within the grid. Even if the GM says to ignore the grid, that doesn’t change the fact that the grid is actually still there, and it still has a psychological effect.

This may be your experience but it has not been mine, and therefore cannot be considered a universal constant. I have never had any kind of issue like that with my players. They are also quite capable of remembering that their characters are not cardboard tokens, lego figures or whatever else I am currently representing them with. It may not work for you, but it works for me and it may work for others too. As you very rightly said, “Different strokes for different folks”.

Definitely 3) ;-)

Though instead of silly I would say misleading for advertising purpose. DnD is after all strong in FFGs main market and seems to be build around the concept that you can use miniatures and actually measure range, instead of the GM just narratively giving range as he sees fit.

Definitely 3) ;-)Though instead of silly I would say misleading for advertising purpose. DnD is after all strong in FFGs main market and seems to be build around the concept that you can use miniatures and actually measure range, instead of the GM just narratively giving range as he sees fit.

Fair enough

Thanks for the debate here guys

So I the main problem as i explained was that with one maneuver, you could potentially change a rangeband from long to short. I figured out a thing that helps solve this in a way. Instead of saying that you can move to any location within medium range with one maneuver, you can now only move within medium range minus however long short range is. This means you will never move within short range to someone at long, in just one maneuver. You can still potentially move within short in two maneuvers, which is still not right considering the rules say that it takes 3 maneuvers.

SCENARIO EXPLAINED: My group plays with a whiteboard and magnets. The way we measure range is by length on the board. The GM draws a map, and says "short range has a radius of 5 cm, Medium range has a radius of 15 cm and long range has a radius of 30 cm.". Now our initial problem was that anytime someone would use a maneuver to move around, we ruled it as: "one maneuver to move within medium range", which is 15 cm per maneuver. If you were to move closer to an enemy within 18 cm, you could end up being within short range with one maneuver, even though 18cm out is long range.

My solution was to say one maneuver could get you up to medium range minus short. That is 15 cm - 5 cm = 10 cm. This would make it impossible to go from long to short in one maneuver.

I use grid all the time, range bands are 6 squares each.

Normally the rules allow you to change the range between you and another object from long to medium in two maneuvers, from medium to short in one and short to engaged in one.

Just wanted to mention real quick, that the one maneuver to engage someone is often only neaded to engage opponents. It seems to me that this rule is somehow overlooked by many players and GMs.

To engage an object or a friendly person at medium range, you only need one maneuver, because they don't resist you. Same for disengaging. If you are engaged to a computer terminal, you only need one maneuver to get to medium range from it.

To engage an enemy at medium range you need two maneuvers, the first one brings you within short range, the second lets you overcome their resistance and engage. Same for disengaging, if you want to get away from an engaged enemy, you need two maneuvers to get to medium range.

To engage an object, a friendly person or an enemy that was at short range to start with, you need one maneuver, this is the "one maneuver to move within short range" option.

Otherwise, I'm mostly in the "if you want to use a grid, you have to change the movement rules"-camp. This is mainly because of the non-linearity of range bands. Espacially in the vehicle rules, where you additionally have to take speed into account which itself works differently on range band during normal movement and on range bands during a chase.

Though the option with a large grid, where one field represents short and engaged, depending on how close you are within the field, might work, at least on personal scale. But the system as is, works best with a gridless map and eyeballing the distances between your minis or tokens.

May the Minis be with you! (I love Lego-minis )

Fred

One of the problems I have with using a map is it limits the entire encounter to 2 dimensions, unless you start using the theatre of the mind... in which case a solidly defined map is no longer relevant.

I enjoy that in this system a player can ask "what's the range up that ladder to the rooftop?" I can say "Medium once you engage the ladder" and that means many things:

They can move from Medium to the base of the ladder, then completely climb the ladder onto the roof with only 2 manoeuvres if they are unimpeded.

But if an enemy is at the top of that ladder it's 3 manoeuvres, for the same distance.

If an enemy is at the base of the ladder it becomes 4 manoeuvres for the same distance.

If they start engaged then it's 3 manoeuvres again to get to the roof.

But if they then get half way up and decide to jump in through an open window (thanks to a Destiny Point flip ) then I don't need to draw an entire new map, they just do it.

I think one trick is to define concrete distance between places in the world, then track character distance from those unmoving locations. Everything is then either Medium, Long or Extreme distance away, short and engaged is solely used for distance between PC/NPC's

For GMs and players having difficulties engaging their minds'eyes, I recommend using a hex mat. We do. Abstract range bands are still used, though the division between then is more readily apparent.

As GM, I marked a standard 1" hex mat with large hexes, 3" to a side, 4" across with a wer-erase Vis-a-Vis pen. For larger conflict environments a single large hex defines Short, Medium, Long, and etcetera. If the environment is smaller I increase the ratio, so 2 or 3 large hexes equals a single range band. In all environments, a single 1" hex is referred to as Zero Point, the personal space occupied by a single Silhouette 0 or 1 individual, and the six surrounding 1" hexes define Engaged range; with this LoS and other environmental conditions are visually obvious. It's then up to the GM and players to describe the environment and narrate their interaction with it accordingly: the presence of cover, pedestrians, and etcetera.

If the environment is crowded or treacherous, I impose Difficult Terrain. I use 1" hexes that have been divided in half by the wet-erase as "Fumble Zones", places where detritus, dropped items, and miscellaneous bric-a-brac are located. Examples would be a cart of books in a library, or drunks in an alley.

I understand many groups don't use miniatures or need detailed maps and ranges defined to the meter -which is not what this is- but for players it makes complicated encounters easier to visualise, and for GMs easier to manage and track. For my part it makes me think more deeply about encounters, how to include each character, escape routes for Rivals/Nemeses, and environmental conditions. This has gone a long way to encouraging players to think before acting, in some cases giving them a visual that fits a "no win" scenario they should run from or circumvent (a decision many players quite often choose to ignore).

I've been using this visual aid for more than 2 years, and no one has questioned where they are in relation to anyone/thing else. Having problems with range bands? Give this a try.

Edit: Not too worried about fixing typos, but I wanted to add we also use the hex "map" for vehicle encounters. Also, "scrolling" the mat is not allowed (running off one side of the mat and entering the opposite side); leaves ng the mat indicates a choice to exit the encounter, sometimes to engage skills to enter/exit the environment by other means (ducts, sewers, etc), and is a good way to separate indivuals from an encounter when a chase begins.