1. I did see it, and went to slog through the thread. I did find Syrath's messages regarding the Order 66 podcast (which I don't follow, and it seems like I will have to take their word for it).

2. The problem is that they are not self-explanatory. I can't see if the books mention how do you trace postition in relation to your starting position in the round. Is it Engaged->Short->Medium->Long->Extreme, or Short->Medium->Long->Extreme? It seems that you are saying that it's the latter, while not considering the former system. It seems that I, as well as at least some people from that thread use/used the former one.

P.S. At the very least, this system makes Leap a more toned down ability, as well as makes Hutts somewhat better as melee/brawl characters (while making them worse as Force users).

I agree things are not clear. The range issue comes up, I think, because the system is supposed to be narrative, but some talents, etc, are mechanically specific.

I would expect that many tables play it the way you (and I) originally read it.

2 hours ago, Arctanaar said:

1. I did see it, and went to slog through the thread. I did find Syrath's messages regarding the Order 66 podcast (which I don't follow, and it seems like I will have to take their word for it).

2. The problem is that they are not self-explanatory. I can't see if the books mention how do you trace postition in relation to your starting position in the round. Is it Engaged->Short->Medium->Long->Extreme, or Short->Medium->Long->Extreme? It seems that you are saying that it's the latter, while not considering the former system. It seems that I, as well as at least some people from that thread use/used the former one.

P.S. At the very least, this system makes Leap a more toned down ability, as well as makes Hutts somewhat better as melee/brawl characters (while making them worse as Force users).

Edge of the Empire page 208

under short range - moving to another place in short range is one maneuver

under mediun range (page 209) - moving from short to medium range requires one maneuver

under long range (also page 209) - moving from medium to long requires 2 maneuvers , and it says from short to long takes 3.

Under Extreme range (again page 209) - moving from long to extreme takes 2 maneuvers

Each book has a similar Range Bands section under Chapter VI Conflict and Combat.

Also thrse are narrative ranges , these are taken from a fixed point, which could be a PC standing still, it gets messy when you have to track location based on relativity to two or more fixed points

2 minutes ago, syrath said:

Edge of the Empire page 208

under short range - moving to another place in short range is one maneuver

under mediun range (page 209) - moving from short to medium range requires one maneuver

under long range (also page 209) - moving from medium to long requires 2 maneuvers , and it says from short to long takes 3.

Under Extreme range (again page 209) - moving from long to extreme takes 2 maneuvers

Each book has a similar Range Bands section under Chapter VI Conflict and Combat.

Also thrse are narrative ranges , these are taken from a fixed point, which could be a PC standing still, it gets messy when you have to track location based on relativity to two or more fixed points

I am aware of what is written there. It still doesn't say anything regarding which of the systems (E->S->M->L->E and S->M->L->E) should be used. Under ESMLE making Leap with the Range upgrade equivalent to a single move manoeuvre breaks space. It only works in SMLE.

Admittedly, I find how Leap works under SMLE to be preferable, and considering that that way it's a lot more in line with what non-Leaping characters can do, it's probably how the developers meant for it to work.

10 minutes ago, Arctanaar said:

I am aware of what is written there. It still doesn't say anything regarding which of the systems (E->S->M->L->E and S->M->L->E) should be used. Under ESMLE making Leap with the Range upgrade equivalent to a single move manoeuvre breaks space. It only works in SMLE.

Admittedly, I find how Leap works under SMLE to be preferable, and considering that that way it's a lot more in line with what non-Leaping characters can do, it's probably how the developers meant for it to work.

For this you have to look at the move maneuver description which has a third option, which is to move from short to engaged or to disengage which is engaged to short, note that these are not options shown under the enhance leap (base power allows you to move from short to short with range upgrade short to medium, engaging and disengaging are not options under the enhance leap description). ESMLE is still the range options on offer, leap just doesnt allow you to engage or disengage. Think of it like this, you cannot accurately land close enough to someone to be engaged with them (doing so could result in an Anakin style dismemberment).

DnD and other systems get round this by allowing Attacks of Opportunity, given that these extra attacks would be deadly in this system, they get round this by requiring players to take a little extra time to move into melee range and to back away out of it. Approaching someone with this level of care takes that little extra time.

8 minutes ago, syrath said:

For this you have to look at the move maneuver description which has a third option, which is to move from short to engaged or to disengage which is engaged to short, note that these are not options shown under the enhance leap (base power allows you to move from short to short with range upgrade short to medium, engaging and disengaging are not options under the enhance leap description). ESMLE is still the range options on offer, leap just doesnt allow you to engage or disengage. Think of it like this, you cannot accurately land close enough to someone to be engaged with them (doing so could result in an Anakin style dismemberment).

DnD and other systems get round this by allowing Attacks of Opportunity, given that these extra attacks would be deadly in this system, they get round this by requiring players to take a little extra time to move into melee range and to back away out of it. Approaching someone with this level of care takes that little extra time.

Yes, I did find your messages regarding whether Leap allows one to engage or not, I will just have to take your word for it only because I won't go to the source of that ruling/clarification. I will most likely prioritise thinking in terms of SMLE+No Leap Engage over ESMLE+Yes Leap Engage.

That's probably one of the very few things that I liked about DnD, even if AoOs were half-baked even in 3.5. At the very least, thanks to them I got to play a very heavily armoured Cleric with a tower shield (I did buy the feat) who ran around and provoked AoOs from enemies with very low chance of being hit.

9 minutes ago, Arctanaar said:

Yes, I did find your messages regarding whether Leap allows one to engage or not, I will just have to take your word for it only because I won't go to the source of that ruling/clarification. I will most likely prioritise thinking in terms of SMLE+No Leap Engage over ESMLE+Yes Leap Engage.

That's probably one of the very few things that I liked about DnD, even if AoOs were half-baked even in 3.5. At the very least, thanks to them I got to play a very heavily armoured Cleric with a tower shield (I did buy the feat) who ran around and provoked AoOs from enemies with very low chance of being hit.

Offence trumps defense in this game which makes all the difference, makes AoO lethal

5 hours ago, Arctanaar said:

2. The problem is that they are not self-explanatory. I can't see if the books mention how do you trace postition in relation to your starting position in the round. Is it Engaged->Short->Medium->Long->Extreme, or Short->Medium->Long->Extreme? It seems that you are saying that it's the latter, while not considering the former system. It seems that I, as well as at least some people from that thread use/used the former one.

It's both , depending on with what (or with whom) you are engaged.

If you're engaged with an enemy , then you have to take a maneuver to "disengage" to short range. At that point, you're free to move (change range bands or move within short range). So here it's Engaged -> Short -> Medium -> etc

If you're engaged with anything else (an ally, an inanimate object, etc), you need only one maneuver to change range bands or move within short range. So here it's Engaged/Short -> Medium -> etc

For a person standing unengaged this is a layout of their possible move manoeuvres. They don't have to move through Short to get to Medium, and they don't have to move through short to engage anything that is already at short range. Remember the only location that's Engaged with anything is that Engaged range.

Short

|

Start - Medium - Half Long - Long - Half Extreme - Extreme

|

Engaged

Now let's look at it from the other direction, a person standing at extreme range from a target:

Start (Extreme)- Half Extreme- Long- Half Long- Medium- Short

|

Engaged

edit: this is showing someone who is engaged with an enemy:

Start - Short - Medium- Half Long- Long - Half Extreme- Extreme

4 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

For a person standing unengaged this is a layout of their possible move manoeuvres. They don't have to move through Short to get to Medium, and they don't have to move through short to engage anything that is already at short range. Remember the only location that's Engaged with anything is that Engaged range.

Short

|

Start - Medium - Half Long - Long - Half Extreme - Extreme

|

Engaged

Now let's look at it from the other direction, a person standing at extreme range from a target:

Start (Extreme)- Half Extreme- Long- Half Long- Medium- Short

|

Engaged

Nicely done.

11 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

edit: this is showing someone who is engaged with an enemy:

Start - Short - Medium- Half Long- Long - Half Extreme- Extreme

I threw this in too, and I'll add one more. This next example is, i think, the best way to look at it:

A character starting at Extreme from their intended target, but who is already engaged with a foe:

Start - Extreme- Half Extreme- Long - Half Long- Medium- Short - Engaged

42 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

For a person standing unengaged this is a layout of their possible move manoeuvres. They don't have to move through Short to get to Medium, and they don't have to move through short to engage anything that is already at short range. Remember the only location that's Engaged with anything is that Engaged range.

Short

|

Start - Medium - Half Long - Long - Half Extreme - Extreme

|

Engaged

Now let's look at it from the other direction, a person standing at extreme range from a target:

Start (Extreme)- Half Extreme- Long- Half Long- Medium- Short

|

Engaged

edit: this is showing someone who is engaged with an enemy:

Start - Short - Medium- Half Long- Long - Half Extreme- Extreme

This really is helpful.

2 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

It's both , depending on with what (or with whom) you are engaged.

If you're engaged with an enemy , then you have to take a maneuver to "disengage" to short range. At that point, you're free to move (change range bands or move within short range). So here it's Engaged -> Short -> Medium -> etc

If you're engaged with anything else (an ally, an inanimate object, etc), you need only one maneuver to change range bands or move within short range. So here it's Engaged/Short -> Medium -> etc

The character in question is Engaged with an abstract representation of their position, essentially. There was no question regarding how it works with characters who are Engaged with enemies, as the rules for that situation are clear.

12 minutes ago, Arctanaar said:

The character in question is Engaged with an abstract representation of their position, essentially. There was no question regarding how it works with characters who are Engaged with enemies, as the rules for that situation are clear.

Page 209, in the middle of the Move section, "Engage or disengage from an opponent." Should be read as two separate thoughts: "Engage [with any character], or Disengage from Opponent." The rules there should clarify things. If you're moving away from a spot that you are technically engaged with (that's not an enemy), you're only considered to be short range from it in order to change range bands.

15 minutes ago, Arctanaar said:

The character in question is Engaged with an abstract representation of their position, essentially. There was no question regarding how it works with characters who are Engaged with enemies, as the rules for that situation are clear.

Engaged is described as a subset of short range, engaging is the process of moving that last few feet safely to go to an object. Example it is easy to run to a door, but you have to slow down to take the time to "engage" with it and actually adjust your position so that you can open it. Disengaging from a door is not necessary as you can safely leave it at speed, however this is not so with an enemy, where you have to back off with care , before running away.

Does that make it any clearer?

Let's set up a few scenarios to try and explain the complexity of this.

Firstly though let's go over the Engage/Disengage manoeuvre. A character is supposed to use a manoeuvre to engage any thing they want to interact with, including things such as computer terminals, weapon stations and enemies. This must be done from short range. Disengaging is only required from a currently hostile opponent, you do not have to disengage from a computer terminal.

Example 1:

2 PC's are at medium range from a computer terminal that opens a door, those two objects are engaged with each other. On the other side of the door is an enemy, also at medium range from the door.

PC1/PC2 - Door/Computer - NPC

The First PC decides they want to slice the computer to open the door. They move to short range of the door then engage the terminal. Now they can perform the action to slice the Computer and open the door.

The scene now looks like this:

PC2 - Door/Computer/PC1 - NPC

The second PC wants to Attack the NPC. 1 manoeuvre gets them to the door a second manoeuver gets them to short range of the NPC. Then they can shoot at Short range.

Now the scene looks like this:

Start - Door/Computer/PC1 - PC2

\ |

NPC

So now it's the NPC's turn. They can a few things:

1. spend a manoeuvre to Engage the PC2

2. spend a manoeuvre to be at Short to the door/computer/PC1 group.

3. Spend 2 manoeuvres to Engage the door/computer/PC1 group.

4. Spend 2 manoeuvres to run away, putting them at Long from PC1 and half way to Long from from PC2. In this case that means they are still technically at Medium from PC2 for the purpose of shooting, but to Engage the NPC PC2 would need to use 3 Manoeuvres.

And I think it's that last example that makes things complex. If you move 1 manover from Long towards something your still at Long. If you move 1 manoeuvre from Medium away from something you are still at Medium... but shouldn't those 2 things be in the same place? Probably but it's best to keep things as simple as possible, having most of an encounter close together with only a few things at Long or further away. In that instance of Half Medium, Half Long, your best bet is pick the obvious answer for that encounter. Pc3 is at Half Long and gets engaged by an NPC coming from Medium, they're both now at half Medium from the reference point.

Guys, haven't we clarified this thing? There is no need in repeating that part of the book.

9 hours ago, syrath said:

Engaged is described as a subset of short range, engaging is the process of moving that last few feet safely to go to an object. Example it is easy to run to a door, but you have to slow down to take the time to "engage" with it and actually adjust your position so that you can open it. Disengaging from a door is not necessary as you can safely leave it at speed, however this is not so with an enemy, where you have to back off with care , before running away.

Does that make it any clearer?

I already understand what you are saying. However, stating that Engaged range band is part of the Short range band would not clarify anything at all, in my opinion. Assuming that those sets contain all possible positions within corresponding ranges, we can also say that Short is a subset of Medium, as everything that is within Short range of some object A, it is is also within Medium range of it. Same with Short-Long, Short-Extreme, Medium-Long, Medium-Extreme, Long-Extreme.

20 minutes ago, Arctanaar said:

Guys, haven't we clarified this thing? There is no need in repeating that part of the book.

I already understand what you are saying. However, stating that Engaged range band is part of the Short range band would not clarify anything at all, in my opinion. Assuming that those sets contain all possible positions within corresponding ranges, we can also say that Short is a subset of Medium, as everything that is within Short range of some object A, it is is also within Medium range of it. Same with Short-Long, Short-Extreme, Medium-Long, Medium-Extreme, Long-Extreme.

Sorry about the repetition, I think we where writing some of those at the same time.

As far as one Range being a subset of another that is basically true. The difference obviously with the Engaged range is that sometimes you need to Engage but not Disengage.

If you have still got confusion the please try to explain and we can see if we can help you more.

Nah, I am not confused at this point. The initial confusion arose due to me using ESMLE. I will be using SMLE from now on.

Jetpacks. repulsor sleds.
Full hutt battle armor (aka Hutt Shell Armor) !

Quote

Hutt Shell Armor allows a Hutt to ignore the effects of the Awkward and Ponderous abilities (if he possesses either or both of these). Further, the wearer does not have to spend additional maneuvers when navigating difficult terrain.

Who cares about the movement limitations of a hutt when you can enhance them technologically? Why force jump around with enhance when you can be a tank with a lightsaber?

15 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Jetpacks. repulsor sleds.
Full hutt battle armor (aka Hutt Shell Armor) !

Who cares about the movement limitations of a hutt when you can enhance them technologically? Why force jump around with enhance when you can be a tank with a lightsaber?

Hutt shell costs a lot, though, and is not that great in terms of Soak-Defence-HP values in comparison with some of the cheaper armours.

It would still be an awesome sight. Sadly, this Hutt is an Ascetic, poor with a strict encumbrance limit.