I like how the range bands are done. This gives me a very satisfying system for weapon distances without worrying about breaking out the miniatures and measuring sticks. What I find a bit odd is the ability to move and how this relates to range bands.

When a character sets their stance they can move up to 2 range bands. This could be moving from 2-0 which means you can bypass a polearm to grapple, or vice versa... A bit more than I'd like, but I'll come back to this point - the bigger point is this means you can move from 6 to 4 in just setting your stance, if you charge you can easily move from 6-2 or even closer... This is a LOT of movement, and I think it breaks the game a bit...

At a risk of complicating the system perhaps a character can have a certain amount of movement, and each band can contain a number of these units equal to the range band. At 0 range there are no units, you are simple there. This makes sense since you can't get any closer. From 0 to 1 there is only 1 unit, it only takes a step to close this distance and it shouldn't be tough. Moving 3-4 meters is a bit more than 1 step though... So having this be 2 steps of space in this range band can help set a more even pace comparing the two. If a character is given 2 steps free in a round this can allow a decent amount of movement, but make this space more meaningful. This would naturally expand as you get to thrown range, bow, volley, and sight ranges which should be increasingly farther to pass each one where the current system sees moving from being able to see someone to touching them a bit too quickly...

The other point I want to come back to is I'd like to see a "push off" mechanic where you must make some check to bypass a weapon's range. I would say anyone using a weapon would be specifically fighting to hold you outside of its maximum range - so any time a character would move inside the max range of a weapon there should be some contested check to prevent it. It could also be tied to stances, maybe earth and water resist your opponent moving in, while air and fire might allow moving in exchange for their more offensive advanages. What point would there be of using a naginata if anyone can move from range 2 to 0 to grapple you and you can't stop it? Why bother with ranges if there is no enforcement of the range.

Basically I think the range system looks good - but is a bit too effortless to manage, and doesn't scale reasonably to the distances they describe.

I think range bands are too simple, and by being simple, they wont really offer the advantages of reach that you get on real life.

There are katas for trying to keep someone at bay (i also think that this is not really a good way to do it.). There is other condition on criticals that can help you in keeping range, Water stance will give you one extra movement.

So there is those little things.

Warhammer and Star Wars/Genesys increase the number of moves it takes for the longer range bands, effectively making them multiple bands in in. I think if they increase the number of bands from 6 to 10 it would be better. 6 becomes 8-10, 5 becomes 6-7, 4 becomes 4-5. 3,2,1 and 0 stay the same.

Adding more bands could help... but I think the idea is that you don't care much between 8-10 without being crunchy, but you might care between 5 and 6 by current standards. Until it comes time to charge from range 6 to range 1 the individual increments don't matter.

@Mobiusllls I agree - I think mobility should be a bit more innate, with kata / kiho / ect giving more super-effects. Perhaps if everyone was granted 1 movement per turn, and a stance of earth or water would restrict people from advancing on you, while air and fire aided in advancing through resistance, so the system could provide a general mechanic about this it would work better. If a kata or kiho also gives the ability to move in / out or resist movement it can simply be a bonus to these standard checks.

Hmm. Getting to an archer should be more effort than closing on a pole arm user. Both are dangerous so effort needs to be put in differently. But there's no getting away from the problem of covering 300m in a single turn.

Perhaps a rethink entirely. Movement within close ranges is covered as it currently stands, but to cover long distance in a skirmish requires some kind of skill check?

Skermish is the only real conflict to use movement extensively, Mass Battle and Duels practically ignore it while Intrigues flat out say it's unnecessary.

19 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

Hmm. Getting to an archer should be more effort than closing on a pole arm user. Both are dangerous so effort needs to be put in differently. But there's no getting away from the problem of covering 300m in a single turn.

Archers are going to be between range 3 and range 5 (usually range 4) while pole arm is range 2.

In setting your stance you can go from 0-2 bands, then as your action you can Charge which is a TN2 fitness roll for 1 band + 1 per bonus success. You can't close and attack the archer unless you have some special ability or get at least 2 opportunity on the fitness roll. Pole Arm you can close and attack without needing any opportunity.

So to get to an Archer at Range 4 you must move as part of your stance, then get 3 successes on a fitness roll. If you hope to also hit them this round, you either need some special ability or 2 opportunity.

To attack the person with a pole arm at Range 2, you just move as part of your stance and attack as normal.

To keep things making sense, I would change the distance a character is able to move as part of a stance to "up to 4 meters". That should fix most the wacky movement that happens when a character can go from range 3 to range 5 (can't go to range 6 as it says "To move a distance of range 6 or farther, a character must generally undertake a journey in narrative time.") as part of a stance. This way you could go from 0-2, 2-3, or 3-4 as part of a stance. This would then force characters to charge to cover longer distances.

The other, though more convoluted fix (which is what I think the devs are actually trying to do with the rules but failing to convey) is to say that range bands are relative to each character's perspective such that your moving from range 0 to range 2 may still leave you within my range 4.