Hi,

To say it simply, I don't get range bands.

Or more precisely, I don't get how to track them when there's more than one character.

Let's say you have three characters. A, B, and C.

Situation 1 :

They all start at range 2 of each others.

If A decides to move to 2 ranges away from B. Are they range 4 from C too?

Situation 2 :

A and B start at range 2 from each other and both are range 4 from C.

Can C get closer to A without getting closer to B? How do you track it?

Range bands are the only thing confusing me in those rules.

Attaching an image that more or less shows positioning and range bands. Basically think of it as a series of rings that are centered on each character. Their movement dictates how many rings they can travel. Once in their new spot, you can then tell how many bands they are away from other characters. It is an interesting system in theory but quite rubbish in practice.

Yeah the band mechanics seemed nice until I arrived at the "detailed" paragraph.

As the range is relative to each pair of characters, it looks like it would be really clunky in play.

I thought that maybe I was missing something.

I've been ranting about this issue since the EotE playtest.

It does not work for me at all, and several potential players would rather see a d&d adaptation. Several other don't care.

I've been ranting about this issue since the EotE playtest.

It does not work for me at all, and several potential players would rather see a d&d adaptation. Several other don't care.

I've been ranting about this issue since the EotE playtest.

It does not work for me at all, and several potential players would rather see a d&d adaptation. Several other don't care.

I've been ranting about this issue since the EotE playtest.

It does not work for me at all, and several potential players would rather see a d&d adaptation. Several other don't care.

I've been ranting about this issue since the EotE playtest.

It does not work for me at all, and several potential players would rather see a d&d adaptation. Several other don't care.

7 hours ago, Kakita Natsumi said:

Yeah the band mechanics seemed nice until I arrived at the "detailed" paragraph.

As the range is relative to each pair of characters, it looks like it would be really clunky in play.

I thought that maybe I was missing something.

I looked over how they did them in this version and yeah, it does seem an odd fit. In SW the time frame for combat was very large. One round of combat was to represent minutes of blaster fire and repositioning and such so I got my head around it ok. On a more personal scale like L5R I'm not totally sold on it being the best choice. It keeps things a tad simpler but makes others ..... odd.

@jmoschner Thanks for that diagram! Super helpful.

When I read the rules, the proposed methods for tracking it seemed pretty complicated... or at least like they would fail pretty quickly. Sure, they track linear distances between two characters, but not angles between many.

I hope the final rules use a different system, but I wonder if this one could be made workable at the table by using minis and measuring sticks or string, kind of like wargaming.

2 hours ago, sidescroller said:

@jmoschner Thanks for that diagram! Super helpful.

When I read the rules, the proposed methods for tracking it seemed pretty complicated... or at least like they would fail pretty quickly. Sure, they track linear distances between two characters, but not angles between many.

I hope the final rules use a different system, but I wonder if this one could be made workable at the table by using minis and measuring sticks or string, kind of like wargaming.

Well, they do give us the physical ranges...

0 = 0-1m
1= 1-2 m
2 = 3-4 m
3 = 5-10 m
4 = 12–100 m
5 = 100- "several hundred"
6 = Several hundred to LOS.

@ jmoschner

Shouldn't you center the rings on the target, rather than on the guy moving ?

10 minutes ago, Exarkfr said:

@ jmoschner

Shouldn't you center the rings on the target, rather than on the guy moving ?

Rang bands are centered around each character and are relative to that character. The image above is just demonstrating rang bands from one character's perspective. I wasn't going to show it for each and every character in each arrangement.

11 hours ago, sidescroller said:

@jmoschner Thanks for that diagram! Super helpful.

When I read the rules, the proposed methods for tracking it seemed pretty complicated... or at least like they would fail pretty quickly. Sure, they track linear distances between two characters, but not angles between many.

I hope the final rules use a different system, but I wonder if this one could be made workable at the table by using minis and measuring sticks or string, kind of like wargaming.

Welcome.

I know some SW players that used string marked with colored tape for a bit. Most groups I've played with just ignore range bands and wing it.

30 minutes ago, jmoschner said:

Rang bands are centered around each character and are relative to that character. The image above is just demonstrating rang bands from one character's perspective. I wasn't going to show it for each and every character in each arrangement.

Yes.

But whether you center the diagram on the moving character or on the target, you get different results.

On your 3rd diagram, the Black character started within range 2 of the others, moved 2 bands and ended within range 3.
Had you attached the diagram on the no moving characters, Black would have ended within range 4.

The system works if you only track relative distances between two characters.

When there are more, it becomes confusing or incredibly complicated.

But maybe I'm not understanding it right.

13 minutes ago, Exarkfr said:

Yes.

But whether you center the diagram on the moving character or on the target, you get different results.

T he image above is just demonstrating rang bands from one character's perspective .

Range bands are relativistic .

Quote

On your 3rd diagram, the Black character started within range 2 of the others, moved 2 bands and ended within range 3.
Had you attached the diagram on the no moving characters, Black would have ended within range 4.

Not True. See attached.

49 minutes ago, jmoschner said:

T he image above is just demonstrating rang bands from one character's perspective .

Range bands are relativistic .

Not the problem, here.

If you start within range 2 and move away 2 bands, how comes you end up only within range 3 ?
Shouldn't it be 4 ?

Here is what I am talking about:

43 minutes ago, Exarkfr said:

If you start within range 2 and move away 2 bands, how comes you end up only within range 3 ?
Shouldn't it be 4 ?

You use the range bands of the character who is moving.

How is that relativistic, then, if you are moving with yourself as a reference ?
Aren't you supposed to move relatively to your target, thus using their range band ?

The box on p166 suggests putting tokens to track the distances between characters.
But if 2+2=3, it will be really hard to track anything...

Is is important to have an overall consistent range band scenario?

I mean purely bilateral range releationship are weird if you think to hard about them, but work for eaach pair interacting with each other.

A is 2 away from B and C.

A is 0 away from D.

D is 1 away from B and 3 away from C.

Such a scenario should be impossible to draw out if you have a map... But it works on a pure game mechanic level and is easier to track.

Depends...

What would happen, in your scenario, if A moves 2 bands toward C ?

On 10/19/2017 at 6:45 PM, Kakita Natsumi said:

The system works if you only track relative distances between two characters.

When there are more, it becomes confusing or incredibly complicated.

But maybe I'm not understanding it right.

I think you’re understanding it exactly right. To be fair though, absolute distances have similar issues unless you don’t mind doing possibly very, very complicated trig in your head. I suggest either using a mostly narrative approach (let the GM tell you what’s what whenever you decide to move a significant distance) or tracking the rough distances on a battle map. Only worry about exactness with the melee range bands and only insofar as they apply between two combattants. For everything else approximations are good enough, it’s not a tactical minis game.

7 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

I think you’re understanding it exactly right. To be fair though, absolute distances have similar issues unless you don’t mind doing possibly very, very complicated trig in your head. I suggest either using a mostly narrative approach (let the GM tell you what’s what whenever you decide to move a significant distance) or tracking the rough distances on a battle map. Only worry about exactness with the melee range bands and only insofar as they apply between two combattants. For everything else approximations are good enough, it’s not a tactical minis game.

A very simplified bit of ancient egyptian trig is usually sufficient - distance X,Y to X₁,Y₁ is reasonably approximated for gameplay by ∆(X)+0.5∆(Y) for a wide range... if ∆X & ∆Y differe bya factor of 10, use only the greater. Not hard at all.

At least for me and most of my friends. Using 0.4 instead of 0.5 is better still.

3 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

A very simplified bit of ancient egyptian trig is usually sufficient - distance X,Y to X₁,Y₁ is reasonably approximated for gameplay by ∆(X)+0.5∆(Y) for a wide range... if ∆X & ∆Y differe bya factor of 10, use only the greater. Not hard at all.

At least for me and most of my friends. Using 0.4 instead of 0.5 is better still.

The complicated part happens when one character moves and all the distances to all the other characters change, all in a different way. If you’re tracking position rather than relative distances, you might as well use an actual map rather than one in your head.

22 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

A very simplified bit of ancient egyptian trig is usually sufficient - distance X,Y to X₁,Y₁ is reasonably approximated for gameplay by ∆(X)+0.5∆(Y) for a wide range... if ∆X & ∆Y differe bya factor of 10, use only the greater. Not hard at all.

At least for me and most of my friends. Using 0.4 instead of 0.5 is better still.

Yeah no.

That's not simple.

I play samurai drama, not trigonometry ^^