@Shosur0 I expect there will be a tactical system in the core book. They released one for the beta, in an update. Looked fine-ish, but I didn’t try it.

2 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

@Shosur0 I expect there will be a tactical system in the core book. They released one for the beta, in an update. Looked fine-ish, but I didn’t try it.

Wow... That would be huge. Missed that. Thanks.

Oh, well, this wasn't what I imagined under 'zones'. But hey, if we are talking about homebrew solutions, then I want to play too:

Basically, we implemented the previous Mass Battle positioning rules for the tactical level, ending up with four Conflict Positions:

- Heavily Engaged: The character is in the thick of the fight, either duking it out up close and personal with some unfortunate fellow or in the middle of a loud argument with a courtier.

- Engaged: The character is in the fight, but he is in a distance from the real danger. He might be keeping an opponent in check, in a staredown, or physically limited to reach real fighting (like being at the top of the stairs while the fight rages at the bottom).

- Disengaged: The character is not in the fight, but ready to join it at the moment's notice. This is the "spectator" situation when the character is just watching with weapon drawn or circling around to seek an advantageous approach.

- Reserves: The character is not in the fight, and is in fact a considerable distance from it. This is the "yeah guys, duke it out while I have my tea here" level, with the character sitting back in a safe distance and bidding his time until he is needed or the fight is over.

Consequently, a Round encompasses a lot more time - roughly one minute - and it is assumed that the characters move around a lot during this time, but it is not tracked necessarily. Positioning relates to the "character's place in the narrative", so to speak, and is more concerned with what is happening with the character narratively rather than where he is physically. There is a lot of gimmicky stuff around here, like how you can pull around other characters with certain actions (for example, you can pull a friendly character up to two Positions behind with Guard to save their butts). Players describing what is actually happening is highly encouraged, and since there are effectively no mechanical limitations, the player can narrate whatever they want: the character kicking in a door, leaping through a window, sliding down on the roof, and superhero landing on the yard below is a completely fine way of going Engaged from Reserves.

Ability and weapon ranges are given as a sort of "hard cap" where you can target anyone on a specific Position and above as long as you are on that Position or above. For example, Short Range (polearms and throwing weapons have this) allows you to target Engaged or Heavily Engaged characters as long as you are Engaged or Heavily Engaged. Attacking with a weapon assumes that the character makes it physically possible first (get LOS on the target with a bow, move around an obstacle to strike with a sword, etc.) - they have a full minute to do it, but again, player description is highly encouraged.

So yeah, we went full narrative on this one. Hit me !

Just an observation because it's bugging me:

An abstract system can still be tactical. Even a narrative abstract system can be tactical depending on how it setup to handle decisions and resource management.

Similarly the presence of a grid doesn't make a system tactical in any way because it is perfectly possible the grid ends up having absolutely no implication on the choices the player is able to make.

Just blowing off some steam.

On 8/15/2018 at 1:31 PM, Exarkfr said:

So, it's all GM fiat telling you if you can or not do what you want ?
Fine thing with this way of doing, is that you don't need range band rules at all.

Precisely the problem with them as in the beta: It's not something that people keep in agreement upon. The alternate, gridded, movement mechanic in the final update was both much easier to run, and used large enough grids that it was still not "highly tactical"...

As written, moving 3 range bands per round is about 9× faster than 1 band, and 2.25× faster than 2 bands... which makes it a verisimilitude snapper for many. Whether or not it's in the core book, the alternate from the beta will be how I run it, because the system of bands makes no logic any other way.

It's the #2 complaint I've seen/heard about FFG Star Wars and FFG WFRP3 both. (#1 is "funky dice".)

On 8/19/2018 at 11:38 PM, Suzume Chikahisa said:

Just an observation because it's bugging me:

An abstract system can still be tactical. Even a narrative abstract system can be tactical depending on how it setup to handle decisions and resource management.

Similarly the presence of a grid doesn't make a system tactical in any way because it is perfectly possible the grid ends up having absolutely no implication on the choices the player is able to make.

Just blowing off some steam.

Not to mention in real combat you operate via range band. Not exact measurements or a grid. I do tactical just fine in star wars with range bands. A map helps but is not required.

On 8/22/2018 at 10:29 PM, Daeglan said:

Not to mention in real combat you operate via range band. Not exact measurements or a grid. I do tactical just fine in star wars with range bands. A map helps but is not required.

Doesn't solve the verisimilitude issue of insane accelerations for only two extra successes... which is the big fundamental issue for me of the range band system. And it's mostly solved in the Beta Update 4 alternate movement system. (Which isn't unlike how I handle it in Star Wars.)