Sorry if this has already been discussed.

It seems to me that the example given in the side bar of the beta book on pg 135 is wrong. Am I confused?

The example in brief says that there is a group of PCs, and two group of stormtroopers aproach from two different sides (i.e. left and right from the PCs). Both groups of stormtroopers are at medium range from the PCs. Then the PCs decide to split in two groups (A and B). Group A moves within short range (this is 1 maneuver) of the stormtroopers group, while group B moves to short range of the other stormtrooper group. At this point the example say that each group of PCs is within short range of one of the stormtroopers groups and at long range of the other. Isn't this wrong? Aren't they still at medium range from the opposite stormtroopers group?

I mean, moving from medium to long takes 2 maneuvers (the same from long to medium) and as the beta book says in pages 130-131

"W hen covering long distances multiple maneuvers do not have to be performed on the same turn, but the character is not considered to be in the new range increment until all required maneuvers have been performed. "

No, it's right, but this is one of those peculiarities of the abstract distance system. Basically you 'round up' distances, if that makes sense (its how i think of it in my mind)

So in your second figure, (nice use of figures, btw) PC A IS at long distance to ST 1, because ST 1 is 3 maneuvers away, which is >2 manuevers away. Since PC A cannot engage ST1 by using two manuevers, PC A is not at medium range to ST 1. So, PC A has to be at least long distance to ST 1 (the next furthest range band).

Does that track for you?

-WJL

I don't get it yet. The way I see it is that since it takes 2 maneuvers to move from medium to long and the book states:

"When covering long distances multiple maneuvers do not have to be performed on the same turn, but the character is not considered to be in the new range increment until all required maneuvers have been performed."

This means that if a character 1 is at medium from character 2 and he spends 1 maneuver to move away he still will be at medium range from character 2 and he will need to perform yet 1 maneuver to be considered at long range from character 2. Isn't it? and is not this same situation the one depicted in the example? it may be that I am totally confused….

Cheers,

Yepes

LethalDose said:

This raises an interesting question: If a character takes one maneuver from Medium towards Long, could he still move from Medium to Close in one maneuver?

I would say no, but that means that 3 maneuvers from Engaged is still Medium.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the book is wrong, just vague… the example could still work if the PCs didn’t begin engaged to one another (this might be a little bit of a stretch, but it makes the example accurate)

Here is an example that works from the perspective of one of the Stormtrooper groups:

This may get some clarification in the release of the core book, but at the end of the day just do whatever works. The game isn't that precise. Honestly if the situation arose i would play it in whatever way best moves the game along. If the characters need a break, move them to long range so the modifiers are a little tougher. If things are too easy, leave them at medium so the modifiers stay the same. The game is loose enough to allow for either interpretation.

mouthymerc said:

Yes, but they give a very explicit example (the one above) to clarify what is the appropriate interpretation of the RAW is. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't play it however you want (its your table, do whatever you want). BUT I don't think its appropriate to try to state BOTH interpretations are correct as per RAW. One (the one that would directly contradict the example) is wrong, as per RAW. And the OP is asking for a clarification/explantion of the RAW.

Okay, back to the original question. First, I'm glad to see everyone is measuring distances in maneuvers, that makes communicating about this much easier, because that's how you have to do it.

The problem is that this issue can be somewhat counter intuitive. I would recommend thinking of it like this: Track distances in units of 'maneuvers', not 'bands'. Basically, maneuver distance determines range band, its not the other way around, i.e. range band DOES NOT determine maneuver distance.

If two characters are 4 maneuvers away from each other, then they are each in the other's "long" range band, because to engage each other, they would have to spend maneuvers to reach other as follows:

• 2 Manuevers to go from Long to Medium
• 1 Manuever to go from Medium to Short
• 1 Maneuver to engage.

Everyone agrees on this. Its explicit in the book. Super. Similiarly, two characters that are 2 maneuvers apart are at medium range, because you can go from medium to engaged in 2 manuevers.

So what about three maneuvers apart?

Lets go back to our original example, 2 characters 4 maneuvers apart. We all agree that it takes 2 maneuvers to move from long to medium (stated in the book, very clear, etc etc).

Now, If one character (let's call him Alex) moves only ONE manuever towards the other character (Bob), Alex and Bob are are now 3 manuevers away from each other. 4 - 1 = 3. We're all clear on that.

BUT, we all just agreed that it takes TWO maneuvers to go from long to medium, and Alex has only spent ONE! therefore, he is not at medium range to Bob, because he has not spent enough manuevers to do so. Further proof is using the criteria I laid out above: I we all agree that you are in medium range if you can spend two maneuvers to become engaged with the target, let's apply this rule to Alex and Bob. We ask "Can Alex reach Bob by spending 2 maneuvers to move towards Bob?". Well, if Alex spends to maneuvers moving towards Bob, Alex will be at short range, not close. SInce Alex CANNOT spend 2 maneuvers to engage Bob, then Alex CANNOT be at medium range.

In short, until Alex spends another maneuver to move towards Bob, he remains 3 maneuvers away AND AT LONG RANGE. Now, since Alex is 3 maneuvers away from Bob, that means that Bob is 3 maneuvers away from Alex. So, if Bob were to move towards Alex by spending a maneuver, then he would B & A would then be at medium range to each other (they just split the cost of closing to medium from long between them).

An analogy would be if you wanted to buy popcorn for yourself and a friend. If popcorn costs $2, and you only pay the vendor $1, you aren't gonna get popcorn because you haven't yet paid the full price of the popcorn(and he's probably not going to give you the dollar back). Now, you can either pay him another dollar and get popcorn for the both of you OR your pal can pay $1 and get popcorn for the both of you. [for clarity, you're Alex, your friend is Bob, Not having popcorn is A & B @ long range, having popcorn is A & B @ medium range, paying $1 is paying a maneuver to move towards the other person (A moving towards B, OR B moving towards A)]

Yet ANOTHER way to look at this would be weapon ranges. Lets say Charile is 2 maneuvers away from a target, and his weapon has a range of Medium. Well, apply your test, can he use 2 maneuvers to engage the target?

Yep! He's good to go.

Now, if he uses a maneuver to step away from the target, he is now 3 maneuvers (2 maneuvers to start with + 1 to move away) from being able to engage the target. We re-apply our rule, and ask "Can Charile spend 2 maneuvers to engage with the target?"

Aw, crap. No.

Which is bad news. If C cannot spend 2 maneuvers to engage a target, then the target is ouside his medium range band, and he can't fire his weapon at it!

This should make sense, because when he was 2 maneuvers away from the target, he was at the weapons maxium range. When moved FURTHER away from the target, he moved to range greater than his weapons maximum range.

This can be shown mathematically, as well. If 'd_c' is Charlie's distance to the target, and 'r_max' is the maximum range of the weapon, then when we start at the weapon's max range, then we start in following initial condition:

d_c = r_max

right?

And if Charlie's as far or closer to the target then the weapons max range, then we can fire at the target. So:

If d_c <= r_max, then we can fire

so, when d = r_max, then we can substitute in the test above:

given d_c = r_max,

therefore

r_max <= r_max is true, and we can fire. No problem. Pew Pew.

so, when Charile moves further away, we increase the distance to the target by x (the actual value doesnt matter, as long as x is positive, which it HAS to be to increase distance. it'll make sense in a second) he can no longer fire, because now Charlie's range to the target is greater than the Max range of the weapon, provable below:

Range is now d_c + x

given d_c = r_max

is d_c + x <= r_max? No! Because:

d_c + x = r_max + x

substitute above:

is r_max + x <= r_max?

is r_max + x - r_max <= r_max - r_max?

is x <= 0

and this expression only evaluates "true" if x is negative. We made it very clear above that x is positive ("distance increases"). so this test is monotonically false.

Wow, so all that ended up way longer than I intended… but hopefully things are a little more clear.

-WJL

Tracking distance in number of maneuvers and figuring range bands is spelled out pretty clearly in the WHF3E players handbook, and the movement rules for EotE were taken (read "verbatim copy and pasted") from that book.

And both were designed by Jay Little.

So its another resource if you think it may help clarify the issue.

-WJL

LethalDose said:

Ok, but precisely this is my point, since the PCs are only 3 maneuvers away from the Stormtroopers, aren't they at medium (they need to move away 1 more maneuver to get to long)?

LethalDose said:

This is not enterily true as per raw.

Rules: "When covering long distances multiple maneuvers do not have to be performed on the same turn, but the character is not considered to be in the new range increment until all required maneuvers have been performed."

Option 1: Your example

Two characters star at 4 maneuvers away. They are at long. Alex moves 1 maneuver, he is now at 3 maneuvers away, but invoking the rules he has not covered the 2 required maneuvers to move from Long to medium, therefore he is still at Long.

We agree on that.

Option 2: Two enemies are engaged

En1 is engaged with En2. En1 moves away with 2 maneuvers. 1 to disengage from En2, and 1 to move from Short to Medium. They are at Medium now. On his next turn En1 moves further 1 maneuver away from En2. Now he is 3 maneuvers away from En2, but since he has not performed the 2 maneuvers needed to cover the distance from Medium to Long, as per RAW he is still at Medium, yet he is at 3 maneuvers away from En2, as in your example.

The same number of maneuvers as in Option 1 but with different range bands results.

In my opinion, the only way to break this paradox is to change the rule (I post them yet one more time sorry)

"When covering long distances multiple maneuvers do not have to be performed on the same turn, but the character is not considered to be in the new range increment until all required maneuvers have been performed."

To the range bands that Farsox showed (that is how I did it in Warhammer 3).

Cheers,

Yepes

I've not had any issue with the "relative positioning" in EotE, mostly as I always track it from the person who is doing the attacking/moving.

So the example in the first post is fine, since the distance and manuevers required to change range bands would be measured from the acting character. Or at least that's how I've been handling it, with the acting character effectively starting at "engaged" when their turn begins, and then spending manuevers to move accordingly. to change range bands in relation to where they started their turn.

This is how I've explained it to my players, and they've had no trouble grasping the concept of "relative positioning," even when we weren't using maps.

Isnt Short and Engaged in the same band? My understanding was that Engaged actually doenst have a distance value as it exists within the Short range band. If your inside Short and the opponent or item you want to engaged with is in that band then all you need is a manuever to get into Engaged and then do your action.

However when applying the opposite, since its one manuever to go from short to medium, it doesnt matter where you start in that band. As long as you spend one manuever you go from short to medium. So even if you were engaged with a NPC you can manuever out stating your intention that your going into medium rather than short. Or you can stay in short as you wish and duke it out if your weapon is better at that range.

You may use manuever to disengage from an opponent and/or change range increments. I dont see them as being exclusive. That is you have to spend a manuever to dissengage and then another manuever to change range increments. Short range is being described as "up to several meters between targets"

I think the missunderstanding is being born out of the fact that you have assigned a value to the Engaged space.

DVeight said:

I am not sure if I understand what you try to say, but my drawin of the "Initial situation" depicted in the example of the side bar is correct, isn't it? If the Stormtroopers are at medium range from the PC's group, they are at two maneuvers away grom engagement from the PC group, right?

Yepesnopes said:

So first, there's no need to apologize for reposting the rule so long as it serves to make your point. Look at all the times I've done it. This is nothing more than citing your source, which is absolutely neccessary to have a productive discussion about the topic.

Also, I appreciate you walking us through your view to directly demonstrate the paradox that you're concerned about. And yes, I'd say that is paradoxical, because the same distance is considered to be in 2 range bands under different situations, i.e. the interpretation is not only dependent on the current state, but previous states. And THAT is a bad situation to be in because these situations lead to a lot of confusion at the table.

So, resolving this paradox.

I think best the resolution is consistency at your table. Decide which way it goes once, and stick with it.

Personally, I still prefer my interpretation that 3 maneuvers is always long range for consistency. It is also still my belief that this is the correct and intended interpretation based on the logic I've posted above. While Alex and Bob may be at long range at 3 maneuvers distance, it would only take one maneuver instead of 2 for B to close the distance to A to medium. I think that offsets the bonus of A only needing to spend 1 maneuver to move from medium to long in this instance.

I prefer this interpretation because is it consistent with the sidebar on 135 you mentioned. In fact, I think that side bar was placed to clarify this exact point : When you use one maneuver to move away from something in your medium range band, you move it into your long range band.

This kind of issue is the exact reason I have the quote from Einstein in my signature: An interpretation/theory/rule/law/model/etc should be as simple as possible while simultaneously being consistent with all the available data, or at least as much of the data as is possible . Saying that sometimes 3 maneuvers is medium and sometimes is long is inconsistent with the information provided in the sidebar provided.

-WJL

"Ultimately, the free-form and flexible nature of the ranges and movement maneuvers encourage the GM and players to resolve movement and relative distances based on common sense and the needs of the story."

Now that being said, in the example, once the groups have moved, they are technically only one maneuver away from the opposite group of stormies, which still leaves them within medium range, as per the RAW. Engaged is not a range band, it is a status, and as such means little to determining range. So, Yepesnopes is correct that they technically wouldn't yet be at long range having not moved enough maneuvers to fulfill the prerequisites. I think the example was flawed because the person creating it was confused and thought that the two groups of stormies were at long range from each other, so when the two groups moved towards them it was thought that they would also be at long range from the opposite group. But the two groups of stormies are only at medium range too, as per the RAW. They would need to be three maneuvers away when they are only technically two at the start, each group of stormies need only maneuver once to be at short range of both groups and each other.

Anyways, as DM stated, best determine ranges on a per person basis as their turn arises and remember that you don't need to be exact so long as you're having fun.

mouthymerc said:

Is this from the book? A designer? Who are you quoting?

mouthymerc said:

Which example are you refering to?

Anyway, I think I'm worried about 3 manuevers distance (including engaged, or 2 manuevers distance not including engaged) interpreted as medium range as a pretty easy exploit. At 3 manuevers distance, a A cannot engage B in one round, and has to spend both their maneuvers to reduce the range to short, while B maintains the advantages of being at medium distance (can use pistols, reduced range difficulty, etc). If you want to point at interpretations breaking rules, this also seems to violate where it states that it takes one maneuver to go from medium to short.

I should have point this out in my previous answer in response to this:

Yepesnopes said:

No, they're not at medium because they are 3 manuevers apart. They cannot engage in 2 manuevers nor can they move to close in one manevuer, so they cannot be at medium range.

-WJL

LethalDose said:

You were referencing Warhammer and how the system was copied whole-cloth from it. It comes from the sidebar on page 67 of the Player's Book.

LethalDose said:

The same one Yepesnopes is refering to on page 135 Beta. I think the designer was using common sense for distances rather than exact measurements with maneuvers.

LethalDose said:

For the purposes of range, the engaged status means nothing. Engaged only matter if you intend to go hand to hand or something similar. There is no difference between shooting at at a target engaged as there is at one at short range because they are both at the same range, beyond the modifier for shooting at an engaged target per page 136. Unless the two groups in nthe middle are engaged in fighting each other, there is only one maneuver for them to move from where they are to to short range of each respective group of stormies. Saying that the were engaged only relates that they are close enough to slap each other on the ass ("Good Game!"). From there it is just one maneuver to move toward the stormies, closing the distance to short.

Now I think the guy who did the example was looking at the distances in a relative manner. Being that each group was on opposite sides, common sense would say that they would be about long distance from each other. Even though they were both only one maneuver from the group in the middle, and therefore only two maneuvers from each other.

.

LethalDose said:

And as a GM, it's true that you can run your table how you see fit, but it's best to know exactly how you're going to do that ahead of time. If you don't have clarity on the rules before you play, then you might find yourself wasting time trying to get them clear during play.

LethalDose said:

This is accurate if one character is moving towards the other character. It does take 2 maneuvers to get from Long to Medium (that is clear). So, if Alex started at Long range and moved once towards Bob, he is still at Long range. But (and this is where it is a little more abstract) if Alex started at Medium range, and moved once away from Bob, he is still in Medium range. The book is very explicit about that, as well.

In the example, the characters are moving towards one group of stormtroopers, but away from the other (from Medium range towards Long). If it takes two maneuvers to move from Medium to Long, then they are still at Medium range.

In your popcorn analogy, it should be the opposite of the way that you explained it…having the tub of popcorn would represent Long range, not Medium. This is because they started at Medium, so they wouldn't have to pay anything to get to Medium. If Alex paid $1 towards the popcorn, there is still $1 left to cover the full cost of the popcorn. They still have no popcorn, and they are still at Medium range.

It's important that this is handled consistently, because if a character intentionally wants to move from Medium to Long range, the rules tell us that it takes two maneuvers. So, if that character moves once, he is still in Medium range. But, the way that I understood the methodology that you presented, the character could simply move once, and it would get rounded up to Long range.

It seems to make a big difference whether you are moving towards or away from your target.

Farsox said:

Any interpretation that requires this kind of subjective & conditional interpretation is simply a bad interpretation when another interpretation has been presented that does not require this kind of conditionality.

I have put forth an interpretation that is consistent with everything in the book, is consistent between scenarios (e.g. does not rely on direction of previous movement). I have provided the logic behind why I put it forth and examples of how it works.

Finally, I also what I believe is to be the correct interpretation because…

*sigh*

I think it's what the designers intended.

I really hate relying on that logic, but I think it's true.

Based on their example and the RAW, it tracks and makes sense. Further, I simply cannot believe that the designers would intentionally design a movement system that had this kind of inconsistency where something as simple as determining range becomes so much more complicated to require knowing which way characters are moving.

And from the same evidence, I cannot undestand why people would insist such a crappy interpretation is correct!

-WJL

Yepesnopes said:

Yepesnopes said:

Your initial situation has the PC's standing in the "Engaged" space and that is the error. They are in the short range space while the troopers are in the medium space.

This is where the quandry occurs I think. To answer your question, yes. The stormtroopers are two manuevers away from engagement. That is, they will need to spend two manuevers to go into engaged with the PC's. One manuever to go from medium to short and then next turn (lets assume they dont take strain for another manuever) another manuever while in short to go into engaged.

However moving in the opposite direction for me doesnt require same requirements. As I havent noted anything in the rules saying that a manuever has to be spent to move from engaged into short range and then from short range another manuever to move into medium. It stipulates you have to spend a manuever to disengage from opponent. However doesnt require you to stay in short range since it takes one manuever to move out of short and into medium.

There are these types of manueveres;

- Aim

- Assist

- Guarded Stance

- Interact with the environment

- Manage gear

- Move

Move has sub bullet points describing all the types of moves but to me the sub points dont sit on their own and require to spend another manuever. So you could disengage from an opponent (which is one bullet point) and also change range increment with that disengage manuever that will take you to medium instead of staying in short range (which is another bullet point) under the Move heading. That is my take on it as I havent seen clear stipulation stating that one disengaging MUST manuever into short range first before then spending another manuever to go into medium.

Agree with others as well. As long as you apply the one rule consistently at your game then there are no issues. The rules become more of a guideline. As long as it doesnt feel broken than its all good.

I realise there are 5 range bands and Engaged is considered a range band. So you could argue that since its a range band its one manuever to move out of engaged and then your in short range. However for me, short range only being several meters, it doesnt make sense from a narrative point of view and also considering the ranges are abstract, no exact increments in meters are given, that it would take someone fleeing an engagement only several metres in the space of that one round. Considering one round equates to about six seconds. You could cover more space in six seconds if you were trying to run for it. Also then how would chase rules work if you were only allowed to disengage into short range considering that then the next round the NPC will go into engaged with you again. You end up at a possible infinte loop.

One should also avoid speaking in a non-existant game mechanic language. No one is two or three or whatever maneuvers apart. PCs and NPCs are range increments apart and there are five range increments. Moving in and out of four of them is pretty clear. Where I am stuck, though I feel that my logic is sound to a point, is the Engaged Range Increment.

Is it an increment in itself, since it sits and shares the Short Range space for the purposes of applying manuever rules, regarding movement in and away or is it more abstract range increment for the pure purpose of narrative and abstract role playing so we as players can imagine/know what our characters are doing??

LethalDose said:

Simply because the interpretation that you presented creates an opportunity to blatantly contradict the rules as they are written.

In the beta rules, I have found only one mention that directly relates to movement that begins at Long range and moves towards Medium range, and it is worded as such (p 130):

"Change range increment. Performing this maneuver allows a character to move between close and medium range relative to another person or object. This also allows characters to move between medium and long range by performing two maneuvers…"

As you can see, this description can apply to movement in either direction; however, there is another specific example of text that applies to movement that begins at Medium range and moves towards Long range. Interestingly, it is found in the description of the Long range band (p 135):

Moving from medium range to long range requires two maneuvers, as it is more time consuming than moving between medium range and close range. This means that in most cases, a character cannot close the distance between close and long range in a single round, as it would take three maneuvers (one for close to medium, two for medium to long).

This description is much more specific. So there is more mention of the cost from Medium to Long than there is from Long to Medium. The possibility of a character taking one maneuver starting at Medium range and ending in Long range is a conradiction of this very specific wording (unless he is already 2 maneuvers away from close range).

DVeight said:

I wouldn't call it non-existant. Maneuver is likely the most frequently used word in the book for movement, and the book describes transition from one range band to the next in terms of maneuvers. Therefore, defining the use of range bands relies very heavily on maneuvers and how many of them it will take to get from point A to point B. The text that I referenced from the book in my previous post shows an example where the book itself describes how many maneuvers it would take to get from Close to Long range.

As far as the Engaged range band: When movement from one range band to another is mentioned in the book, Engaged is left out. Plus, it is mentioned almost as an after thought in the Range Bands section of the book. I believe that this is because it shouldn't really be regarded separately from Close range. Instead, it is a more specific location within Close range. With this logic you could move from Medium to Engaged in one maneuver. Though, some characters might want to move into Close range to pull off a point blank shot without getting caught up in melee.

DVeight said:

Thanks, but I am pretty sure my interpretation of the movement rules are ok. If the "engageged" label in my picture bothers you, just removed from it, but you will see that still the movements I show are done correcltly.

Cheers,

Yepes

Farsox said:

I wouldnt have thought that moving from medium into engaged could be achieved though considering that I see it logical that you should be able to go from engaged to medium, I dont see why it shouldnt apply in the opposite direction. After all it is abstract and it is a matter of what the player wants considering the arsenal he has. Short range weapon, vibro blade, etc.

Yepesnopes said:

Doesnt bother me, just appears that it presents a value to movement. That is one manuever must be expended to move from engaged to the next one you have there that is short, which is correct. If that is the players wish. However you can expend one manuever to go from engaged to medium as well.

DVeight said:

Totally agree. In case you are engaged with non-hostile things or NPCs, it is as you say, yes, you do not need to use the disengage maneuver. I think this is how I have done my picture.

Cheers,

Yepes