DVeight said:

1) Per beta update it requires 1 manoeuvre to move out of engaged into short range - see page 7 in the final beta update document. So from Engaged to medium would be 2 manoeuvres - 1 to disengage to the short range band, and 1 to move into the medium range band. Therefore it would be 2 manoevures to go from medium range to engaged - 1 to short and 1 to engage. Engaged is not a range band, but a sub-category of the short range band. I mean if you're at medium range to opponent Albert and short to Bertram, you engage Albert, that does not make you at long range with Bertram - he is still at medium. The engaged range band is more like a manovure only-thingy…. Much like - if I remember correctly - disengaging from melee even in d20 (at least 3rd edition) required some special move/manoeuvre/whatnot, to not provoke an AoO (although it might be that I remember incorrectly) - a five foot step or whatever…

2) Round are not six seconds, they can be shorter or longer depending on requirements - the book I think states that a round can be up to 1 minute for personal combat (and I'd say potentially longer if narratively fitting for vehicular and starship combat). It is I think, left intentionally vague and undefined.

I have not had any of these issues - and while I can see the problem, I think its best to keep to the range band categories rather than jumping over into number of manoeuvres of distance. Also, remember if chasing or escaping you should be using the chase mechanic rather than counting menoeuvres between chased and chasee.

I understand LD's choice of using manoeuvres to measure distance, it makes sense and is logical. I on the other hand wouldn't, and I'm not using it that way. I am keeping to the idea that to move between medium and long requires 2 manovures, regardless of where you start, and if you only spend 1 manovure to move either way, you will stay in whatever range band you started out in. It sort of makes sense - to me - that it requires more effort to cross that imaginary line between range bands - considering terrain, height/level differences and the like.

To put it another way, you are always within your own short range band (plus your own engaged sub-band), you will never have to move to this band (consider disengaging not so much moving to a different range band as to entangle/disentangle from melee threat range, sitting down at computer station, etc) - so in the thread starters post the PCs should be in the short range band really - at least that is my understanding . Not that this necessarily changes the problem s/he puts forth, most likely not.

The way I solve these things in my game has sometimes been to use a map. I either use a measuring device (usually from the X-wing game) or I just state that the whole area is with in, for instance medium range, a smallish warehouse… or I use some sort of measuring device, one short to move withing short range; to check for possibilities to engage an opponent, device, to move to a ladder, find cover. A slighty longer one that I add to the shorter one which represents medium range and a much longer one added for long range. Now this tool works well for some encounters and simple tacticts, but I prefer not to use it if I can. Because the conundrum of moving between medium and long range mess it up if having pedantic players that, if using measuring devices, rely on that visualisation and logic, rather than the rules… meeh. I have still not had issues with this really.

Jegergryte said:

It makes sense that it would take an extra bit of caution to move into Engaged, which would justify the additional maneuver. This is a good reminder to pay attention to the errata.

Jegergryte said:

What mechanic do you use to track that a character has already made one maneuver towards Long range from Medium or vice versa? Since characters don't have to perform both maneuvers on the same turn, it would seem practical to have some method of tracking this.

I remember how many manoeuvres spent - and so does my players. So if trying to edge closer stealthily they spend one manoeuvre to move the first round… that means they're still at long range. You could use tokens or whatever - depening on whether you're using maps or some other tool for distance. I usually try to keep it simple and just define a starting distance and then roll with it.

Lets say Ivan and Igor are at long range from each other and both want to slap the other in the face with a vibroaxe. Now, long range requires 4 manoeuvres to close to engaged (2 to medium, +1 to short, +1 to engage). This is the slightly tricky part, perhaps.

So Igor is going first, but the player of Igor knows that if he spends 2 manoeuvres to move to medium, Ivan can take 2 strain and slap him in the face. So he moves only 1 manoeuvre - so still at long range.

Ivan also knows this, he is still at long range, but - and this is where LD's approach could make more sense to some - is he required to make 1 manoeuvre to close to medium or 2? Since Igor already is 1 manoeuvre away from medium does that affect Ivan's position? I guess it should… but I think - for now at least - that it doesn't (since these ranges should be considered from each characters point of view). So Ivan must still spend 2 manoeuvres to move to medium. He decides to do as Igor and spends 1 manoeuvre, leaving them both still at long range to each other (they could be walking in a REALLY big circle…).

Now it's Igors go again, he decides to close to medium (1 manoeuvre) and use some defensive stance as a second manoeuvre to defend against Ivan's imminent face-slap attempt. Because by using a second manoeuvre he would only be at short range, where he could not attack or engage (2 manoeuvre round limit).

• This approach favours the second/later characters in the initative order of such a duel with that starting distance.

Now if we go with the more manoeuvre based approach that LD is talking about - Ivan would initially only spend 1 manoeuvre to close from long to medium, potentially also putting him at short range, for some serious face slapping by Igor. Igor would get the first slap in as long as Ivan moves 1 manoeuvre towards Igor.

• This would favour the one with the highest or higher initative in such a scenario.

The only problem with putting it up like this, is that it never plays out like this in my games… I've had similar starting points, but it's never as simple as either of these approaches. The nature of terrain, obstacles, environment and more would add to this, both skill checks and even more manoeuvres - difficult terrain is always a good thing to have present.

I've tried to draw something - it looks silly, but I think it can visualise the idea of movement between the range bands.

My idea - which might be completely off - is this (disclaimer: the size of the circles is not intended to be proportional to distance or range, nor is it a suggestion for making a measuring device ):

The thick black circles separates range bands - the black dot is the PC/NPC and the Engaged band.

• Anything in the orange circle is medium range and anything in the green circle is long range.
• The two grey circles is the distance between medium and long - and also counts as one separate "area" (and should be smaller in the diagram really).
• To move from green to grey is 1 manouvre, you are still within long range but on the move to medium.
• Now, for the purposes of this crappy model, the grey cricles is one circle, that is to say, once inside the grey you move directly into a coloured one. So If Albert is at long range from Bertram and moves towards him, he starts in the green circle. 1 manouvre puts him in the grey circle, but still at long range ("inner" long). For another manoeuvre he moves directly into the orange circle and is at medium range (he skips the "outer" medium circle).

Now the "outer" medium and "inner" long are not range bands per se, they are just put there to visualise the extra distance/manoeuvre needed to change range bands.

• So when at medium range to Bertram (that is orange) Albert decides to move away - towards the long range band - while attacking and using cover (thus taking 2 strain for the extra manoeuvre) he ends up in the grey, "outer" medium area (he'd only have 1 manovure to spend on movement). This is still medium range, but 1 manoeuvre from long range.
• If Bertram decided to close the distance he'd only need to spend 1 manovure to decrease this to short distance. Bertram can now engage or shoot at lower difficulty, and Albert needs to spend a manoeuvre to get to medium again, and another two to get to long. It's in these cases that the chase mechanic from the beta update should be used or considered at the very least.

This is also where the counting of manovures and range bands moves away from what we're used to. It's abstract and relative, its not quantified in definite metres or feet, its a vague, intentionally so I think. In other games we have base speed in metres or feet, it becomes a "simple" gesture of comparing this base movement rate - the faster character will always escape or catch up, the slower can never, per the numbers, escape, when counting squares on a map. This range band system allows for different a approach, where its not necessarily the longest and fastest legs that wins.

When all this is said "and done" - I know that this doesn't really do much to change the original question in the thread…

@ Jegergryte

The way you put show in your drawing how to think about range bands and maneuvers is the same as the one proposed by Farsox in his initial drawing, which is the same I have been using in Warhammer 3. It works, and I think it is precisely what the designers had in mind. I may be wrong though.

I think so too, but as with you I don't know if its correct.

There is the question about manoeuvre but not range changes affecting other characters, as in the example with Igor and Ivan. I have no clue there.

And all this is simpler than saying "3 manuevers distance is Long"?

For WFRP, we've switched to a "zone based" system, like that found in FATE.

Basically, we just track areas in which combatants are Close range to each other (Short in SW). Adjacent zones are Medium. From there we just count how many maneuvers/zones away someone is, and just know that Long means 3, Extreme is 5.

The problem with relative positioning is that it breaks down when you have multiple groups of combatants at differing ranges all moving individually. Making things zone-driven makes that work much more smoothly.

LethalDose said:

Nope, I'll give you that I guess it's down to each group to interpret this as they feel comfortable with. It's not simpler, but in line with the rules as written as I understand it. 3 manoeuvres could be either medium or long - which of course is confusing, but makes sense to me. If moving away you need more "effort" to put distance between you and whatever you're moving away from, similarly closing the distance also requires more effort: to change mechanical benefits/drawbacks.

Perhaps it's better clarified in the core book.