I tried to search for this, and was having trouble finding a direct answer.

In the past I have used grid maps to determine movement and range, but how do these new rules handle everything.

Just like the title, how does movement work, and how does range for attacks work?

Pretty interested in the new game, just trying to find out more.

Movement in this system is all relative. You spend maneuvers to either increase or decrease your range band relative to a target.

Distance determines how hard a target is to hit, and weapons are limited to what range they can fire to.

It's entirely abstract in this game, no solid distances are given. It's designed to work narratively, not needing maps or miniatures.

I use a battle mat, but still use the movement rules as written. So players don't move by squares, they're just used to measure range.

Range Bands: Move as per RAW in relation to whatever you’re moving towards.

· Engaged: 1

· Short: 2-5

· Medium: 6-10

· Long: 11-20

· Extreme 21+

So by narration, the distance will be determined more or less?

And I had seen mention of people using maps still and ignoring grid and hex lines. I think that might be what we end up doing. I always kind of liked throwing some minis in.

There is a range-tracker aid in the Compiled Resources thread. I personally haven't tried it yet but there is one.

Another simple method to track ranges during combat with multiple participants is to draw a series of circles within circles and simply use counters to track relative distances to each other.

I just created a quick range tracker you can grab in my thread: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/87208-mrvanders-character-sheet-thread/

I like using zones. Basically a zone would be a region that is 20 to 30 feet across (roughly) and someone in the same zone is at short range (unless you use a maneuver to engage them), 1 or 2 zones away is medium range, 3 or 4 zones away long range, and 5 or 6 zones away is extreme range. It takes a maneuver to move one zone.

I like using zones. Basically a zone would be a region that is 20 to 30 feet across (roughly) and someone in the same zone is at short range (unless you use a maneuver to engage them), 1 or 2 zones away is medium range, 3 or 4 zones away long range, and 5 or 6 zones away is extreme range. It takes a maneuver to move one zone.

Sort of the same I do. Just using the squares on the battle mat to keep track of the zones. Buf if you use zones you have to have some ranges be two zones or the relative distances will be messed up.

Example of my rules: Someone is 11 squares away which is long range. Moving from long range to medium range is two maneuvers. But since you're allowed to move within your current range band for a maneuver I'd allow him to move 4 squares towards the target effectively closing to medium range (which is perfectly fine as the enemy is just barely at long range).

Lets say someone was at 10 squares ie medium range. Then if someone wanted to move short range, he would simply move so he's just within medium range ie about 5 squares away from the enemy somewhere - but if it makes sense he could more more than 5 squares to get in cover or whatever he wanted.

If someone was at 20 squares distance, someone could spend two maneuvers to move within 10 squares, ie medium range.

We're not counting squares for movement, but you can never move more than 4 squares within your own range band. However if you wanted to move from short to medium range, you could move 7 squares and jump behind some cover if you wanted.

I'm using the squares to keep track of range band and most importantly to keep track of all the different ranges in relation to each other. It's just the easiest way to handle it. If players start spreading out and NPC's run after them in all directions, it can be a nightmare to keep track of relative range. One player may be a short range to the gamorrean now, but how about all the other players, and the gamorreans in relation to each other in case of blast effects.

I like it easy. This gives me time to focus on other things as there is absolutely no book keeping.

There are definitely some points where it gets tricky.

For example, Sam Stewart, the game's lead developer, was explaining in his recent interview on the Order 66 podcast that a speed 3 ship cannot travel to long range in a single maneuver. So how does such a ship ever reach a target that is at long distance? According to Sam, the ship must first travel to medium distance to that target, and now that target is at short distance away and so it can be reached in a subsequent maneuver. (I might be messing that up, but I think that's what he said).

This now raises the rather sticky question of relative distances changing, and by how much. As written the system feels like it's dealing in absolute terms, not relative ones, and that can create weirdness.

It also gets weird when characters spread out laterally on the battlefield and begin maneuvering around each other. Imagine my character is standing on a compass. I'm facing north. There's an enemy at medium distance to my northeast and an enemy at long distance to my northwest. I spend a maneuver to change my range to the northeast enemy from medium to short. How far away am I from the enemy who was previously to my northwest? Did I shorten the distance at all? Did it change to medium? Or is he still at long range?

The solution my players and I settled one when we were dealing with this in Warhamemr Fantasy Role-play 3rd Edition (which also uses range bands) was to skethc out the battlefield on a dry-erase map, and then use miniatures to show where our cahracters were. When anyone wanted to move, make a ranged attack, or do something else that required us to know the distance between two combatants, I as the GM would announce it based on what seemd to make the most sense.

My point is, the battlefield is a dynamic place. Enemies don't stand in clumps directly opposite one another and then march in unison as a group, closing the distance between them. You might have to be flexible in your interpretation of these rules in order to make them fit the wide range of scenarios that can come up.

There are definitely some points where it gets tricky.

For example, Sam Stewart, the game's lead developer, was explaining in his recent interview on the Order 66 podcast that a speed 3 ship cannot travel to long range in a single maneuver. So how does such a ship ever reach a target that is at long distance? According to Sam, the ship must first travel to medium distance to that target, and now that target is at short distance away and so it can be reached in a subsequent maneuver. (I might be messing that up, but I think that's what he said).

This now raises the rather sticky question of relative distances changing, and by how much. As written the system feels like it's dealing in absolute terms, not relative ones, and that can create weirdness.

It also gets weird when characters spread out laterally on the battlefield and begin maneuvering around each other. Imagine my character is standing on a compass. I'm facing north. There's an enemy at medium distance to my northeast and an enemy at long distance to my northwest. I spend a maneuver to change my range to the northeast enemy from medium to short. How far away am I from the enemy who was previously to my northwest? Did I shorten the distance at all? Did it change to medium? Or is he still at long range?

The solution my players and I settled one when we were dealing with this in Warhamemr Fantasy Role-play 3rd Edition (which also uses range bands) was to skethc out the battlefield on a dry-erase map, and then use miniatures to show where our cahracters were. When anyone wanted to move, make a ranged attack, or do something else that required us to know the distance between two combatants, I as the GM would announce it based on what seemd to make the most sense.

My point is, the battlefield is a dynamic place. Enemies don't stand in clumps directly opposite one another and then march in unison as a group, closing the distance between them. You might have to be flexible in your interpretation of these rules in order to make them fit the wide range of scenarios that can come up.

When we started playing wfrp we used tokens and stuff to show range bands between different individuals... but after things got really cluttered with 10 enemies and 4+ players it was a pain to track and I simply bought a battle mat, to keep tract of the exact same thing with no issues. I see what they have tried to do with the range bands, but unfortunately the systems do not support it very well, because a lot of combat mechanics rely on you knowing distances to several different targets. It's one of the only things in the system that isn't really working and becomes even more work than fun.

I like using zones. Basically a zone would be a region that is 20 to 30 feet across (roughly) and someone in the same zone is at short range (unless you use a maneuver to engage them), 1 or 2 zones away is medium range, 3 or 4 zones away long range, and 5 or 6 zones away is extreme range. It takes a maneuver to move one zone.

After looking through the starship/vehicle rules more (we haven't used vehicles yet) I think I want to change my zone system a little to be consistent with what I want to do for vehicle movement.

Now the same zone would be engaged (close for ships), 1 zone away would be short range, 2-3 zones away would be medium range, 4-5 zones away would be long range, and 6-7 zones away would be extreme range.

Characters would still spend a maneuver to move 1 zone. However for ships zone movement would depend on speed. A speed of 1 would require 2 maneuvers to move 1 zone, speeds 2-4 could move 1 zone with 1 maneuver, and speeds 5-6 could move 2 zones with i maneuver.

I will try out this adjusted zone system next time we play.

I dunno. It seems like you guys are adding a lot of complexity to what is a simple system easily tracked by a page of circles and counters.

I find the zones very simple to use and they give more information than circles.

For example, A and B and at medium range, A and C are at medium range, what range are B and C at?

I find the zones very simple to use and they give more information than circles.

For example, A and B and at medium range, A and C are at medium range, what range are B and C at?

Whatever the GM says they're at.

I find the zones very simple to use and they give more information than circles.

For example, A and B and at medium range, A and C are at medium range, what range are B and C at?

OR why is is B fighting C when it's obvious they both hate A?

How do you use the circles if you have two PCs at different points and an adversary group enters the picture? Do you use two circles and place them at the relative position for each PC separately?

I dunno. It seems like you guys are adding a lot of complexity to what is a simple system easily tracked by a page of circles and counters.

I would say we're adding clarity, not complexity, though perhaps they go hand-in-hand.

I like to see the battlefield, and to understand where all the participants are in relation to one another. It can become very important in certain situations to know whether a pair of cunning enemies might be able to flank a PC and nullify his cover, for example. It can also matter when multiple characters are trying to reach the same objective, perhaps rescuing a prisoner from guards who are racing toward a speeder.

It doesn't always matter, to be sure, but there are times when a player needs to know, and deserves to know, how far apart his or her character is from all other combatants, and how a single move will change the distances to all of those combatants.

So, where you would say we might be over-complicating things, I would contend that perhaps the rules oversimplify things. It really depends on the particular tastes of the group in question. If the GM and players are content with a very simple system, great, they should play that way. For those of us who prefer more clarity, this is a good place to discuss the issues we've had and how to resolve them.

Exactly.

How do you use the circles if you have two PCs at different points and an adversary group enters the picture? Do you use two circles and place them at the relative position for each PC separately?

The circles are meant for each player to use. per the Core Book on page 209 under Relative Positioning, it's up to each player to track his range to multiple combatants. The player is always at the center circle - it's a player aid, not a "group look at the map" aid.

I play Battletech, trust me, I know maps and I know complexity. I never said "This is a stupid idea so don't use it" so please don't get all bent out of shape. I simply added my opinion to the discussion, as Venthrac pointed out, isn't that what we're all here for? I, for one, don't plan on making things more complex for my players. If they have a question as to a range, they'll ask me, and as GM, I'll tell them. I don't even plan on using my own little circle sheet!

But as GM, if my players find it TOO abstract, I'll accommodate them and the ideas here in this thread may be just the thing. Until then, I say "ehh".

Not bent out of shape. Just curious how the circles work with PC in multiple locations. As a GM I would hate to constantly update range to target for each PC every time an opponent moves. To me the zones system is the simplest option while still staying pretty abstract, but obviously YMMV.

Not bent out of shape. Just curious how the circles work with PC in multiple locations. As a GM I would hate to constantly update range to target for each PC every time an opponent moves. To me the zones system is the simplest option while still staying pretty abstract, but obviously YMMV.

Cool. As stated, we use the "player responsibility" method the rules suggest as opposed to the GM tracking things and if there's any question, the GM (me) simply gives a reasonable range given what's occurred (per the abstract system) and we move on. There honestly isn't a lot of "tracking" and nobody's complained yet (since we're all Battletech players, I do anticipate some questioning of it.)

I think trying to introduce "clarity" into an entirely abstract system attempting to make it less abstract is convoluting the design, but as mentioned, YMMV as I understand some want a more relational system over abstraction.

As I'm hearing all this talk...I keep envisioning that round AOE templates used in games like Warmachine, and I wonder it those wouldn't be an easier mechanic? Hover a clear acrylic disc over the center of a player piece and have rings drawn on the disc. If the target is withing ring 1, it's short range, ring 2, it's medium range, etc....also, for manuevers, a character can move from their center position forward to the next ring. What do you guys think? Does this make sense?

Most fights occur between characters in engaged, short, or medium range. From there I generally just take either a real picture (usually only if a fight is likely to bleed into medium) or a mental picture to tell the players where the target is.

Just a quick shot of how we handle it in our online game via Roll20. I have removed boxes all together because it really gets people out of that "I have to maneuver into a box" idea. This concept is the single biggest time waster in my old Pathfinder games. People spending minutes planning where they are going to go.

All of these tokens can be moved freely. if I put my range finder (The red crosshair) on Mort. We can see the human is at close range, the rodians are at medium and the weequay are at long, As a side note... Sak would be engaged (the tokens are touching).

For movement, I would allow mort to move anywhere in the range band he is moving to.

This map was thrown together for an example, and the range I put in for the example is not what I normally use. I normally use 0-12m close, 12-32 Medium, 32+ as long. Extreme has not come up and I suspect it will not, only as a conceptual LONG distance (not really ever on a map this way).