Hello my brothers in arms,

Did I miss it in my sleepy state, or did they remove the modifiers for distance for ranged attacks ?

If really so, why ????

It makes a big difference if I try to shoot someone who is close to me, or who is 100m away from me (the target gets "smaller").

Simplicity, I imagine. It's a bit iffy, but I don't mind it too much, it does cut down on some time when working out modifiers.

Exactly. And it also calls for making exact distance "judgements" which can be a slight pain in a narrative combat.

"Is he 12m from me? 15?"

Most people can't even reliably estimate such distances by sight, but in-game you need to know in order to calculate your correct to-hit chance.

Then add in mods and Qualites that kick in only on certain ranges, and the action slows to an accounting-nightmare

I'd say simply adding in that weapons can, say, shoot twice their range at -20 might be useful. But really it's fine as is.

I also think it is critical to measure it up to the meter.

But I consider it also unrealistic to give no modifier at all, considering that small or tall targets give a modifier, this is kind of odd.

I would suggest a simplified version of +10 to close shots (about 10m distance and closer) and -10 to distant shots (100m and more)

As far as i can see range no longer matters except as an 'on/off' mechanism. In range you can hit, beyond range you can't.

As someone who runs narrative combat rather than a miniatures game for combat personally i like this as it keeps things simple.

If as GM you prefer range band modifiers, well the core mechanic allows you to add/subtract as you like.

I'm OK with the chagne as well. It improves simplicity of the rules, and while it does have a pretty significant effect on the "feel" of certain parts of combat, the benefits it provides (faster game at the table, more readable equipment section, not having to re-explain to my players how to write out the range increments on weapons) outweigh the negatives.

I dont think a simple far-medium-close mechanism makes things much more complicated.

I rather see this as unrealistic in a high degree to handle a 10m shot the same way as a 300m shot.

If your reasoning is simplification and focus only on narrative, you can also let a lot of other facors be ignored, like size or running distances.

I am not against narrative approaches, but a RAW should provide enough rules for at least a certain frame of realism, where I count the range topic towards.

If you want it easier, you still can ignore the rule, but in general it should be included.

My group is very sensible for realism in such cases and would clearly start to misuse such unclear rules by staying away at the maximum range.

I liked the ranges, and I think I will miss them, but the single biggest issue that my players always had with Dark Heresy was remembering all the different bonuses you could get. Remembering that stuff was 90% of combat, because you were terrible at everything if you didn't remember, and you were incredibly powerful if you took advantage of it.

I'm glad for the simplicity. I'll miss the "realism" (not a lot of realism in 40k either way, though ), but I think it's a worthwhile trade.

Why do you propose that a 10m shot is inherently easier than a 300m shot?

Why do you propose that a 10m shot is inherently easier than a 300m shot?

The target is (visually) smaller and harder to see. There is a greater delay in the shot reaching the target. A slight movement of your weapon that means your shot is 2 inches over at 10 meters could be 10 feet over at 300 meters. The target's movement would add equal difficulty to both shots, at least (I've never shot at a moving target, nor do I know what differences it would make at long range). There is a pretty obvious difference, though. I have no training or practice with guns whatsoever and I was able to hit a target at short range and could not hit it at medium or longer range.

Exactly. Thats why I say that modificators are needed badly.

That includes:

> distance

> movement
> visual

Make it easy to remember modifiers if needs be, like only +10 / 0 / -10

But dont skip them !

I have no training or practice with guns whatsoever and I was able to hit a target at short range and could not hit it at medium or longer range.

Until you're in a dark alley and the target 15m away is shooting back. Then your chance of hitting roughly equalises with the 300m shot as you are less panicked, can take slightly longer to zero in, etc.

On a range, in good conditions, a 10m target is almost unmissable - a 300m target highly missible.

In the chaos of a firefight, a 10m target that really doesn't want to be hit and would much rather hit you, suddenly becomes far harder to hit. Almost as hard, if not harder to hit than that target out at 300m who you can take a precious few seconds bringing your aim in on.

No?

'Make it easy to remember modifiers if needs be, like only +10 / 0 / -10

But dont skip them !'

And as a GM you are stopped from imposing this by...?

Scenario 1

OK Jim, your character Meliogrance is hanging from a chain in the howling wind below the Titan's knee. The cultist, like you is deperately trying to cling onto his chain and make his way towards you..his barbed dagger glints ominously as he swings to within 10m of you. You raise your hand cannon to fire...that's a pretty tough shot mate, i'm going to give you -20.

Secnario 2

OK Jim, your character Meliogrance is halted on the open savannah. The day is cool and overcast and 300m away you see the figure of a cultish galloping towards you on a riding-grox. You raise your autogun to fire...that's a pretty tough shot mate, i'm going to give you -20.

I am not talking about special circumstances here.

Special circumstances would always need GM ruling in my point of view.

A RAW-table for modfifiers including things like

> being hanging at a rope with head down

> having to shoot while balacing on a rope

> etc.

would be not needed AT ALL.

But basic modifiers like I mentioned for

> distance

> general sight

> enemy movement

should be an integral part of the game.

Of course I CAN house rule that or can GM-decide that.

But if I see things like that, I can just take the fluff from the book and houseroule everything myself.

And regarding the "being nervous if the enemy is close" issue:

This would certainly be true if it was me who was in the firefight.

But in the grim darkness of the 41st millenium, acolytes (even Adepts) are used to face the horrors of the universe and believe in the emperors proection ! ;D

By the way - Fear is handled by the Fear-rules and I would not make this a factor besides this.

Physically/Ballisticaly it is way harder to hit a far moving target in fog than hitting a close standing target in clear sight.

Not implementing this into the rules is like skipping a weapons table.

Those extra seconds spent aiming at long range are meant to be reflected by the Aim action. Also, the game assumes that a target is moving and engaged in shooting back at any distance. Yes, it's hard to hit a moving, shooting target at close range, but long range does not imply that the target has stopped moving or shooting, and it has other problems due to the distance. The rules also aren't taking your mental stress at being shot at into account for a BS roll, it's just about the target.

@GauntZero

You should realize all the modifiers you're asking for are present in the system, except for range.

My suspicion is that they disliked how range was presented in the statblock for a weapon. The fact that the value listed had no direct significane to the modifer was awkward. I ran myself hoarse explaining to each of my players how to calculate out the range increments for a given weapon.

The removal of the ranged modifers has the interesting result of forcing characters to aim more often. I'm not sure what I think of this yet, but it seems intentional. Combat bonuses seem significantly harder to gain.

Given the nature of Dark Heresy, I'm not too concerned by any of this. Most fights don't occur across multiple range categories simultaneously.

To be honest, I am against too detailed approaches of distances, especially a tying to weapon type is not needed at all.

It is more related to the hand-eye coordination than to the weapon type in general (besides accuracy of course, but thats another story).

What I am asking for is a simplified official rule to handle:

> short range (e.g. <10m = +10)

> "normal" range (+/-0)

> far range (e.g. >80m)

And just to point that out - I am not against change in general

For example - I love the new wound-system

But I am also far away from being a blind follower of the architect of fate.

So grenades, hand flamers, bolas etc., are always at +10 as their max range is pretty much 'short range'?

You can say that this rule does not apply for weapons with range 10 or less as they are already desgined and trained only for short range.

If I were to make a change to the current system, I'd allow players to shoot at targets up to twice their weapon's maximum range, but they'd take a -20 penalty to hit. This way, players are not punished too harshly for being "just out of range" of their enemies, but are given a strong incentive to get within the weapon's effective range. This also simplifies combat math a great deal.

As an aside, the rules in the current form of the beta reflect the Warhammer 40k tabletop game fairly well. In that game, your weapon is either in range, or you are unable to fire on the target. Sure, it's not perfectly realistic, but it saves the trouble of measuring range bands every single time you fire a weapon.