The Star Wars and WFRP3e systems from FFG both use a form of movement in which it is abstracted to Short, Medium, Long, and Extreme. It costs 1 "movement" to move from short to engaged, 2 for short to medium or vice versa, 3 for medium to long, and 4 for long to extreme. This approach has some flaws (what are the distances people are at when people are arrayed in a non-linear fashion, being able to move extremely long distances, etc.), but I think it's worth considering for DH.

The Problem with Movement in DH

DH movement is based on the Agility bonus, and measures itself in increments of one meter. Increasing the agility bonus, as well as other talents or actions, can all cause incremental increases in movement. What this effectively means is that in order to properly reflect the rules for movement, players are practically forced to use miniatures and a map. Eyeballing distances is not going to account for the difference between someone with Ab 2 and someone with Ab 3. Writing down exact distances and doing the math on paper or in your head is going to be an exercise in frustration.

Should movement be tied to Agility bonus?

Agility is already a really powerful characteristic in this game and many others. I don't think that taking away its impact on movement is going to break the characteristic. Also, keep in mind that so long as movement is tied to a specific number, it's going to need a map or a lot of extra work to be properly reflected.

Abstracting Movement

This is actually a pretty simple port to make. Simply take the short, medium, long, and extreme ranges, the required movements of 1, 2, and 3, and use action points to reflect movement cost. All characters would use this movement.

What about fast characters?

Well, this could be reflected by a basic talent (AP costs to move or disengage are reduced by 1, to a minimum of 1) and a trait for unnaturally fast characters (AP costs for movement and disengaging are reduced by 1, to a minimum of 0, does not stack with the previous talent, once 4 ap have been spent, the turn ends). Remove the size modifiers for movement as replace them with those traits or talent (include one that increase movement AP for small characters).

How far can a character move?

A character can make the following movements with 4ap.

Engaging to something in short range 1ap

From short to medium, 2 ap

From medium to long, 3 ap

From long to extreme, 4 ap

From medium to engaged, 3 ap

I think the ap system actually takes care of the problem of characters moving way too far in wfrp3e.

What distance do these ranges represent exactly?

This could probably stand to be given an exact number. I'd say this could be calculated as follows:

Figure out average speed of a running person (assume 6meters per second).

Calculate how many meters this would cover in 5 seconds. (30m)

Assign that number to medium range. Medium range is 30m

Divide that by the 3ap it costs to go from medium to engaged to get distance (10m per 1ap)

Long distance costs 6ap (60m) and extreme distance costs 10ap (100m).

It will take 15 seconds to go from extreme to engaged at a rate of 6m per second (which would normally reach 90m in 15 seconds), so the movement is fairly accurate.

So our exact numbers are:

Short range 10m

Medium range 30m

Long Range 60m

Extreme Range 100m

What about distances greater than 100m?

Just add an AP for every additional 10m.

What does everyone think?

Its an interesting idea Nimsim.

I think you hit a good point.

I would prefer to have some possibility to tie movements to characteristics of the characters though.

If you take it away from them and abstract it too much, you get an easier flow, but you sacrifice uniqueness of characters.

I would prefer an assassin to be faster than the big heavy Techpriest.

I agree very much, however, on the focus on agality which is too heavy...

I would try to change other sides though:

> change Initiative to Per + 1d6 instead of Ag + 1d6

> remove the Ag-3 etc. RoA from Melee weapons and give it a fixed value

> tie First Aid to Int instead of Ag

> decrease the influence of Ag on movement>: change to X+Ag, with X being a fixed value per species/size

I think the addition of a "speedy" talent would take care of differentiating things a bit. Maybe a connected talent to that that reduces disengagement by an additional 1 as well (assassin could engage, strike, disengage, engage someone else/move into cover).

I actually sat and thought about how to tie agility bonus into movement and honestly could not think of a good way to do it with this abstracted system that wasn't overly complicated or too much of a rules exception. The problem comes with the Agility bonus scaling in increments of 1, up to 9 or more, and an abstracted system in increments of 1 to 4 needing to make increments of 1 represent a greater amount than the difference of 1 agility bonus represents.

I think the slowed condition and its being tied to heavy encumbrance works. Perhaps the use of some weapons or gear could inflict an automatic slowed condition unless the character has the bulging muscles talent. That would account for the heavy slow tech priest.

I think leaving the agility bonus to add to initiative would be a good balance for it, but I would change its use for first aid. I also think RoF for melee weapons could be split between strength or agility, based on the kind of weapon being used. This would lead assassins to favor some weapons, with heavies favoring others.

I agree on quite some of which you said.

I think the Agility influence on movement is mainly a mathemathical problem.

3 (as human) + Ag/2 (rounded up)would lead to another development as Ag

In such a way, Ag would still have influence on movement, but in a reduced way.

Again, though, the problem is that you're still getting an exact number for movement that basically requires a map to reflect properly in play. I have numbers for the distances as a way to allow weapon ranges to be used without having to abstract them (and deal with what to do for ranges above 100m). I'd like to see movement tied to action point expenditure rather than agility. I think that a good way to require a higher agility would be to make it a prerequisite for the Speedy talent. That way you get a potential bonus to the high agility assassin while not having to worry about the slight differences between agility bonuses.

As I am pro-tactical-map in combat situations, abstract is not so much my favour.

I did give distances that you could easily convert for a tactical map, though. Just do 10m per AP, 15 if you have the speedy talent.

Problem is, that a change in the speed-factor can lead to unpredictable consequences.

Distances lose relevance if characters become faster, which can lead to an indirect melee buff for example.

Distances in this game already lose relevance due to gun ranges, though. When was the last time you used a tactical map for a non-close engagement that didnt have a bunch of issues with it? I can see your point on this increasing speediness for everyone, though. Perhaps a tactical map variant could drop the distances by half? Again, though, I kind of have my doubts that weapon ranges were balanced to movement that much, and the movement values I abstracted out are actually right at the human average for running.

I have to ask if you found things to be particularly balanced when you used tactical maps. I found ranged weapons to always get a short range bonus, cover frequently being difficult to get to, and a distinct feeling that the game was not really designed around use of a tactical map, but paradoxically included rules for movement that require one.

I had the experience, that it is hard to get to a ranged fighter, but if you manage to get close, the melee gets short and bloody.

Quite reslistic in my eyes.

You need a good plan to bridge the distance without being shot.

But if a ranged one is not prepared to melee, he'll get slaughtered.

As a friend of melee though I am not so much against your idea as you might think.

Your basic ideas are good.

Add a modifier that makes it more difficult to hit moving targets and melee is an even more fearfull thing.

The fundamental issue with tactical maps in DH is it hamstrings the distances you can represent. Unless you're using ridiculously tiny minis, or a gigantic table, you're limited far below the effective range of most weapons.

My preference would be for a system that works equally well with or without minis. I don't like game systems that try to override player preference and shoe-horn everyone into one exclusive style or the other.

It would be nice to have both, but in that case FFG needs to change rule elements that modify movement and distances as well.

Like Preternatural Speed. What's 1 m in a narrative combat, eh? Eyeballing distances is already hard, and determining if your target is 8 or 9 metres away is going to be GM fiat anyway.

The fundamental issue with tactical maps in DH is it hamstrings the distances you can represent. Unless you're using ridiculously tiny minis, or a gigantic table, you're limited far below the effective range of most weapons.

No, it doesn't. The ranges of weapons, and the degree of specificity needed about distance mean that Dark Heresy encourages the use of miniatures. However, at long ranges exact accuracy matters less. All that matters is "How many turns till I close the distance to this point?" "How far to that cover over there?" "Do I have line of sight?" All this can be done for long range gunfights abstractly, or via a scratch map (one drawn to give the sense of relative positions of things, but not bothering with exact distances or using miniatures).

Exact distances only start to matter when you are judging melee engagement distances and whether you are in short range etc. This means mapping and miniatures should only be used for short range engagements of less than 50m. This is plausible to do.

I do note they have changed melee engagement distances to 2 metres... I wonder if this is actually a nod to miniatures, as with the old scale (1" = 1 metre) the traditional 40k miniatures are actually too small, while if the engagement distance is now 2 metres, you could maybe have 1" = 2 metres, which is closer... though you still have the movement differences of 1 metre problem.

• 20 AG: Slow - characters have to spend +1 AP for any move action (this state can also be triggered by encumbrance or fatigue)
  
• 30 AG: Normal - baseline human value, no bonuses or penalties apply
  
• 40 AG: Agile - AP bonus to engage/disengage
  
• 50 AG: Swift - character gains a free AP to spend on or add to any move action they take
  
• 60 AG: Ghostly - character treats long distances as medium, and extreme as long
  

Note that the above is just a very basic idea born of my persistent dislike of talents that suddenly seem to transform a character's physical body over a natural stat-based evolution. I still feel something like "Bulging Biceps" should never have existed in the first place (hah, and this whilst I often complain that DH did not adopt enough from the Inquisitor RPG! )

I like the abstract distances idea. In a game withoug miniatures, using exact distances always felt counter-productive to me, since the GM will determine them based on gut-feeling anyways, whilst players are left asking every round: "How far is the enemy away? How about now? Now?"

Exactly!

I've found I gravitate towards more rules-light system over these past years, and desire fast and rough resolutions over detailed and "crunchy" mechanics.

Just a preference, but I don't find enjoyment in calculating carry weights or adding thrones, and I found all the numbers involved in DHv1 combat just too much maths and not enough action.

So to find that the granular, to-the-metre approach taken here in v2 appeals less to me than the rough Zone based system of Fate is no surprise.

I don't mind that it's included, and that it's an option, but I'd really like if wasn't made mandatory by tying 1m movement bonuses to talents that become prerequisites for further advancement in the Talent trees.

If you like rules-light, you should take a look at Green Ronin's Dragon Age RPG some day. It's a refreshing throwback to the way old days of P&P. The rules have about 30 pages or so (plus fluff), and you need but half an hour before the first game to have everyone ready for the start.

(also, it's ridiculously easy and fun to modify ... I've tried my hands at a Mass Effect conversion , and was considering one for 40k as well - if only I wouldn't be so fond of the d100!)

Just a preference, but I don't find enjoyment in calculating carry weights or adding thrones, and I found all the numbers involved in DHv1 combat just too much maths and not enough action.

Carrying weights and money is totally fine by me, simply because you only need to care for them when the topic comes up - which isn't all that often. The only time you're really working it is during chargen when you have to calculate the character's equipment and add everything up. But after that? Adding/substracting the kg takes but a second, and you only do it when you actually pick something up or drop it.

But yeah, preferences. We all have our own "sweet spot" somewhere between easy/fast and complex.

PS: Zone based system? Now I'm curious. Do tell!

Basically the combat area gets divided into "zones" based on the setting and character of the combat going on. Each zone is assumed to take one full turn to go between at normal movement. So a hallway battle might have the front and back ends of the hallway, an alley might have a fire escape and a roof added, a massive tank combat could have northern southern eastern and western fronts, and so on. Each zone can also have its own little "aspects" which are basically descriptions that the FATE system uses to give bonuses and penalties to players. So the alley example might be "tight and crowded" while the fire escape might be "rickety" and the roof might have "a good vantage point". Area effect weapons hit everyone in the same zone and everyone in the same zone is assumed to be engaged. It's pretty abstract, but it allows for easy creation of maps, and the aspects help encourage players and the GM to utilize as describe the environment more.

I see! That sounds interesting - I don't mind abstraction much, given that "eyeballing distances" whenever a group does not already use a map makes it an abstraction even if you use exact meters. Still, a bit of detail is always appreciated.

I wonder how well a system with such "zones" would work if you use it in DH. There should be enough zones to make movement somewhat meaningful, yet not so many zones that it's a hassle to keep track of. Perhaps an imaginary 3x3 grid so that everyone can imagine it in their minds without any need to draw a map? Hmm.

To me the ideal is to have the system be inherently and consistently scalable to minis with terrain, minis with battlemats, and abstract combat.

A table built for wargaming typically has a 48x72" playing surface. Battlemats are even smaller. Which right now, assuming a metre to inch conversion, means a Laspistol can shoot clear across the length of the table. That's just an example, of course, the point is that ALL DH2 distances are entirely unsuitable for tabletop gaming.

In reality I have a very tough time imagining that anyone who plays with terrain, don't use even smaller surface areas than people who use battlemats. Because while building, say, 2 floors of a Fortress Precinct is reasonably doable in a week or two, building a table full of not very reusable terrain for a single skirmish just isn't remotely feasible.

Additionally, as several others have already pointed out, abstract combat very often has the same problem of combat not initiating until the combatants are - considering their mobility and weapon ranges - just about standing on top of each other.

So...

I Nth the suggestion to switch to abstract distances, but ones that are simply and consistently convertible to play-friendly tabletop distances.

As it is, weapon ranges are mostly irrelevant to everyone all the time, however they resolve combat, because even a Handflamer can reach the most distant targets. Meanwhile, melee is king, because getting into melee range is instantly achievable by everyone all the time, and presents zero risks that hunkering down behind cover and unloading a clip doesn't also present.

Well, I didn't suggest this in my original post because I figured a lot of people thought weapon ranges were a sacred cow, but the other component of the the abstract range system from WFRP3e was that weapon ranges were given the "Engaged/Short/Medium/Long/Extreme" range bands. Since the weapon ranges for DH are all already pretty much woefully inaccurate to realistic weapons to begin with, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to just make them fit the abstract distances as well. The nice thing about this is that it allows weapons to have "effective" ranges that they work best at. For example:

Sniper Rifle: Long/Extreme

Shotgun: Short/Medium

Autopistol: Engaged/Short

Flamer: Medium

The nice thing about this is that it would eliminate the Close Quarters quality and just have weapons get a -20 penalty when used at 1 less or 1 more than their normal range, and being unusable at more than that.

Well, I didn't suggest this in my original post because I figured a lot of people thought weapon ranges were a sacred cow, but the other component of the the abstract range system from WFRP3e was that weapon ranges were given the "Engaged/Short/Medium/Long/Extreme" range bands.

****, and here I thought I was up to a new idea. Then again, I did play the WFRP years ago - maybe I just forgot and was subconsciously inspired there ...

Well, I didn't suggest this in my original post because I figured a lot of people thought weapon ranges were a sacred cow, but the other component of the the abstract range system from WFRP3e was that weapon ranges were given the "Engaged/Short/Medium/Long/Extreme" range bands.

I doubt it's much of a sacred cow. I imagine there probably are people who strongly prefer "real" distance values, but as you point out, they have been just as poorly served as everyone else by what's been offered in every 40K RPG so far. Thus, if it's a choice between the current fiasco and something that genuinely works for at least some players... I kind of doubt anyone will choose the former. Even if it's the concept they prefer.

- Do correct me if I'm wrong

Personally (I haven't polled our group, but I'm pretty confident they agree) I couldn't care less about the conceptual nature of the system. What matters to me is that it is a well-working multi-purpose system.

40K is all about the gear and the guns and the gadgets, so I would prefer something a bit more granular than WFRP3e. Maybe as much as 8 different categories, with modifiers scaled to match. But conceptually, I'm absolutely fine with it - as long as it scales consistently, easily and plays equally well across minis with terrain, battlemats, and abstract play.

I'm not suggesting DH2e should be designed for miniature combat only. But just... The previous 40K RPGs were very much designed without minis in mind. It'd be nice if we all got catered to this time.

All that said, there's really no reason "real" distance values shouldn't work for everyone. They just have to be designed with easy, consistent conversion in mind, and be balanced accordingly.

And finally, at least a good pile of the issues in this thread (and many besides), could be solved if only DH2e had both a narrative combat system and a skirmish combat system, instead of just the latter.

- I often get the feeling DH (either) is slightly schizophrenic: on the one hand it wants to tackle the sort of roleplaying that much more narrative systems were invented for. On the other it wants to be more traditional than BRP. I'm not at all saying it can't find the middleground, just that it doesn't seem the least bit inclined to do so