I'm not seeing the issue in the first place. (Maybe I'm missing something?)

The party splits in half and each half takes one maneuver in opposite directions, right?

The party starts at Short range to one another (or Engaged, but since it doesn't cost a Maneuver to disengage from friendlies, there's no difference here).

The first half of the party takes a maneuver which moves them away from their starting point. They are now at Short range from the other half of the party, which has not yet moved.

The second half of the party takes a maneuver which moves them away from their starting point, in the opposite direction. They are now at Short range from the starting location, and 2 Maneuvers (Medium Range) from the other half of the party.

For the party to rejoin into a single group, 2 Maneuvers would have to be spent, as expected.

All of that said, 'Zones' are probably the cleanest way to deal with the issue of Range Bands on a map. The Zones can even vary in size based on a number of factors (limited entry/exit areas, general clutter, etc.).

I'm not seeing the issue in the first place. (Maybe I'm missing something?)

The party splits in half and each half takes one maneuver in opposite directions, right?

The party starts at Short range to one another (or Engaged, but since it doesn't cost a Maneuver to disengage from friendlies, there's no difference here).

The first half of the party takes a maneuver which moves them away from their starting point. They are now at Short range from the other half of the party, which has not yet moved.

The second half of the party takes a maneuver which moves them away from their starting point, in the opposite direction. They are now at Short range from the starting location, and 2 Maneuvers (Medium Range) from the other half of the party.

For the party to rejoin into a single group, 2 Maneuvers would have to be spent, as expected.

All of that said, 'Zones' are probably the cleanest way to deal with the issue of Range Bands on a map. The Zones can even vary in size based on a number of factors (limited entry/exit areas, general clutter, etc.).

In my experience, it's not an issue when they go in opposite directions. It's when they DON'T go in opposite directions that relative positioning breaks down.

Range Bands become increasingly complex the more different independently moving groups are on the board. If you have 5 players, and they tend to go off in different directions in combat, it might actually be better to limit the number of enemies in different locations, and use a group of enemies as the center point of the range band instead of the PCs

Zones work too, and are pretty simple if you want something visual on the table.

The problem though isn't when you have 4 groups, its when you have 3 enemy groups and all 5 party members do something different with their maneuver in changing bands, ending with characters in 8 different locations and distances from one another.

Its a theoretical thing though, as some people are going to be moved to engaged anyway at which point they become one blob of location with that enemy group.

As Emperor Norton says, it's not really a problem when you have few groups that you need to keep track of, it's when you have 5+ groups that are all at different ranges (at ranges further than medium) from each other that things start to get really messy. For those situations I've never gotten range bands to work really, which is why I'm now using the method with dice as markers of the maneuvers needed placed between each of the groups.

For the complicated battles this results in a lot of dice being placed, but once you have them out it's quite easy to track things. Also, it's only about 1 in 10 battles or so that will really require a full setup of this type. The other battles will either have few groups or be at closer distances only.

This is the first game my Wednesday group has played with abstract movement and ranges. Most of them learnt to play using grids for movement and range. So far they have not had any trouble with it. In fact they love the freedom.

I draw out rough maps using dry-wipe pens on a sheet of plastic (bought years ago from B&Q) and mark out where short range ends, so far even with characters moving about we've had no difficulties.

Hi all.

I was hoping people could give me some examples of Movement between range bands, or even how they keep track of it all during play.

My current dilemma is thus:

The Storm Trooper sidebar example on p208 says that 2 groups of Storm Troopers come in from opposite ends to the PCs. Each group is at Medium Range to the PCs. The player group splits in half with each half moving 1 maneuver toward their respective chosen Trooper group. Now, each PC group is within Short range of their chosen NPC targets, but are at Medium range from each other.

So, each PC group has made 1 Maneuver away from their starting point in opposite directions, yet for one group to then rejoin the other group they would only need to use 1 maneuver... huh? My brain is beginning to cry.

It gets even stranger once Long and Extreme range bands are used:

A PC is at Short range from point X and wishes to reach within Short range of point Y which is currently at Extreme range (5 maneuvers away). He walks away from point X toward point Y on Round 1 using 1 maneuver. He is now at Medium Range from point X...

My question is, as he has moved one range band away from X, is he now (a) 1 Range band closer to Y which is effectively Long Range, or (b) is he STILL at Extreme range from Y?

If the answer is (a) then he is now only 3 maneuvers away from Y which is weird as he has theoretically covered 2 maneuvers with just 1! But if the answer is (b) then he is still 5 maneuvers away from Y... either way this strange space-time event confuses the heck outta me. It now appears that my brain has melted and is dripping from my ears...

Can anyone shed some light on how they keep track of it all when there are 2, 3 or even more parties involved without getting totally confused?

Do you keep track of the number of Range bands, or simply the number of Maneuvers needed/apart?

Much appreciated!

Stormtrooper example

Relax, it's a narrative. In your example above of the player groups splitting up and moving one maneuver away from each other is quite easy to explain from narrative standpoint. Physics explains this quite easily: distance=rate*time, yes? If distance increases, and time stays the same that means the rate increased. A maneuver is representative of movement, not specific speed.

One maneuver can be thought of as stepping back from being engaged, so one or two steps, or walking from short distance to short distance, or hustling from short distance to medium distance. Think of it less as literal speed; which is what most other RPGs give you, like in D&D: feet/movement action is a speed just like miles/hour (or kilometer if you're into that sort of thing). A maneuver is an abstract concept of doing a movement.

The players splitting up could have been them walking/crouch-walking 1 maneuver, short range, away from the center. They are still within one maneuver from each other even though they are at medium range, but the players couldn't take the same walking/crouch-walking pace to get there, they'd have to hustle/jog to traverse the distance of medium range to short range, which still would only cost one maneuver. It's just flavored differently because rate must increase if distance increases but time stays the same.

PC relative to point X and Y

As for your scenario where the PC uses one maneuver to move away from point X towards point Y. Understand that all range bands are not equal distance. Short range band isn't between 1 and 10 meters, while medium range isn't between 11 and 20 meters. Since range bands are a variable distance, and the amount of maneuvers it takes to traverse them are different then it is reasonable to assume that the total distance range band of extreme range is a variable size of short range, it is not equal to short range. Just because you move to point X's medium range with one maneuver that doesn't mean that it is the same distance as it would take to move from point Y's Extreme range to Long range. Spacial distance is relative, just like in real world physics.

I break down Range bands' distance like this:

• Engaged=0 maneuvers away (less than or equal to 0). If a PC is engaged with point X it is literally on top of point X or within arms' reach.
• Short range=1 maneuvers away (greater than 0, less than or equal to 1). If a PC is at short range then it would take one maneuver to be on top of point X.
• Medium range=2 maneuvers away (greater than 1, less than or equal to 3). One maneuver for engaged to short, One maneuver for short to medium, but to get to long range the PC needs two more maneuvers.
• Ghost maneuver (an effort maneuver: strain, advantage, or action, that takes up a 3rd maneuver), explaining the wear on the PC for increased distances of the larger range bands.
• Long range=4 maneuvers away (greater than 3, less than or equal to 4). One maneuver for engaged to short, one maneuver for short to medium, two maneuvers for medium to long, but to get to extreme you would need two more maneuvers.
• Extreme range=6 maneuvers away (greater than 4). One maneuver for engaged to short, one maneuver for short to medium, two maneuvers for medium to long, two maneuvers for long to extreme.

So if the PC starts one maneuver (short range) away from point X, and six maneuvers (extreme range) away from point Y. Then moves directly away from point X by one maneuver, directly towards point Y. The PC is now two maneuvers (medium range) away from point X, and five maneuvers this is still at extreme range since the distance is more than 4 maneuvers.

I can see your confusion though because then if the PC decided to use another maneuver to move towards directly towards point Y, and away from point X. The PC is now three maneuvers away (which is long range if you go on a linear scale, which means he moved from medium to long range in one maneuver. That's why I explain it as requiring a ghost maneuver) from point X, and four maneuvers away from point Y (now at long range), which makes sense since the PC has now spent two maneuvers going toward point Y

As the GM I make my PCs take the 'ghost maneuver', and I explain this as the need to be running (or at least exerting more effort), which would explain either the strain, spending of advantage, or the loss of an action.

I hope all this makes sense. If anything needs clarification feel free to ask.

I made these paper gadgets, one or two for each player, we were useing colour coded figs (plastercine balls) but now just number the groups and use a pencil.

LINK

Hope that helps

Mike

Hello everyone,

I would have to say that this was a speed bump for me as well. I'm a very tactical minded guy and I have tons of Star Wars miniatures... so I want, nay, I need to put the toys on the table. I made charts converting range bands to squares and so on. It does work, but it also slows the action down a bit. So I decided to play the system as intended. We still put the toys on the table (on maps) but I learned very quickly that it worked to just show where everything is. In the end you just have to make the call to do what fits your groups style best. I think everyone should at least try the abstract combat... I love it and never thought I would.