I'd argue that fly and hover ratings could just be changed. Someone with fly can go up to extreme distance from the ground. Someone with hover can only go short. Vehicles do mess up the math a bit, but I'd say that giving them some bonuses like extra movement actions or reduced movement AP costs could fix it pretty easily. I think the idea of abstract ranges is that you cut out all of these extra numbers that see very little play (Fly 12, anyone actually using clear bases or what have you to count out these 12 meters?) I think you can reflect the movement rates with adjusted APs for vehicles and what have you.

All in all, I think the described abstract method does definitley have its benefits.

But on a tactical point of view (as I also like to go miniatures in combat situations) and triangling, I'd prefer to stick to the current logic, just maybe increase the speed per AP to AgB+2. The+X could vary with different races/sizes/whatever

I think it's sufficent to have two range bands: normal and long range. Firing at normal range (up to the weapon's listed range) would provide no benefit/penalty, while attacking a target at long range (up to twice the listed range) would give a penalty of -10 or -20. Targets beyond long range cannot be attacked effectively.

Having a "short range" bracket is sensible from a realism standpoint, but slows down combat when players have to check to see whether or not that enemy is within the 17.5m short range of their stub revolver every single turn (it has happened to my group on more than one occasion). Furthermore, new players can be confused when they get a bonus to hit against enemies until they close to melee range, at which point the bonus disappears. I wouldn't be upset to see short/med/long range in the final game (and would certainly like that better than no range mods at all), but for simplicity's sake two range bands seem sufficient.

I would prefer the modifiers as they were.

When playing, I do not measure every 0.3m or such, but a rough about will do, that lessens the time spent for it.

All in all, I think the described abstract method does definitley have its benefits.

But on a tactical point of view (as I also like to go miniatures in combat situations) and triangling, I'd prefer to stick to the current logic, just maybe increase the speed per AP to AgB+2. The+X could vary with different races/sizes/whatever

Be careful what you wish for. 4-8 inches is a reasonable range for on-foot movement for a reasonably human-like mini on 4x4, 4x6 & 4x8 foot tables (the "standard" sizes for miniature gaming). 10-14" is a reasonable range for the extreme maximum on-foot speed for such a miniature.

If the minis are much slower, melee combat will be a distinctly secondary type of combat that rarely occurs. If they're much faster, ranged combat will be a distinctly secondary type of combat that rarely occurs.

DH1 is a fantastic example of how to really mess this stuff up.

As for abstract distances, it really does work very well with minis. I've tried a couple of different flavours of it, and while there was a lot of initial weirdness and confusion (old dogs & new tricksies = bad ), once we got the hang of it it was extremely fast and not at all problematic.

EDIT: Though I'll admit I'm primarily cheering for an abstract approach because I have 210% confidence that FFG couldn't get a concrete distance based system right, even if a perfect one was donated to them.

I use this table as our House rule (as long as FFG hasn't fixed it):

Point Blank (2 meters) +30 WS and +10 on critical table (yes it's grim and perilous!)

Short Range (up to 25% of max range) +10 WS

Middle Range (up to 50% of max range) +0 WS

Long Range (up to 100% of max range) -10 WS

This thread just made me look at the ranges again. Pistol ranges are seriously exagerated (60-80m) while basic weapons ranges are very short.

I would still propose that long range be optimal range x2, as a lot of ranges are very short. But to offset this I would suggest halving pistol ranges. (Reading on a few gun-related forums a pistol seems to have an effective range of 25-30 yds)

One thing I will say is that percentages should be avoided like the plague. They bog things down horribly, unless we're dealing with incredibly basic percentages (halves, basically).

Thats why I stick to the old system. It was ok to handle with its multipliers and it is already know to players - no reason to change this.

But if you do, a rework of the weapon ranges is needed (ALL of them, including attack psy powers, malignancy weapons, luminen weapons, NPC stat weapons etc.). Never the less, this shpuld be done, as without this range modifier system, there are said odd situations and many many confused questions of surprised players, which I cant really answer.

I think leaving them as is and adding in the option to fire at double your range for a significant negative modifier is an okay compromise, keeps things very simple and accessible while still having something resembling a range system. Point blank would round things out nicely. But that's just my suggestion, and I much prefer a simplified, fast system, which I understand a lot of people don't.

Leaving as is, would not be an option for me. If it is not changed in some way, I will definitely houserule this.

The categories Point Blank, Short, Regular, Far and Extreme were good and enough in the previous systems. Not too complicated, fast to apply and gave a realistic enough feeling.

I do not really understand why they took them out at all - as all previous systems use them...DH1, RT, BC, OW, DW.

And its not like they changed it in some way like they did with other mechanisms. They skipped it totally.

Such an important variable to ranged.

I still hope so much that they bring it back...

*sings the litany of ranged modifiers*

Played the first combat encounter today - and I was missing the range modifiers. It makes little sense to me that a shot with a Lasgun would be as easy on 5 meters as on 160m range.. So sticking to the first edition rules would work with me.

As for Marksman and Telescopic sights you need to remember that the ranges are effective ranges not maximum ranges, A truly skilled shooter would have a longer effective range.

For example a .45 cal 1911 pistol has an effective range of between 50 and 100 yards. It has a maximum range of 4.25 miles which is what you get if you hold the pistol at a 45 degree and shoot it,

Yes - but the current ranges in DH2 are 'maximum' ranges with regard to gameplay.

And even if a Marksman has the better eye for the shot, this shouldnt change the range...odd...

Maximum range mechanically =/= the actual maximum range of the gun. It's the range a competent user could hit things at, is all. Effective range, not maximum.

Maximum range mechanically =/= the actual maximum range of the gun. It's the range a competent user could hit things at, is all. Effective range, not maximum.

This.

As for Marksman and Telescopic sights you need to remember that the ranges are effective ranges not maximum ranges, A truly skilled shooter would have a longer effective range.

For example a .45 cal 1911 pistol has an effective range of between 50 and 100 yards. It has a maximum range of 4.25 miles which is what you get if you hold the pistol at a 45 degree and shoot it,

While this is true it would still be cooler if there where rangebands for everyone, say Point blank, medium, long, and these talents made it easier to hit on long range rather than be a prerequisite to fire on far away targets.

Exactly.

The message is clear: we want our range modificators back as they ever were

I'd say the consensus is more that SOME kind of ranged modifiers would be good. As they were, they were clunky and annoying to calculate, with the actual range statistic meaning nothing directly. I'm all for range modifiers, but the system needs to be reworked.

I'd say the consensus is more that SOME kind of ranged modifiers would be good. As they were, they were clunky and annoying to calculate, with the actual range statistic meaning nothing directly. I'm all for range modifiers, but the system needs to be reworked.

Agreed. I'd rather live without range modifiers than get the old ones back. A simple system would be very welcome, though.

Better the old ones than none at all - I really dont want the odd situations resulting from missing modifiers.

And the old ones were ok in my oppinion. Not great - but ok.

And I am not sure that they can come up with a new concept within some days...

Point blank (+20 or +30) = 5m

Medium Range (+0) = Weapon's Range

Long Range (-10 or -20) = Weapon's Range x 2

You lose out on short range in this case, but I feel like it's a pretty healthy compromise. Also involves no annoying on the fly math. I'm sure we can all double pretty easily.

I never had difficulty calculating, but there's a ridiculously simple way of doing it that would make the statline a little wider as the only drawback. Screw it, we don't need an entire tabbed section to tell us if a weapon's Pistol/Basic/Heavy/Suit-mount/Vehicle. Splitting table by category, or just having a single letter or whatever could do the job while saving the required space.

On the upside, however, we'd be able to actually ADJUST those rangebands to better fit the weapons.

Just list ranges as PB/Short/Standard/Long/Extreme. And of course we'd have, say +20/+10/--/-10/-30 or whatever as mods according to range.

So, for, say, a Lasgun, say : 5/40/100/200/400.

Or 10/20/40/100 for a Shotgun.

Or WHATEVER. It's all variable now, so f*** yeah performance envelopes.

Technically without the variable aspect tossed in that's just notation that could've been there when it was a single number, though, just like how the Silhouette system now uses "BR" to indicate what they used to list as their four rangebands [point blank being anything in the same hex]. When your lasgun said 100, it was 3/50/200/300/400 after all.

Point blank (+20 or +30) = 5m

Medium Range (+0) = Weapon's Range

Long Range (-10 or -20) = Weapon's Range x 2

You lose out on short range in this case, but I feel like it's a pretty healthy compromise. Also involves no annoying on the fly math. I'm sure we can all double pretty easily.

This is simple and effective. If range modifiers are needed at all, then this is the way to do it.

Too strong steps - putting extreme and short range also into account allows a better concept.

Keep it as it was.