I may be alone with this urge, but I feel the need of going on a crusade for the return of the range modifiers.

Some guys here on the forum argue with a good effect of simplification, and, while I tend to agree that a smooth fight is a good fight, I really cannot sell to my players that the range modifiers disappear.

Not without having fought for them till the last.

Without range modifiers, you have ridiculous situations, where a target at max. Range is as easy to hit as one directly in front of you.

If the one in front of you is small, it is even harder to hit, than the regular target at max. Range (?!?!?!).

I am not talking about an exact mathematical approach here - but the system as was, was quite easy and good - I would adopt it to the new range system with % of the given max. range:

> Point Blank: 3m (+20 is enough)

> SHort: Up to 25% of max Range (+10)

> Normal: 25%-75% of max. Range

> Far: 75%+ (-10)

> Extreme: Up to 25% above Max. Range

Change Marksman, that it improves range of the weapon without penalty, let a telescopic sight improve the range category and everything is fine.

Honestly this looks more complex than how it was in DH1. Not an improvement in my eyes. If I HAD to include range mods, I'd just include point blank as it was in DH1, and add in that weapons can be fired up to twice their range, but at -20

Even with that I could life.

ALthough I would set it to Max Range*1,5 instead *2 (otherwise it is too much).

But no influence of range at all seems just odd.

Range at least is a kind of size thing, as your targets get effectivly "smaller".

I may be alone with this urge, but I feel the need of going on a crusade for the return of the range modifiers.

Some guys here on the forum argue with a good effect of simplification, and, while I tend to agree that a smooth fight is a good fight, I really cannot sell to my players that the range modifiers disappear.

Not without having fought for them till the last.

Without range modifiers, you have ridiculous situations, where a target at max. Range is as easy to hit as one directly in front of you.

If the one in front of you is small, it is even harder to hit, than the regular target at max. Range (?!?!?!).

I am not talking about an exact mathematical approach here - but the system as was, was quite easy and good - I would adopt it to the new range system with % of the given max. range:

> Point Blank: 3m (+20 is enough)

> SHort: Up to 25% of max Range (+10)

> Normal: 25%-75% of max. Range

> Far: 75%+ (-10)

> Extreme: Up to 25% above Max. Range

Change Marksman, that it improves range of the weapon without penalty, let a telescopic sight improve the range category and everything is fine.

You have my axe!

I think the simpler version that was suggested would be better - but I see merit in having some method of handling range.

Thanks for your axe, brother, I am really glad to fight with you side by side.

"Those who fight with me, shall be my brothers"

I just liked the system best as it was in the previous systems.

But as they changed the ranges of weapons to be max ranges, they would need to find another method of categorizing short, regular, far and extreme than before.

Or, of course, they re-work all ranges with a factor and bring back the old rules or something similar to it - which I would prefer.

Lets say the max range now in DH2 is like the maximum range in DH1, which means the former DH1 range*4, does that mean, we would get this kind of range back if we divide the DH2 range by 4 ?

Im with you on this one! (Again you start a thread on one of my major concerns before I get to it)
Ive been playing rpgs for about 20 years and this would be the first not including any rangemodifiers (and the list includes White wolves storytelling games which is saying quite a bit).

Range is the most basic combat modifier in my opinion and if we should have any modifier at all it is this.

If people want to make combat simpler three range bands could probably be sufficient (its at least something). The modifiers +20, 0 and -20 feels about right, I agree on that.

First out short/point blank. +20 would something between the old pointblank 3m +30, and short half optimal range +10. Thus Id suggest making it somewhat further than 3m, 5 or maybe 10m.
Optimal range would of course be what it says on the weapon profile.
-20 Long/extreme/far call it what you want In my opinion this should be optimal range x2, this is simpler than 1,5 and if the ranges become to far just trim the optimal ranges in the weapon profiles.

And as an added bonus if we have range bands again the old scatter rule would make sense and the shotgun would no longer be degraded to a more comical than cool blunderbuss.

A new warroir joining my crusade !

Welcome brother, lets join our arms and voices!

A simplified +10 (close),+0,-10 (far) system should be the minimum.

The maximim should be something like the former range categories.

For anything in between I am quite open minded - but not for a total skippong of this modifiers.

Yeah, the shotgun is currently the poor mans flamer without flames

I do believe that simplicity is king, but I agree that the complete removal of range modifiers was a step too far. My players were more confused by the lack of modifiers, honestly.

I'd keep it simple (as several of you suggest):

Close range at 0-10ish meters (including pistols in melee, if only because I don't like exception-based rules) giving a +20.

Long range at more than the weapons listed range, up to 2x their listed range, giving a -20.

Change both Marksman and Telescopic Sight to each give a +10 bonus when firing at long range (makes more sense, anyway: you can't increase the range of your weapon by being better at aiming - you just stand a better chance of hitting).

I guess weapons with the Spray quality should probably be exempt from this, though? I'm not sure. Again, I don't like exceptions, but it'd seem weird.

Yeah - Marksman currently is weird - it indeed lets you shoot a higher distance (?!?!), instead of helping you hitting the target.

Not sure though if the scaling +20/0/-20 wouldnt be too tough.

I still would stick to the old system and just lower the current ranges to be in line.

For Pistols in Melee I wouldnt give a bonus - as you are engaged in melee, shooting can become more difficult as you need to take.

Forget range modifiers. Sure, they had their uses, but ultimately I don't miss them. They made things more complicated and much slower without adding sufficient flavor to make up for their downsides.

I do think that many of the ranges are a bit short. My inclination would be to take the current range listings and leave Light weapons as-is, basic weapons would be relisted at 1.5x their current range, and heavy weapons would be listed at 2.0x their current range. There'd be some obvious exceptions like shotguns and flamers (and melta), but this would be a useful guide for FFG in reworking the tables.

Marksman adding extra range (I think the telescopic scope does as well but without an accuracy penalty) does seem a bit odd. I'd be inclined to do something like allow Marksman to let players make called shots at no AP cost. This differentiates it from the (superior) telescopic sight, and provides a bonus that is suitable for what the talent suggests with its very name. A marksman with a sniper rifle that has a telescopic sight could shoot someone much further away with two aim actions and a free called shot.

You say "forget range modifiers" to someone who currently wages a crusade FOR them ?

This might provide me with the XP-free talent "Hatred ( Levi Porphyrogenitus )"

So in your case I would be very carefull what to say nxt in this topic, as I also have Litany of Hate ;D

Fun aside:

For me range modifiers are no needless complexity, but one of the main factors to be considered if ranged attack-% are evaluated. It can just create too much nonsense situations wothout them.

And my players are of the rather realistic type, who like tactical combat.

At last: it is always easier to not use an existent rule than to create a house rule for everything - so I would like the rules in the Core book to be as complete as possible.

I totally agree! (At least point blank, please...)

Yeah - Point Blank is the awesome "I wait till the last moment to blast you away"-factor.

Especially with Snap Fire and a shotgun (if they improve it), a cool combination.

This is something we can definitely agree on.

The ranges would need to be rewritten so as not to get horribly shortened if we used your % notation - not an actual mechanical change, but one that requires different numbers written down to stay the same.

Yeah - my proposal is far from perfect.

I would also stick to the "old" mechanism (also keeps the systems a little better comparable) and change the weapons ranges by a certain factor to bring them in line with it.

Only other things I could think of which would need a change would be the telescopic sight and the marksman talent...or do I miss something ?

I'd honestly like to see something like a complete change to the weapon range system.

I proposed making abstract movement a while back, similar to WFRP or SWEotE. Basically, ranges would be Engaged, Short, Medium, Long, and Extreme. 1 AP to engage from short range, 2 AP to move between short and medium, 3 AP between medium and long, 4 AP to move between long and extreme. Change all of the increased movement talents to allow players to spend less AP to do movement actions. My original suggestion for this was that each AP would reflect about 10m of movement (so short range is 10 meters, medium range is 30, long range is 60, and extreme range is 100). This actually scales pretty well to average human running speed and allows the gun ranges to be used and possibly even come into play more frequently.

After some thought, though, what I'd really like to see is a continuation of abstract ranges by making effective ranges for weapons. So, for example, pistols would be effective at short and engaged range, and would take -10 for each range greater or less. Shotguns would be effective at short and medium (also, why not give shotguns 2d10 damage to represent the chance of being hit by just a few pellets or being hit headon with all of the spread), autoguns at medium and long, sniper rifle at extreme, and so on. Basically, this would help enable more tactical play and movement with players trying to move into effective ranges. It lets people have range modifiers again, and allows for more weapon differentiation. It also adds some realism to the use of sniper rifles, shotguns, and assault rifles.

Another important aspect is that it makes the weapon ranges actually matter within most combats. The skirmish combat of Dark Heresy is at odds with all of these long range weapons, and trying to use the movement rules with these long range weapons is often an exercise in frustration. I really like this idea and I'm wondering what others think.

I really like your idea of effective ranges for weapons !

Never thought about that before, but now that you mention it, the idea seems so good that I should steal and sell it.

Something to keep in mind though, is, that at this late state of game design, changes shoukd go smoothly into the existing framework.

So...what about a weapon trait called Effective (X), where X can be one or more of the following:

- point blank

- short

- regular

- far

- extreme

A sniper rifle would get Effective (far, extreme), a shotgun could get Effective (Point blank) and so on !

If a weapon is effective, it means it gets a bonus, maybe damage +1d10 at the effective range.

If you combine that with a bonus number, you could even make that flexible.

Effective (short 1, point blank 2) would mean +1 damage on short range and +2 on point blank for example...

Someone needs to mail this to the developers it is a great idea.

As for the abstract distances - I would rather keep on metres though, but I would support faster movement to close the gap.

Instead of Agility-bonus, I would take AgB+2 for common humanoids per 1 AP. That also makes the difference less between characters in %.

I'd honestly like to see something like a complete change to the weapon range system.

I proposed making abstract movement a while back, similar to WFRP or SWEotE. Basically, ranges would be Engaged, Short, Medium, Long, and Extreme. 1 AP to engage from short range, 2 AP to move between short and medium, 3 AP between medium and long, 4 AP to move between long and extreme. Change all of the increased movement talents to allow players to spend less AP to do movement actions. My original suggestion for this was that each AP would reflect about 10m of movement (so short range is 10 meters, medium range is 30, long range is 60, and extreme range is 100). This actually scales pretty well to average human running speed and allows the gun ranges to be used and possibly even come into play more frequently.

After some thought, though, what I'd really like to see is a continuation of abstract ranges by making effective ranges for weapons. So, for example, pistols would be effective at short and engaged range, and would take -10 for each range greater or less. Shotguns would be effective at short and medium (also, why not give shotguns 2d10 damage to represent the chance of being hit by just a few pellets or being hit headon with all of the spread), autoguns at medium and long, sniper rifle at extreme, and so on. Basically, this would help enable more tactical play and movement with players trying to move into effective ranges. It lets people have range modifiers again, and allows for more weapon differentiation. It also adds some realism to the use of sniper rifles, shotguns, and assault rifles.

Another important aspect is that it makes the weapon ranges actually matter within most combats. The skirmish combat of Dark Heresy is at odds with all of these long range weapons, and trying to use the movement rules with these long range weapons is often an exercise in frustration. I really like this idea and I'm wondering what others think.

While I think this sounds intriguing I (having not played WFRP or SWEotE) immediately have 2 worries:

1) How does this translate for those of us who like to play with minis? It sounds like a neat system, but it also seems inherently incompatible with maps.

2) Doesn't it become confusing pretty quickly as to who is close to who? A and B are currently at long distance from each other, and both of them are at medium distance from C. A moves to be at extreme distance from B. How far is he now from C? Even if we can solve that one, doesn't it quickly become unmanageable with more characters?

Magnus hitsnthe spot quite well.

This is one of the reasons why I do support the effective range idea, but not the abstract range idea.

I support you quest.

Our voices get louder and louder - may we all be heard !

To address worries about abstract movement:

I've found that this still works pretty well with maps when the players and GM are agreeable about what is in short and long range. Draw up the map, say how far things are in general, and using minis really helps the process. This actually makes it easier to draw maps on the fly and make them abstract. You can draw rocks on one part and say they're far away even if they're literally close on the drawn map. Players feel a lot more mobile and fights see more tactical movement.

Triangulating positions IS tricky with abstract distance. I've found that it works well with a certain mindset of being willing to I off of "feel" and keeping in mind what the ranges represent. If two players engage mutants that were clustered by each other, they're within short range of one another. Basically, just assume if A is in short range of B and B is short range of C, C is usually in short range of A unless the description doesn't fit (eg A approaches B from the south and C approaches B from the north, in which case A and C are medium range from each other). You lose some crunch but gain a lot of maneuverability in return. Also the cool idea of effective ranges. Ill list out some suggested effective ones later.

Our voices get louder and louder - may we all be heard !

I'll be perfectly happy as long as they hear Nimsim. Thanks for creating the thread GauntZero

What shall I say, I am here to carry the emperors will.

Where it does break down is personal vs vehicles, or when there's wildly differing movement rates, which is unfortunately exactly the case here. It worked amazingly well with WFRP3 though.

Someone with Fly 12, vs someone with Hover 9, vs someone with running 8, vs someone approaching carefully while firing with his other half action.

While it's easy to abstract "okay you spend one move, he has to spend 2" for the 12 vs the 6, as soon as we're adding additional intermediate steps, things like slowing and other status effects, etc, we're back to needing more and more 'slices' or 'steps' between ranges, at which point it has once again become simpler to just have distances.