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.

Agreed.

I'd make it +20/-20, both to avoid the extreme +30 bonus, and to make the numbers consistent.

OK I'm going to say this without trying to derail your thread too much.

It seems the Devs are trying to simplify the entire armoury section in comparison with previous editions. I would argue that the armoury does not need to be refined/simplified. Any weapon that a player is going to use they will have their profiles written down. Not that I think it would ever happen but I'd even push towards a more explicit set of range modifiers that changes from weapon to weapon, much like the 2nd Edition tabletop game.

However, as I say, I don't feel I'm going to get this, so I would be happy with a close range < 5m, long range is < range x 2. The consept that range is a weapons max effective range and you have no chance of hitting anything 1cm beyond it, is jaring to say the least.

Simplify is an odd term given they've gone and used an AP system which is stat-based half the time for melee...

I am no man for simplicity anyway.

Complex things make it more tactical, so I welcome more complexity as long as it makes a certain sense.

I am no man for simplicity anyway.

Complex things make it more tactical, so I welcome more complexity as long as it makes a certain sense.

The only thing complex things are sure to do is make it more complex. You have no right to say, "we want our range modificators back as they ever were." Personally, I think that the removal of range modifiers is a good thing, and doesn't affect the tactical nature of combat very much at all.

I am no man for simplicity anyway.Complex things make it more tactical, so I welcome more complexity as long as it makes a certain sense.

The only thing complex things are sure to do is make it more complex. You have no right to say, "we want our range modificators back as they ever were." Personally, I think that the removal of range modifiers is a good thing, and doesn't affect the tactical nature of combat very much at all.

Thats a very narrow view of the world, my young friend.

And by the way. I DO have all the right in the world to say what I think is right.

You have your oppinion, of course, and thats also your right. I think you are wrong though.

Actualy it sure affect tactical nature of combat. In first edition players often geted closer to target in serching for bonuses, making shot more likely succesfull. Now it just roll and pray system, couse hiting someone on longest range from rifle, or someone right in front of you with flamer - is both have the same rate of succses, and with given stats - its not in favor of player.

Range is needed in anything that throws metal slugs at your face.

You Have My Power Sword.

I like the Effective trait that was proposed, But i wouldnt add more damage. Does a bullet really do that much more blood making at 10m than 110m? Not realy i dont think...the only gun that does that is Melta and thats only the Pen (my fav weapon of choice). I would still say we use the trait but just add a moddifer to your Attack.

Point blank +20

Short Range +10

Standard Range +0

Long Range -10

Extreme Range -20

Talents will be needed to change like already stated before, and so will ranges of weapons, but range mods were the best thing when determing weather nor not id sit back and hope i hit good enough before i run out of slugs, or run in and get close for a better chance at hiting

The only thing complex things are sure to do is make it more complex. You have no right to say, "we want our range modificators back as they ever were." Personally, I think that the removal of range modifiers is a good thing, and doesn't affect the tactical nature of combat very much at all.

Thats a very narrow view of the world, my young friend.

And by the way. I DO have all the right in the world to say what I think is right.

You have your oppinion, of course, and thats also your right. I think you are wrong though.

Sorry I had to go out and buy some air freshener to clear out the smug from this post.

I am no man for simplicity anyway.Complex things make it more tactical, so I welcome more complexity as long as it makes a certain sense.

The only thing complex things are sure to do is make it more complex. You have no right to say, "we want our range modificators back as they ever were." Personally, I think that the removal of range modifiers is a good thing, and doesn't affect the tactical nature of combat very much at all.

Thats a very narrow view of the world, my young friend.

And by the way. I DO have all the right in the world to say what I think is right.

You have your oppinion, of course, and thats also your right. I think you are wrong though.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that my view of the world is narrow, but whatever - it's entirely off-topic and shouldn't be an issue. Same deal with telling me my opinion is wrong.

I agree that you have the right to say what you think, but you didn't. You stated " we want our range modifiers back," without any quantification. That is what I object to. I understand that this argument is getting off-topic but I feel that I need to point this out to you - you have no right to speak on behalf of others. We did not elect you. Some people may share your opinion, which is evident from some of the other posts in this thread, but please don't imply that your opinion is unanimous or even in the majority, unless you can irrefutably prove it.

Well - as MY GROUP is not only 1 person, I may well say WE. This doesnt enhance the whole world neccessarily.

Furthermore I didnt say that you ARE wrong, but that I THINK you are wrong - again a big difference.

Now start to interpret words more carefully and flame a little less, young fellow.

*good ol' Gaunt pats you on the shoulder*

Well - as MY GROUP is not only 1 person, I may well say WE. This doesnt enhance the whole world neccessarily.

Furthermore I didnt say that you ARE wrong, but that I THINK you are wrong - again a big difference.

Now start to interpret words more carefully and flame a little less, young fellow.

*good ol' Gaunt pats you on the shoulder*

Nope didn't buy enough.

I am getting tired of the grumpies.

Well - as MY GROUP is not only 1 person, I may well say WE. This doesnt enhance the whole world neccessarily.

Furthermore I didnt say that you ARE wrong, but that I THINK you are wrong - again a big difference.

Now start to interpret words more carefully and flame a little less, young fellow.

*good ol' Gaunt pats you on the shoulder*

Nope didn't buy enough.

Well - as MY GROUP is not only 1 person, I may well say WE. This doesnt enhance the whole world neccessarily.

Furthermore I didnt say that you ARE wrong, but that I THINK you are wrong - again a big difference.

Now start to interpret words more carefully and flame a little less, young fellow.

*good ol' Gaunt pats you on the shoulder*

Nope didn't buy enough.

Enough what? Ranks of Scrutiny? Perception?

Smug repellent, please learn to read the earlier posts and understand the concept of using language in an appropriate context.

I also didnt get what you wanted to say...must be your fault then ;D

I also didnt get what you wanted to say...

That's because you have poor reading skills.

I also didnt get what you wanted to say...

That's because you have poor reading skills.

Yeah - stupid me - would be interesting to see you writing and reading all this in a foreign language.

I feel like if you can understand and be sarcastic in a second language that you don't get to act like its that difficult to read it.

I also didnt get what you wanted to say...

That's because you have poor reading skills.

Yeah - stupid me - would be interesting to see you writing and reading all this in a foreign language.

Normally I would always stand up for you in a case like this (English isn't my first language, either). But if you're going to act like an asshat and insinuate that kingcom wasn't clear enough (which he was - it was perfectly understandable), you lose that privilege. You can't both be ignorant and a know-it-all.

*hehe* Finally someone shows some guts.

I've fixed this by adding an additional tens dice to the pool of the character depending upon the proximity of the attacker to his target. The attacker is then allowed to pick the most favorable result- with Jams occurring on any doubles the player decides to take (makes Jamming slightly more common and voluntary):

+2 tens dice for Point Blank Range

+1 tens dice for Short Range

It's solved the majority of issues I've had without outbalancing everything (I've remedied the issues with Single-Shot weapons in my House Rule document, and this fits snuggly into it.)