Use rulers or some other measuring stick (or template) is my suggestion. I do sometimes, but mostly I eyeball it, or inform the players what range is from end to end of the map in the various directions, and roughly where one should consider the range bands to change.

I recently got hold of a lot of transparencies and am in the process of trying to create some various sized range ruling circles, based on at least two different sizes of maps. I'm crap at this sort of work, but I'm giving it a go.

We use maps and terrain. Our group likes that kind of thing. With that said, we try not to use maps with grids as we found ourselves missing the point at times. We use a Lego stick to "measure" distance and it is all very hand wavy. We don't get to bogged down in the minutia of range bands and just have fun.

I hope to post pictures later today, but I have said before that FFG's SW really got me back into the hobby. Really...

on a side note, I've come up with a better way for mini's in space combat when all players are on 1 ship.....

the player ship is in the middle and doesn't move and you move all other ships around it in relation to what the characters do.

the game world is from the perspective of the players, this eliminates the edge of the map dilemma

moving faster or slower away merely determines where ships lie in relation to the players for range.

you can mark circles on the map for range bands.

if you have huge amounts of ships it's not viable but for small skirmishes it can help add to story telling.

Akin to the OCR space combat abstraction? If the players are in one ship that would work very well I think.

on a side note, I've come up with a better way for mini's in space combat when all players are on 1 ship.....

the player ship is in the middle and doesn't move and you move all other ships around it in relation to what the characters do.

the game world is from the perspective of the players, this eliminates the edge of the map dilemma

moving faster or slower away merely determines where ships lie in relation to the players for range.

you can mark circles on the map for range bands.

if you have huge amounts of ships it's not viable but for small skirmishes it can help add to story telling.

Isn't that how the engines on the Planet Express ship worked in Futurama?

yes it came to me after watching the new star trek movie.

"it never occurred to me to think as space as the thing that was moving" -scotty

Akin to the OCR space combat abstraction? If the players are in one ship that would work very well I think.

The problem being, that's not a safe assumption for the other games in the line.

I've been running AoR, and a fighter squadron - and to get a reasonable "image" of the battle, I had to start using counters on the table. Once I did, wingman type actions, and interesting choices about targeting, became far more common.

On the other hand, the Y-wing is the real Mary Sue Fighter.

A round lasts any appropriate period of time up to around a minute. A character who is running through long range bands is covering very large distances that would take a minute to cover. Compare this to another character in the same combat who is simply standing up. There is a very large time differential. The game works very much like The Holy Grail where the guy runs at the castle and runs and runs and runs and suddenly zoom, he's there. It does not attempt to accurately simulate how long actions take, it doesn't have set 6 second rounds, the rounds are "eh, 6 seconds, 60 seconds, it's all the same".

This is fallacious logic for a couple of reasons;

You only increase the distance you move from Medium to Long (which you don't). If I'm running from one Range Band to another, I'm only ever moving a several meters to create a "new" Short Range. Effectively, Range bands stack, so Engaged + Engaged = Short, Short + Short = Medium, Medium + Short = Long, Medium + Medium = Short + Long = Extreme. Per the "Range Bands" section beginning on page 208, Engaged is listed as direct contact betwixt targets, whilst Short is listed as up to several meters away between targets. Medium can be several dozen away between targets , and Long can be "more than a few dozen." This is fine, as you can never run from "Medium" to "Long" Range. You only ever reduce range, not move between a band that you define. So, I run as a maneuver whilst my target is at Long Range, in the end, I reduce that to Medium. You've only sprinted or run "several meters" but since both Medium and Long have comparative ranges "several dozen" and "longer than a few dozen" this grey area betwixt them was only the shortest distance you could move to reduce the two - which in cinematic terms was "several meters."

The other problem in your logic is that is assumes the person who was standing up was only making the motion to get their feet. When I fall on my bum I know I stare around for a moment, pray no one saw me, maybe even shake my head if I hit it. When I do stand up, I look around to get a bearing on my surroundings to see how they've changed. All this takes time, easily enough time for someone to pull of a 15 meter dash give or take a few seconds.

For abstraction purposes, I would suggest simply using some sort of marker for each unit and tying them together with a line glass beads or some such.

No beads = engaged

1 bead = short

2 beads = long

3 beads = extreme

I have seen some very intricate paper devices that help keep things straight, but I usually find simpler works better.

You only increase the distance you move from Medium to Long (which you don't). If I'm running from one Range Band to another, I'm only ever moving a several meters to create a "new" Short Range.

That makes no sense at all. If you only ever travel several (3) meters then going to a target at long range (minimum 37 meters) would take minimum 10 maneuvers. It instead takes 4, 2 to close to medium (4-36 meters) and 1 to close to short (1-3 meters) and 1 to engage (0 meters).

Your first 2 maneuvers let you travel an undefined distance into medium, but since it requires 2 maneuvers we can surmise the distance is more than 35 meters as 1 maneuver is sufficient to travel that distance.

Your third maneuver lets you travel from medium to short which is a distance of up to 35 meters, depending on how close your move from long got you.

Your fourth maneuver lets you travel from short to engaged which is a distance of up to 3 meters, depending on how close your move from medium got you.

The other problem in your logic is that is assumes the person who was standing up was only making the motion to get their feet. When I fall on my bum I know I stare around for a moment, pray no one saw me, maybe even shake my head if I hit it. When I do stand up, I look around to get a bearing on my surroundings to see how they've changed. All this takes time, easily enough time for someone to pull of a 15 meter dash give or take a few seconds.

Your extreme inability to stand up in a reasonable time is hardly an argument that other people can't. Nor does it speak to the time it takes to push a button to open a door or other actions which take substantially less than 1 minute, but due to the system end up taking the same amount of time.

That makes no sense at all. If you only ever travel several (3) meters then going to a target at long range (minimum 37 meters) would take minimum 10 maneuvers. It instead takes 4, 2 to close to medium (4-36 meters) and 1 to close to short (1-3 meters) and 1 to engage (0 meters).

Definition of several is "more than two but not many." Definition of many is "a large number of." Several doesn't mean 3, it means from 3 to 11 (as the next largest verbal volume holder is dozen).

As long range is "a few dozen" and the definition of few is "a small number." Synonyms are; "a handful, two or three." If we postulate that long range is most likely 36 meters or more, with medium being 22~36 meters. Moving 10 meters takes something 38 meters away and makes it 28 - the same as moving long range to medium. That doesn't take all that long.

That being said, despite your insult, I'll clarify what I meant by the description of standing up - the action of opening a door, or standing up or whatever, takes into account the entire TAKT time of the process, not just the manual time of the action, but also the associated automated action times, and preparatory times to be ready to engage in another action. It is not jst a single isolated thing but all the things associated; moving to the button, hitting the button, waiting for the door to open, making sure there's no one right in your face on the other side, etc. etc. - that's what I meant to describe.

I'm sorry if I aggravated anyone, I'll take my silliness elsewhere ^.^

on a side note, I've come up with a better way for mini's in space combat when all players are on 1 ship.....

the player ship is in the middle and doesn't move and you move all other ships around it in relation to what the characters do.

the game world is from the perspective of the players, this eliminates the edge of the map dilemma

moving faster or slower away merely determines where ships lie in relation to the players for range.

you can mark circles on the map for range bands.

if you have huge amounts of ships it's not viable but for small skirmishes it can help add to story telling.

I do the same thing. If they out move an enemy ship the enemy ship is moved away from the PC ship. It works well and can relly add a 3 dimension feel since enemies can be on all sides of the PCs ship

I've always like the (American) football metaphor, in part because it seems semi-intuitive to most people (or at least Americans). The line of skirmish is engaged, the first down is the end of short ranged. The half-field is the end of medium, endzone-to-endzone is the end of long, bleachers to bleachers is the end of extreme.

Also, it is a good point as someone noted above, environmental conditions might shorten or lengthen ‘effective’ ranges.

My group often uses maps, but not miniatures. We find the map makes it easier to get everyone more or less on the same page, but we like to fudge our distances/locations.

I know this post is old but I would like to share my view. Our table is very similar to Hakon's play style. We really enjoy the roleplaying and narrative aspect of EotE but the tactical aspect most RPG offer is also really important to us, we simply "Love it".

Since EotE has a lot of versatility, to accommodate ourselves with the tactical/miniature view we took a 6 inch rule that represents Short range (about 30 feet). We also have a second rule of 1 foot long (about 60 feet) that represents Medium range (since moving from Medium to Long requires 2 maneuvers, page 209). The 1 foot rule can also represent Long range to my understanding.

Overall, we play with minis, no squares, but with those two rules. Wherever the minis (participants) are, it doesn't matter because we simply measure ranges from each participant in relation to others. Participants are not always together so tactical tables may found this house rule very easy and fast. Honestly, it goes really fast using a rule, no time consuming compare to square-based rpg.

! A tip for Medium and Long range visualisation, from the source, start with the Short rule then add up the Medium rule, it gives you both distance right away. You also know Long range since its after Medium. Easy!!!

Extreme range? We like to keep it abstract but you can totally use this house rule for snipers or other scenarios. Everything after Long is in that range.

Again, that is only for table that are playing toward the tactical aspect so don't come with the narrative play style, I totally understand it and its fine with me but its not for everybody. Enjoy!

I whipped this up last week to use in hand wavey miniature space battles >.>
http://orig08.deviantart.net/9a0a/f/2015/334/7/b/12325205_10207293994324558_1444467319_n_by_lord_malachi-d9ijvg7.jpg

was thinking of ways to use the full range of stands from Armada though. Sil values matching up with the different base sizes, and really small ones using fighter stands. This way you get shield dials on the stand in most cases. Just not sure how to work out the movement part without it taking up a full 3x6 area lol

For abstraction purposes, I would suggest simply using some sort of marker for each unit and tying them together with a line glass beads or some such.

No beads = engaged

1 bead = short

2 beads = long

3 beads = extreme

I have seen some very intricate paper devices that help keep things straight, but I usually find simpler works better.

Before playing EotE, I gathered all the Star Wars minis I had accumulated over the years. I bought everything I needed to make 1" counters out of craft-style bottle caps. I was sure I'd be busting out the map board and just using the combat rules as a guideline. Reality hit... we haven't touched a miniature or a token for personal-scale combat.

The only time we have busted out minis for space combat... and "all the players are in one ship" is the reason why. I've been using the "space is moving" method, as well, rather than moving the player's ship. I am definitely yoinking this idea.

Incidentally, we use X-Wing minis in space combat when possible and there are two 3d printers in our group (one being mine). A player is currently printing out an X-Wing scale Loronar E9 in that scale. The thing is massive in that scale but I can't wait to put it on the table with a few TIE's chasing it.

I've been using a "grid" but the spacing has very little symmetry. One "hex" might be 4" long and 3" wide, while those surrounding it might be randomly larger or smaller. There are times when someone moves long and crosses half the mat, while someone else making a similar move crosses less actual distance. Personal and space battles literally ebb and flow, back and forth across our table.

My group have had zero problems with the abstract movement or ranges, and I reinforce it with my descriptions... "Stormtroopers walk into the corridor, they're a long way away from you. There's a stack of crates a short distance away from you, and a side corridor leading left a short distance beyond that."

However, reading through this thread has inspired me to frequently alter the shapes and spacing of my "gridding"...

Shake things up a bit.

Good discussion this time.

Can I just say how refreshing it is to see these discussions about range, spacing, gridding WITHOUT the anxiety that seems to accompany so many other game systems? (Looking at you, 4e D&D.) I love that detailed mapping is a secondary consideration in the resolution of action. It's very encouraging for myself (longtime GM, new FFG GM) and for my group (experienced RPers who are expert "visualizers" but NOT spatial micromanagers).

Throw off the shackles of oppression and embrace narrative play

I use minis and maps to give a general idea, but I don't use grids or "seconds per round" because I find the narrative style to be more realistic than "simulationist" games, not less. I've never been in combat, and only been in like 2 fistfights, but I've dabbled in several martial arts, played a lot of Rugby, a lot of Soccer, and a lot of Airsoft (kinda like paintball, without the mess). All of these involve movement, preparation, keeping a certain range, direct engagement, slow-paced action and fast-paced action.

Using Airsoft as an example, when a match begins, I usually make an Athletics check and use a couple maneuvers to dash up the hill under the cover of the trees, trying to move quickly, but pace myself. Then I make a Stealth check to circle around behind our opponents and begin my approach. Maybe a Perception check is in order when I creep forward, trying to keep tabs on where my opponents are and which ones I could target. All of this takes about five minutes (it's a big place, which is probably the only reason my clumsy 200 lbs can make a stealth check). When I make my ambush, whether I win or lose, I'm probably going through several rounds of combat in less than a minute. Heck, I would say that I've made Ranged (Light) checks without even firing a shot. "Failure with advantage? Hm, how about I take aim on the enemy soldier, but I know I'm not likely to hit him from here. So I just don't shoot, and I stay under cover without him knowing I'm here?"

Now, it gets tricky, if you actually want to think of the whole match in combat terms and be fair to everyone. Obviously, I'm the Protagonist, so when I think of Round length, I'm focusing on me. But while I make those Athletics and Stealth checks, most of my teammates are running right into the action. They're taking cover, using Assists, passing around boost dice and so on. You could rule that they're each using several combat rounds, or that it just takes one, despite the hundreds of BB's they're going through. I've had fights where two groups are taking potshots at each other from heavy cover for several minutes, with nobody taking a hit. I'd call that a round. I've also had fights where I've mowed down three people in two seconds. I'd call that a round as well (I thought they were Nemeses, but they turned out to be minions!).

The point is that these things are pretty chaotic. Since it's a game, there needs to be a balance between that frenzy and being able to actually visualize the action. Some folks like the grid, which is fine. It helps a lot with the visualization and with bonuses and penalties due to positioning, range, cover and so on. But this game ain't really built like that. You don't get an attack bonus because you and your ally are flanking your opponent on the battle grid. You get the bonus because your buddy rolled a lot of advantage and said, "I hammer at him with my vibro-axe, screaming in rage. He's so focused on defending against me that he leaves himself open to Stabby McStabbo behind him."

I use minis and maps to give a general idea, but I don't use grids or "seconds per round" because I find the narrative style to be more realistic than "simulationist" games, not less.

I find it to be not just more realistic, but also more cinematic , which is more important to me than realism. It makes it feel more like a movie, which is exactly what I want in my Star Wars game.

I've been thinking of 6 squares for a move too

Ranges

Engages 1

Short 2-6

Medium 6-12

Long 12-24

extreme 24-36

I print large maps in pieces on 11x17 in sheets of paper, anywhere on the same sheet of paper is short range. the next two sheets (#2 and #3 where the index starts from 1 not zero) of paper are medium range, the next two sheets of paper (#4 and #5) are long range. What about extreme? well that's quite literally off the table because my "that's not a coffee table it's a dinner table for hobbits" coffee table is about 56 in by 34 in, so it only holds five sheets in the 11 inch direction, so to answer the OP's question I would use 11 squares = 1 maneuver, and use the range band maneuver travel cost to define the squares for each range band. And since my coffee table is 34 inches wide it would only hold short and medium range so even if you did the square conversion, the range bands are only off by 5 squares at the center of the table (in the 34 inch direction)

My advice (actually GM Chris' from a recent Order 66 Podcast episode) is to place your miniatures on the grid lines, or at intersections, on the map. Don't place them in squares. Deliberately ignore the squares. And then eyeball the distance. You will get so much more enjoyment out of the game.

No, I don't get "so much more enjoyment out of the game." In fact, if I had, I wouldn't have found a need to add grid movement for ship combat. Same with my players.

It is the single WORST part of the game. It's almost, but not quite, enough to drive me back to D6... it is the big gaping wound.

There are a large fraction of RPG gamers who want genuine tactical movement rules.

The measurement system has its quirks.

I am in a position of cover. To my left and right are two groups of stormtroopers. Assume them to be at medium range from me.

According to the rules I can spend a maneuver to change the range band to one of those groups, keeping my relative distance to the other group unchanged.

I do so, to close in on the left group of stormtroopers. To them, I am now at short range, and still at medium range to the other group.

The rules allow me to change the range band again, assuming the stormtrooper groups to stay in their position. I now choose to run past the left group,spending two maneuvers. This puts me from close range into medium range, and then half-way into long range (still counting as medium range for all purposes). So right now I am at "relative" medium range from both groups of stormtroopers. Even though I moved past one of the groups, and moved on and on.

That's when my logic broke.

Without resorting to grids, and entire re-writes of the movement system and ranged combat, we did find a slightly more tactical way of playing more to our liking. A map, a couple of miniatures, and the strange situation above is history. It is clear, that I am at medium range to the left group of stormtroopers, and by now twice or more that distance from the right group of stormtroopers. Eyeballing, or even using a simple tape measure, saves a lot of headache.

As for a re-write of movement, tactical combat, and ranges... If it works for you, please do. I played D&D 3, 4, and now 5. I know how in D20 Saga Edition a character's movement speed wasn't expressed in feet per round, but in actual squares. For all their faults people find in them, such systems were at least clear about the tactical situation.

If it works for you, it works.