Jump to content
KillingGoblinBabiesIsDishonorable

Nothing Personell Kid: A look into "why can I teleport?" aka "What's the deal with range bands"

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Yandia said:

I think you are refering to "To move a distance of range 6 or farther, a character must generally undertake a journey in narrative time."

So you can argue that moving is to or from range band 6 is not allowed by the normal move one range band thing, because it takes narrative time to get there.

Two problems with that:

1. From 5 to 3 is still 400m to 10 m, which is on a round length of 15s about 26 m/s. That is a fast moving car (100km/h or 60miles/h), but we are not breaking the sound barrier.

2. The 3 samurai problem:

Kakita A is 400m from Doji B, who is attacked by Tsuruchi C further down the line (also 400m). Kakita A tries to reach Doji B to protect him, so she moves up to 10m close from range band 5 to range band 3. From Tsuruchi C perspective Kakita A is in Range band 6 and should not be able to join the fight, but after her turn she is now in range band ... and here I really have problems. Still in 6 because she can't move closer? Is she in 5 because she is now roughly in the same spot as Doji B, or is she in range band 4 because she was in range band 6 before and moved 2 range bands and is now closer to Tsuruchi C in terms of range bands dispite being further away in terms of meter?

The range band system looks good on paper, but as soon as you really want to apply the rules they break appart. The range band rules are only good as long as you ignore any movement rules and handle movement narratively (which I would not have a problem with, but that is not what is written in the book because for some reason you can move 2 range bands).

My favorite 3 Samurai problem:

You and your friend are hugging (Range band 0), an arrow whizzes by your head from range 5! You cannot let this stand! Entering water you simple manuever one range closer, range 1 from your friend, range 4 from your enemy. Then you take your once per round move, Range 2 from your friend, range 3 from your enemy. You are now 4 meters from your friend, and 10 meters from the enemy, *even though your friend and the enemy are 400 meters away from each other still*...Not to mention you're now 390 meters closer to the enemy, by moving 4 meters away from your stationary friend...Truly a samurai's greatest ability is to bend space around them, I don't know why that's not brought up more often in the narrative...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But... you're trying to move relative to two things at the same time.
Of course it breaks the system.

What you should be doing is either:
 - move away from your friends, but not closer to the enemy. Not very useful.
 - move closer to the enemy, but not farther from your friends. Much better, as it lets you face the enemy while allowing your friends to Guard you.

 

Unless samurai have access to the Spice Melange, and are in fact Navigators, with "the ability to fold space. That is travel to any part of the universe, without moving."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why I guess there's an argument for a quick 'not to scale' map and just decide the range band whenever it's relevant, rather than a desire to additively track any changes.

 

Let me put it this way, a good example is in the Ronin's Path adventure!


 

Quote

 

Skeletal Skirmish (P.218)

Composition of the enemy group: If the Crab are winning, use one Skeletal Bushi per character. If they are tied, use one and a half as many Skeletal Bushi as there are PCs (rounding down). If the Crab are losing, add a leader to the group (preferably Moto Morikazu if he is still alive, but any of the leaders listed on page 217 will do). Note that if the Skeletal Bushi outnumber the PCs, some of them will keep going toward the watchtower while the rest are engaged in combat.

Terrain: If the Crab are winning, some fortifications on the Wall remain that can hinder the skeletons’ progress; the skeletal bushi begin the scene on the other side of two range bands of Entangling terrain. If the Crab are losing, the Wall is strung with debris and corpses: the PCs begin the scene in Dangerous terrain that extends one range band in the direction of their foes. If the two sides are tied, the terrain is hazardous, with pieces of the Wall broken or about to break. At the start of each round, choose a PC or skeletal bushi; the terrain within one range band of that character’s current location becomes Dangerous terrain.

The characters start the scene at range 3 of their enemies. The skeletal bushi begin at range 5 of the watchtower, moving toward it. If even one of the skeletons escapes, it will strike an unaware Tomonatsu and injure her, meaning she won’t be present in the next scene, which immediately follows.

 

Lets....ignore the fact that the Commander of the Third Watchtower Garrison apparently has no close protection, and nor are any of her troops fighting from the watchtower itself rather than the walls, and just focus on the range bands.

  • Assume the players move first (skeletons are focus 4 minions, after all). Moto Morikaze might move first, but he'd just move up and engage one PC, so he and they can be ignored. 
  • We're told the PCs are at range 3 - thrown object range - so a few tens of metres from the skeletons.
  • They move their free range band (range 3 to range 2) and either Strike (if armed with Yari) or set Water Stance to move a second range band (range 2 to range 1) and Strike (if armed with Range 1 weapons). 
  • Some of the skeletons fight back, others head off to the tower (assume they split into two squads).
  • They can't use water stance's 'special rule' so assume they move their free range band, and then use a maneuver action. Passing the Fitness check is possible but unlikely - it's entangling terrain, so it's TN4, and since they all need to move together to remain as a squad, the skeletons all need to maneuver so can't assist one another. Besides which, I as the GM don't want the minion enemies forced to split up by some passing and some failing, so they don't take the (optional) check.
  • This reduces the range to the watchtower from range 5 - (a couple of hundred metres) - to range 3 - (maybe half a dozen metres)
  • So far so good.
  • The problem:
    • Logically, anyone trying to chase the skeletons is near where they started...and the range to the skeletons is, to the level of accuracy that matters without a map, a few hundred metres away:
      • You started 'pretty much next to' the skeletal bushi, and they were a few hundred metres from the tower.
      • They are now pretty much next to the tower, meaning they are a few hundred metres from you. 
    • Which, to the level of accuracy that the range bands use, is range 5. 
      • Which means by moving 2 range bands themselves, they've moved themselves 4 range bands away from you (assuming you were in range 1 blade's reach of them last turn). 
      • Which means you'll have real trouble catching them this turn. (You can make a free move, then a water-stance maneuver, then an action-maneuver), which gets you three range bands - enough to get to range 2 of them but unable to strike.
        • To actually catch them and cut them down with a sword, you'd need your free move (range 5 to 4) , plus a water-stance maneuver (Range 4 to 3) plus enough successes on the Fitness test (which logically must have to deal with the entangling terrain) to move two extra range bands (hence a unicorn Warhorse if you're mounted). 

Now this makes little sense;

  • The Skeletal Bushi all came over the wall pretty much together, such that had the GM been inclined to, he could have formed them all up into one squad rather than having one small squad to fight and one small squad to run for the objective.
  • I was in stabbing range of the squad's location.
  • They cannot move any faster than I can - if anything, the reverse, because I can get a 'free move' from water stance and they can't. 
  • How then can I logically have trouble getting back into stabbing range after we both move in the same direction?
  • The problem is a sort of Xenos' paradox effect:
    • Because of the way range bands work, each time you move towards your objective about 3/4 of the remaining distance.
    • Which means, each turn, if I move 90% of the way towards you, and you then move 75% of the way towards a more distant objective, it's very difficult for me to catch you, even though the stats say I'm moving 'faster'.
    • If I'm looking at something a couple of hundred metres away, it is (obviously) range 5. But separate things  that are range 5 from me in roughly the same area (as far as I'm concerned) might be range 0, or range 1, or even range 3 from each other and it'd make no meaningful difference to the range band of each of them from me

 

1 hour ago, Exarkfr said:

Unless samurai have access to the Spice Melange, and are in fact Navigators, with "the ability to fold space. That is travel to any part of the universe, without moving."

What did you think the Strike With No Thought action was? :ph34r:

Edited by Magnus Grendel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, KillingGoblinBabiesIsDishonorable said:

My favorite 3 Samurai problem:

You and your friend are hugging (Range band 0), an arrow whizzes by your head from range 5! You cannot let this stand! Entering water you simple manuever one range closer, range 1 from your friend, range 4 from your enemy. Then you take your once per round move, Range 2 from your friend, range 3 from your enemy. You are now 4 meters from your friend, and 10 meters from the enemy, *even though your friend and the enemy are 400 meters away from each other still*...Not to mention you're now 390 meters closer to the enemy, by moving 4 meters away from your stationary friend...Truly a samurai's greatest ability is to bend space around them, I don't know why that's not brought up more often in the narrative...

But this is abstracted for ease of use, not accuracy. Your looking at a hammer and getting mad it's not a screwdriver.  Near, far, really far, and too far to matter. That's all that really matters. Lots of really good games use range bands (or abstract zones) rather than any kind of accurate movement tracking. 

Come to think of it movement rates are kind of like exuberance rules: you either think they are really important or are a huge waste of time. There are lots of people in the second camp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

What did you think the Strike With No Thought action was? :ph34r:

And as their ennemies don't use shields, Kakita Duelists can be fast on defence and on attack...
Yes... makes sense  :P

11 minutes ago, mortthepirate said:

But this is abstracted for ease of use, not accuracy. Your looking at a hammer and getting mad it's not a screwdriver.  Near, far, really far, and too far to matter. That's all that really matters. Lots of really good games use range bands (or abstract zones) rather than any kind of accurate movement tracking. 

Come to think of it movement rates are kind of like exuberance rules: you either think they are really important or are a huge waste of time. There are lots of people in the second camp

Yet, in this game, range is important, for nearly every action and technique you can perform has a range (even Shūji are 0-4).
Many weapons have a single value for range, meaning that you will have to move a lot to be able to strike anyone.

Abstract rules are fine as long as you do not need anything concrete.
Here, the rules are either too abstract for the level of details required by skirmish scenes, or the techniques/actions are way too detailed.

Rules that are either important but too much of a headache to make them work, or a waste of time that you will handwave are not what the game needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Exarkfr said:

But... you're trying to move relative to two things at the same time.
Of course it breaks the system.

What you should be doing is either:
 - move away from your friends, but not closer to the enemy. Not very useful.
 - move closer to the enemy, but not farther from your friends. Much better, as it lets you face the enemy while allowing your friends to Guard you.

 

Unless samurai have access to the Spice Melange, and are in fact Navigators, with "the ability to fold space. That is travel to any part of the universe, without moving."

How does one go about moving closer to the enemy without moving farther away from your friend if your friend is right next to where you were before you moved and isn't moving? If an enemy bushi is standing range 1 from his two friends and then charges 4 range bands towards you, are all of his friends still range 1 from him? Are they all range 1 from YOU now too? Is there a celestial belt tying their waists together, or does he exist in two places at once?

 

36 minutes ago, mortthepirate said:

But this is abstracted for ease of use, not accuracy. Your looking at a hammer and getting mad it's not a screwdriver.  Near, far, really far, and too far to matter. That's all that really matters. Lots of really good games use range bands (or abstract zones) rather than any kind of accurate movement tracking. 

Come to think of it movement rates are kind of like exuberance rules: you either think they are really important or are a huge waste of time. There are lots of people in the second camp. 

I'm looking at a hammer and wondering why it's not a screwdriver because it's labelled as "screwdriver" in the box. I'm not making up faults or going out of my way to find little loopholes to complain about, I'm taking the exact rules exactly as they are printed and using them, and these are the kinds of problems that arise. If you feel comfortable hand-waving them away and saying "don't think too hard about it" then that's fine, more power to you, but that doesn't change the fact that, as written, movement involves bending space and time around you every time you take a step. If they wanted it to be abstract they shouldn't have defined the exact ranges, and if they wanted accuracy they shouldn't have made it so abstract. It's like they wanted both and got neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KillingGoblinBabiesIsDishonorable said:

How does one go about moving closer to the enemy without moving farther away from your friend if your friend is right next to where you were before you moved and isn't moving? If an enemy bushi is standing range 1 from his two friends and then charges 4 range bands towards you, are all of his friends still range 1 from him? Are they all range 1 from YOU now too? Is there a celestial belt tying their waists together, or does he exist in two places at once?

I... was making fun of the system.
The rules never explains how you are supposed to move, and range bands are only defined as "distance between 2 things handled abstractly".
How are you supposed to handle every thing else in the scene, if all you ever do is "change your relative distance to 1 other thing"
This all breaks when more than 2 things have to be tracked, as your "3 Samurai problem" showed.

If you track 3 points (your scenario), it fails.
If you track only a pair of points (my "extreme" scenarios), it fails.
If you use yourself as the reference when moving (thus not really using range bands, but discrete movement), it fails too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Exarkfr said:

I... was making fun of the system.
The rules never explains how you are supposed to move, and range bands are only defined as "distance between 2 things handled abstractly".
How are you supposed to handle every thing else in the scene, if all you ever do is "change your relative distance to 1 other thing"
This all breaks when more than 2 things have to be tracked, as your "3 Samurai problem" showed.

If you track 3 points (your scenario), it fails.
If you track only a pair of points (my "extreme" scenarios), it fails.
If you use yourself as the reference when moving (thus not really using range bands, but discrete movement), it fails too.

Whew. Is it bad that I really thought "You're trying to move relative to two things at the same time. Of course it breaks the system." to be someone's sincere attempt at a defense? Probably because it's not the worst one i've seen so far...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are using the wrong points of reference when moving and it is making some confusing situations and misreadings of the rules.

When you move, you start at zero and move x number of bands from the point where you started. Each time you stop/take an action/there is a change in positioning you have to remeasure. This is why it is important to know if movement within a round stacks or if each movement is measured and applied independently. 

The system isn't intuitive and isn't easy for a lot of people to visualize. The devs need to clarify and need to add illustrations for various scenarios.

The way the system works, it is possible to start within range 4 from a target, move  3 range bands toward the target and still be within range 4 of the target because bands 4+ are so much larger. Unless a character makes the roll to move 4 bands in one turn, they could end up taking 9 or more turns to reach the target.

In the image below we have zero as the black dot, band 1, band 2, band 3, and then band 4.

range-bands-0-4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KillingGoblinBabiesIsDishonorable said:

Whew. Is it bad that I really thought "You're trying to move relative to two things at the same time. Of course it breaks the system." to be someone's sincere attempt at a defense? 

And here you are, wondering what was my approach on my Courtesy roll... :lol:
Shall we start an Intrigue ?

8 minutes ago, jmoschner said:

People are using the wrong points of reference when moving and it is making some confusing situations and misreadings of the rules.

Well, answer this please (genuine question):
 - You have a katana in hand
 - an archer is shooting you from range 5
- how many bands do you have to move to reach them and cut them down ?

Edited by Exarkfr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay... I thought I would do something productive and propose an alternative system:

  • Range 0-2 becomes "engaged"
  • Range 3-5 becomes "not engaged"
  • Range 6 becomes "obviously not part of this conflict" or a "late arrival".

Within a conflict multiple groups of engagement can form. Sometimes there might be limitations how many groups can form for example when you are in a house each room might only have one engagement group and you have to leave the room to disengage.

During a round in the movement phase you can disengage from your current group to join another group or create a new group containing only yourself (other people might want to join your new group in the future, so you are still a group in that sense).

Engaged people can do melee attacks (or other short range effects) to each other and not engaged people can do range attacks (or other long range effects) to each other given that there is not something blocking in between. Example would be a house again containing walls between diffrent rooms.

And honestly from a narrative perspective I do not think more is neccessary.

Edited by Yandia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jmoschner said:

..()
The system isn't intuitive and isn't easy for a lot of people to visualize. The devs need to clarify and need to add illustrations for various scenarios.

The way the system works, it is possible to start within range 4 from a target, move  3 range bands toward the target and still be within range 4 of the target because bands 4+ are so much larger. Unless a character makes the roll to move 4 bands in one turn, they could end up taking 9 or more turns to reach the target.
..()

How? If I move one from standard, one from manuever, one from water and one from an opportunity on my manuever roll, whether I add that up and say "I move 4 bands closer to band 5, 5-4=1, i'm in range 1." or "I move 1 band closer, now he's in range 4. I move another closer, now im range 3. I move another closer, now i'm range 2. I move another closer, now i'm range 1." it comes out to one either way. There is nothing in the rules that dictates you could ever move 3 range bands towards a target and end up in the same range band as you started unless you're purposefully going forward and back for some reason.

Edited by KillingGoblinBabiesIsDishonorable
dumbly worded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm leaning towards a particular interpretation for the sake of my own sanity.  This is not RAW, but it might work for you.

If we make the assumption each range band is approximately double the previous one (it isn't, but for the sake of simplicity):

Ryu is standing on the centre of a wall, with towers on either end.  The towers are range 4 from one other.  Therefore, Ryu is about range 3 from each tower.

A stone's throw is the most a person can move in a single turn, less if moving close to opponents.  When dealing with short range bands, just move discrete bands towards/away relative to your opponents.  When dealing with relatively free movement, estimate based on stone's throws.  4 is about two turns.  5 is about four turns.  Add turns or tests if the going is tough. 6 is basically outside the scope of the fight unless you wait for them to come into range narratively (at which point initiative picks up when they enter range band 5).

Edited by GaGrin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Exarkfr said:

Well, answer this please (genuine question):
 - You have a katana in hand
 - an archer is shooting you from range 5
- how many bands do you have to move to reach them and cut them down ?

It all depends on how many bands you can go at once. Range bands are not linear and distance moved is relative to your starting position. Assuming all bands within a round stack, it could take as little as one round to reach them (with a good fitness roll) and then attack the next round. Or it could take 11+ rounds to reach them, if you're only able to move 3 bands at a time.

 

8 minutes ago, KillingGoblinBabiesIsDishonorable said:

How? If I move one from standard, one from manuever, one from water and one from an opportunity on my manuever roll, whether I add that up and say "I move 4 bands closer to band 5, 5-4=1, i'm in range 1." or "I move 1 band closer, now he's in range 4. I move another closer, now im range 3. I move another closer, now i'm range 2. I move another closer, now i'm range 1." it comes out to one either way. There is nothing in the rules that dictates you could ever move 3 range bands towards a target and end up in the same range band as you started unless you're purposefully going forward and back for some reason.

Range bands are not linear so 4 minus 3 doesn't always equal 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jmoschner said:

It all depends on how many bands you can go at once. Range bands are not linear and distance moved is relative to your starting position. Assuming all bands within a round stack, it could take as little as one round to reach them (with a good fitness roll) and then attack the next round. Or it could take 11+ rounds to reach them, if you're only able to move 3 bands at a time.

Wait wait wait.

You really believe it is the intent of the rules the it will take 33 range bands of movement to move from range 5 to 1 range  ?
That sounds a lot not abstract at all

And... how do you determine the numbers, to begin with ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmoschner said:

People are using the wrong points of reference when moving and it is making some confusing situations and misreadings of the rules.

When you move, you start at zero and move x number of bands from the point where you started. Each time you stop/take an action/there is a change in positioning you have to remeasure. This is why it is important to know if movement within a round stacks or if each movement is measured and applied independently. 

The system isn't intuitive and isn't easy for a lot of people to visualize. The devs need to clarify and need to add illustrations for various scenarios.

The way the system works, it is possible to start within range 4 from a target, move  3 range bands toward the target and still be within range 4 of the target because bands 4+ are so much larger. Unless a character makes the roll to move 4 bands in one turn, they could end up taking 9 or more turns to reach the target.

In the image below we have zero as the black dot, band 1, band 2, band 3, and then band 4.

range-bands-0-4.png

It’s hard to express my issue with this succinctly, but I’ll try: to me this post tries to explain how the mechanics are supposed to be interpreted, but not how they are supposed to work. What is the purpose of having relative range bands? I can see how they provide a mechanic for different melee ranges and I don’t see anybody having any problems with that part of it, but that doesn’t require more than 3 bands and doesn’t involve much more movement than shuffling forward and backward a bit to leverage your weapon’s specific reach. Where do these bands come in with regards to actual movement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Exarkfr said:

Wait wait wait.

You really believe it is the intent of the rules the it will take 33 range bands of movement to move from range 5 to 1 range  ?
That sounds a lot not abstract at all

And... how do you determine the numbers, to begin with ?

I think they want to make you make a fitness roll to travel any kind of real distance, and the side effect is that with a non-linear distance system it can result in stuff like that. The rules for range bands are garbage that need fixing or heavy clarification.

 

Looking at the diagram below.

Line A: Red and Blue are 4 range bands apart.
Line B: Red moves 3 range bands from its starting position.
Line C: Now when we measure from Red's current position, we see that Blue is still 4 range bands away.rb.thumb.jpg.f1f5c7cea50ff93f53f12975ab33ee65.jpg

 

If red can only move 3 bands from its original position each round, and we have to start over measuring each round, then we can extrapolate from there how many rounds it will take to reach a target.

It doesn't make sense that if Red moves 3 bands it would be within melee of Blue if Blue is near the outer edge of 4, but might if blue is at the inner edge of 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly it looks like range bands are more complicated and confusing then fun. It would be much simpler to just use a grid system (Pathfinder/D&D), or Zones as another person suggested. Relative range bands, and how they are implemented currently just makes for a headache for the players and for the GM who needs to run the game and keep track of all the ranges. More is less in a situation like this, these rules need to be either replaced of heavily altered (I support replaced at this point).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jmoschner said:

It doesn't make sense that if Red moves 3 bands it would be within melee of Blue if Blue is near the outer edge of 4, but might if blue is at the inner edge of 4.

But, there is not inner or outer edge.
Blue is at Range 4 in both cases.

Doing the distinction involves using a map and distances.
Which means... no more range bands.

When I see all your diagrams and rulers, I can't help but think X-Wing or Armada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jmoschner said:

Range bands are not linear so 4 minus 3 doesn't always equal 1.

How do you propose? What in the book indicated that range bands "aren't linear" and that 4-3 doesn't always = 1? Range bands are a measure of distance between two points. If you move one range band closer, you're decreasing the range between you and the second point by 1. What leads you to believe that doesn't translate to 4 range band difference turning into 3 range band difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jmoschner

Checking the Skeletal Skirmish scene (p218), I really think your way of moving is not what should be done.

The Skeletal Bushi are Range 5 from the watchtower, with the PC in-between at range 3.
The PCs are to stop them before they reach the tower.
If it takes, what, 20 rounds for the skeletons (they are minions, so can't benefit from water stance extra action) to do that, doesn't it give the characters far too much time to succeed ? Even if the battle in not going well and a leader is present ?

 

9 minutes ago, KillingGoblinBabiesIsDishonorable said:

Range bands are a measure of distance between two points. If you move one range band closer, you're decreasing the range between you and the second point by 1.

I can see how he is coming at it.
Instead of moving towards a targets, he moves away from his starting position. So it still relative, in a way. Just relative to something else.

Edited by Exarkfr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, KillingGoblinBabiesIsDishonorable said:

What in the book indicated that range bands "aren't linear" and that 4-3 doesn't always = 1?

"Note that range bands increase in scale as they increase in number—
the difference in the distance between range 0 and range 1 (from arm’s
reach to sword reach) and the distance between range 5 and range 6
(from a hundred or more meters to the edge of perceptible range) is quite
substantial."

24 minutes ago, KillingGoblinBabiesIsDishonorable said:

What leads you to believe that doesn't translate to 4 range band difference turning into 3 range band difference?

See the diagram in an above post to see how  a person can move a several range bands within a single band.

 

23 minutes ago, Exarkfr said:

Checking the Skeletal Skirmish scene (p218), I really think your way of moving is not what should be done.

The Skeletal Bushi are Range 5 from the watchtower, with the PC in-between at range 3.
The PCs are to stop them before they reach the tower.
If it takes, what, 20 rounds for the skeletons (they are minions, so can't benefit from water stance extra action) to do that, doesn't it give the characters far too much time to succeed ? Even if the battle in not going well and a leader is present ?

If you look at the rules when the adventure was written, they had 2 bands from stance, charging they could roll 5k3, thus potentially moving up to 4 bands in the first round.  So the skeletons could get there in as little as two rounds. If you follow the suggestion of running them as an npc squad, then you could get one skeleton to the tower in the first round (assuming 4 pcs that would give you 4 skeletons minimum with 3 assisting so the charge roll is r8k6, with a potential of reaching band 5 just on roll. If they are losing the leader should probably make the distance through the normal 2 movement and a charge, while the NPC squad at 1.5x the pcs would give one skeleton a charge roll of 10k8, all but ensuring the skeleton makes it the 5 bands in a single round).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes even less sense.

It would means that the distance you move dependant on whether the moves are combined or not.
 - If you move 1 band at a time, your target is 50 moves away.
 - If you move 2 band at a time, your target is 25 moves away.
 - If you move 3 band at a time, your target is 10 moves away.
 - If you move 4 band at a time, your target is 2 moves away.

Your way of reading is either super slow or just as fast as mine.

And, again, why bother with range bands to begin with ? Why not use distance ?

 

Really hope they will make a "Focus Topic" on that soon.
Range Bands are one of the two reasons I can't stand their Star Wars RPG. I don't want to have to pass L5R because of the same problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Exarkfr said:

Range Bands are one of the two reasons I can't stand their Star Wars RPG. I don't want to have to pass L5R because of the same problem.

Just drop it and replace with regular distances. Keep the first three bands for melee combat, but don’t use the range bands for actual movement. 

It’s a bit annoying, sure, but hardly something to pass on this edition for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. But if the devs could make it clear how it is supposed to work and have something consistant for "longer" distances (ie. the gap that range band 4 creates & the "journey in narrative time" about range 6), it would be much better.

Buying a system to change a big part of it is... not very attractive.
Plus, I'd rather change something that I understand, than change something because I don't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...