Alternate Inq2 weapon range bands idea

[Kaled]

Evening all,

Those of you who were at York last weekend may remember I expressed some dissatisfaction with how weapon range bands work in Inq2.  On my way home I thought more about an alternative system which I rather like and would appreciate some feedback on.  Although intended as a discussion point for Inq2, there's no reason why the system couldn't be used with the original rules.

The current Inq2 is good in that it gets rid of the need to constantly look up range modifiers in a table and working out the modifiers is very simple, however I don't like the big steps in the modifier between the different bands.  My suggestion is as follows;

- Each ranged weapon has a range band made up of two numbers, e.g. 10/2.
- The first number is the zero-range, the range at which the to-hit modifier is zero.
- The second number is the range increment.
- For every yard the target is closer than the zero-range, you get a to-hit bonus equal to the range increment (up to a maximum of 20%).
- For every yard the target is further than the zero-range, you get a negative to to-hit modifier equal to the range increment.

Example 1
Trooper Stone is firing at a cultist 10 yards away.  His Necromunda pattern lasgun is range 12/3.
The cultist is 2 yards closer than the zero-range of the lasgun.
Stone's to-hit modifier is therefore +6.  I.e. 2 multiplied by the range increment of the lasgun (3); 2*3=6.

Example 2
The cultist survives the lasgun hit and returns fire with his autopistol; the range is still 10 yards and his autopistol is range 5/2.
Stone is 5 yards further away than the zero-range of the autopistol.
The cultists to-hit modifier is therefore -10.  I.e. 5 multiplied by the range increment of the autopistol (2); 5*2=10.

A rough equivalency of my proposed range system to the original range bands is given below (I've ignored H & I because they're weird);
   A: 5/2
   B: 5/1
   C: 10/1
   D: 15/1
   E: 12/3
   F: 15/2
   G: 5/½
   H: -
   I: -
   J: 10/2
Obviously, there would still be a fair amount of tweaking to be done to decide on the best range for each weapon - but I don't really want to get into that now - my suggestions above were just to give a rough idea how the system could compare...

The advantages I see to my system over the current Inq2 version are that you don't get the sudden steps in to-hit modifier when a target is just inside/outside a range band, and that you get a lot more flexibility in how the accuracy of a weapon changes over distance.  The range bands are still easy to remember (for example a shotgun might be 12/3 and an autopistol 5/2 etc), and there are no annoying tables to lookup.  Also, the calculations are easy to do so although there is more maths in my system, it doesn't require any difficult mental arithmetic - just subtraction and multiplication.  Unlike the current range bands, the ranges in my system are all linear, but I think the simplicity of this system more than makes up for that.  

Some weapon ranges in my system map quite well to their Inq1 counterparts - for example A, B & E; whereas others aren't quite so good, F for example.  (As well as the Inq1 range band, I've also graphed some common Inq2 ranges for comparision.)

So, what do you think?

- Dave

[Adlan]

Seems good. I'm unsure of the bonuses for being less than zero range though. Does shooting need that kind of boost?

I'd save it for a special rule, not for all guns.

[Inquisitor Cade]

It's a good idea. I've spared quite a bit of thought on alternate range rules, and did have an idea along these lines, though it wasn't as refined and didn't have the 'zero range' only an incremant value. I found the weakness of the idea was the limeted number of ranges that could be applied. Really you've only got 4 range bands, relating to the range increments 1, 2, 3 and 1/2. You could sqeeze out 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 to get 6 range bands, but otherwise you're going to have to deal with some really fiddly numbers. Let me justify why I've not taken the zero range into accout here. If you compare your range bands B, C and D isn't C the same as B with +5 acc, and D the same as C with +5 acc or B with +10 acc.

Of course you might say that 6 is plenty of range bands, you've got Heavy weapon/Sniper rifle, Long rifle, Rifle, Carbine/Shotgun, SMG/Long pistol and Pistol. However I think this lacks versitility.

The rules I currently use are that each weapon is assigned an 'effective range'. At that range they are at -50 to hit. Whatever the range to the target is compaired to the effective range is the penalty to hit compaired to -50.
I.e. at 1/2 the effective range the shot is at 1/2 x -50 = -25 to hit.
The increments used (nearest yard, nearest 5 yards, nearest 10 yards etc.) are up to the GM based on the pace of the game, the mathematical apperatus available and the importance of the shot.

So for a range 75 autocarbine firing 58 yards the GM can say 'thats about 3/4 of the range so call it -35 to hit' or he could say 'well that is 77.3% of the effective range so -38.7 to hit (which would obviously round to -39)'. Alternatively he could say 'That falls between 3/4 of the effective range and the whole effective range so -50,' or if he were being a bit more precise  'that falls between 3/4 and 4/5 so -40 to hit.

To show the versitility of this system, example effective ranges are 15 for a snub stubber, 20 for a basic stubber, 25 for a laspistol or precision stubber, 30 for an SMG or dueling laspistol, 35 for a needle pistol. 50 for a shotgun, 70 for a bolter, 80 for an autogun, 90 for a high calibre autogun, 100 for a lasgun, 120 for a sniper rifle,and 130 for a long las.

[precinctomega]

The system looks good and I'm certainly considering it (I did get your email, Dave) for INQ2, as there were a few occasions in playtesting last week when it really was a matter of a quarter of an inch whether a character did or did not get a +20 or -20 modifier to hit.  It's essentially the same system with a greater number of steps, summarized elegantly.

@Adlan - The point of giving a bonus to hit at short range is to give players genuine tactical decisions to make: either charge into a fight or stand off and blast him.  With the wide variety of modifiers in favour of each option, the right choice is never an easy one to make.

R.

[Holiad]

While I agree more gradual increments would be an improvement, I do have one small criticism-at the moment any deviation of an inch or greater from the zero range will result in a modifiers, and I'd rather there was more of a distance that was neutral. One of the things I liked about the inq2 system, as well as being a lot easier than the range bands, was that shots at 'normal' range, which constituted a fair proportion of shot's fired rolled to hit on the firer's basic BS value, with penalty's or bonuses reserved for long or short ranged shots.  I feel that's a good mechanic to have in place, so how about making "zero range" a range band instead of a fixed point, for example 5-10 would mean a weapon could be fired without modifier from 5 to 10 yards.  Also, I'd recommend keeping the sharp cut-off for 'extreme range' since that *is* intended to denote firing a weapon far beyond it's intended use, and therefore should be very difficult.

[Inquisitor Cade]

But sharp cutoffs are the problem that Kaled is trying to address. The idea that the shot would be conciderably easier or harder on the basis of a single yard is the problem.

[precinctomega]

In the case that Holiad gives, 10 would be the zero range.  Ranges of less than 10 yards would grant a positive modifier of between +1 and +5 (in the case of a 10/1 weapon) - differences that could make all the difference.

R.

[Kaled]

Really you've only got 4 range bands, relating to the range increments 1, 2, 3 and 1/2. You could sqeeze out 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 to get 6 range bands

1 1/2 and 2 1/2 seem like they'd pose problems for those people who aren't great at mental maths.  I hesitated a long time before including 1/2, but figured that one wasn't too difficult for people to calculate in their heads.  The idea was to have a system that requires very little in the way of calculations - something that would be my main criticism of your system (especially if there isn't a GM to wing it).  Obviously there's more variety in Inq1 than in my system, but I figured that the loss of a bit of versatility was worth it in the name of simplicity.  And given that some of the Inq1 range bands are hardly used, a reduction in the number of bands didn't seem like too much of a loss.

If you compare your range bands B, C and D isn't C the same as B with +5 acc, and D the same as C with +5 acc or B with +10 acc.

True, that is a good point - we can get rid of the Acc. statistic for the weapon.

While I agree more gradual increments would be an improvement, I do have one small criticism-at the moment any deviation of an inch or greater from the zero range will result in a modifiers, and I'd rather there was more of a distance that was neutral.

True, however the modifiers at that range will be small, and I guess you could round the modifiers off to the nearest 5.  I did consider a few other ideas, such as working in increments of 5 yards (or even having different increments for different weapons) but it seemed easier to just stick to 1 yard increments.  I felt that being able to describe a weapon's range in terms of just two numbers was the neatest solution, although I also considered a three number system where you had a zero-range and different increments for close and long range, but any benefit didn't seem worth the extra complexity.  Also I quite liked the idea that the exact range has a direct bearing on the modifier rather than having bands, but I appreciate that's a matter of personal preference.

Also, I'd recommend keeping the sharp cut-off for 'extreme range' since that *is* intended to denote firing a weapon far beyond it's intended use, and therefore should be very difficult.

I guess you could do that easily enough using this system, however I figured that 'maximum' range (I assume that's the one you meant as that's the one where you need the 01-05 to hit) is quite unlikely to crop up anyway and under my system there would be a hefty modifier at that range anyway - hence I figured it wasn't worth making a special rule for.

To expand on this idea, I also had a couple of thoughts about how some of the gunsights could work with this system (I hope they work - I haven't thought them through in too much detail);
- Range-finder - any negative to-hit modifier as a result of firing at at target beyond the zero-range of the weapon is halved.
- Telescopic Sight - the zero-range of the weapon is increased to 20 (or 25?), but no to-hit bonus is applied when firing at a target closer than this distance.

[Holiad]

In the case that Holiad gives, 10 would be the zero range.  Ranges of less than 10 yards would grant a positive modifier of between +1 and +5 (in the case of a 10/1 weapon) - differences that could make all the difference.

R.

Actually, the example I would have modifiers for ranges below 5, or above ten, with 5-10 having no modifiers. Like I said, I feel it's a good basic premise that for shots at "normal range", you use basic BS, so I'd rather keep that range more or less as it is rather than reduce it to a single point.

If you compare your range bands B, C and D isn't C the same as B with +5 acc, and D the same as C with +5 acc or B with +10 acc.

True, that is a good point - we can get rid of the Acc. statistic for the weapon.

Actually, I'm inclined to say that's another reason to have larger normal bands-a long range shouldn't automatically equate to a large accuracy bonus at medium ranges. Possibly put a cap on the bonus possible for short range?

While I agree more gradual increments would be an improvement, I do have one small criticism-at the moment any deviation of an inch or greater from the zero range will result in a modifiers, and I'd rather there was more of a distance that was neutral.

True, however the modifiers at that range will be small, and I guess you could round the modifiers off to the nearest 5.  I did consider a few other ideas, such as working in increments of 5 yards (or even having different increments for different weapons) but it seemed easier to just stick to 1 yard increments.  I felt that being able to describe a weapon's range in terms of just two numbers was the neatest solution, although I also considered a three number system where you had a zero-range and different increments for close and long range, but any benefit didn't seem worth the extra complexity.  Also I quite liked the idea that the exact range has a direct bearing on the modifier rather than having bands, but I appreciate that's a matter of personal preference.

Also, I'd recommend keeping the sharp cut-off for 'extreme range' since that *is* intended to denote firing a weapon far beyond it's intended use, and therefore should be very difficult.

I guess you could do that easily enough using this system, however I figured that 'maximum' range (I assume that's the one you meant as that's the one where you need the 01-05 to hit) is quite unlikely to crop up anyway and under my system there would be a hefty modifier at that range anyway - hence I figured it wasn't worth making a special rule for.[/quote]

Actually I was talking about the -50 for firing a weapon at over double its range band, which did come up once or twice, and as I said does represent shooting a weapon far outside its intended parameters-in the cases in question, the combatants were snap firing pistols at long distances with no aiming involved, which should be a very difficult shot.

[Inquisitor Cade]

I really don't think that 4 range bands are enough. The differences between the zero ranges aren't really significant. You say that the acc stat, but surely it's simpler to have a range stat with a single value, and an acc value which is the same as it is in Inc 1.

[Kaled]

Actually, the example I would have modifiers for ranges below 5, or above ten, with 5-10 having no modifiers. Like I said, I feel it's a good basic premise that for shots at "normal range", you use basic BS, so I'd rather keep that range more or less as it is rather than reduce it to a single point.

So you're suggesting weapons be given range statistics such as 5-10/2 - i.e. a zero-range band and a range increment.  That doesn't sound too bad to me, except that it reduces the positive modifier for being at close range.  Another option I considered was the positive modifers could be based on the weapon type, with pistols being easier to use at close range than basic weapons, which in turn are easier to use up close than heavy weapons.

Actually, I'm inclined to say that's another reason to have larger normal bands-a long range shouldn't automatically equate to a large accuracy bonus at medium ranges. Possibly put a cap on the bonus possible for short range?

I capped the positive modifier at 20%, but that was just an arbitrary number I picked as it matched the bonus in Inq2.

Actually I was talking about the -50 for firing a weapon at over double its range band, which did come up once or twice, and as I said does represent shooting a weapon far outside its intended parameters-in the cases in question, the combatants were snap firing pistols at long distances with no aiming involved, which should be a very difficult shot.

But in the current Inq2 system that same pistol can be fired at 40 yards just as easily as at 20 yards.  To address your concern though, I'd say it's a matter of tweaking the weapon range in my system - for example a range 12/3 pistol will have a -50% modifier at about 30-odd yards.  You could adjust that by making it 5/3 and it'd be -50% at around 20-odd yards.  As I said, there's still plenty of work to do to decide on the appropriate ranges for each weapon.  I just like the idea of having one system that works across the whole range of the weapon.

EDIT:

The differences between the zero ranges aren't really significant.

I thought the same at first, but when I started putting models on the table and working out the ranges & modifers I decided that the difference was significant enough and the system feels quite good (to me anyway).

[N01H3r3]

One thing that sprang to mind for increasing the number of distinct range bands was to alter the definition of range increment.

Essentially range increment goes from being the modifier applied per yard difference from the zero-range, and instead is the number of yards difference at which a modifier (assume 5% for now, as it's a good number to start with, even if it might not be the most appropriate one in practice) is applied.

It might be easier to explain with an example.

A Guardsman is firing an an oncoming cultist with his Kantrael-pattern Lasgun (zero-range 12y, increment 2y); the cultist is 30 yards away. As the enemy is 9 full range increments from the Guardsman, the guardsman takes a -45% penalty on his attack roll.

As you'd only count full range increments, anything within 1 range increment either way of the weapon's zero-range suffers no penalty, granting an inherent zero-range band without having to specify it (so for the abovementioned Kantrael-pattern lasgun, anything more than 10 yards but less than 14 yards is within the weapon's zero-range, as that covers everything within one range increment either way of the zero-range of 12 yards).

[The_fire_cleans]

I like the sound of NO1H3r3's  suggestion, it feels like a simpler way of having a greater spread of range bands, and would be a lot simpler to calculate.
With this you could have a sniper rifle that  does not lose or gain much accuracy as the distance changes a lot easier, rather than having some small fraction like 1/3 per yard you could have an increment of 10 (I know they don't equate) and therefore make life a lot easier, but without having ridiculous jumps.

[MarcoSkoll]

How about this for a quick and dirty fix? After four "zero ranges", you start applying double the hit modifier for each yard beyond that distance.

So for a 10/2 weapon being used at 60 yards (an unusually long way for Inquisitor, but what the hey.)
You apply -2 per yard for the 30 yards between 10 yards and 40 yards, then -4 per yard for the next 20 yards, making for a total of -140.

It reintroduces the concept of an extreme range (but without it being a hard cut off). Yeah, it's a little more complex, but it could work.

The 12/3 equivalence for Range E would however need fixing, because that would give it a longer "extreme range" than it should have.

You could also throw a little more on that, say a letter suffix that tells you whether you get close range bonuses, penalties (which would make Range Band H easier to reincorporate, particularly if Acc was kept as a minor thing) ... or just no +/- at close range at all.

Like that, it's a pretty versatile system, and actually offers a more accurate way of representing accuracy and range than the current system.
I never much liked Acc as a way of representing accuracy (even though I've used it in the RIA), because in reality, a super pin-point accurate weapon is no advantage at short range, but it's a big bonus at long range (unlike the completely constant bonus it offers under the Inq 1 rules).

[Kaled]

I like the sound of NO1H3r3's  suggestion, it feels like a simpler way of having a greater spread of range bands, and would be a lot simpler to calculate.

Interesting that you say that - I considered an idea much like N01H3r3's but felt that subtraction and multiplication was easier than subtraction and division.  Some players ability to do maths in their head is pretty poor, but I guess as long as you kept the range increments to easy number then I think this idea would work fine too.

You could also throw a little more on that, say a letter suffix that tells you whether you get close range bonuses, penalties (which would make Range Band H easier to reincorporate

The main reason I didn't worry too much about losing range H was that PO has some rules for Executioner shells in Inq2 that seem pretty good (and none of the other common weapons use that range band).

On the subject of range bands, I've just done a quick tally on how many weapons in the rulebook use each range band (A: 10, B: 2, C: 7, D: 3, E: 19, F: 7, G: 1, H: 2, I: 4, J: 5).  And when it comes to weapons that are commonly used in games I'd say the common ones crop up even more.  Thus I don't think having only four increments in my system is a major problem.  The zero-ranges make a fair difference, and in most games we're only dealing with ranges well under 30 yards anyway.

There's a range of good ideas in this thread - hopefully enough to give Robey some food for thought as to which might fit well into the Inq2 ruleset.  I guess what's needed now is some playtesting of the various options...