Alternate Inq2 weapon range bands idea

[MarcoSkoll]

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).

Well, that's much what I did for the RIA - other than one type of scope that "overlays" Range band H over another band, only tracking ammunition uses Range H.

(Similarly, I've practically scrapped Band I, because there appears to be little sane reason to apply it.)

Anyway, I have little idea about the INQ2 rules other than odd snippets (most of which were lost in the forum crash), so you'll have to forgive my ignorance of them. I'm forced into viewing this from the perspective of how it would fit into my games.

[Inquisitor Cade]

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.

Is that 9 full increments from the guardsman or from the zero range (my maths suggests the latter). Similarly to Kaled's scheme I had an idea like this, but I never thought that the modifier for each increment could be anything other that 1. I scrapped it because it meant working with range incerments of fractions of inches, but obviously that isn't so much of a hinderance here.
This system to suffers from a limeted number of range bands. Also systems where the to hit modifier is a multiple of 5 seems to squander the D100 system of inquisitor and would be better suited to a D20 system where 5% is the smallest possible increment.


I think I still favour my modded version of rules that I think are ripped off INQ 2. I tried to explain them before but garbled it a bit, but basically, each weapon is given an 'effective' range is the range at which it suffers -50% to hit and the to hit penalty is proportional to the range (i.e. at half the effective range the to hit penalty is -25%).
The number of increments that are used (i.e. weather the range is rounded to the nearest 5, 10 or whatever) and thus the precision to which the to hit modifier is worked out can be chosen by the individual GM based on the circumstance (e.g. with a sniper shot that is pivotal to the outcome of the game he might want to spare a few seconds to work out the modifier to the nearest yard.)


Marco, I really like your 'dirty' fix to Kaled's rules as they solve the issue (well it was an issue for me) of the limeted number of range bands, though it does up the complexity. I suppose it won't be an issue at short-medium ranges so the added complexity would only apply to the longer ranged shots, where a bit more tension and complexity might be appropriate.

[Kaled]

I've been playing around with the ideas suggested by Cade & N01H3r3.

N01H3r3's idea works well - range increments 2 to 10 look good, but some of those make for difficult calculations (7 for example).  The main problem is that you don't really get much of a positive to hit modifier, especially with the larger increments (as only full increments count) - and a positive modifier was deliberate choice for the Inq2 rules.  Otherwise I like the idea - it's fairly easy to calculate and gives a nice spread of modifiers.

I'm less keen on Cade's idea.  I don't know about other people, but I think the calculations it needs are less than easy.  For example, if the weapon's effective range is 20, and the target is 27 yards away, then what's the modifier?  Even a rough calculation takes some thought.  Also, it doesn't give any positive modifier up close, and although it theoretically has a lot of flexibility in the ranges - in practise you'd need to stick to 'easy' numbers or the numbers become even more unworkable, and thus a lot of the flexibility is lost.

[Myriad]

Suppose you just had a base accuracy for a weapon, then a range increment for, say, each -5 (maybe -10 for each increment after the 4th).  then all you have to calculate is straight multiples, most of which were drilled into us at an early age.

So a laspistol (currently range 12?) could be +20, 3, so 0 hit modifier at 12", -20 at 24, etc.

I haven't worked out how well this would work in terms of specific range bands - it strikes me that weapons could lose accuracy too slowly on a linear scale.

[Inquisitor Cade]

For example, if the weapon's effective range is 20, and the target is 27 yards away, then what's the modifier?  Even a rough calculation takes some thought.

If I were GMing I'd want a pocket calculator and could give an accurate modifier really quickly. without I'd say 27 is a bit more than the effective range, not quite half again so call it -70 with no difficulty. Certainly no harder than subtracting 12 from 27 and dividing by three.
A bit more though gives modifier -68 (20/5 =4 therefore every 4 yards is -10. 1 3/4 of 10 is 17.5, so thew modifier is -67.5 = -68. This took me a few seconds in my head but if maths isn't the GM's strong suit then he could
stick to approximations or have his mobile out with the calculator function.

I also use a point blank shot rule that gives +5% to hit for every yard closer than 10 the target is.

[Kaled]

A bit more though gives modifier -68 (20/5 =4 therefore every 4 yards is -10. 1 3/4 of 10 is 17.5, so thew modifier is -67.5 = -68.

Where did the 1 3/4 of 10 come from?

Also, if you give a positive modifier for being closer than 10 yards, then at 9 yards you get +5 and at 10 it's -25 which seems weird.

[The_fire_cleans]

A range increment of seven by NO1H3r3's definition wouldn't be that hard to calulate. suppose someone was 79 yds away, and you were to fire a long las at them, which I'm arbitrarily giving 12/7. they're 67 yards beyond zero range, and the nearest multiple of seven below 67 is 63, so they are 9 full increments away. so they would have a penalty of -45%. easy enough if you've learned your times tables, and it doesn't have to deal with messy fractions at all.

if you wanted non linear loss of accuracy, then you could have a symbol which means you 5 times the number of increments covered squared. That would be quite complex for people though, cos after 12 most people don't know their times tables off by heart.
hmmm.

[Inquisitor Cade]

Where did the 1 3/4 of 10 come from?

Every 4 yards is -10 to hit. 7 yards = 1 3/4 x 4 yards which equates to 1 3/4 x -10 to hit = - 17.5 to hit, so given that the first twenty yards is -50 the other 7 yards are another -17.5.

The point blank rule is supposed to be as well as the range rule, so at 9 yards the  modifier is -23 +5, so -18 in total. Than isn't enough positive is it? Maybe it should start at 10 yard rather than 9 and be +10 to hit per yard, or maybe +10 for pistols only. That would give -15 at 10 yards, -3 at 9, +10 at 8, +22 at 7, +35 at 6, +43 at 5, +60 at 4.  Are those reasonable numbers do you think?

[precinctomega]

An underpinning principle behind INQ2 is that it should be more friendly towards one-on-one, un-GM'd games.  To that end, I try as far as possible to leave as little rules decision-making in the GM's hands as I can.  So that effectively counts out any solution that requires the GM to use judgement.  Moreover, I am trying to make the maths as mental as possible for even the mathematically-challenged amongst us.

I like N01-H3R3's suggestion and will look into it as a fix to Dave's proposal.

Another principle of INQ2 is to make the Core Rules as "simple" as possible (within the limits of a skirmish simulator, which must necessarily be complex).  The complexity has been exported to the Character and Armoury sections.

So, for example, in my current range system, shots at short range are at +20 to hit and at long range are at -20.  But if a character is using an optic sight, these modifier switch around (replicating the intent and effect of the infamous Range Band H).  I'm not sure how I would apply the same thing to Kaled's/N01's suggestions, but I'm sure I can work it out.

The idea is that new players can build simple characters with off-the-shelf equipment and get straight into the game without too much confusion (as the Joker said to the Thief).  But that experienced players can go to town with all sorts of wacky variations and twists.  And that the former kind of player can take on the latter kind on equal terms.

R.

[Adlan]

Moreover, I am trying to make the maths as mental as possible for even the mathematically-challenged amongst us.

The learning disabled amongst us thank you.

[Mang]

It's been  while since I've been on here, and I can't remember my old username. Ah well!

Anyway,

I think the suggestion of a 'zero band' and modifiers per yard is the best method.

It accurately represents the ideas behind the original range bands, and has a reasonable level of variation, with both the increments, and the 'zero band'.

It also has the (most important) benefits of being easy to understand, and easy to work out.

I am mildly dyslexic, and I find this by far the easiest method to work out. The percentage method gets impossible with out a calculator very easily.

As to dividing/multiplying, Multiplying is much easier to do on fingers, and ends up with less nasty fractions!

[Ynek]

Just thinking...

If I understand Kaled's rule suggestion clearly, if a target is closer than the zero range, then you gain a bonus to your chances of success up to a maximum of +20, but if they're further away than the zero range, you take a penalty.

So, why not just have the zero range right back at where the modifier would be +20, and then start taking penalties from there on? That way, you wouldn't need to have both penalties and bonuses to complicate matters, and with the addition of the +20% modifier, the calculation of the penalty would in effect come to the same required dice roll as the current method. You would just have penalties to think about.

[precinctomega]

Just for info:

I've adapted these rules into INQ2, with weapons having a bipartite range, such as "12/2", where the first part is the optimum range and the second is the increment.  The modifier for ranges longer than the optimum is -((range-optimum) x increment) and for ranges shorter than the optimum is +((optimum-range) x increment).

In case you're wondering at what point the positive modifier stops, it's at the point where either the attacker or the defender can reach the other with a melee weapon they are actually wielding.  At that point it becomes combat.  So two characters facing off with pistols at 4 yards are still shooting.  But it one of them has a halberd (reach 4) it becomes combat.

R.

[Kaled]

Are you planning to run another Inq2 playtest next year some time?  I staged a few 'gunfights' to get a feel for how these rules might work, but that was in isolation from the rest of the rules - I'm keen to see how they actually work in a proper game.

In case you're wondering at what point the positive modifier stops, it's at the point where either the attacker or the defender can reach the other with a melee weapon they are actually wielding.  At that point it becomes combat.  So two characters facing off with pistols at 4 yards are still shooting.  But it one of them has a halberd (reach 4) it becomes combat.

Not really related to the rest of this thread, but your comment jogged my memory - I remember in one playtest game there was some confusion about whether characters were in combat or not.  I think it was when two characters were in combat and a third was just standing around unobserved by one/both of the first too (but within reach of at least one of them).  Might be worth adding some additional explanation to the rules...

[precinctomega]

"Where a character may or may not be involved in a combat, according to these rules, it is up to the controlling player whether to count them as such or not."

How's that?

R.