What happened to the Range Charts?

[Jak Nazryth]

I''m late to the party and have only had the new rules for just over a week, so apologies if I bring something up that was discussed last year...

In MgT1, page 64 and 65 you had handy range charts that allowed you to quickly and easily figure out the effective ranges for weapons for both the "no maps/theater of the mind" class of role-players and the "combat grid/miniature using" class of role-players.

Are there there any combat range charts in MgT2?

Is there one somewhere or have I missed it? It just seems weird without a range chart.

It looks like at least 3 range increments have now been removed... Personal Range, close Range, and Distant Range
The MgT1 "personal range" is "less than 1.5 meters" (0 squares, you are in the same square)... which is what I based my discussion on close combat in an earlier post.

I'm assuming the base range given on each weapon is now considered "medium". Each weapon has a different medium range, therefore a different short, long, and extreme range.
I'm guessing this is why the general range charts have been removed. It's not really necessary, but it would be handy to some if each weapon had the 4 range categories listed under their range column.. like instead of just 600 listed for the gauss rifle, it would simply show 150/600/1200/2400 something like that. Not a big deal, players can kind of cram all that in the range spot on the Traveller character sheet if the write small enough.

The Scope trait takes care of ranges in combat situations beyond 100 meters (so the TL6 Auto Rifle can't take advantage of its "medium" range unless it has a scope)
But since there is no longer a "close range" long guns (especially those with scopes) no longer get a negative modifier with 3 meters as was the rules per MgT1.. which makes more sense than the new rules IMHO.
A soldier in tight corners of a space hulk or trench system using a pistol, shotgun, or SMG should get advantage over a soldier with a scoped sniper rifle if they come around a corner and encounter each other 1.5-3 meters apart. MgT1 handles that well, MgT2.. not so well. Maybe there's an exception I haven't read yet?
Just my 2 credits

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Removing the range charts for weapons and giving an individual range rating to each weapon was an improvement imho. Now the gauss pistol can fire accurately much further than the antique black-powder pistol, for instance, and different types of weapons within the same class gets more distinguished from each other.

I like the idea that every weapon gets a bonus at short range, but I agree that it gets weird when the long, heavy, unwieldy gauss rifle is better for cramped corridor-fighting than a compact smg or a pistol - which is why I like the bane & boon rules. they are great for balancing things. Sure the gauss rifle is easier to hit with and more accurate even at short range, but it will get stuck and slam into all those boxes and tight corners during the warehouse fight, so bane bane bane

As you say, there are still range charts, just for individual weapons, and having the exact ranges table for each weapon so we know when the hit bonus kicks in or penalties start would be helpful, but I imagine they saved a lot of space by just writing range and then having a formula for calculating the different bands in the combat chapter.

 

[Solomani666]

A soldier in tight corners of a space hulk or trench system using a pistol, shotgun, or SMG should get advantage over a soldier with a scoped sniper rifle if they come around a corner and encounter each other 1.5-3 meters apart. MgT1 handles that well, MgT2.. not so well. Maybe there's an exception I haven't read yet?
Just my 2 credits

Several options are available:
A. Dial down the scope to 1x.
B. Line up your target with the top of the scope and fire.
C. In the case of a scoped assault rifle, tilt it 45 degrees and use the offset iron sites.

 

[GarethL]

It's not ideal I agree,

As written the advantage is mass - the assault rifle and assault pistol are roughly equivalent at short range, but the pistol is lighter,

With the encumbrance rules being what they are (very simple), this isn't apparent (don't get me wrong, not asking for more encumbrance rules!).

Maybe a simple fix would be to apply a reduced penalty to ambush/surprise for light weapons (or a bigger penalty for large weapons)?

 

[collins355]

Yes, it is pretty poor. One problem seems to have been resolved but another has been introduced (i.e. long arms are now as effective at close quarter battle as SMGs and pistols).

Leaving your customers to house rule it (i.e. the suggestion posted above of introducing a bane) isn't satisfactory.

 

[arcador]

Keep in mind that another rule is introduced, which has an impact:

If someone with a melee weapon gets in the traveler's personal/close range (~2 meters), they are in close combat and rifles can't be fired. Pistols can. Of course, the traveler can move away, but it provokes a free attack with a bonus.

It gives a boost to the melee wielder compared to before.

As for the other ranges, let me check the table from the 1st edition before I comment.

---
After checking I can make the following comparison:

Personal and Close ranges have fewer penalties for all weapons, except the pistol. Rifles have -1 in close and -3 in personal. Shotguns -2. In 2nd edition, vs melee they can't attack. The only weapon that can attack in close/personal is the pistol which has +1, instead of the -1.

Shotguns have -1 in short range, all other weapons have 0. Short range is 3 to 12 meters.

So, while I agree with you that it makes sense for the shorter weapon to have an advantage in short ranges and CQB over the heavy weapons, the 1st edition range table does not present that advantage well.

I guess it's a referee's decision to add the BANE/BOON mechanic when he sees fit.

Also, judging from the past of Travellers design, and the new trend, I highly doubt they will get that granular with the rules. The bane/boon mechanic is an easy shortcut to applying situational modifiers.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Also, judging from the past of Travellers design, and the new trend, I highly doubt they will get that granular with the rules. The bane/boon mechanic is an easy shortcut to applying situational modifiers.

Yes, this.

You really don't want us writing exception rules for every possible eventuality. Using an assault rifle at very short ranges will earn the benefit, as it should (you really don't want to charge someone with an assault rifle in real life), but there is an exception if you are fighting in that warehouse with lots of tight corridors made from crates - and this is exactly where a Bane should be applied, as was suggested.

We want to provide you chaps with an easy set of rules that can be applied to just about any sci-fi situation - but we don't want to give you a 600 page rulebook to do it.

Maybe (and just maybe) we may return to this issue if we do a combat-related supplement (like a new Mercenary, though we have very different ideas for that at the moment...), but it absolutely should not be in a Core Rulebook that we need to keep as clean and tight as possible.

 

[arcador]

Although this might not be the best place for this discussion, I agree with Mat.

[offtopic]

Too many rules start to make an RPG look like a board game. In RPG players imagine, improvise, the referee describes. In board games all based on the strict parameters of the rules, no deviations. In my experience, if an RPG starts getting too much into the board games rules, the magic starts fizzling.

I've both designed RPG rules and board game rules and have observed how players behave depending on those. And they do behave differently. Strict rules usually make them lean on those, it becomes their reality and demotivates them thinking outside the frames. And while when I was younger, I was a fan of the more strict rules, experience lead me to another realization. Don't get me wrong, relaxed rules should still be clear, understandable and to make sense. A rule can be very open and still create conflicts.

[/offtopic]