How to handle elevation?

[loremaster2085]

In a recent fight, I had one NPC shooting down from a elevated position (about 20' high) onto a PC below him. However, on the map we were using, the tokens were adjacent, so FGU interpreted them as being in melee, as opposed to being 20' distant, so counted the Ranged attack as melee and added in the appropriate Gang-up bonuses. Is there a good way of avoiding that in the future?

The other problem was that I was using LOS in FGU, so targeting became challenging. I suspect we'll see the same thing with the new "pit" options, but again, any suggestions?

Thanks!

[YggBjorn]

If range is necessary, move their token to the proper distance away on the map before they attack. Or just move them one or two squares away so it doesn't trigger melee if range isn't important.

[mac40k]

Rather than try to figure out how to get FG to handle it with targeting, I'd just have the player not target and roll to hit. If the roll would hit (usually a 4 unless there are other modifiers in play), then target to roll damage or drop damage dice on token.

[YggBjorn]

If you roll without targeting and drop the attack dice result on the intended target, with the two tokens within 'reach', will FG recognize they are in melee range and apply the modifiers for the situation?

[mac40k]

Yes. If they roll without targeting and then you drag and drop the results of the roll onto the appropriate entry in the CT, it will apply Close Combat Range as well, using their parry as the defense score to compare the attack score you just dragged over because it is still using the tokens' on the map's locations.

If you roll without targeting, it will not apply Close Combat Range and just show result of roll, but obviously not tell you whether or not it hit, since nothing is targeted. You will have to adjudicate the success as you would at an actual table. In the case of a raise, the player would need to manually click the +d6 damage toggle located next to the modifiers box in the lower left hand corner of the screen to change it from greyscale to color in order for the extra damage to be automatically rolled as part of the damage roll. Then they can either target the token that the damage is to be applied to or drop the damage dice on it, or if they do neither, you can drag the results of the damage roll from the chat to the CT.

Alternately, if targeting and Close Combat Defense is incorrectly applied, you can also simply change the Defense value of the target in the CT to appropriate value (presumably 4) by typing over it and FG will recalc the result. This does not update the chatlog however.

[amerigoV]

Vote for the enhancement while we are talking about it

https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=52106

[loremaster2085]

Rather than try to figure out how to get FG to handle it with targeting, I'd just have the player not target and roll to hit. If the roll would hit (usually a 4 unless there are other modifiers in play), then target to roll damage or drop damage dice on token.

But then you lose the automation, which makes me sad ... ;) :)

[loremaster2085]

Vote for the enhancement while we are talking about it

https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=52106

Yeah, if elevation was an option that could be taken into account, that would be sweet.

[mac40k]

The only automation you are losing is having FG tell you whether the attack was a hit or miss. For a ranged attack, that's fairly easy to eyeball, so I guess I just don't see this as that big a deal. It's not like the calculations are so involved that I need that crutch or risk screwing up the result. It's also not a situation that is going to come up frequently enough for me to have it be a constant source of irritation to have to deal with.

[loremaster2085]

The only automation you are losing is having FG tell you whether the attack was a hit or miss. For a ranged attack, that's fairly easy to eyeball, so I guess I just don't see this as that big a deal. It's not like the calculations are so involved that I need that crutch or risk screwing up the result. It's also not a situation that is going to come up frequently enough for me to have it be a constant source of irritation to have to deal with.
Agreed, but I'm trying to be as lazy as possible. :D It also helps with adoption: the less that a player has to consider or interact with, the better experience the user will have with the software, and be more willing to choose FGU going forward.

[mac40k]

Once we start down that route, people will want to implement the pythagorean theorem to calculate the actual distance between two tokens that aren't next to one another and also at different elevations. I'm a lazy GM as well and I'm not looking forward to having to specify elevation at various points on a battlemap as part of encounter prep just so the calculations are correct. I would hope and assume that the default is no difference in elevation if none is specified so I can safely ignore this feature. I'd just as soon not get to that level of simulationism and just tell the player to take a ad hoc positive modifier to the shot if the elevation provides enough of advantage.

[amerigoV]

Once we start down that route, people will want to implement the pythagorean theorem to calculate the actual distance between two tokens that aren't next to one another and also at different elevations. I'm a lazy GM as well and I'm not looking forward to having to specify elevation at various points on a battlemap as part of encounter prep just so the calculations are correct. I would hope and assume that the default is no difference in elevation if none is specified so I can safely ignore this feature. I'd just as soon not get to that level of simulationism and just tell the player to take a ad hoc positive modifier to the shot if the elevation provides enough of advantage.

I do not think it needs to be something with the map itself. More that you can just indicate elevation on the token. That way if token A has +1 for elevation and Token B has -1 (say from a map that has 3 tiers as an example, or 0, +1, +2 - whatever works) and the tool is doing the math based on that those simple elevation indicators.

[YggBjorn]

Personally, I would rule an elevated shot could have a positive and/or a negative modifier to hit depending on the angle and height. The target has a smaller 'hitbox' the steeper the angle gets. The benefit for height is a shot with less obstruction. So they might just rule each other out.

Being a lazy GM as well, I like the idea of height not really changing the distance. So I would just move the target token one or two squares away or manually modify the info for the target in the combat tracker, which ever seems to be quicker in the moment.