# Thread: Chase Distances Are Off

1. Hello Mike, I totally agree in this.

Setting up the cards in adjoining squares for a normal chase should do it.

For dogfights I see no other solution but to devide by 3 if you want to stay in the 3x3 squares per card.

I also made a little mistake in my range calculation.

For a space battle dogfight, the distance from one chase card to the next must always be smaller than the range increment (e.g. 50"), so the multiplier should be 16.5 (and not 16.75 as I posted before) to have each weapon range work properly. You´ll have 49.5", 99", 148.5", 198", 247.5", 297" and so on.

Or you place the cards every fifth square and set the multiplier to 10. Something similar you mentioned in your post above for normal chases with large ships or giants.

2. Sorry Mike, I still don't see you point.

Originally Posted by Mike Serfass
In your example you have the cards placed in contiguous squares. Position them to be every other square apart. Move your ship tokens and watch the distance measurement. Now spread the cards to be every third square. Toggle on the card highlights. As you correctly said, the highlights indicate the chase position columns. So a token in the indicated column should count as that card, right? In my very first image, the ships are two cards apart. That should not count as 6 squares (300"), because it's in chase mode.
Your own example you set one square at 50. So each playing card box is now 3 squares across so the mesurement is 150. If the ships are 2 cards are appart they are 2 times 150 = 300
Or 6 squares apart 6 * 50 = 300

Originally Posted by Mike Serfass
It should count as two positions (100").
No you set two positions to 300 as your example shows.

Originally Posted by Mike Serfass
That's exactly how it works on the table. I place cards on top of the map, we ignore the map squares...
There is part of you problem. This is FG not a physical table. Cards are not squares they are tokens on a grid. If you place the cards the computer needs to know where they are. So they get placed on a grid. If you trying to counting cards, your are really counting squares.

However we are not done here. I can think of a situation where things might break but it is an edge case. So I will do a bit more research to try and duplicate your findings.

3. But Lonewolf, what you're explaining is the problem I'm pointing out. We're saying the same thing is happening under the covers.

The difference is, I contend that it should be counting cards and ignoring squares. The size and distance of the cards does not matter in this case. What matters is how many cards apart participants are. That's what should be calculated.

Granted, we need a grid to determine where cards are and which tokens are within each card's column. Once we know that, we don't have to count squares. We can count cards. Then multiply that by the distance modifier.

Set up a dogfight "properly" and measure distances. There's an easy, common use example that will demonstrate why it doesn't work as is.

4. Originally Posted by Mike Serfass
But Lonewolf, what you're explaining is the problem I'm pointing out. We're saying the same thing is happening under the covers.

The difference is, I contend that it should be counting cards and ignoring squares. The size and distance of the cards does not matter in this case. What matters is how many cards apart participants are. That's what should be calculated.

Granted, we need a grid to determine where cards are and which tokens are within each card's column. Once we know that, we don't have to count squares. We can count cards. Then multiply that by the distance modifier.

Set up a dogfight "properly" and measure distances. There's an easy, common use example that will demonstrate why it doesn't work as is.
It used to work and it doesn't now, so it is a bug.

In the meantime we have a workaround to get by

5. Originally Posted by Doswelk
It used to work and it doesn't now, so it is a bug.

In the meantime we have a workaround to get by
As far as I can remember it works the same way as the initial 5.1 rules set release. Luckly we have one of the tutorial videos to look back on to check this. Since then we got the map controls on pop out side interface. So the range increment input has moved but it seems to have the same effect. It is measuring range as the same for all tokens next to a card. I am just so used to get passed the 1/3 limitation. After going through all the input choices. At this stage I honestly can't tell if it is broken or not. I just have that horrible nagging feeling

It just might be me trying to think too much about SWADE gun range bands multiplying by two at each step. On a grid with a range increment divisable by 3.

Right now the only thing that jumps out is the big floating point values that people can accidentally generate. If they input a fraction into the map scale. They can get a very tiny string of numbers displayed. I have also got to question if that huge accuracy is needed.

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•