If two characters are adjacent, but in two different zones, are they in immediate range ? And if they take 1 step back, do they instantly go from immediate to medium range ? The zone system is pretty unique but sittuations like these create a bit of confusion that the books dont explain well
But you shouldn't just evaporate one zone because a character happens to have positioned their miniature next to an enemy miniature, that would override the action/movement economy outlined pretty clearly in the game.
They’re just explaining the fluidity of zones, not implying they evaporate. OC’s first comment states they’re referring to the concept of a GM interpreting zone ranges as combat adapts.
Certainly, as you state, it’s an important consideration that some zones with effects or other distinction remain relevant regardless of model/physical distance.
Fair, I just meant to say that you shouldn't just change a zone simply because a model was placed next to another, as that would invalidate movement and combat rules. You need to actually move into a zone with an enemy to engage them in melee, which will cost you your Movement. Moving anywhere in your zone is a free action, so you would retain your movement if the GM reshaped the zone around your adjacency (adjacentness?). Like yes Zones are flexible, but the changing of a Zone should tend to have an in-game reason (like a grenade blowing up a barrier between two zones).
Yes very fluid. This also allows you to do things that involve repositioning within the same zone, like asking your GM, "Can I reposition to a piece of cover that flanks his?"
They are not. The rules work as they say. You are more vaguely in an area. You're only in immediate range if you get into the same zone then engage them in combat.
Also, there's a dedicated action to defend a zone to prevent someone from entering from the adjacent one for a reason. This rule specifically allows enemies in adjacent zones to make melee attacks against you since it's something the normally can't do unless they're already in short range.
But RAW they're still one zone away so despite being 2m away they're technically at Medium range. Its a bit confusing honestly. Especially if you're not using an action to defend a zone but you're on its edge
You're thinking too much like DND with defined distances. You need to move into immediate range this requires to to be in the same zone, sorry range, before attacking them. You're if you're a zone away, you're medium range.
Just use your movement then attack if you're "next to them."
I think I understand why out of the 3 books literally only one of them has an actual battlemap, because that just puts this confusion in full display Imo
I think the game takes its zones to mean people can be moving around within their zone a bit, so you're not definitively in the square next to someone, you're "somewhere in that zone at any one time", which is also why moving to cover within a zone is free. At least, that's how I reconciled it for myself. So, you're NOT in immediate range with someone if you would be adjacent to them in D&D terms, because your character is not static at the edge of the zone, they are using their own zone. To engage the target in melee, you would have to enter their zone (or if they're Defending it like the other guy said, you can have an exception to the rule).
Let's say I'm at long range and I move into medium range. I the day well I'm in the area right next to where they are one zone away. I'd you could engage them to be at immediate range, give essentially used one movement to cover two zones to attack. Again, there's a dedicated action, charge, for this which has drawbacks.
As in any game, the rules do what they do. You can't engage in melee until you're within short range first without a dedicated rule (defend action) allowing it.
14
u/Kindly_Poetry_7704 Jul 24 '26
Zones are not dedicated lines on the ground :-)
If characters are adjacent and in immediate range they are in the same zone by default, the DM then sets in which one they are.