Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post

David Bofinger · 08-17-2018, 12:42 AM

Just read Steve's essay on the three heresies (squares instead of hexes, D20 instead of 3D6, adding Mana as an attribute). The second one strikes me as a terrible idea. The last one is pulling a thread because splitting off dexterity from agility, perception from intelligence, will from intelligence, etc., is every bit as easy to justify. It's the first that has the meat in it: there are real advantages to using squares rather than hexes.

I know some people have looked at this (as I recall Thomas Fulmer had a version) but I couldn't find their work with a quick search. Suppose we wanted to allow it as an option: how should it work?

My suggestions:

It costs one movement point to move to an adjacent square, whether orthogonal or diagonal.
It costs an extra movement point to make two consecutive diagonal moves.
Normal attacks are at orthogonally adjacent opponents. Engagement extends to these squares.
Jabs can be carried out at diagonally adjacent opponents, or at two squares if the square between is empty, or at knight's move distance if either of the two squares between is empty. Maybe some shorter weapons, like javelins, tridents and two-handed swords, can only jab diagonally. Maybe longer weapons can engage at diagonals.
Figures have eight legal facings, each one halfway between a side and a corner. They have four front squares (two of them orthogonally adjacent), two side squares (one of them orthogonally adjacent), and two rear squares (one of them orthogonally adjacent).

I think this would lead to OK results, though the limits on surrounding someone cut in sooner. Realistically it usually doesn't take more than than four characters anyway. It's also harder to 2:1 people in solid line combats, not sure if that's good or bad, I suspect good.

The facing orientation is probably the most counterintuitive element. But if we want to have four front squares then we need to have two squares on each side of our front centreline, so we can't point at any particular adjacent square (whether orthogonal or diagonal). Another approach would be to have three squares that are front, the one to the right of this is a valid attack square but unshielded, the one to the left is shielded but not attackable, but that makes it impossible to place a single enemy in your kill zone so they can't shift out and it lets people choose an orientation with more sides than corners.

The question that bothers me most is what should be a valid line, one that can't be shifted through. Certainly a line of orthogonally adjacent figures should be impermeable, but what about a line of diagonally adjacent figures? Should it be possible to shift through the diagonal between them? I think some sort of compromise could be called for, like "only if you are moving first" or something else. In a way I'd like to allow the occasional diagonal link in a chain but not a continuous diagonal chain. This bit needs work.

08-17-2018, 12:42 AM	#1
David Bofinger Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Sydney, Australia	The Cartesian Heresy Just read Steve's essay on the three heresies (squares instead of hexes, D20 instead of 3D6, adding Mana as an attribute). The second one strikes me as a terrible idea. The last one is pulling a thread because splitting off dexterity from agility, perception from intelligence, will from intelligence, etc., is every bit as easy to justify. It's the first that has the meat in it: there are real advantages to using squares rather than hexes. I know some people have looked at this (as I recall Thomas Fulmer had a version) but I couldn't find their work with a quick search. Suppose we wanted to allow it as an option: how should it work? My suggestions: It costs one movement point to move to an adjacent square, whether orthogonal or diagonal. It costs an extra movement point to make two consecutive diagonal moves. Normal attacks are at orthogonally adjacent opponents. Engagement extends to these squares. Jabs can be carried out at diagonally adjacent opponents, or at two squares if the square between is empty, or at knight's move distance if either of the two squares between is empty. Maybe some shorter weapons, like javelins, tridents and two-handed swords, can only jab diagonally. Maybe longer weapons can engage at diagonals. Figures have eight legal facings, each one halfway between a side and a corner. They have four front squares (two of them orthogonally adjacent), two side squares (one of them orthogonally adjacent), and two rear squares (one of them orthogonally adjacent). I think this would lead to OK results, though the limits on surrounding someone cut in sooner. Realistically it usually doesn't take more than than four characters anyway. It's also harder to 2:1 people in solid line combats, not sure if that's good or bad, I suspect good. The facing orientation is probably the most counterintuitive element. But if we want to have four front squares then we need to have two squares on each side of our front centreline, so we can't point at any particular adjacent square (whether orthogonal or diagonal). Another approach would be to have three squares that are front, the one to the right of this is a valid attack square but unshielded, the one to the left is shielded but not attackable, but that makes it impossible to place a single enemy in your kill zone so they can't shift out and it lets people choose an orientation with more sides than corners. The question that bothers me most is what should be a valid line, one that can't be shifted through. Certainly a line of orthogonally adjacent figures should be impermeable, but what about a line of diagonally adjacent figures? Should it be possible to shift through the diagonal between them? I think some sort of compromise could be called for, like "only if you are moving first" or something else. In a way I'd like to allow the occasional diagonal link in a chain but not a continuous diagonal chain. This bit needs work.