Gridless TFT?

[Todd Roll]

Wondering if anyone has tried gridless TFT?

I found some suggestion online for gridless TFT and am planning on trying them out. The gist is to use either hex or square bases to determine facing. Movement would convert hexes to inches. Same with megahexes (3 inches). You could make templates for megahex effects as well.

Idea would be to use existing maps that may not have the hex grid on them.

Just interested if anyone out there has tried this before.

Thanks,
Todd

[larsdangly]

I've played a fair amount of TFT either as 'theater of the mind' or using approximate movement and positioning with miniatures. I honestly don't like either mode of play for this game because the combat system just doesn't work as a game within a game unless it includes structured, rules bound movement. What I mean is, the rules for resolving attacks are actually just as abstract and simple as many other roleplaying games, and they only take on a crafty complexity when paired with the rules for movement and positioning. So, I only drop this element of the game when I have no other choice (no maps available; playing by skype without arranging a good view of the map, etc.). What you are suggesting might retain the important features of the game's core movement system, but it would require some care.

[Todd Roll]

There is something about seeing hexes on a map that takes me back to the late 70's and playing Melee in my basement. My current house has 1 inch hex tiles in the bathroom and every time I am in there I want to run through Death Test.

I do have the advantage of having a player group that has never played TFT before, so moving minis on a hex map is new to them and they may be more receptive to gridless. Time will tell.

Cheers,
Todd

[Skarg]

I have done no-hexes free-movement & facing TFT in various formats (miniatures, counters, drawings, computer programs, clay figures, even claymation...) and I would say that it can work and be nearly equivalent in some situations, and can be interesting and have a few advantages over hexes . . . BUT that it removes the solid clear basis for answering several vital questions such as:

* What range is the target away, and what is the ranged DX adjustment?
* Am I engaged?
* Is each figure facing front/side/rear on each other figure?
* Am I in range for a hand-weapon attack or a two-hex jab?
* How closely can we line up our figures?
* How far exactly can I move? Which figures am I close enough to to move & engage?
* How far exactly can I move on a turning course?
* How far exactly can I move on a turning course that avoids being stopped by engagement of various foes?
* Is there room for me to walk between those two Slippery Floor zones?
* Am I standing on that fallen body or not?
* Am I close enough to pick up that dropped weapon this turn?
* Can I make a ranged attack on that figure to my side, or is it slightly too far into my Side facing?
* Do I have to roll to miss B when trying to shoot at C?
* Where exactly did that grenade or molotail that missed fall, and who does it affect?
* Where exactly does this figure retreat to? Does it then need to roll DX or fall into that pit or is it far enough away not to need to do that?
* Am I close enough to strike into that HTH pile?

All those measurements can come down to a fraction of a milimeter or a degree of rotation, and so require GM/referee rulings or player agreement when they are close. And since they can be crucial to determining what happens, there becomes a strong incentive to move so that you're close to where it's questionable, and several positions are possible that would not be with hexes.

It works best if you're playing solitaire and/or the players are very happy with the GM's rulings and/or no one is playing competitively nor disagreeing about the rulings.

But it drops a lot of easy certainty and introduces many new questions and possibilities.

[Todd Roll]

Thanks, that is very helpful.

I was thinking of purchasing hex shaped bases and use them to determine facing and such. I would probably rule that if you could mover closer than 1 inch from an enemy you would be engaged with it if you were both facing each other.

I would probably have some megahex templates made to measure spell effects and what not. Probably rule that if any part of your hexbase was in the template area you would be considered in that area of effect.

Lots to consider.

[Skarg]

Without hexes, would a megahex spell even be a megahex shape for some reason, or would it be a circle, or other shape? (I tend to go with a circle).

When you measure distance between figures, do you measure the space between the edges of their bases, or the center point/mark of the base? That makes a big difference. (For it not to have peculiar side-effects, I recommend measuring between center points, and making the bases 1/2 "hex" diameter, so that figures are engaged only if their bases actually touch each other.)

One nice hexless thing that I do even when playing with hexes (I usually prefer hexes) is to make a "combat ruler" - i.e. a physical ruler and/or yardstick and/or tape measure that is marked to the hex map size I'm using and/or significant range points, such as the TFT ranged weapon DX mod bands, i.e. up to 2.5 MegaHexes is -0 DX, 3.5 MH is -1 DX, 5.5 MH is -2 DX, etc. What's nice about that is no counting hexes, and also no artifacts of the hex grid on range - you get the actual range in crow-flight distance... but it does have the disadvantage of hexless measurement meaning you have to trust the person using it to hold it just right if you care if it might be just over or under a range band by a smidge.

[tbeard1999]

You could do "semi-gridless" by eliminating the hexes and keeping the center dots. It would look more natural, though it would play identically to TFT. Figures must be on a dot instead of a hex.

Here's a link to a test 24" x 36" map that might work:

http://texaswargamer.com/tft204/?page_id=263

[platimus]

I'm a big fan of the dot approach for reasons tbeard mentioned. However, I was under the impression that Todd already had lots of maps without hexes and, for whatever reasons, he is unwilling or unable to edit those maps - hence the measuring approach.

I haven't sat down and looked at this approach but here's something I though about one day while waiting in traffic or a line or something...

If you have a square-grid you can stipulate the following for movent, etc...

The center of a square is a space. The four corners (line intersections) are spaces. This approximates a hex-grid if you abstain from moving directly from square-center to square-center in either the east-west or north-south direction. Let's say you chose the east-west direction. If you're on a corner, you can't move directly to the next corner to your east or west. You must move through a square-center first. If you're in a square-center, you must move through a corner first to move east or west. This gives you 6 directions of movement instead of 8. Basically, there's an imaginary dot in the center of each square and you're using the center-hex-dot approach.

Measuring (with a ruler or delineated stick) is probably much easier! :)

[Todd Roll]

Thanks to everyone for their comments and suggestions.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by platimus

I'm a big fan of the dot approach for reasons tbeard mentioned. However, I was under the impression that Todd already had lots of maps without hexes and, for whatever reasons, he is unwilling or unable to edit those maps - hence the measuring approach.

I haven't sat down and looked at this approach but here's something I though about one day while waiting in traffic or a line or something...

If you have a square-grid you can stipulate the following for movent, etc...

The center of a square is a space. The four corners (line intersections) are spaces. This approximates a hex-grid if you abstain from moving directly from square-center to square-center in either the east-west or north-south direction. Let's say you chose the east-west direction. If you're on a corner, you can't move directly to the next corner to your east or west. You must move through a square-center first. If you're in a square-center, you must move through a corner first to move east or west. This gives you 6 directions of movement instead of 8. Basically, there's an imaginary dot in the center of each square and you're using the center-hex-dot approach.

Measuring (with a ruler or delineated stick) is probably much easier! :)

Here is a visual aid for what I was saying about using square grids as hex grids:
https://imgur.com/sCosyr1