The Cartesian Heresy

[Skarg]

Note too that a TFT Shift probably should not be allowed to move diagonally around someone engaging you, unless figures get 5 Front hexes, because otherwise you can face directly at someone and they can Shift to your side by going diagonally.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Note too that a TFT Shift probably should not be allowed to move diagonally around someone engaging you, unless figures get 5 Front hexes, because otherwise you can face directly at someone and they can Shift to your side by going diagonally.

I'm not familiar with the Shifting rules. Are you allowed to change Facing when you Shift?

As I understand the old rules (on hexes) would allow this sort of exploit, so I'm fine with it being possible on squares. But I may not understand the old rules on hexes.

[Skarg]

Yes, when Engaged, you can Shift as long as you don't move non-adjacent from any figure who Engages you (i.e. you are in their Front hex), and face any direction.

On a hex grid with three Front hexes, that means if you face someone you're Engaged with, their Shift doesn't let them move to your Side (which would mean they could attack you at +2 - a big deal, and that you could not attack them).

But on a square grid with three or even four (my recommendation) Front squares, if someone you face can Shift diagonally, then in an open field, the person who moves first would tend to get attacked in the Side unless there were enough terrain or allies to help prevent that.

But you can either disallow diagonal Shifts, or decide everyone does have 5 Front squares, to avoid that.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

But on a square grid with three or even four (my recommendation) Front squares, if someone you face can Shift diagonally, then in an open field, the person who moves first would tend to get attacked in the Side unless there were enough terrain or allies to help prevent that.

This still seems possible to me on a hex grid as well. So I'm OK with it happening on a square grid. I could be wrong. I'll have to re-read the rules and play it out on a hex grid to be sure. Still, it does make me want to re-examine my facing squares pattern.

However if Shifting into a side-hex of an opponent with whom you are engaged is not allowed all we have to say is "Shifting into a side-square of an opponent with whom you are engaged is not allowed".

EDIT
Ok. I think I'm beginning to see this. It can happen on hexes but, due to the ratio of S/F, it doesn't happen often and it is something a player can avoid if they watch for it. On squares with my previously chosen S/F ratio, it can happen often and even the most vigilant player can't avoid it (thanks to diagonals). In that case, I will change my S/F ratio/pattern to this:

FFF
FxF
SRS

Then again, I really like the idea of being able to change your Facing when you are first attacked in a given round. After that, your stuck with that Facing until your next turn to move.

[brettd]

There is a mini game (Poor Bloody Infantry) which uses squares and does the same "second consecutive diagonal costs 2" thing. The math works out pretty well.

Of course, you can avoid all this by having staggered squares, which are both squares and hexes at the same time.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by brettd

There is a mini game (Poor Bloody Infantry) which uses squares and does the same "second consecutive diagonal costs 2" thing. The math works out pretty well.

Of course, you can avoid all this by having staggered squares, which are both squares and hexes at the same time.

Yeah, the 1-2 count is a great shorthand for the 2/3 method but when I was graphing 1-2 count out I came across a couple of instances where I could move one space farther by NOT moving in a straight line. Maybe I miscounted though! LOL

I feel less apt to miscount using the 2/3 method and it aligns well with the "only move half your MA to make an attack". Pretty easy to take half of a double!

Even though I plan to use 2/3 for movement, I still plan to use 1-2 for weapon reach of non-missile weapons.

While the staggered squares eliminates a lot of this, it make determining Facing a little more befuddling? for me at a quick glance. Plus, IMO, the main reason for using squares is because you already have a lot of product (tiles, maps, etc.) that are made with a normal square grid. If you have to DIY it's best to stick with hexes.

[Skarg]

Staggered squares are basically hexes but drawn with square shapes.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Staggered squares are basically hexes but drawn with square shapes.

Correct :)

[platimus]

Here's a graph showing what I don't like about the "1-2" counting method:
https://imgur.com/Wdz4lOV

The black circle at B12 is a figure with MA8. If he follows the green path (straight line), when he gets to G7 he only has 1 MA left. Moving to H6 would cost 2 MA. So he has to stop at G7 (or G6 or H7).

If he takes the blue path (the winding, longer path), he makes it to H6 because each move only costs 1 MA.

Am I "doing it wrong"? I'm surprised no one has a problem with this. Sure, if there are no obstacles you can force the player to take the straightest route. But what if there are obstacles at D10, E9, F9, and G7? Black-Circle-Man travels farther when there are obstacles in his path! LOL

I know, I know. This sort of thing probably doesn't occur very often. But it bothers me. So, I'll use the 2/3 method.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by platimus

Here's a graph showing what I don't like about the "1-2" counting method:
https://imgur.com/Wdz4lOV

The black circle at B12 is a figure with MA8. If he follows the green path (straight line), when he gets to G7 he only has 1 MA left. Moving to H6 would cost 2 MA. So he has to stop at G7 (or G6 or H7).

If he takes the blue path (the winding, longer path), he makes it to H6 because each move only costs 1 MA.

Am I "doing it wrong"? I'm surprised no one has a problem with this. Sure, if there are no obstacles you can force the player to take the straightest route. But what if there are obstacles at D10, E9, F9, and G7? Black-Circle-Man travels farther when there are obstacles in his path! LOL

I know, I know. This sort of thing probably doesn't occur very often. But it bothers me. So, I'll use the 2/3 method.

Yeah, it's a problem. It is like a lot of rule change proposals - there can be subtle issues which many people miss, don't figure out, and/or don't care about. I agree using 2 for straight and 3 for diagonals solves this nicely.