The Cartesian Heresy

[guymc]

Originally Posted by kommisar

Why can't you use squares and offset each adjacent column of squares by half the length of a square? Wouldn't that give hex like movement yet the orthogonal lines of the grid to aid in mapping linear structures?

Staggered squares is a time-honored substitute for hexes.

Personally, I still use megahexes for interior area mapping when I need 90 degree angles. I just consider anything on the map a half-hex or larger as a full hex and any smaller pieces as not existing at all. Seems to work fine. You don't have to skew walls, etc. to match the grain of the megahex maps.

[kbs666]

The best solution to this is dump both hexes and squares and embrace actually measuring distance.

If you want the simplicity of the square grid, it does have real advantages for making maps, then you are going to have some oddities in movement.

If you want hex grid which makes for more realistic movement then making maps for the amateur can be more challenging. Although things like CC3 will let you create your map and then overlay whatever grid you like.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by kbs666

The best solution to this is dump both hexes and squares and embrace actually measuring distance.

If you want the simplicity of the square grid, it does have real advantages for making maps, then you are going to have some oddities in movement.

If you want hex grid which makes for more realistic movement then making maps for the amateur can be more challenging. Although things like CC3 will let you create your map and then overlay whatever grid you like.

That's what we mostly did for larger maps as I only had a small hex map. I had a roll of green felt that I could lay flat and draw on in chalk. The chalk could be brushed off later. My parents bought me that to stop me drawing in the carpet.

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by kbs666

The best solution to this is dump both hexes and squares and embrace actually measuring distance.

If you want the simplicity of the square grid, it does have real advantages for making maps, then you are going to have some oddities in movement.

If you want hex grid which makes for more realistic movement then making maps for the amateur can be more challenging. Although things like CC3 will let you create your map and then overlay whatever grid you like.

Hallelujah Brother Kbs! I think hexes are fine to play on. However, I think tape measure is great for me to GM on. For me, 1 hex = 1". Besides all the toys you get with wargaming terrain and such, you get flexibility to instantly set up when you don't have any tools or hexes.

-------------------

So I'm not saying I do use hexes in my tape measure games. I just don't use visible hexes. When I need to, I visualize what the hex layout would be on top of the terrain and use that visualization to move or shoot or blow things up with an explosive gem. If it absolutely requires exactness, I place a cut out a clear plastic megahex overlay and put it on top to readily see the result.

In combat, I still use the three front hexes as control, with the two side hexes as +2 bonus attack and the rear hex as +4 attack. I just don't have the hexes laid out.
Walking down a 3 dimensional hall? Visualize the hexes overlaid on that hall.

Also, if I have the luxury of training my novices in TFT (as opposed to a one off Convention game where most of them are almost freeform because you don't have time to train), I use a hexmat to show them and run them in an arena fight. They get the idea of how TFT works on hexes. Then I let them loose on a gaming table and tell them to remember the hex arrangements.

Just as the Wizard whose IQ matches the level of the spell needs both speech and gestures to make it work; the player whose vision matches the gaming table needs hexes to make it work. The Wizard whose IQ is 5 more than the level of the spell does not need speech nor gestures to make it work; the player whose vision is 5 more than the level of the table does not need hexes to make it work. ;)

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by fisherro

The reason I’m considering the heresy is for using the many play aids I have that already have a square grid on them. (Like the aforementioned Dwarven Forge tiles.)

Originally Posted by guymc

Staggered squares is a time-honored substitute for hexes.

Staggered squares gives you the same connective geometry as hexes, but with edges oriented to make it easier to draw on, if that's your thing.

However, it doesn't help at all with square-based geomorphic tiles or terrain that are designed to match up along the edges or interlock. Having every other square of your road or corridor staggered over makes the aid useless.

(Me? I like hexes, and just draw on a hexmap. If I use squares, I like the 2x move and count 3:2 solution, which is actually a more accurate distance measure than hexes -- as long as you ignore the leftover odd movement point you often get stuck with, or do the bookkeeping to carry fractions over.)

[Jim Kane]

For those of you who missed it when JLV posted it back in May, here is the link to the thread about Craig Barber's innovative *Square Megahexes* from the TFT Wiki - which are just great for drawing megahexes at right angles. This solves so many visual anomalies for TFT for those who embrace them.

JK

[fisherro]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

For those of you who missed it when JLV posted it back in May, here is the link to the thread about Craig Barber's innovative *Square Megahexes* from the TFT Wiki - which are just great for drawing megahexes at right angles. This solves so many visual anomalies for TFT for those who embrace them.

JK

Every time I look at the square megahexes, I like them more. I’m trying to figure out how to construct some square megahex tiles in the laziest way possible so that there is a chance I’ll finish the project. ^_^

I’m also pondering 9-hex tiles. (A standard megahex plus a third of a hex at each corner, so that the grain of the megahexes stays aligned with the grain of the hexes.)

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by kbs666

The best solution to this is dump both hexes and squares and embrace actually measuring distance.

There are huge downsides to analogue positioning relative to digital. You can count hexes by eye and everyone can agree whether it's four or five. If a unit gets bumped a little it just gets pushed back because probably people knew where it was. None of that applies to a measuring system. Every time I play a miniatures game I get five minutes into it and start thinking, "This would be going three times as fast if it was on a hexgrid."

[kbs666]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

There are huge downsides to analogue positioning relative to digital. You can count hexes by eye and everyone can agree whether it's four or five. If a unit gets bumped a little it just gets pushed back because probably people knew where it was. None of that applies to a measuring system. Every time I play a miniatures game I get five minutes into it and start thinking, "This would be going three times as fast if it was on a hexgrid."

How are you basing minis that they get moved by minor bumps? I guess if you play mostly with Reapers and don't base them at all that might happen but even with plastic mini's once they're based they tend to have enough weight to them that don't get shifted around that easily.

The problems with a hexgrid are that you basically cannot put anything on top of it. No buildings, no scatter terrain, no hills, nothing. At that point why even bother with minis at all.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by kbs666

How are you basing minis that they get moved by minor bumps? I guess if you play mostly with Reapers and don't base them at all that might happen but even with plastic mini's once they're based they tend to have enough weight to them that don't get shifted around that easily.

I've found that the problem exists (no matter the type of mini) when using a smooth surface. (Most minis gamers I know play on flocked boards or on cloth/felt fields, so the surface is uneven enough to grip.) It's even a problem on D&D maps - but the grid reduces the issue to "opps, putting you back."

The solution, for me, is to put some rubber cement (in a very thin layer) on the base, and let it dry. This will stick nicely for months. When it wears off or gets icky, scrape and replace.

The problems with a hexgrid are that you basically cannot put anything on top of it. No buildings, no scatter terrain, no hills, nothing. At that point why even bother with minis at all.

One CAN put things on the hex-grid; it requires a little forethought, but TFT GM's been doing it for almost 3 decades now, and GURPS GM's for 2+ decades. And Hero system GM's for 3 decades.

Your apparent OCD on it doesn't mean it cannot be done, only that it bugs the hell out of you.

An easier way to cope is the Battlesuit game's method: Don't overlay the hexgrid, overlay the hex-centers, and keep the walls OFF the grid-points. Makes for a different OCD trigger for some... but it eliminates most of the issue - if the dot is in the building, it's used inside; if outside, it's outside. In a wall? Not used.