01-26-2018, 01:59 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: Scales of maps and play
Quote:
|
|
01-26-2018, 02:34 PM | #12 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Scales of maps and play
Quote:
Last edited by JLV; 01-26-2018 at 02:37 PM. |
|
01-26-2018, 03:26 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: Scales of maps and play
|
01-26-2018, 03:54 PM | #14 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Scales of maps and play
|
01-29-2018, 02:26 PM | #15 |
Join Date: Jun 2012
|
Re: Scales of maps and play
A good point has been raised. To some of us, TFT, particularly Melee and Wizard are primarilly wargames. It is nice to have ITL and all that roleplaying stuff, but honestly TFT has never been my primary go to RPG.
If differing time and movement scales are going to be used in the game it would be well to explain them clearly. More so than the usual gaming mix of real world and game world units. Rounds and turns and D&D use of "inches" to mean "ten feet" indoors, "ten yards" outdoors, except when one "inch" really meant one real world "inch". If all TFT maps are going to be gridded in hexes and the game to be played in turns it becomes a little easier. Place each operational scale of the game in its own section, define what a "hex" and a "turn" represent at that scale and then give all measurements in units of hexes and turns. If the game is consistent in refering to turns and hexes and the mechanics flow smoothly, it doesn't really matter for game play what real world units those turns and hexes correspond to. Taking TFT hexless, while it can be done, should, imho, be mentioned as an optional rule, not integrated in to the main rules. Last edited by Dave Crowell; 01-30-2018 at 06:44 AM. |
01-29-2018, 03:31 PM | #16 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Scales of maps and play
Quote:
It sounded like you were supporting having hexes and turns of varying sizes specifically spelled out in most of your comment, but this last sentence sounds like you are suggesting hexes be done away with entirely except as an optional rule. But that doesn't correlate to the rest of your post, so I'm confused now as to what precisely you are suggesting... Sorry for any confusion I'm creating! ;-) Last edited by JLV; 01-30-2018 at 01:29 PM. |
|
01-30-2018, 06:45 AM | #17 |
Join Date: Jun 2012
|
Re: Scales of maps and play
No, you caught me in a typo. I meant taking TFT hexless. I have corrected my post above.
It would be confusing without the correction. |
01-30-2018, 01:26 PM | #18 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Scales of maps and play
Quote:
Oh, and I absolutely agree with your point. |
|
01-30-2018, 07:18 PM | #19 |
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Re: Scales of maps and play
A minor issue: the distance between two megahex centres isn't three times the distance between hex centres, in fact the ratio is only the square root of 7. (You can calculate this with Pythagoras or just notice that there are 7 hexes in a megahex, answer's the same either way.) So the size of a megahex is about 3.5 metres.
As a consequence: if you're counting hexes instead of megahexes for archery range, and want to impose a penalty of -1 DX every 2 megahexes, it's actually a closer approximation to save -1 DX per 5 hexes than -1 DX per 6 hexes. |
01-30-2018, 10:09 PM | #20 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Scales of maps and play
Quote:
|
|
|
|