09-17-2018, 01:14 PM | #41 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: The Cartesian Heresy
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.
|
09-17-2018, 01:32 PM | #42 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: The Cartesian Heresy
Quote:
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. Last edited by platimus; 09-17-2018 at 02:02 PM. |
|
09-17-2018, 02:19 PM | #43 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: The Cartesian Heresy
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. |
09-17-2018, 03:17 PM | #44 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: The Cartesian Heresy
Quote:
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. Last edited by platimus; 09-17-2018 at 04:03 PM. |
|
09-19-2018, 09:17 AM | #45 |
Join Date: Dec 2014
|
Re: The Cartesian Heresy
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. |
09-19-2018, 12:38 PM | #46 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: The Cartesian Heresy
Quote:
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. Last edited by platimus; 09-19-2018 at 12:48 PM. |
|
09-19-2018, 12:59 PM | #47 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: The Cartesian Heresy
Staggered squares are basically hexes but drawn with square shapes.
|
09-19-2018, 01:07 PM | #48 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: The Cartesian Heresy
|
09-19-2018, 08:52 PM | #49 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: The Cartesian Heresy
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. |
09-20-2018, 01:57 PM | #50 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: The Cartesian Heresy
Quote:
|
|
|
|