Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

The 1-2 method (as I learned it) means keeping global track of where you are in that 1-2 cycle. Every other diagonal you move costs 2, even if it's not the second of two diagonals in a row, with intervening non-diagonal moves. I count 10 along the blue winding path you show. (MA expended per square: 1-2-4-5-6-7-9-10.)

You can also make it a "2-1" system.

Strictly speaking, you should carry over that state from turn to turn, but leftover MA being lost at the end of a turn is a problem you have with any system that uses values greater than 1.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Yes, that prevents the problem shown in my graph. I am under the impression that a lot of people don't do it that way. To be honest, if you do it the way you are describing, it becomes more difficult to execute and prone to errors than the 2/3 method (comparing to the 1-2 cycle). The 2/3 method is so much easier for me.

The 2-1 cycle could work. I'll have to look into that but, again, the 2/3 method is fool-proof and pretty darn easy.

EDIT:
1-2 counting works great for weapon reach/range though because you are going to be enforcing the straight-line path anyway.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Yes. I prefer the 2/3 method myself. Not that I have enough of a problem with hexes in the first place as to use it :)

Besides, hexes are part of the charm of TFT to me. It's the game that gave us the actual term "mega-megahex", which non-TFT gamers were still hip to. Mega-megasquares would just be... square.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

LOL
Yes, hexes rule! The only reason to play this on squares is because you have a lot of product or pre-made material with squares.