The Cartesian Heresy
 

Just read Steve's essay on the three heresies (squares instead of hexes, D20 instead of 3D6, adding Mana as an attribute). The second one strikes me as a terrible idea. The last one is pulling a thread because splitting off dexterity from agility, perception from intelligence, will from intelligence, etc., is every bit as easy to justify. It's the first that has the meat in it: there are real advantages to using squares rather than hexes.

I know some people have looked at this (as I recall Thomas Fulmer had a version) but I couldn't find their work with a quick search. Suppose we wanted to allow it as an option: how should it work?

My suggestions:

• It costs one movement point to move to an adjacent square, whether orthogonal or diagonal.
• It costs an extra movement point to make two consecutive diagonal moves.
• Normal attacks are at orthogonally adjacent opponents. Engagement extends to these squares.
• Jabs can be carried out at diagonally adjacent opponents, or at two squares if the square between is empty, or at knight's move distance if either of the two squares between is empty. Maybe some shorter weapons, like javelins, tridents and two-handed swords, can only jab diagonally. Maybe longer weapons can engage at diagonals.
• Figures have eight legal facings, each one halfway between a side and a corner. They have four front squares (two of them orthogonally adjacent), two side squares (one of them orthogonally adjacent), and two rear squares (one of them orthogonally adjacent).

I think this would lead to OK results, though the limits on surrounding someone cut in sooner. Realistically it usually doesn't take more than than four characters anyway. It's also harder to 2:1 people in solid line combats, not sure if that's good or bad, I suspect good.

The facing orientation is probably the most counterintuitive element. But if we want to have four front squares then we need to have two squares on each side of our front centreline, so we can't point at any particular adjacent square (whether orthogonal or diagonal). Another approach would be to have three squares that are front, the one to the right of this is a valid attack square but unshielded, the one to the left is shielded but not attackable, but that makes it impossible to place a single enemy in your kill zone so they can't shift out and it lets people choose an orientation with more sides than corners.

The question that bothers me most is what should be a valid line, one that can't be shifted through. Certainly a line of orthogonally adjacent figures should be impermeable, but what about a line of diagonally adjacent figures? Should it be possible to shift through the diagonal between them? I think some sort of compromise could be called for, like "only if you are moving first" or something else. In a way I'd like to allow the occasional diagonal link in a chain but not a continuous diagonal chain. This bit needs work.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Stefan Jones wrote somewhere (I guess that wouldn't work with an academic essay).

Multiply MA x 2. Straight line movement costs 2 MA per square and Diagonal movement costs 3 MA per square moved.

This is really neat and understandable.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Or turn MA into "inches" and use a measuring stick as done in Song of Blades and Heroes. Then you can use any map, gridless or marked, makes no difference.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

I don't think it is that complicated to resolve. Any time I ran GURPS, Hero System, with a hex based movement system on a square grid I just used a tape measure or ruler. For smaller area like a cramped dungeon it possible to eyeball it.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

I've always liked hexes.

I've never had problems in having buildings on a hex grid. See previous posts of mine for two ways to handle this.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

YES! This also makes it easier to use standard wargaming terrain table.

I'm in favor of making a conversion rule of Hexes to Inches (or Centimeters), but only as a supplement version.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

I played it like this:

-Diagonal moves cost 1.5. Round up fractions at the end of your move (i.e., if you move 3 diagonal squares, you pay 5 mp; if you move 1 diagonal square, you pay 2 mp).
-You face the side of a square. (I don't necessarily have a problem with facing diagonally; it just never really came up).
-Only one foe can strike from the rear (the attacker chooses).

Here's the diagram (the figure is the plus sign):


FFF
S+S
RRR


-Pole attacks extend to 2 squares. If you want to get fussy (I didn't) you can provide that pole attacks cannot be made into 2 diagonal squares. Diagram of the first option:


YYYYY
YYYYY
**+**
*****
*****


Diagram of the second option:


*YYY*
YYYYY
**+**
*****
*****


Y - Allowable attack.
* - Not allowed.
+ - Figure armed with polearm (top of page is front)

-If you think pole attacks are too flexible in TFT, you provide that pole attacks can only be made into the three front squares and the squares immediately behind them:


*YYY*
*YYY*
**+**
*****
*****

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Given the incredible assortment of RPG terrain available - a positive benefit of D&D 3rd ed in my opinion - it would be nice to be able to use it in TFT games. The Pathfinder pawns (i.e., cardboard heroes) and dungeon tiles are particularly nice.

I'd convert 3 hex figures into 2 x 2 squares; 4 hex figures into 2x2 (or maybe 2x3 depending on the figure); megahex figures into 3x3, the 7 hex dragon into a 2 x 4 (or 2 x 5 if necessary) and so on.

I'm not lobbying for a change to sqaures; I'd just like the option.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

I can draw square rooms on a hex-map with no problem. The trick, in my opinion, is to draw the line through the hexes at around the 3/4 mark instead of down the center. This makes it quite clear which "edge" hexes can be occupied and which cannot. Really, I just think it looks better. The actual advantage of squares isn't when you draw your own maps, but rather using pre-made and often quite attractive "dungeon tiles," available from a variety of companies in a variety of styles.

Dealing with front/flank/rear hexes is the tricky part. Personally, I think you want to keep the *ratio* of "good" versus "bad" spaces to have an enemy in roughly the same. On a hex, with three front hexes, two flank, and one rear, its's about fifty-fifty. Half the hexes are good, half the hexes are bad. One of the bad ones is worse than the other two.

My own method *if I wanted to do this*, would require tracking figure handedness, and perhaps most people don't want to do that.

XXX
S+W
FRF

The plus sign obviously indicates the figure.

The "X" squares act just as do front hexes in standard TFT. Shield applies, enemies are engaged, figure can attack into them.

The S square is the shield side - the figure cannot attack into this square (except with a shield bash, perhaps) or engage the enemy there, but their shield applies.

The W square is the weapon side. The figure can attack into this square and engages the enemies there, but they do not receive a shield bonus against attacks from this direction.

Squares marked F are flanking; the normal +2DX applies.

The square marked R is rear; the normal +4DX applies.

This keeps the ratio at approximately 50/50. You have three good squares, three bad squares, and two squares that are a little mixed.

...

You could also ignore handedness and have a little assymmetry:

XXX
X+F
FRF

The two flanking hexes that are adjacent to each other is slightly strange, but not much stranger than many other FRPG rules. And you can probably justify it somehow, perhaps invoking handedness in some fashion.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Yeah. I love hexes, but the one thing that gets me considering squares is my investment in Dwarven Forge dungeon tiles.

I’m thinking I’d just keep it simple & do...

FFF
SXS
SRS

...and...

FFS
FXS
SSR

...for facings. And maybe make some on-the-fly rulings to prevent more than 6 opponents from surrounding a single figure.

Jabs would have a range equal to 2.5 MA. (Or 5 SquareMA using the 2 point for orthogonal & 3 point diagonal system.)

(On the other hand, I’m thinking about just making a world where, culturally, 60° angles are as prevalent as 90° angles are for us. ^_^)

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Cultural exchange with the hymenopterans, maybe. They live in honeycomb-shaped dwellings, humans picked up the habit.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Definitely in favour of squares being an option.

The alternative is stl files to 3d print hexes with walls in both the standard 15mm figurine size of the original melee/wizard and the 28mm figurine expanded 1.5" hexes of the new mats.

Those of us who have Dwarven Forge or other sets are going to use squares anyway. May as well have an official published standard.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

I'd go further: it's not just 3D, it's all the 2D terrain people will want to use.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Ironically, the first edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide explicitly endorsed using hexes for tactical combat (along with squares). See page 69, which has hex facings identical to TFT. And hex facings if the figure faces a hex point rather than side.

Unfortunately, it was MUCH easier to hand draw a square grid on posterboard than a hex grid in 1980.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

WAY back when Greg Poehlein, Dave Tepool and I were repping for Metagaming at game conventions, our company was one of the first TFT licensees. We licensed the right to produce TFT character sheets and megahex layouts. For one of the GenCons, we had a pallet of large poster-board thickness megahex sheets in about 34 x 44 inches. (Our usual ones for sale were that size, but they were printed on paper and folded.)

We gave a big cardstock megahex sheet away with every Metagaming purchase that weekend (promoting our licensed stuff). By Sunday, we were giving mutiples away to everyone just so we didn't have to ship that cockamamie pallet home.

Man, I wish I had a stack of those now. Greg and I had a box each of the ziplocked 8.5 x 11 two-sided character sheets, too. But neither of us can find them. <sigh>

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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?

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

<Grumpy old man persona on>

Yeah, this generation of gamers have no idea how hard it was to get support materials that you can now download for free from dozens of sites. Even the best game stores were limited in the inventory they could carry. You could buy hex sheets in 1980, but our local hobby/toy stores rarely had them in stock. Mail order literally took 6-8 weeks, which was a lifetime for teenagers then. (Probably still is).

Anyhow, I played D&D for a year (at least) on a piece of posterboard with a hand drawn 1/2" grid, small 25mm minis and 1/8" square balsa wood strips of various sizes for walls. I *think* our scale was 2' per square (no suggestion for the size of squares or hexes was made in the DMG).

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Bah, hand drawn grids. Luxury! We just used my Mum's cloth measuring tape marked off in inches. And we played on the carpet!

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

And what support materials we had too! Zocchi/Gamescience and The Armory made the best hex pads, hex sheets, and hex posters. Also were those wonderful rub-on terrain symbols for map-making.

I always wanted rub-on transfers for the "Level Screens" and "Stair Hexes" shown on the Labyrinth Map in ITL, so I could make mine look as "pro" as the Tollenkar map.

JK

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

When I have the option to create the grid myself, I’m fine with hexes. I’m fine with partial hexes along the wall of a rectangular room.

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.)

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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. ;)

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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.)

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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.)

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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."

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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.

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.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

that might be the issue. I've got a couple of big felt sheets for the bottom level of my playing surfaces and everything else is flocked or otherwise has some texture.

Putting the dots inside buildings etc. Assumes you'll always use it in the same orientation. I play many different games so my terrain and buildings gets used a lot. Especially my scatter pieces, that's why they're called scatter terrain after all. I could do that with some big piece if I intended it strictly for use in just a hex based game but that is a minority of games I play. It might make sense for my 1/300th stuff which I strictly use for BattleTech but almost everyone who plays that plays it as a pure mini game at this point and doesn't worry about hexes.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

I like this. A lot. However after playing around with different ratios for the MA8, MA10, MA12, MA14, and MA16 ranges, I think I'm going to multiply MA x 3 and use a 3/4 ratio (3 MA for orthogonal and 4 MA for diagonal). According to ruler/measurements, MA x 3 with 3/4 MA cost is more accurate at the lower MAs but gives an extra diagonal square of movement at MA16.

MA x 2 with 2/3 MA cost tends to short-change all of these MA ranges by one diagonal square. I'd rather give the higher MAs an extra square than short-change the lower MAs.

Can someone double-check me on this? I found myself getting mixed-up a lot trying to go back forth between the two formulas when comparing.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

My idea was the opposite: It costs an extra movement point to move to a diagonal square, then one point for the next consecutive diagonal.

On a square hex the ratio from the center of an diagonal square compared to an adjacent one is 1.414 to 1, rounded up to 1.5. Since you need more than 1 movement point to move 1.5, the first diagonal square would require one to use 1.5 of 2 movement points, and the next one would require the remaining .5 +1. I can't think of a simpler than the 2-point 1-point diagonal movement to do this while retaining whole numbers and being fairly accurate geometrically... alhough Wayne's proposed system is very similar.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Actually, your idea is the same as the 2/3 method. Maybe you meant it was opposite to mine? While that is very simple (counting by 2 then 1, 2 then 1 on the diagonal), it short-changes you on the diagonal (just like the MA x 2 and 2/3 method).

The diagonal of a square is given by: d = a x 2^1/2
(Diagonal 'd' is the length of 'a' side multiplied by the square-root of 2)

2^1/2 = 1.41421 (if you don't inaccurately round up)
1/1.41421 = 0.70710 (the 'real ratio')

If you use the 2/3 ratio, 2/3 = 0.66666
If you use the 3/4 ratio, 3/4 = 0.75

0.75 - 0.7071 = 0.0429 (difference between 'real ratio' and 3/4 method)
0.7071 - 0.66666 = 0.04044 (difference between 'real ratio' and 2/3 method)

So, the 2/3 method is slightly closer to the 'real ratio' but it is less than the real ratio. The 3/4 method is slightly more than the 'real ratio'...but I'd much rather get an extra square of movement than loose an extra square of movement. And you will lose a diagonal square of movement at common MAs using the 2/3 method (versus the measuring method).

The 3/4 method is just as simple as the 2/3 method. You have to count by 3s in both methods. The difference in mental effort of counting by 2s or counting by 4s is trivial for me. You get the right amount squares of diagonal movement with the 3/4 method at common MAs (compared to the measuring method).

Here's a graph that lets you see the differences between the three methods (measuring, 2/3 method, and 3/4 method):
https://imgur.com/kvFBSDo

EDIT1:
After looking at my own graph for awhile, I think I will abandon the 3/4 method that involves multiplying MA by 3. Instead, I'll count on the diagonal like so: 1-1-2-1-1-2-1-1-2 (or 1-2-4-5-6-8-9-10-12-13-14-16). In other words, diagonal squares will cost 1 MA but every 3rd diagonal square will cost 2 MA. Thanks for the counting idea, ParadoxGames!

EDIT2:
Upon further review, I've decided the "1-2 counting method" is best for movement. :)
"1-1-2" works if you force things to move in the straightest possible path. I did another graph to show the range of MA8 but looked for unconventional or less straight paths. I didn't like the results. I could sometimes go farther by not taking a straight path. I will use "1-2" for movement but I'm still tempted to use "1-1-2" for weapon reach (but not range of missile weapons).

EDIT3:
Upon further review, I've found that the "1-2 counting method" can be exploited just like the "1-1-2 counting method". Therefore, I'm going back to my original method, the "3/4 method".

EDIT4:
Ok, 2/3 wins :) The counting is a little easier and it aligns wells with the whole "move up to half your MA to attack" thing. I surrender.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

I have used squares sometimes. I prefer using hexes. Like Rick, I'd rather have square buildings just drawn as such and then overlay a hex grid, especially using the transparent hex grids I like.

I agree that doubling MA and charging 2 to move straight and 3 diagonally works very well.

I disagree that you should not be able to attack diagonally. To me it feels rather gamey that way, though it does have the "advantage" that the potential gang-up density goes down compared to normal TFT, rather than up.

I also would say that the facing diagram should continue to be 1/2 front hexes, not 3 front and 3 rear with two sides. i.e. for a right-handed person, I use:

FFF
S+F
RRS

Note that this is still slightly worse that the facings on a hex grid, as the ratio of rears to sides has gone to 2:2 instead of 1:2.

One of the main issues with going to a grid though is that it affects the number of people who can gang up on one person.

But it basically works.

I have also played mapless. The main issue there becomes judging exactly where everyone is, how closely they can stand to each other, who's within reach, whose LOS is blocked, and who has what facing on whom, exactly. But it also basically works, as long as everyone is content with the GM's rulings.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

I like that facing scheme as well. It's really simple. I plan to let poor X man get surrounded by 8 attackers but no more than 6 of them can attack poor X man in a given round. Init will guide who attacks and who doesn't.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

BTW, I picked up another way of handling diagonal movement from Jeff Dee: Orthogonal & diagonal cost the same, but you can't make two diagonal moves in a row.

Here's an old blog post where I made graphics to represent the different ways of handing diagonals:
https://malirath.blogspot.com/2011/0...uare-grid.html

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

"Sorry, you can't keep moving NW because we're using a clever way to avoid having to count to 20 by 2 & 3, instead of counting to 10 by 1."

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

That is essentially the same thing as every other diagonal move costs 2 MA.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

LOL I'm sure that's not what they meant LOL

I think they were really costing diagonal moves at 1 MA but every other diagonal move is 2 MA. They just explained in a different way.

EDIT
Oh wow. That is literally what they meant. Not a fan of that method! LOL

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.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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.

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.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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.

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.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Staggered squares are basically hexes but drawn with square shapes.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

Correct :)

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.

Re: The Cartesian Heresy
 

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.

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.