The Cartesian Heresy

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

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.

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.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

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.

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.

[The Wyzard]

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.

[fisherro]

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. ^_^)

[The Wyzard]

Originally Posted by fisherro

(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. ^_^)

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

[aebrain]

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.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by aebrain

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

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

[platimus]

Originally Posted by fisherro

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.

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.

[fisherro]

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

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by fisherro

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.

"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."