Game-world size of hexes

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by tomc

Since the hexes themselves don't exist in the physical world, but are just a tool, would it make sense to logically separate the hex grid from the map, and slide the grid over half a hex in your mind when convenient?

As long as everyone's mind is sliding in the same direction I guess that would work. But minds are tricky things: sometimes it's almost like they think for themselves.

[tomc]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

As long as everyone's mind is sliding in the same direction I guess that would work. But minds are tricky things: sometimes it's almost like they think for themselves.

If a character is in a half-hex, there's only one way to virtually "slide" the grid underneath them to put them in a full hex. It's not hard.

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

What if there is no adjacent half-hex?

And why do we need this rule? Why not just draw the map so there are no half-hexes?

One of my later posts, above, stipulates what I suggest should happen when you occupy a lone half hex (nothing special; your adjacent full hexes are next to you but not occupied by you).

Re. why not just avoid half hexes entirely: of course; that is the default assumption of all the guidelines for mapping that you will see in TFT. I was thinking anyone interested in this thread at this point was trying to come up with ways tot create maps that depict features that are not well represented by hex shapes the size of a standard Melee hex.

[Shostak]

Yes, that's the simplest thing to do. Just draw your rectilinear spaces and disallow all movement involving half-hexes.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Look at a one-hex tunnel, 90 degrees misaligned from the orientation that would fit the grid neatly: the tunnel is one hex, then two half-hexes, then one hex...

There is a much easier way to look at it and draw any one-hex wide tunnel or path that's perpendicular to the "grain" of the grid. Just let the line of (whole) hexes weave. It is still one hex wide at any point, just as a tunnel that ran with the grain would be. It takes the same amount of MA to move the same number of hexes. Just think of that apparent weave as the optical illusion you get peering into that other universe from ours :) To the players it looks like a zig-zag path, but to the characters it looks like a perfectly straight line. To them, it has to be a straight line, because there is no shorter distance they can move from one end of the tunnel to the other except through each hex. If it takes 10 MA to move 10 hexes down the path, and there's no shorter move to accomplish it, then it must geometrically speaking be a straight line even when the god looking down from above thinks it looks wavy.

Originally Posted by Shostak

The half-hexes in Steve Plambeck's tiles don't bother me. You can simply rule that they are off-limits, as he does recommends in the notes, or that they are fair to move through, as you prefer. Either way, they don't bother me, and the architecture they create on a table are easily understood as the kinds of rectilinear spaces we tend to be familiar with.

Thanks for the mention Shostak. If anyone here would like a free copy of that, just send me a PM with an e-mail address and I'll send it to you -- the tile set/book is a pdf.

[Skarg]

Alternatives to treating all half-hexes as blocked include:

* All half-hexes are treated as full hexes (GURPS suggests this).

* Hexes whose center dots are visible are treated as full hexes, others are blocked.

* Similar to the above, with hexlines - if an obstacle crosses the midpoint of a hexline, or both sides of a hexline, the hexline is blocked, otherwise passable.

* GM discretion... after playing several battles with free-form hexes, a GM can get pretty good at just ruling what the effects of free-form terrain in, and their players can get used to what they're likely to rule, without needing to be much/any discussion.


And BTW, using a transparent hex overlay allows one to draw the terrain free-form on paper and then place the hexes - usually, you can find positions which are fairly convenient where it matters.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

There is a much easier way to look at it and draw any one-hex wide tunnel or path that's perpendicular to the "grain" of the grid. Just let the line of (whole) hexes weave. [...] Just think of that apparent weave as the optical illusion you get peering into that other universe from ours :)

This sounds like an attempt to explain the end of 2001, using the rules of TFT. Simultaneously gonzo and heroic.

[larsdangly]

I have nothing technical to add that I haven't posted already, but one general comment: If this seems so daunting that you want to retreat back to squares, think again. Chess, Go and Battleship are the only games of tactical movement and positioning that I can think of off-hand that treat movement and positioning on a square grid and that don't obviously suck. And even those get named here in a tongue in cheek way: the whole genre of quasi-realistic tactical board games is founded on movement on hexagons (hence the term, 'hex and chit').

And for a good reason: if you want to handle movement, positioning and facing in clearly rules-bound ways, you have to either play on a tessellated board or use free-form (gridless) rules (like Chainmail). Freeform movement can be excellent, but can be done in a rules-bound way only if you are precise about measurements, which is a huge pain in the ass and slows play. If you pick tessellated (which has the huge advantage of integrating your method of measurement into the board), you are forced into choosing among the cell shapes that tesselate freely and symmetrically without gaps. The 2D shapes that fit this criterion are the equilateral triangle, the square and the hexagon. The end. The larger the number of sides per cell, the closer you will be to describing physically realistic freedom of movement on a plane. Thus, you want the hexagon (unless you are creating a highly abstract tactical game, like Chess, or you are a simpleton, like the creator of Battleship).

The cost we pay for playing a game that has a sensibly designed set of rules for tessellated movement, positioning and facing is that our maps are fundamentally hexagonal whereas our world has all sorts of shapes we might want to represent on those maps. So, whether you like it or not, the choices offered in this thread are the best of all possible worlds.

[hcobb]

Just mix in Lovecraft and let anybody who erects a building with 90 degree corners play with the hounds.

[ParadoxGames]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I have nothing technical to add that I haven't posted already, but one general comment: If this seems so daunting that you want to retreat back to squares, think again. Chess, Go and Battleship are the only games of tactical movement and positioning that I can think of off-hand that treat movement and positioning on a square grid and that don't obviously suck.

Actually, Star Wars Miniatures doesn't suck and it's played on a square grid.