Quote from: VBWyrdeYah.  Sweet!  Thank you for the links.  I'm slogging through the second one now.   Interesting stuff, definitely.   The first one was kinda helpful too, and might just turn out the way I decide to go after all.  I can live with Hex Maps for Dungeons I think.  The only issue I've ever had is the half grids along the walls.  But really, how many times has it ever actually turned out to be a game-problem?  Um... never?   Heh.

You are certainly welcome.  I would assume counting the half-hexes as a single hex when moving through them along a wall or something shouldn't cause any problems.

Yeah, thanks for the link...particularly the second one.  Interesting to see perspectives on this (seemingly minor...but it's not!) issue.  Good arguments all around, though I'm still not convinced to abandon treating diagonal movement on a square grid as 1.5x movement points/inches/whatever.

Though I may just have to try hexes next time I get a tabletop group together.  I wonder if it will garner a reaction.

Quote from: KenHRYeah, thanks for the link...particularly the second one.  Interesting to see perspectives on this (seemingly minor...but it's not!) issue.  Good arguments all around, though I'm still not convinced to abandon treating diagonal movement on a square grid as 1.5x movement points/inches/whatever.

Though I may just have to try hexes next time I get a tabletop group together.  I wonder if it will garner a reaction.

This side of it is really interesting to me... the Player Reaction.  So far for me every time I've introduced the idea of using Hex Grids or Square Grid maps to my Players the reactions have been

1) Puzzlement as to wtf I was talking about, to...

2) Interest in the concept of seeing exactly where their characters are as opposed to imagining they know (with all the attendant issues that caused), to...

3) Confusion (briefly) about the rules (zones of control seem the hardest thing for newbies to get the hang of so far), to...

4) Amusement at the maps (I like mine nicely crafted and colorful), to...

5) Some screw ups as they get used to the movement rules, to...

6) Enjoyment, to...

7) Requirement ... as in they don't like to play with out em after that.

This sequence holds true for either Square or Hex maps so far.

Now what I'm wondering is if this sequence is dependent on

A) How I introduce the topic.  ("We keep losing track of who is standing where... lets try Maps")

B) How I explain the rules

C) My selection of simple, yet effective rules.

D) My choice of colors on the map (I find that cornflower blue shading is popular).

E) My selection of players (only some of them are wargamers to begin with).

F) The Phase of the Moon

I don't know.   But I will say that so far and for a long time (I've been using hex maps since 1992), the reactions have been universally positive.  So far.   DON'T JINX ME!  

Thanks for the feedback guys!   I'm going to try to put together another GIF example tonight with Terrain.

I introduced encounter maps and minis without explanation.  At the top of that campaign's first play session, I told everyone to choose a mini from my big box o'bargain lead badasses to represent their PCs and went from there.

It took a bit of hand-holding at first (getting used to measuring movement as opposed to declaring "I hit the spellcaster!", etc.), but the group ended up loving it.  The reaction pretty much followed your outline to a T.

Hexes vs. squares seem to be an issue if a player has had a bad experience playing a traditional wargame (or has only heard of bad experiences, etc.).  At least in my circle of friends and acquaintances.  They see hexes, they think "ick, wargame!"  Then they cross their arms and hold their breath until I go back to squares.

The next face-to-face group, however, will likely be composed mostly of newbies with little to no preconceptions about gaming at all.  It will be interesting to see how they react in contrast to my old group (which was almost all gaming vets).

Quote from: KenHRYeah, thanks for the link...particularly the second one.  Interesting to see perspectives on this (seemingly minor...but it's not!) issue.  Good arguments all around, though I'm still not convinced to abandon treating diagonal movement on a square grid as 1.5x movement points/inches/whatever.

Though I may just have to try hexes next time I get a tabletop group together.  I wonder if it will garner a reaction.

As for the 1.5 Movement issue on SQR maps.   Hmmm... Again I go with Optional Rules for this.  The Standard rule is that a Diagonal Move = 1 Movement Point (and that's fudging the math, yes).   The Optional Rule is Diagonal Move = 1.5 Movement Points.

Actually on SQR maps I have another and totally different issue and question for you guys....

There's the theif, Phineas, sneaking up the long narrow corridor toward the open room which extends outward beyond where he can see into darkness, and to the left and right also beyond where he can see.   He sneaks up... gets to the edge of the right hand corridor wall and there in the distance he sees the outline of an Orc with its traditional Orc Horned Helm standing far off to the right of the openning.   Directly ahead in the distance he sees the outline of another Orc.   He has not been seen yet (since no horns are blairing and the Orcs are not rushing towards him).   Phineas wants to take the shot with his bow at the Orc on the right.

Here's the question:   Right now the standard rule I have is that you can not shoot a bow around a corner which on a square map this is to shoot a missile weapon through the corner edge of the corridor wall.   Instead Phineas must step into the room.   However, in my example here, to make it poignent, the Orc that is straight ahead would then be in range with his own Orc Bow if Phineas steps into the room and twangs a shot.  He *wants* to shoot around that corner from inside the corridor.   He suggest hes proficient enough and left handed so he should be able to remain inside the corridor to get the shot off, rather than having to step into the room.   Standard Rule says No.  

Opinions?

I'd let him shoot around the corner; a character is not just standing in the middle of a grid square.  If it's a big issue in that specific instance, maybe make him roll another stealth check or let the orcs get another perception roll.  That's an instance where rules shouldn't have to spell it out, but allow for a GM to make a call based on common sense and what's awesome.

As for shooting around a corner:

I rule that line of sight means an unobstructed path from center of the shooter's hex to the center of the target's hex. Now, KenHR has pointed out that the character is not necessarily standing in the center of the square, but then again, neither is the target, and so even if you allow the character to be "on the edge" of his square, there are possible target positions that still lead to an obstructed view. I find center to center to work as an "average".

Now, that does lead to an interesting possibility. What if there was a "snapshot" maneuver that allowed a character to step a square, fire a shot (at some penalty) and then move back to his cover in a single turn? With this rule, the shooter could only be hit if someone was specifically waiting for him to appear around the corner. The character waiting to shoot the shooter would get the first shot.

If you are concerned that this rule is prone to abuse, then you can rule that the shooter has to remain exposed all round. In this case, he would shoot at a penalty, but he would get cover bonuses against return fire. In essence, he would trade a to-hit penalty, for a defensive bonus.

Quote from: cmagounAs for shooting around a corner:

I rule that line of sight means an unobstructed path from center of the shooter's hex to the center of the target's hex. Now, KenHR has pointed out that the character is not necessarily standing in the center of the square, but then again, neither is the target, and so even if you allow the character to be "on the edge" of his square, there are possible target positions that still lead to an obstructed view. I find center to center to work as an "average".

This is a great point, and normally I'd be inclined to do exactly what you say.  However, VB's example seemed to indicate the PC was taking the orcs unaware and the GM was indicating LOS existed.  In that case I'd allow the corner shot.

Snapshot/opportunity fire rules work well in systems like this, too.  Definitely something to keep in mind.

This thread has gotten me to return to my homebrew game.  Thanks, guys!

Quote from: cmagounIn this case, he would shoot at a penalty, but he would get cover bonuses against return fire. In essence, he would trade a to-hit penalty, for a defensive bonus.

I would have thought seeking cover both for protection and to brace one's weapon on would result in better defense and offense. I'm always looking for a brace when I need to hit my target, even if I'm not being shot at.

Quote from: KenHRThis is a great point, and normally I'd be inclined to do exactly what you say.  However, VB's example seemed to indicate the PC was taking the orcs unaware and the GM was indicating LOS existed.  In that case I'd allow the corner shot.

Snapshot/opportunity fire rules work well in systems like this, too.  Definitely something to keep in mind.

This thread has gotten me to return to my homebrew game.  Thanks, guys!

Cool & glad to hear it.  As far as I'm concerned perfecting my homebrew is too much fun to do without.  

I see what you guys mean about the LOS question.  Yeah my example wasn't perfect as it was implied that the Orcs would only see the character after he stepped into the room, not while he is still in the corridor.  That's imperfect to be sure.   But the discussion has given me food for thought.  I got my old trusty bow out and tried an Around-The-Corner shot.   The thing is that if I'm right handed, and I shoot around the left hand corner to the left... I could make a case for that shot not necessarily requiring me to be in the room exactly... but not Center-Square to Center-Square... that would never work as I would have to shoot through the corner of the wall.

Since these rules are something of an abstraction anyway I think it's fair enough to say... You can't shoot a bow around a corner.  

There's another thing that I realised too that came up while I was making my latest video that caught my eye.   In order to resolve the Scaling issue of the Merge-Movement I changed all Humans from a 5 grid (30') movement per melee to 6 grids (36').   However, going over my rules I realised I had Humans at 5 grids for a reason.   When you include the zone of control rules, a human's 5 grid max means that a human character can not simply slip around and get directly behind an opponent in Standard Movement (where the initiative winner Moves and then Attacks).   Six Movement, however, does allow him to do so.   However, I further noticed that the human would need to pivot to his rear hex to do so, and so I have a simple solution which I was going to add anyway.   Pivots cost 1 Movement point for ever 2 facing directions, but are free if you pivot only 1.  In otherwords it costs a movement point to turn around, but not shift your facing dirction to the right or left.   With this, it now works again that a human can not slip directly behind the opponent using the Standard Move-Attack, and then Move-Attack Method.  

On the other hand it is not an issue at all if you do Initiatve Winner Moves, then Initiative Loser Moves, then Initiative Winner Attacks, then Initiative Loser Attacks.   However, since the option exists to do Move-Attack, Move-Attack I have included it among the Standard Movement Supplimental Options.   I could, then again, exclude one or the other.  Or keep them both.

The reason it matters is two fold in terms of the zone of control rule.

1.  If a character is directly behind you, and another is infront, then their zones of control in combination effectively pin you so you cant move.

2.  From the left and right rear hexes your armor class is -1.  However, from the directly behind you hex, however, it is -2.

Hmmm... anyway, yeah, thank you guys for a very cool discussion.  This is really helping me!  

Edit:  Oh yeah... almost forgot:  About the SnapShot idea... that's a hell of skill to have.  It's possible, but I can not imagine anyone but a real pro being able to actually do something like that.  An Elf maybe!   I might include that is a special Elven Archer skill or some sort.   Thanks.  

My preference for most of the games I run is to use maps and counters. Only in some extremely cinematic/comedic themed games (where combat precision isn't as important) would I find it somewhat acceptable to not use them.

Speaking of which, does anyone use those Chessex battle mats?

http://www.elthos.com/2008/Elthos_StandardMove_Example_01.htm

This one is a bit rough as I'm in a rush (leaving today on vacation), but I threw this together last night just the same.  Any thoughts / suggestions are welcome.  


Mark

Quote from: LancerSpeaking of which, does anyone use those Chessex battle mats?

Yup!  I love Chessex stuff.  Buy a new mat every year at GenCon like clockwork.

I like mats, heroscape terrain, wargame terrain with tape measures--all that kind of stuff. But what I've found handy to just throw in a file box or tuck in a book cover are folders that I make by taping a piece of white letter-sized cardstock to a transparency printed with a hex grid on a long edge. I can draw a map freehand, not distracted by gridlines, and tuck it in the folder. Or I can take out a blank one and draw on it with transparency markers. I can lay several down side by side for a big map, as needed. Handy and space-saving.

Quote from: gleichmanI would have thought seeking cover both for protection and to brace one's weapon on would result in better defense and offense. I'm always looking for a brace when I need to hit my target, even if I'm not being shot at.

Perhaps, but in this case, I am assuming that the archer is coming around the corner, taking a quick shot and ducking back under cover. The offensive penalty is for a lack of time to aim.