Squares, hexes, or measuring

[hs5ias]

I've noticed a fair few mentions of moving and ranges with squares (1-2-1-2 diagonals) and the merits of hexes versus squares. One thing I haven't seen yet though is simply directly measuring distances with a ruler or tape. It seems to me that this could work quite well. Distances in 4E are given in a flat unit, squares, you simply need to pick a scale for that corresponding to your miniatures/markers/play area. So a square could be 1 inch, or maybe 2cm. When you want to move, determine distance or judge an area effect just measure from the miniature/marker or point of origin. Adjacent can be defined as being within 1 measurement unit.

Of course this will affect gameplay a bit. Bursts and blasts will actually be slightly smaller in area under a measured system as they won't have all the extra corner bits that you get from doing it with squares. Occasionally you will get ambiguous 'on the margins' cases the DM will need to rule on. Flanking will need to be eyeballed more, with it only applying if you can draw a line from the centre of one miniature to another that passes through the centre of an enemy.

In terms of time taken I don't imagine measuring will take any longer than square counting. Pre-measuring will probably have to be standard practice to match the way any player can see how far it is all the time with a square grid.

 

[Tenniel]

It would depend on your players. Some players might be tempted to squeeze a couple of millimetres extra out of a move to get a flank, in an easy going group this may be OK but it could arguments in others.

Depending on how you adjudicate threatened areas, eg if someone moves in a zone of control but is only partially in the zone, it would change the dynamics of some battles. Creatures or players could spread out to have enlarged zones of control. Bigger creatures could get swarmed by smaller creatures.

Another problem is when the dice (or Cheetos) roll all over the battle and you need to adjust the figures. Also not good if you need to lift figures to use status counters (if you're into that sort of thing)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You might also wish to check out this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=232623&page=1

 

[Anax]

I'd say that if you do this, you probably want to be more flexible with things like flanking, rather than less. Sure, it means that one person could potentially be flanking for two other people--especially on a large opponent. But that's the case already with large enemies. Really, just roll with it and see how it goes.

I'd say that if you're playing with folks who are used to miniatures wargaming, this will go well. If you're playing with folks who've not done that kind of thing, it'll take some getting used to. And all in all, I suspect that there'll be more finicky tweaking of movement that will distract from the flow of the game in any situation except with a group of people who are all totally comfortable with this sort of thing from another game.

 

[neobolts]

My group has taken really well to the whole "diagonal=1 move" change. Since it is applied to both PCs and monsters it doesn't create an imbalance, just an increased tendency for things to move diagonally. Essentially, the diagonal planes of movement become primary, and the horizontal/vertical movement becomes secondary.

Also, keep in mind that diagonal corner cutting is not permitted (allowed only by class-based exception), so it still takes two squares to round a corner.

The 1 square diagonal movement combined with square AoE patterns instead of jagged near-circles has sped up the pace of combat in our group, leaving more time for non-combat role-play elements.