1 square Diagonal Movement: Reaction from Players

[Mr. Wilson]

I've come around to hexes being good in outdoors areas. Squares still preferred for walls indoors. But yeah, I'm happy we get simplicity instead of the 1-2-1-2 rule.

 

[Reaper Steve]

You can follow the rule correctly, so I wasn't actually insulting you. I'll insult you for your poor reading comprehension to make up for it. You're welcome.

Uh-oh

 

[NaturalZero]

I find it annoying that Wizards wants to abstract movement to such an extent that it's controlled entirely by the grid, and not actual 2d space. Second base and first base are not the same distance from home plate, and I see no reason to make it so they are just because a few people are annoyed by it.

To paraphrase a wise man: ""It annoys me" is a pretty lame reason not to change it, because that's purely the opinion of a few people."

 

[Wormwood]

But yeah, I'm happy we get simplicity instead of the 1-2-1-2 rule.

Which is my point: I'm willing to sacrifice a little verisimilitude for a little simplicity.

Counting out 1,2,1,2 isn't *difficult math*, but the minute a player has to ask, "is that my second diagonal or my third?", then the rule is nothing more than a waste of time and another irritating reminder that you are counting out moves on a game board.

I get it. I just don't think it's necessary.

 

[fnwc]

For my part, I didn't notice the tactical possibilities when I read the DDM 2.0 rules. I realized them in my first DDM 2.0 game. I'm counting out movment, thinking, based on common sense and prior DDM experience that having been forced to set my pieces up behind four squares of staggered difficult terrain, they will arrive at the battlefield slowly. I start counting out the movement and suddenly realize that none of it slows my pieces down at all. They dodge the terrain on the Y axis and get the exact same movement on the X axis that they would have gotten anyway. Then the next round, when I'm looking for charges, I realize first that, I can charge to pretty much any square I feel like (move first to make the square I want one of the three nearest squares then charge in a zig-zag line to avoid AoOs). Play a few games and in which you take advantage of the tactical possibilities and see how the players realize it when you show them that it is next to impossible not just to protect an ally from attack but even to prevent multiple enemies from charging into flanks on that ally.

The simplification is obvious and will generate immediate response. The dramatic tactical changes will have to be demonstrated in play before most players notice them.

Very true. However, you said it yourself: the dramatic tactical changes will have to be demonstrated in play before most players notice them. Since we haven't seen the entire ruleset with respect to the 1-1-1 diagonal movement, it's difficult to estimate the exact effect this rule has on 4th Edition.

Your example highlights how it affects DDM 2.0, but charging in DDM is less restrictive than even 3rd edition charging (since you don't have to move in a straight line), so this may not be an issue in 4th edition. While it's likely that certain rules in DDM and 4th Edition are going to be similar, they are different games.

For example, defender classes might have some kind of "Charge Protection" ability similar to some of the abilities found in the DDM game, but it's hard to determine what effect 1-1-1 will have on the game as a whole without first seeing the rules in their entirety.

 

[Baumi]

I use the 1-1-1 Rule in Savage Worlds for a whole Campaign now (while quite Mini-based, there is no official Rule regarding Squares in the Rulebook) and my Group had no Problem with it at all.

You might move unrealistic, but it really didn't come up as an important or noticeable part since most moves are usually a mix of diagonal and regular movement. Also there is no inbalance between Players and NPC's since the Rule count for both sides.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I use the 1-1-1 Rule in Savage Worlds for a whole Campaign now (while quite Mini-based, there is no official Rule regarding Squares in the Rulebook) and my Group had no Problem with it at all.

You might move unrealistic, but it really didn't come up as an important or noticeable part since most moves are usually a mix of diagonal and regular movement. Also there is no inbalance between Players and NPC's since the Rule count for both sides.

This has also been my experience during my group's 4E playtest so far, and while that's hardly been the length of a full campaign, it's definitely been a solid few months of gaming. Most of us scarcely even notice it anymore.

 

[Derren]

Which is my point: I'm willing to sacrifice a little verisimilitude for a little simplicity.

Counting out 1,2,1,2 isn't *difficult math*, but the minute a player has to ask, "is that my second diagonal or my third?", then the rule is nothing more than a waste of time and another irritating reminder that you are counting out moves on a game board.

I get it. I just don't think it's necessary.

I had a (new) player once ask "Which dice do I have to roll?". Does that mean that having multiple dice is too complicated and slow down the game unnecessarily?

 

[Dragon Snack]

We've used the 1-1 diagonal movement in both Savage Worlds games I've played. I don't really like it, but it does even out. It's definitely not a deal breaker.

If I had my druthers, I would ditch the grid and just measure.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'll insult you for your poor reading comprehension to make up for it.

Our usual policy is "Don't insult people at all".

-Hyp.
(Moderator)