Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nifft" data-source="post: 4851921" data-attributes="member: 6562">Eh. We played 1-2-1-2 when that's how 3.x said to do it. We now use 1-1-1 because that's what 4e is designed around. My preference is for hexes.&nbsp; This is the first time I've heard wargame measurement called &quot;more immersive gaming&quot;. The folks who use the word &quot;immersive&quot; usually seem to wish to get away from a battle map entirely.&nbsp; I really can't see why it's such a big deal for anyone.&nbsp;Nope, 3e's map rules fail for being just as deeply in &quot;error&quot; as chess board distance.√2 ≠ 1.5If one wants to use actual distance, one should get out one's ruler and string. One should not count squares, because counting squares is always going to result in an &quot;error&quot;, unless of course one is smart enough to count in units of √2.Basically, Jeff showed preference for one abstraction, but then went on to assert that his preferred abstraction is actual distance, while the other abstraction is &quot;an error&quot;. Both abstractions are equally non-actual. If you want actual distance, use rulers &amp; string.Grid = abstraction, not actual. After that it's just quibbling.- - -But all that isn't the main thrust of my beef with Jeff's error. My beef is that he wrongly asserts 1-1-1 is somehow hard to learn, that using it requires some kind of special training. We've all been using Chess distance for much of our lives, in many different contexts, and even children pick it up right away.&quot;Hexes &gt;&gt;&gt; Squares&quot;, -- N</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nifft, post: 4851921, member: 6562"] Eh. We played 1-2-1-2 when that's how 3.x said to do it. We now use 1-1-1 because that's what 4e is designed around. My preference is for hexes. This is the first time I've heard wargame measurement called "more immersive gaming". The folks who use the word "immersive" usually seem to wish to get away from a battle map entirely. I really can't see why it's such a big deal for anyone. Nope, 3e's map rules fail for being just as deeply in "error" as chess board distance. √2 ≠ 1.5 If one wants to use [b]actual[/b] distance, one should get out one's ruler and string. One should not count squares, because counting squares is always going to result in an "error", unless of course one is smart enough to count in units of √2. Basically, Jeff showed preference for one abstraction, but then went on to assert that his preferred abstraction is [b]actual distance[/b], while the other abstraction is "an error". Both abstractions are equally non-actual. If you want [b]actual distance[/b], use rulers & string. Grid = abstraction, not actual. After that it's just quibbling. - - - But all that isn't the main thrust of my beef with Jeff's error. My beef is that he wrongly asserts 1-1-1 is somehow hard to learn, that using it requires some kind of special training. We've all been using Chess distance for much of our lives, in many different contexts, and even children pick it up right away. "[i]Hexes >>> Squares[/i]", -- N [/QUOTE]

Verification