Diagonals revisited

[MaelStorm]

I must admit that before a saw the rogue preview, I was against the 1:1 diagonal on square grids, and was thinking on using a hex-grid instead. But after seeing the rogue powers my opinion changed. I definitely think 1:1 diagonal on square grid is the way to go.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Sorry, what does your vanishing sig mean?

Not a sig, just my thoughts upon seeing Celebrim's 'equation.' Those thoughts were better expressed with emotes than words. I'm sad, because after seeing the logic presented, I realize that I cannot discuss the issue with him further.

Celebrim, no offense intended, it just seems that we have disagreeable (yet well mannered) to each other this evening in this and other threads.

G'nite all... see ya tomorrow. We can try again then!

 

[Ahglock]

I must admit that before a saw the rogue preview, I was against the 1:1 diagonal on square grids, and was thinking on using a hex-grid instead. But after seeing the rogue powers my opinion changed. I definitely think 1:1 diagonal on square grid is the way to go.

Why?

What was it in the rogue preview that changed your mind. I guess I don't get how moving people powers is any different than moving on your own.

I use string, and I don't pay attention to squares there there just because that is how the battle map came. If you miniature looks like it fits in an area well it fits. Heck I've only started using stuff like this because one of my players has like a zillion miniatures and multiple battle maps and the other players seem to like it. I used to play the game just through a description.

I do find it fun to cut out of construction paper props like buildings, trees, spell area of effects so its not a total let down for me, but still I guess I don't really understand the battle map mentality.

 

[Celebrim]

According to your equation, a rule change which had no effect except to reduce complexity has no value. That strikes me as intuitively wrong.

It would be if that's what my equation implied. My equation implies that generally speaking, reducing complexity does have value.

Consider the Thac0 to d20 mechanic change. Mathematically equivalent, just phrased in a manner that made it less complex. Does that mean that there was no value in making the change?

No. However, if the fortune generating mechanic was such that it did not serve the purpose of providing variation/unpredictability of resolution, then reducing the complexity of the fortune generating mechanism below the point at which it serves its purpose would not have any value. For example, suppose we used a d20 with '1's on every face. Reducing the complexity of the rule to just 'assume 1' (or 'assume 20') has no intrinsic value because the mechanic had no positive value to begin with. A measuring technique that misfits the distance it is representing as badly as '1-1-1-1...' does, IMO has no positive value.

Obviously, these assigned values are subjective. That's not the point. The whole point of the equation was to show why I didn't think that "reducing complexity has an intrinsic positive value before considering any other effects".

 

[hong]

It would be if that's what my equation implied. My equation implies that generally speaking, reducing complexity does have value.

Your calculation is nonsensical, and does nothing of the sort. (Hint: reduce compared to what? added value compared to what?) The only thing it implies is muddled thinking on the part of the person writing it.

Obviously, these assigned values are subjective. That's not the point. The whole point of the equation was to show why I didn't think that "reducing complexity has an intrinsic positive value before considering any other effects".

The only thing it shows is that Celebrim is not a statistician.

 

[MaelStorm]

Why?

What was it in the rogue preview that changed your mind. I guess I don't get how moving people powers is any different than moving on your own.

I use string, and I don't pay attention to squares there there just because that is how the battle map came. If you miniature looks like it fits in an area well it fits. Heck I've only started using stuff like this because one of my players has like a zillion miniatures and multiple battle maps and the other players seem to like it. I used to play the game just through a description.

I do find it fun to cut out of construction paper props like buildings, trees, spell area of effects so its not a total let down for me, but still I guess I don't really understand the battle map mentality.

The positioning strike. Sliding the target on a 1:2 is a net disadvantage.

lol for the zillion minis, that is quite a lot BTW

Minis are fine but expensive. I'm thinking on buying some of the new line Dungeons of Dread.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Not a sig, just my thoughts upon seeing Celebrim's 'equation.' Those thoughts were better expressed with emotes than words. I'm sad, because after seeing the logic presented, I realize that I cannot discuss the issue with him further.

Celebrim, no offense intended, it just seems that we have disagreeable (yet well mannered) to each other this evening in this and other threads.

G'nite all... see ya tomorrow. We can try again then!

Sleep well!
No I just quoted, lazily, so you knew it was you I was asking. I should have deleted the 'smileys'.
WTF does "Iä! Iä! Diagonal Ftagn!" mean????

 

[WhatGravitas]

WTF does "Iä! Iä! Diagonal Ftagn!" mean????

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu Fthagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nfah Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Fthagn, LT.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

well

I still haven't changed my mind. I'm very disappointed that 4E is going with 1/1 diagonals.

Ken

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Bottom Line: It took me a while, but now I am firmly behind 1:1 movement. There is much more to it than 'preserving geometry.' In fact, it's not about geometry at all.

Yep, I perfectly agree there. It's simply one more step towards D&D: The Boardgame, the multimedial tactical online-tabletop-dungeoncrawl battlegame.