Valdrax said:

Hexes can create serious problems with large creatures and facing. If a creature is large enough to take up a space in between 3 & 7 hexes, what shape is its space, and how does that shape avoid facing issues? (This is even more stark when trying to figure out what's between 7 & 19 hexes.)

Why would a creature take up space between 3 and 7 hexes? With hexes, creatures would take up a 1 hex space or 3 hex space or 7 hex space, etc.

Does 3.5 creatures take up space between 1 and 4 squares, or 4 and 9 squares? No, they take up 1 or 4 or 9 or 16.

Your point here is irrelevant and applies to squares exactly like it does hexes.

And, there are no facing issues with 1 or 3 or 7 hex spaced creatures. Or at least you haven't illustrated one yet.

Valdrax said:

AoOs are another problem. The "benefit" you suggest of provoking AoOs from two flankers no matter which direction you run is a bug and not a feature in my mind. You should be able to put a better guard up against one attacker than another. Also, moving at "diagonals" with the main 6 hex directions open you up to AoOs that you wouldn't normally be vulnerable to in either a square map or in a real-life "run whatever direction you want" plane.

This is blatantly false. With squares, there are 3 possible different results (no AoO possible, 1 AoO possible, and 2 AoOs possible), all depending on which direction opponents flank and which direction the target moves. Flank does not always mean the same thing.

With hexes, there is 1 possible result (1 AoO possible), regardless of movement away. Flank always means the exact same thing. With hexes, a person IS putting up a better guard against one of his flankers than the other. It is squares where that is not necessarily the case.

Consistency is vastly superior to a bunch of different results, all depending on how someone is flanked and based on metagaming results due to the mathematics of squares and the AoO rules.

There is no such thing as AoO in real life. If there were, there would be no 0 through 2 AoOs possible based on whether the flank is N/S versus NE/SW. In real life, all directions of the compass are the same. This is not true for squares, but it is for hexes.

Valdrax said:

Hexes also present problems when dealing with tight corridors. Imagine a square room with one-person width corridors heading N, S, E, & W from the room (as one might see in a castle). In two directions, hexes work. In two directions, hexes don't work. You could point out that squares don't work in a round room with tunnels going of in six equidistant directions, but people rarely build rooms like that. The case of architectural conflict with the grid is much more common on hex maps than on square maps for standard designs.

Squares have the same issue. A 5 foot wide diagonal corridor on squares has ZERO actual squares in it.

Plus, your concept of "standard designs" implies dimensions based on 5 foot least common denominators. A fact of 3E, but an undesirable one. Why is nearly every room rectangular in 3.5 and these rectangular rooms rarely are at angles other than 90 degrees from each other and these rooms have dimensions of multiples of 5 feet?

Because of the stupid square grid design of rules. What a limitation!

Valdrax said:

Hexes and squares have their pluses and minuses. To say that hexes have *NO* issues is going a bit beyond advocacy and into spin doctoring.

So far, you have yet to illustrate it. 2 out of 3 of the disadvantages that you have claimed for hexes also exist for squares and the 3rd one is obviously advantage hexes.

I'm willing to listen to real factual disadvantages that do not also apply to squares, but so far you have yet to illustrate one.

I'm not claiming that Hexes have no limitations. I'm claiming that every limitation that Hexes have, Squares also have. However, Hexes have advantages that Squares do not have.

There is a reason most wargames from the 60s and 70s used hexes and games like HEROES still do so.