Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4046586" data-attributes="member: 2011">Squares have 2 best case blocking scenario axis (orthogonals, x blockers needed) and 2 worse case blocking scenario axis (diagonals, 2x-1 blockers needed). Hexes have 3 best case axis (rows, x blockers needed) and 3 worse case directions (perpendicular to axis, not an axis at all, x+y blockers where y is a small number much smaller than x-1 like with squares).That's irrelevant to a hex versus squares discusssion for DND since diagonal movement is allowed in DND when using squares. In DND, opponents can move diagonally through the diagonal line of blockers. The holes have to be filled to actually block and non-orthagonal movement has to be considered.I think you are getting hung up on issues that really do not affect game play. People use hexes in a lot of game systems and do not get hung up on this stuff.The problem might be that DND 3.5 tried to explain stuff to the nth degree and people are looking for a similar concrete explanation for hexes.So, the players try out a bunch of different lines looking for the best case scenario. This wastes time.For hexes, this could just as easily be stated:This really is that simple. One line. Sure, the DM might have to adjudicate if a hex really has 50% or more at times, but that's one of the jobs of the DM: to adjudicate. Sure, it could waste time if a given player starts arguing with the DM, but that can happen on most any adjudication.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 4046586, member: 2011"] Squares have 2 best case blocking scenario axis (orthogonals, x blockers needed) and 2 worse case blocking scenario axis (diagonals, 2x-1 blockers needed). Hexes have 3 best case axis (rows, x blockers needed) and 3 worse case directions (perpendicular to axis, not an axis at all, x+y blockers where y is a small number much smaller than x-1 like with squares). That's irrelevant to a hex versus squares discusssion for DND since diagonal movement is allowed in DND when using squares. In DND, opponents can move diagonally through the diagonal line of blockers. The holes have to be filled to actually block and non-orthagonal movement has to be considered. I think you are getting hung up on issues that really do not affect game play. People use hexes in a lot of game systems and do not get hung up on this stuff. The problem might be that DND 3.5 tried to explain stuff to the nth degree and people are looking for a similar concrete explanation for hexes. So, the players try out a bunch of different lines looking for the best case scenario. This wastes time. For hexes, this could just as easily be stated: This really is that simple. One line. Sure, the DM might have to adjudicate if a hex really has 50% or more at times, but that's one of the jobs of the DM: to adjudicate. Sure, it could waste time if a given player starts arguing with the DM, but that can happen on most any adjudication. [/QUOTE]

Verification