Okay, where do you stand on diagonal movement?

[jeffh]

Well, with 350 votes (a relatively round number), 100 posts previous to this one (also nice and round), no new posts to the thread in over half a day, and the overall voting pattern having been pretty stable for at least 24 hours, this seems like a good time to sum up. I think we can say (among currently active ENWorlders who care, which may or may not reflect anything at all about any other population), that the patterns are pretty clear:

1. 1-1-1-1 is easily the most popular with just under 50% preferring it.
2. The now-traditional 1-2-1-2 runs a distant second with around 25%
3. Hex grids, gridless tape-measure use and similar solutions which render the whole problem irrelevant are a fairly close third with around 20% support. This group may or may not include a number of people who don't use maps and miniatures (or anything similar) at all, some of whom are even surprised that anyone does.
4. The other three options I gave account for less than 10% of the votes between them, so few that it's hard to say anything about them. I will comment that most of the "Other (please specify below)" voters don't seem to have specified below, and that the 2-2-2-2 (Star Wars Saga or Manhattan Distance) option has consistently been the least popular, especially when you consider that one of the very few people who went in that direction explicitly repudiated his vote later on.

There is still nearly a week to vote, which could change this picture, but I'm guessing most of the votes are in.

 

[keterys]

I'm actually pretty surprised - I expected 1-1-1-1 would be lower now by quite a bit, but if you redid the poll a few months after 4E launches I'd expected it to climb considerably.

Which I guess means that I'd expect to see it about 20-30% higher in six months.

 

[jeffh]

As a fairly strong 1-2-1-2 advocate, what I'm seeing is pretty close to what I expected but a long way from what I hoped.

 

[Maggan]

Other.

It depends on the consensus of the group. Me myself I don't give a damn about the cost, I do what the rules of the particular game I'm playing says, or the house rule if we have one.

So to me it's all of the above, and more.

/M

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I think i would care about 1-2-1-2 if i thought it made sense to burn mental energy on this kind of issue. I don´t, though, and 1-1-1-1 is perfectly fine for me. So i voted that.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Does anyone make a 4'x6' battlemap with hexes on one side and alternating squares (hex-like positioning) on the other?

I wrote a post saying yes, but then realized they didn't have hex like positioning on the other side. so no.

 

[Belorin]

I chose other since there was no tired of hearing about it choice.

Bel

 

[Ipissimus]

It occurs to me that all this rigmarole can be avoided if we go back to the game's wargaming roots, say 1 inch = 5 foot (or whatever) and use tape measures.

No squares (or hexes), no problems, no calculations.

 

[small pumpkin man]

It occurs to me that all this rigmarole can be avoided if we go back to the game's wargaming roots, say 1 inch = 5 foot (or whatever) and use tape measures.

No squares (or hexes), no problems, no calculations.

Except of course using a tape measure takes longer than counting our squares and it makes when characters take AoO's for moving past other characters difficult to determine. You also have to figure out how to deal with area effects (although that's not that hard).

So yeah, there are problems, there is no obvious solution, sorry.

 

[MichaelK]

I avoid the situation myself by not using miniatures or 4th edition (probably). If I were using miniatures I would do it with a full terrain and measure the distances with a tape-measure, failing that I would use hexes. If for some reason I was required to use a grid I'd use the 1-2-1-2 or possibly the 1-2-2-2. I'd have to figure out the maths on that last option though.

Not a fan of the 1-1-1-1 system.