Okay, where do you stand on diagonal movement?

[Elder-Basilisk]

1-2-1-2-1-2.

As to why 1-1-1-1-1 is winning (though it's worth noting it's still less than 50% of poll responses)? Selection bias is one. This is a 4th edition board that has proven rather hostile to critics. Second, other than D&D minis players who are practicing with the new rules already, most people have not played with the new rules for an extended period of time or worked out the tactical exploits that it allow and (worst of all) creates (for instance, it is easier to block opponents and control their movement when you are arrayed diagonally vis a vis the monsters).

 

[Li Shenron]

The way that makes more sense: 1-2-1-2.

Other than that, I can accept the hex grid.

 

[dblade]

1-2-1-2-1-2.

As to why 1-1-1-1-1 is winning (though it's worth noting it's still less than 50% of poll responses)? Selection bias is one. This is a 4th edition board that has proven rather hostile to critics. Second, other than D&D minis players who are practicing with the new rules already, most people have not played with the new rules for an extended period of time or worked out the tactical exploits that it allow and (worst of all) creates (for instance, it is easier to block opponents and control their movement when you are arrayed diagonally vis a vis the monsters).

It's also worth noting that it is almost twice the percentage of the next choice. A significant difference for any poll. Of course selection bias is always an issue when dealing with forum polls. There isn't enough control of the various factors.

With that said I still don't believe you can dismiss the results with your explanations. Of the people who visit the 4E threads of EnWorld the majority prefers 1-1-1-1. How this compares with the larger RPG community is up for debate.

 

[Li Shenron]

I wish there was one identical poll done somewhere on a forum 1 year ago... I am so sure that 90% of those who today praise "genius" this change, would have laughed at anyone proposing such a change as a house rule

 

[Malleus Arianorum]

Even so, the majority prefers 'not 1-1-1-1.'

It's interesting because if we all voted for our fav movement style 1-1-1-1 wins but if we're voting to accept or reject 4E movement? 1-1-1-1 loses.

Anyhoo, I voted for 1-2-1-2 since I'm playing that way now, and the house rule I'm tinkering with is a variant of it -- making orthagonals and diagonals cost 2 and 3 respectively. Same accuracy, no alternate counting, smaller maps and enbiggened fun.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I wish there was one identical poll done somewhere on a forum 1 year ago... I am so sure that 90% of those who today praise "genius" this change, would have laughed at anyone proposing such a change as a house rule

But how many really call it genius?
I certainly don't consider it a "genius idea" - it's just a good one, improving playability. I could have lived with 1-2-1 and me and my fellow players recounting their steps after miscalculation or false prediction of their "move allowance". I could live with it for 8 years (actually a little less, since we didn't always use the board...)

 

[Steely Dan]

Don't really care, either way, but last session we tried the 1-1-1-1, and combined with our removal of the full round action/attack, and some of the enhanced movement of certain characters, everyone noticed much more movement/ebb and flow to the combats, we dug it.

 

[hong]

I wish there was one identical poll done somewhere on a forum 1 year ago... I am so sure that 90% of those who today praise "genius" this change, would have laughed at anyone proposing such a change as a house rule

If so, that would indicate it really is genius.

 

[Arnwyn]

Other.

We prefer 2-1-2-1.

We tried 1-1-1-1 and it was terrible for our particular group.

3.5's 1-2-1-2 is acceptable (but not as good as 2-1-2-1, for us).

 

[dblade]

Even so, the majority prefers 'not 1-1-1-1.'

It's interesting because if we all voted for our fav movement style 1-1-1-1 wins but if we're voting to accept or reject 4E movement? 1-1-1-1 loses.

Anyhoo, I voted for 1-2-1-2 since I'm playing that way now, and the house rule I'm tinkering with is a variant of it -- making orthagonals and diagonals cost 2 and 3 respectively. Same accuracy, no alternate counting, smaller maps and enbiggened fun.

That can be said for any of the choices though, with 1-1-1-1 being the most palatable to a greater number of people. The majority prefers not 1-2-1-2, not hexagonal, etc...

If I was making a financial decision based on this poll I would go with the choice that took 48% of the vote over 27% or lower.