Re: (TFT) Re: Building; square megahex

["Craig W. Barber" <craigwbar@comcast.net>]

I actually played a few micro-battles with CHAINMAIL when I was a kid... it
was fun, for 1970s technology.  *Everyone's* comments about
hexes/squares/rulers/strings are all pretty much on target, of course.  I bet
everyone on this list has been through this one (hexes vs measurements)
several times.   Put it this way: with hexes, the map is the ruler.  WIth
megahexes, you get two rulers on one map grid.

Craig B


----- Original Message -----
From: pvk@oz.net
To: tft@brainiac.com
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: (TFT) Re: Building; square megahex


On Wed, September 26, 2007 5:20 pm, Craig W. Barber wrote:
...
> Hmm, one ruler for thrown / movement, one for missiles.  No hexes or
> megahexes
> at all.
>
> Wait, isn't this where we all came in with CHAINMAIL?
...

* How many of us ever even read Chainmail, let alone played it?
* In theory hexes aren't needed (but you need to also add compasses to
determine facing but they are better than measures for some things
quickly, accurately and without disputes (facing, spacing, movement around
obstacles, describing areas...).
* Megahexes are just convenient for meta-mapping and streamlining rules,
but have some minor disadvantages too (mainly for people who are
interested in precision and verisimilitude).

PvK
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"