AND is easy to draw a map for combat. My problem way-back-when was that square hexes reminded me of something else, cannot even remember what. *Snapshot* maybe? -- Craig B.
On 5/3/2018 5:20 PM, Rich wrote:
Risking being shunned here. .. I switched to squares: squrares replacing hexes, with a 3 sq. by 3 sq block replacing megahexes. It works well.
Sent from BlueMailOn May 3, 2018, at 6:51 PM, Craig Barber <craigwbar@comcast.net> wrote:And if I understood another comment correctly, then yeah, I frequently laid out hexagon pattern dungeons, enough so it was probably right around 1/3 , 1/3, 1/3: about 1/3 hexagon, 1/3 square, and 1/3 "other", like ferinstance Death Test (R) style. I always liked the hexagonal dungeon layouts because they felt *very* TFT to me. I always liked the square ones because they felt traditional "white box" and 1st Ed. D&D, even back in 1985. Just visceral reactions... The only problems with squares were that 1) range got messed up on diagonals to the grain and 2) they didn't really offer an easy use for megahexes, the only problem with hexes was that villages and towns didn't usually have rows and rows of lozenge shaped buildings! Megahexes were a GREAT aid to speed play. "Wait, was that 14 hexes or 15 hexes range? Count again!" TFT could be a light light system partially because of the megahexes. After I invented the square megahexes, it was easy to have *both* of my cakes and eat them both too. Any square grain dungeon could be played on megahexes from then on. I hate to rehash an old old discussion (when did we talk about this?) but here goes. Out of curiosity: how many people here largely avoided hex grain dungeons? Does anyone ONLY use hex grain dungeons? Does anyone love them like I do or does anyone hate hex dungeons? -- Craig B. ===== Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com. Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body "unsubscribe tft"