Are offset squares just superior to hexes? They can do everything hexes can do, change orientation, AND include 7 types of subtiles for obstacles without breaking the tiling pattern. Hexes are too regular to do anything with.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
what a shitty equivocation. offset squares have a use, hexagons have a different use. i wouldnt use hexes for a complicated cave layout and i wouldnt use offset squares for a simplified world map.
>hexagons have a different use
Name something hexagons can do that offset squares can't.
look good.
>look good.
Both can tile the plane. Offset squares at least give you the option of having straight edges.
Tiling the plane has nothing to do with looking good. All hexagons have straight edges. Do you actually know what a hexagon is?
>All hexagons have straight edges
I'm talking about edges composed of multiple hexagons
Which are also made entirely of straight edges.
I wasn't claiming hexes weren't made of straight edges. I was claiming you can't make a straight edge from multiple hexagons. For frick's sake
There is no number of hexagons that contains any non-straight edges.
Handle facing in a way that isn't moronic
Correct. If three guys can't stand abreast on every other column of a 3-space wide bridge because only two hexes are actually fully on the bridge, your ability to operate the game is lacking
What are you talking about? If the bridge is 3 spaces wide, then you can always fit 3 people side by side (assuming a 1:1 relationship between tiles and character size)
I'm not sure if this is a legitimate question or one of the most high-IQ trollings I've ever experienced.
Well? Are you going to explain what you meant or not?
Yeah sure. The typical 'anti-hexagons' autistic argument involves narrow passes not aligned with the grid, see figure.
Leftmost case is obviously the 'intent' but on odd columns, the autist will ask "Can two guys fit, (Case 2) or four? (case 3)" The assumption being that we must rule that either half-hexes can be occupied or they cannot.
When the reality is of course, as the anon I was replying to states, 'use your goddamn brain and stop pretending the hexes are a real thing in the game world.'
Well yeah, you didn't align your map to the grid. Any grid of finite resolution will have this issue, obviously.
Exactly, yes. But for some reason people assume that if you're using a square grid you must have drawn your map to perfectly respect it.
Yes, you should make your maps with the grid system you're going to use in mind, if you want to use a grid.
Well, I'm typically just dropping the grid over whatever map I have. The grid's already an abstraction on possible combat maneuvers even in a whiteroom, adding terrain that doesn't perfectly match it doesn't really bother anything unless it's someone's pet peeve.
I'm going to puke
Friendly reminder
If I was to try and be a smart alec, then I would do cario tiling to get the best of both worlds.
But honestly this is just easier.
That tiling can't do everything squares can do. If I was trolling, I'd suggest individually placed circular tiles, since other than cleanly tiling the plane they can do everything offset squares can do AND they have full freedom in terms of rotating the alignment of any grids. You have to make slight compromises on straight edges though since while you can lay them between circles, you can't do it between circles in a triangular configuration like you can with offset squares.
Course the downside is circles would be eye cancer and shit taking up multiple tiles can't really cleanly sit on multiple circles.
I just use a grid.
What do you mean "too regular"? I can make any sort of map with hexes.
>I can make any sort of map with hexes.
Voids in hexagonal planes have to be composed of hexagons or combinations of hexagons of the same uniform size as the regular tiles. You have no leeway unless you want to do fricked up shit with triangles or other shapes.
Likewise you can't change the tiling direction. Squares allow you to do the equivalent of rotating the tiling angle of hexagons 30 degrees to let you do more complex layouts.
Walls on hexagonal maps also either need to cut through tiles or be irregular themselves. They also can't take simple 90 degree turns easily because hexagonal maps are set out in 3 fixes axes offset by 60 degrees.
Also you can't ever have 4 tiles share a corner with hexes.
So no, you fricking can't
Such small imagination lol
Instead of b***hing about my imagination, you could have provided a counterexample if one existed, which it doesn't.
Look, you ESL motherfricker, you cannot have an edge across 2 hexes which is straight which isn't the shared edge between them. This isn't fricking difficult. Hexes make 120 degree, not 180 degree angles.
Nothing matters. You could play a game on the fricking ground and just fricking eyeball where shit goes. We're discussing mechanical fricking game design and your dumbass said hexes can do anything when they can't.
And none of that shit matters.
Can't make a sphere. You'll need twelve pentagons.
Tiling patterns is pleb shit. Every digital table comes with a virtual ruler anyway. Full open map only.
>Are offset squares just superior to hexes?
No.
I mean yeah probably assuming it's not like the mess you have there. It's basically just a hex grid with more pleasing tile shapes, with the only thing lost is the clearness of diagonal lines.
Hexes are more pleasing
>subtiles
moronic, just make the regular tile size smaller.
Use a ruler.
lol seething
Yeah, a lot of people are. Seems like this one simple trick triggered /tg/.
Nope, just you 🙂
Squares and hexes are out, triangles are in.
>Verification not required
>moving along a tri’s “arrow” take 3 steps while only moving one third the distance of a zigzag
Nah fangooli
*two thirds. Brain fart.
>triangles
Looks like you've divided up hexes to me. I'm OK with that.
Zones.