(Or should we go for TW-Flat?  :)

Hi Phil!

I've put together some sample cards in Powerpoint, along with my
thoughts on the game. How can I send these to you?

There is no card art as such - just a green background, stats and a
marker in the centre of the front edge. Enough to play the game. Would
anybody else on the list be interested? Maybe we could get them posted
to the Files ssection.

DaveA

> Hmm, I don;t even know what 'squished' means ;-) despite living in
the
> US for a few years.
>
> Phil
>

(grin) it means flattened or squashed. Pancaked. I was just thinking
of a flippant way to say we're using cards on the table instead of
miniatures.

I've managed to get a lot of my thoughts down about this. Are you
interested? I'd appreciate someone I could bounce ideas off.

DaveA

> What I'd like to do - with your permission - is put together a Te
> Wapen rules variant for a card game. I'll look at doing the card art,
> and probably enlist people over at Paperworlds.com to help me out. We
> could playtest the rules here on this list.

Dave, not a problem. The TW stuff is there for anyone to use and experiment.

BTW, I've been toying with the TW rules over the past months, but no
update on the rules has been posted, RL stuff keeps interfering.

> P.S. What's the Belgian word for 'squished1?  :)

Hmm, I don;t even know what 'squished' means ;-) despite living in the
US for a few years.

Phil


--
Phil Dutre
philip.dutre@...

Hi Phil

Still not gotten around to playing TW, but came across 'Battleground -
Fantasy Warfare' from Your Move Games (http://www.yourmovegames.com/).

I thought it was a terrific idea, but after downloading the rules was
a bit disappointed. It all seemed a bit complicated to me.

The concept is great - a complete army as a card deck. Housekeeping
performed directly on the card using a dry wipe pen (just stick the
card in a card protector and you've got the best set up I think)

However, after a bit of thought, I pulled out TW, made up some mock up
units and slipped them into some card protectors. Played a solo game
last night and it was fun! Very quick (and I think I can make it
quicker!) and pretty fair, considering I made up units pretty much on
the spot based on the army lists in the TW rulebook.

What I'd like to do - with your permission - is put together a Te
Wapen rules variant for a card game. I'll look at doing the card art,
and probably enlist people over at Paperworlds.com to help me out. We
could playtest the rules here on this list.

If you like, I'll upload a quick scan of the units I used last night
(Very rough!!).

I've not been this excited since I watched LOTR! (Which was last week
come to think of it....)

Cheers!

DaveA

P.S. What's the Belgian word for 'squished1?  :)

On 2/6/06, Dave Ashton <tonsha@...> wrote:
> Terrific photos Phil! I especially like the card buildings. The roofs look
> really nice. Are they GW models? They have the look of GW.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the nice comments.

Most of these buildings are indeed old GW cardstock buildings from the
early nineties, when I was still a GW-junkie. They were available in
various scenario packs for WFB 2nd edition, and were later bundled in
one pack called Townscape -- that's the one I have.

The city wall is from the AD&D 2nd edition Castle set, also early nineties.

The castle itself is a toy castle I once bought in a cheap toy store
-- don't know the manufacturer though.


Phil

Terrific photos Phil! I especially like the card buildings. The roofs look
really nice. Are they GW models? They have the look of GW.

Oh - I found a UK supplier for those elephants you use. You can pick them up
at Toys 'R' Us in the UK.

DaveA


On Monday 06 February 2006 11:53 am, Phil Dutre wrote:
>  Although not strictly a "Te Wapen" game, some pictures from a game I
>  organized last week can be seen at:
>  http://www.nirya.be/snv/ttm/
>  (Look for 'Siege of Lowenheim' game)
>
>  On another note, I've been doing quite some thinking lately, and made
>  some modifications to the current Te Wapen rules. Once I've written
>  them up in a decent format, they'll be made available here.

Although not strictly a "Te Wapen" game, some pictures from a game I
organized last week can be seen at:
http://www.nirya.be/snv/ttm/
(Look for 'Siege of Lowenheim' game)

On another note, I've been doing quite some thinking lately, and made
some modifications to the current Te Wapen rules. Once I've written
them up in a decent format, they'll be made available here.


Phil

--- In Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Brian Gross"
<andrew.b.gross@g...> wrote:
>
> GMT games is publishing the Ancients version of Command & Colors.  My
> credit card was charged a week ago, but they still don't have a firm
> date for printing/shipping the game.  Should be within the next month,
> I would think.  Info at http://www.gmtgames.com/cca/main.html

I saw the game in action during Essen Spiel 2005, a few weeks ago. It
indeed looks like fun, and I will definitely take a a look at it.


Phil

GMT games is publishing the Ancients version of Command & Colors.  My
credit card was charged a week ago, but they still don't have a firm
date for printing/shipping the game.  Should be within the next month,
I would think.  Info at http://www.gmtgames.com/cca/main.html

The Ancients version of this system will probably be a much closer
match to a fantasy game than the Civil war or WWII version, so
hopefully there will be some interesting ideas when it comes out!

Also, I have spoken to Richard Borg at Origins the last couple of
years, and he has several companies interested in his own Fantasy
version of the Command & Colors system.  No contracts have been
signed, but hopefully  his take on the genre will be available
sometime in the next few years.

Andrew

For those of you who didn't see them yet, I posted some photos from a
SciFi game we played, using the TeWapen / M44 engine, and using my
brand new hex-based Kallistra terrain (http://www.kallistra.co.uk)
.

The terrain is very good quality, and is just perfect for miniature
versions of either BC, M44, or your own hex-based games.


Phil

Hi Dave!

> The jungle pictures are fantastic! But is it me? It looks like these
> pictures are smaller than the pictures in the other folders. I can get
> a good overall 'feel' for the action, but some close-ups might be
> nice. I like to see detail occasionally. Did anyone put together a
> battle report?

The pictures are the same resolution, I think. I'll try to post some
close-ups later.

> The terrain is awesome. And so are the dinosaurs. Did you get them
> from the same place as the elephants? And have you got stats for the
> new units?

Yes, the stats are in an updated document of the rules I posted today
(look in files, tewapen.pdf).
The dinosaurs are metal models from the Honourable Lead Boiler Suit
company or from Steve Barber, not sure anymore. The terrain was
originally built for a Darkest Africa convention game.

> Sorry to be so demanding! I really do want to give Te Wapen a try, but
> I lack a suitable playing area - which I am working on incidentally.
> Got a great idea for home made geo-hex type terrain. If I ever get
> something useable, I'll upload photos & files for everyone.

Cool, I'm looking forward to that!

Phil

Philip

The jungle pictures are fantastic! But is it me? It looks like these
pictures are smaller than the pictures in the other folders. I can get
a good overall 'feel' for the action, but some close-ups might be
nice. I like to see detail occasionally. Did anyone put together a
battle report?

The terrain is awesome. And so are the dinosaurs. Did you get them
from the same place as the elephants? And have you got stats for the
new units?

Sorry to be so demanding! I really do want to give Te Wapen a try, but
I lack a suitable playing area - which I am working on incidentally.
Got a great idea for home made geo-hex type terrain. If I ever get
something useable, I'll upload photos & files for everyone.

(Then all I need is miniatures...)

DaveA

--- In Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com, Philip Dutre <philip.dutre@g...>
wrote:
> I uploaded some photos from a recent Te Wapen game, set in some
> stunning jungle scenery.
>
> In the mean time, I've been tinkering a bit with the card activation
> sequence for this game, and some notes will be posted as well. Also,
> if some of you have comments after trying out the rules, I would
love
> to hear them as well!
>
> Phil

I uploaded some photos from a recent Te Wapen game, set in some
stunning jungle scenery.

In the mean time, I've been tinkering a bit with the card activation
sequence for this game, and some notes will be posted as well. Also,
if some of you have comments after trying out the rules, I would love
to hear them as well!

Phil

----- Original Message -----

From: Alan Huyton

To: Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 7:57 PM

Subject: RE: [Te_Wapen] 4 feathers

Hi Rudi

Very nice. Love the figures and the fleet especially.

Are you fighting the actions solo, or do you occasionally get some of your
group involved?

Alan



>From: "Rudi Geudens" <rudi.geudens@...>
>Reply-To: Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com
>To: Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Te_Wapen] 4 feathers
>Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:30:38 -0000
>
>The Afriborian Herald #6 ligt in de krantenkiosk!
>
>http://www.rudi-geudens.be/html/herald_06.htm
>
>Rudi
>
>

Hi Rudi

Very nice. Love the figures and the fleet especially.

Are you fighting the actions solo, or do you occasionally get some of your
group involved?

Alan



>From: "Rudi Geudens" <rudi.geudens@...>
>Reply-To: Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com
>To: Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Te_Wapen] 4 feathers
>Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:30:38 -0000
>
>The Afriborian Herald #6 ligt in de krantenkiosk!
>
>http://www.rudi-geudens.be/html/herald_06.htm
>
>Rudi
>
>

The Afriborian Herald #6 ligt in de krantenkiosk!

http://www.rudi-geudens.be/html/herald_06.htm

Rudi

Since there isn't much going on during the holiday season at TSA (and
since I was dying to try out my new terrain!), I've started a small
solo "Afriboria" campaign to see what it says.  I wasn't sure how I
would adopt the rules and started by (for this scenario) giving both
sides 4 cards.  Each turn I would pick 2 (from that sides 4) that were
applicable and cast 1D6 (1-3: first card activated; 4-6: second one).
Worked rather well!  You can view the first battle report at:

http://www.rudi-geudens.be/html/herald_05.htm

Enjoy!

Best regards,

Rudi

Ignore this last email.  I must have been half asleep when I wrote
this "half displaced rectangle" nonsense.
Sorry guys.



--- In Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com, "krd57_1999" <spearhd43@n...> wrote:
> Don't mind me guys,  I'm getting too hung up on exact
measurements.
> But I realized tonight that a 9X8" rectangle (I currently use 9"
> squares) using the "half displaced rectangle" system is almost
> exactly 9" in any direction from center to center.  OK no more on
> measurements.
> Cheers
> Ken
>
>
> --- In Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Hiseler" <edler@m...>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >  Don't know about your math but it's 6 areas around one. works
the
> same.
> >
> >
> >
> > ED.
> >
> > p.s.- use it all the time for games I design. works great!
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf
> > Of krd57_1999
> > Sent: July 5, 2005 1:33 PM
> > To: Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Te_Wapen] Re: New Member - got em!! -Question
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > > Yes, the advantage of the displaced squares is that the
> > connectivity is
> > > exactly the same as normal hexes,
> >
> > I believe movement distance to a displaced square is not exactly
> the
> > same distance as movement to a side by side square.  If I've done
> my
> > math correctly it's about 1.11 units greater. Unlike hexes where
> > movement distance is exactly the same in all 6 directions (center
> to
> > center).
> > Ken
> >
> >
> > --- In Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com, Philip Dutre <philip.dutre@g...>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Ken,
> > >
> > > I never considered displaced squares. I currently use 9" squares
> > > > for
> > > > all my wargaming (I use a 6X9' piece of vinyl flooring that
has
> > > > 9"
> > > > squares patterned into it), but was always bothered by how to
> > handle
> > > > diagonal measurement especially when dealing with short
> ranges. I
> > > > have considered treating diagonals as 1.5 distance but that
> causes
> > > > too much disparity if a unit is allowed 1 or 2 sectors for
> > > > movement/firing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, the advantage of the displaced squares is that the
> > connectivity is
> > > exactly the same as normal hexes, but they are much easier to
> draw.
> > > The only difference with hexes is that line-of-sight from
centre
> to
> > centre
> > > crosses a different set of squares as the corresponding hexes
in
> a
> > hexgrid,
> > > but then, this also eliminates some other anomolies in line-of-
> > sight
> > > determination present in hexgrids.
> > >
> > > > I do have a question about the displaced square system; Are
> hexes
> > > > treated any differently when a piece of terrain like say a
> castle
> > > > wall runs along a hex edge and through the center of the
> adjacent
> > > > hex?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was actually thinking about that over the weekend, since I
> wanted
> > to test
> > > some siege scenarios. My current solution is to have indeed
> square
> > > buildings, but position them in such a way that some squares
are
> > covered by
> > > 1/4, and others by 3/4, such that's it's always obvious whether
> you
> > have a
> > > building hex or not.
> > >
> > > For other terrain pieces, we use the rule that whatever crosses
> the
> > centre
> > > of the hex, determines the terrain for the hex, so terrain
> pieces
> > do not
> > > have to match exactly the grid, but we try to set-up the
terrain
> to
> > minimize
> > > confusing areas.
> > >
> > > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> >
> >
> > Wargaming
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=Wargaming&w1=Wargaming&w2=Fantasy+minia
> > ture&c=2&s=38&.sig=yG7PDG9fDk8-_uirY3GS2g>
> >
> > Fantasy
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=Fantasy+miniature&w1=Wargaming&w2=Fanta
> > sy+miniature&c=2&s=38&.sig=PvSgv8UJUwvTMqZnpMa1rA>  miniature
> >
> >
> >
> >   _____
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> >
> > *          Visit your group "Te_Wapen
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Te_Wapen> " on the web.
> >
> >
> > *          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >  Te_Wapen-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:Te_Wapen-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> > *          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >   _____

Don't mind me guys,  I'm getting too hung up on exact measurements.
But I realized tonight that a 9X8" rectangle (I currently use 9"
squares) using the "half displaced rectangle" system is almost
exactly 9" in any direction from center to center.  OK no more on
measurements.
Cheers
Ken


--- In Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Hiseler" <edler@m...> wrote:
>
>
>  Don't know about your math but it's 6 areas around one. works the
same.
>
>
>
> ED.
>
> p.s.- use it all the time for games I design. works great!
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf
> Of krd57_1999
> Sent: July 5, 2005 1:33 PM
> To: Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Te_Wapen] Re: New Member - got em!! -Question
>
>
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> > Yes, the advantage of the displaced squares is that the
> connectivity is
> > exactly the same as normal hexes,
>
> I believe movement distance to a displaced square is not exactly
the
> same distance as movement to a side by side square.  If I've done
my
> math correctly it's about 1.11 units greater. Unlike hexes where
> movement distance is exactly the same in all 6 directions (center
to
> center).
> Ken
>
>
> --- In Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com, Philip Dutre <philip.dutre@g...>
> wrote:
> > Hi Ken,
> >
> > I never considered displaced squares. I currently use 9" squares
> > > for
> > > all my wargaming (I use a 6X9' piece of vinyl flooring that has
> > > 9"
> > > squares patterned into it), but was always bothered by how to
> handle
> > > diagonal measurement especially when dealing with short
ranges. I
> > > have considered treating diagonals as 1.5 distance but that
causes
> > > too much disparity if a unit is allowed 1 or 2 sectors for
> > > movement/firing.
> >
> >
> > Yes, the advantage of the displaced squares is that the
> connectivity is
> > exactly the same as normal hexes, but they are much easier to
draw.
> > The only difference with hexes is that line-of-sight from centre
to
> centre
> > crosses a different set of squares as the corresponding hexes in
a
> hexgrid,
> > but then, this also eliminates some other anomolies in line-of-
> sight
> > determination present in hexgrids.
> >
> > > I do have a question about the displaced square system; Are
hexes
> > > treated any differently when a piece of terrain like say a
castle
> > > wall runs along a hex edge and through the center of the
adjacent
> > > hex?
> >
> >
> >
> > I was actually thinking about that over the weekend, since I
wanted
> to test
> > some siege scenarios. My current solution is to have indeed
square
> > buildings, but position them in such a way that some squares are
> covered by
> > 1/4, and others by 3/4, such that's it's always obvious whether
you
> have a
> > building hex or not.
> >
> > For other terrain pieces, we use the rule that whatever crosses
the
> centre
> > of the hex, determines the terrain for the hex, so terrain
pieces
> do not
> > have to match exactly the grid, but we try to set-up the terrain
to
> minimize
> > confusing areas.
> >
> > Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
>
>
> Wargaming
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Wargaming&w1=Wargaming&w2=Fantasy+minia
> ture&c=2&s=38&.sig=yG7PDG9fDk8-_uirY3GS2g>
>
> Fantasy
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Fantasy+miniature&w1=Wargaming&w2=Fanta
> sy+miniature&c=2&s=38&.sig=PvSgv8UJUwvTMqZnpMa1rA>  miniature
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> *          Visit your group "Te_Wapen
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Te_Wapen> " on the web.
>
>
> *          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  Te_Wapen-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Te_Wapen-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>
> *          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>   _____

> 6+ means a 6 or higher. So you have a 1 in 6 chance of hitting a general.

Sometimes I amaze myself at how stupid I am. you answered this when I first
posted questions. D'Oh!!

> Ok, I'll have to think about a bit more, but it sounds interesting.

I want to re-think this idea now. Ganging up is almost not worth it since you
use up a whole activation just to add 1 combat die or modify by +1. Why
bother? Why not just wait to activate the unit and use the 3 or 4 combat die
for each unit individually?

It was only really worthwhile in order to wound a unit that required a 7.

> Yeah, 11 items --> D11 :-)

I thought so (grin). It caught me out for a day or so though.

DaveA

Hi Phil,

> Yes, the advantage of the displaced squares is that the
connectivity is
> exactly the same as normal hexes,

I believe movement distance to a displaced square is not exactly the
same distance as movement to a side by side square.  If I've done my
math correctly it's about 1.11 units greater. Unlike hexes where
movement distance is exactly the same in all 6 directions (center to
center).
Ken


--- In Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com, Philip Dutre <philip.dutre@g...>
wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> I never considered displaced squares. I currently use 9" squares
> > for
> > all my wargaming (I use a 6X9' piece of vinyl flooring that has
> > 9"
> > squares patterned into it), but was always bothered by how to
handle
> > diagonal measurement especially when dealing with short ranges. I
> > have considered treating diagonals as 1.5 distance but that causes
> > too much disparity if a unit is allowed 1 or 2 sectors for
> > movement/firing.
>
>
> Yes, the advantage of the displaced squares is that the
connectivity is
> exactly the same as normal hexes, but they are much easier to draw.
> The only difference with hexes is that line-of-sight from centre to
centre
> crosses a different set of squares as the corresponding hexes in a
hexgrid,
> but then, this also eliminates some other anomolies in line-of-
sight
> determination present in hexgrids.
>
> > I do have a question about the displaced square system; Are hexes
> > treated any differently when a piece of terrain like say a castle
> > wall runs along a hex edge and through the center of the adjacent
> > hex?
>
>
>
> I was actually thinking about that over the weekend, since I wanted
to test
> some siege scenarios. My current solution is to have indeed square
> buildings, but position them in such a way that some squares are
covered by
> 1/4, and others by 3/4, such that's it's always obvious whether you
have a
> building hex or not.
>
> For other terrain pieces, we use the rule that whatever crosses the
centre
> of the hex, determines the terrain for the hex, so terrain pieces
do not
> have to match exactly the grid, but we try to set-up the terrain to
minimize
> confusing areas.
>
> Phil

It looks like Yahoo has stripped out all of the spaces from my loverly
ascii art. Woe! Woe!

I'll have to send the file to Phil to post to the files section.

DaveA

An example:


   /     \       /     \       /     \       /     \
  /       \_____/       \_____/       \_____/       \_____
  \       /     \       /     \       /     \       /
   \_____/       \_____/  S2   \_____/       \_____/
   /     \       /     \  S2   /     \       /     \
  /  SA1  \_____/  S1   \_____/  S3   \_____/       \_____
  \  SA1  /     \  S1   /     \  S3   /     \       /
   \_____/       \_____/  O1   \_____/       \_____/
   /     \       /     \  O1   /     \       /     \
  /  SA2  \_____/  O2   \_____/       \_____/       \_____
  \  SA2  /     \  O2   /     \       /     \       /
   \_____/       \_____/       \_____/       \_____/



Skeleton units are S1, S2, S3, SA1 & SA2
Orc units are O1 & O2

The next card is turned and it is the skeleton player's turn. He may
choose to do the standard attacks:

1. SA1 or SA2 attacks O2 (3D6)
2. S1 attacks O1 or O2 (4D6)
3. S2 or S3 attacks 01 (4D6)

Adding the flanking rule, the skelly player can also:

1. Use SA1 & SA2 to attack O2. This will cause both units to receive
an activation marker, but increase the number of combat dice from 3 to
4.
2. Use S2 & S3 to attack 01. This will also cause both units to
receive an activation marker, but increases the attack rolls of one of
the units by +1 on each roll. Example rolls: S3 attacks 02 with s2 in
support. The skeleton player rolls 1, 2, 3 & 4. The natural 1 rolled
forces a retreat directly away from S3. since the way is blocked by
02, 01 receives a wound. The adjusted rolls are 2, 3, 4 & 5. 01
receives another wound. If S2 had been the main attacker, only 1 wound
would have been inflicted, since the way was clear for 01 to retreat.

DaveA

P.S. Do you like my ascii art? maybe we should go for a displaced
square grid instead:

|      |      |      |      |      |
|______|      |______|      |______|
|      |      |      |      |      |
|      |______|      |______|      |______
|      |      |      |      |      |
|______|      |______|      |______|
|      |      |      |      |      |
|      |______|      |______|      |______
|      |      |      |      |      |
|______|      |______|      |______|
|      |      |      |      |      |
|      |______|      |______|      |______

Feel free to cut & paste!!

Me again...

I've been looking at the army lists and noticed that all of the
generals are 6+ To Hit. Since you cannot roll a natural 7 on a D6, the
only way to kill a general is to use some kind of poisoned weapon
(Poisoned claws/blade) which adds +1 to the dice roll. Is this
deliberate?

It set me to thinking about ways to improve attakcs by 'ganging up'.
Most rulesets have some kind of outflanked/outnumbered rule. Has this
been looked at in Te Wapen?

I was thinking something like: If two (or more) units are adjacent to
the same enemy unit they may make a concerted attack provided

- One of the units acts as the main attacker.
- Supporting units may not be adjacent to any other enemy units, must
not have moved this turn, and and may not currently have any
activation markers

The supporting unit(s) provide a DM of +1 to the attacking unit's dice
rolls, and immediately gains an activation marker. (in other words,
supporting the attack is that unit's activation for the turn).

This action would be outside of the normal turn order - the support
unit would be activated without having drawn a card for it.

The above is all for close combat, but it couldbe used for ranged
combat as well - I'd have the supporting unit contribute an extra
combat die in this case though (more likely to hit rather than hitting
harder).

Comments?

Oh - and I noticed that little peculiarity on the Magic Items table. A
D11?? That's a joke, right? Nice one.

DaveA

I never considered displaced squares.  I currently use 9" squares
for
all my wargaming (I use a 6X9' piece of vinyl flooring that has
9"
squares patterned into it), but was always bothered by how to handle
diagonal measurement especially when dealing with short ranges.  I
have considered treating diagonals as 1.5 distance but that causes
too much disparity if a unit is allowed 1 or 2 sectors for
movement/firing.

I do have a question about the displaced square system;  Are hexes
treated any differently when a piece of terrain like say a castle
wall runs along a hex edge and through the center of the adjacent
hex?

Thanks
Ken



--- In Te_Wapen@yahoogroups.com, Philip Dutre <philip.dutre@g...>
wrote:
> Ok, glad you got them.
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Phil
>
> On 6/25/05, krd57_1999 <spearhd43@n...> wrote:
> >
> > Never mind, I have them. My PC was too slow and I'm too impatient.
> > Let you know what I think/questions after I read them.
> > Ken
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >