PDA

View Full Version : Three Dimensional Hex Movement?



Fax Celestis
2009-01-08, 01:09 PM
How does one handle moving vertically on a hex-map?

Kurald Galain
2009-01-08, 01:16 PM
The easiest way is by assuming a second, exactly identical, map one "distance unit" above the map, and a third one above the second, and so forth.

Assuming minis, use a "height counter" and stack N of those counters under the mini to indicate it's actually N tiles above there.

Fax Celestis
2009-01-08, 01:27 PM
So it's pretty much like a regular box grid, then. Okay, I was afraid it had interlacing stacking "hex cubes" (what the hell is the word for a three-dimensional object made of hexagons? ).

Zeful
2009-01-08, 01:38 PM
(what the hell is the word for a three-dimensional object made of hexagons? ).

There isn't. You can't make a 3D object out of just hexagons.

Neek
2009-01-08, 01:40 PM
It'd be a form that has nothing but hexagons... which would be... a... I don't know.

fractic
2009-01-08, 01:48 PM
So it's pretty much like a regular box grid, then. Okay, I was afraid it had interlacing stacking "hex cubes" (what the hell is the word for a three-dimensional object made of hexagons? ).

Well you don't have to do it like that. It forms a rather irregular lattice. You could use the optimal sphere packing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing). Afterall a hex grid could also just be a touching circle grid and then going 3d would give you a sphere packing.

In effect the second layer of hexes would be right above half of the intersections of the first layer and the third layer would line up with the first again.

bosssmiley
2009-01-08, 01:54 PM
what the hell is the word for a three-dimensional object made of hexagons?

Beehive? :smalltongue:

Glyphic
2009-01-08, 01:57 PM
Cursed Bauble?

Fax Celestis
2009-01-08, 01:58 PM
Well you don't have to do it like that. It forms a rather irregular lattice. You could use the optimal sphere packing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing). Afterall a hex grid could also just be a touching circle grid and then going 3d would give you a sphere packing.

In effect the second layer of hexes would be right above half of the intersections of the first layer and the third layer would line up with the first again.

...which is pretty fricken complex to visualize.

Well, wait, not really. Those spaces would be centered on junctions on the existing map. Hm.

Tacoma
2009-01-08, 02:13 PM
You can also use bases that have holes drilled in them and the holes are marked with "VL", "L", "H", "VH" to represent Very Low, Low, High, and Very High. You place a dowel-flag or just a peg into the hole corresponding with that unit's height. No dowel = middle of the field.

Or for regular figures just put a d6 under him, or one of those three-legged plastic stands for keeping the center of the pizza box from drooping, or the clear box your seven dice came in. Although I prefer to use that for Forcecages. Showing which height the figure is at exactly is difficult because if you stack more things under it the figure will just fall over.

One method I was thinking about for airships (like a dirigible) would be to screw eye-screws into the ceiling and hang the airship at varying heights from the screws using twine or fishing line. The movement would not be very granular since the screws couldn't all be 1 inch apart. My gaming room is in a basement with an exposed-beam ceiling so thiw ould be possible for me. Probably not for anyone else.

We usually just stick something under the figure to elevate it and few enough people are flying around that we can just remember "close to the ceiling" or "hovering just off the floor" or something similar. But because you're using hexes I assume you're doing a flying ship or underwater thing.

You might consider buying some Duplo blocks (theyre like LEGO but bigger and good for chewing). Each height of block can equal 2 inches elevation equivalent or so. They stick together so they're more stable than another stacking solution, and modular so you don't need to make multiple stands of various levels.

Prometheus
2009-01-08, 02:17 PM
Sphere packing is the right way to do it. Many people just prefer to use hexagonal prisms, that is, hex maps layered right on top of each other in the same spots.

Cybren
2009-01-08, 02:17 PM
Or: use a real world unit that is easy to visualize (one foot, one yard/meter, etc), and describe all distances in multiples of the unit rather than abstract "spaces" or "squares", so that the grid is only used when tactical combat detail is necessary

Fax Celestis
2009-01-08, 02:22 PM
Or: use a real world unit that is easy to visualize (one foot, one yard/meter, etc), and describe all distances in multiples of the unit rather than abstract "spaces" or "squares", so that the grid is only used when tactical combat detail is necessary

Well, that's pretty much when I would need it the most. I tend to have a lot of flying players and enemies.

Cybren
2009-01-08, 02:27 PM
Well, that's pretty much when I would need it the most. I tend to have a lot of flying players and enemies.

so, how do you plan on constructing the 3D grid?

Fax Celestis
2009-01-08, 02:35 PM
so, how do you plan on constructing the 3D grid?

Well, the stacks will essentially land directly on top of the previous tier's intersections, using the sphere-pack method. That'd just mean you'd end on space, then intersection, then space, then intersection, etc., using a marker for determining heights like someone stated above.

The simpler method looks like what I've been doing, which is just treating the hexes as columns.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-08, 02:36 PM
There isn't. You can't make a 3D object out of just hexagons.

There's always buckminsterfullerene... :smalltongue:

fractic
2009-01-08, 02:46 PM
There's always buckminsterfullerene... :smalltongue:

Actually no matter how many hexagons there are there are allways exactly 12 pentagons to spoil that. Not to mention that it's not usuable as a grid since it doesn't form a lattice.

Greg
2009-01-08, 03:24 PM
Treat the hexes as columns, as the fly rules take into account ascent and descent as being purely vertical.