Contact Us. My Account. Item s. The first side scoring eleven points and leading by at least two points wins. The Pickleball Serve Serves are to be made diagonally, starting with the right-hand service-square and alternating each serve. The serve must clear the seven-foot non-volley-zone in front of the net and land in the diagonal service court.
Serves should always be done underhand with the paddle below the waist, and the server must keep both feet behind the back line when serving. The ball should be hit into the air without being bounced. The serving side will continue to serve until the there is a fault on the service, at which point the service will be given to the opposing side. However, if the ball touches the net but still lands within the appropriate service court, the serve may be taken over.
The Server must keep both feet behind the back line when serving. But figured that not all know what it means. And thus wanted to show examples from the internet.
Then I got across what I was looking for. Ow dmn, someone has beaten me to it. A guy called John Savard. His explanation: Al movement begins and ends on a white circle.
Every white or red circle counts as 1. Funny - I've recently been thinking of doing something like this using hexagons. I'm very slowly trying to figure out rules for a grid-based WWII naval-themed wargame, and while I love hexagons, it irked me that the six directions of movement don't correspond well to four cardinal directions of a compass-rose.
So then I thought: what if you could have a node halfway along each edge of a hexagon. Then you can move in 12 directions, not six, with half of those moves ending on an edge node. Now I can still have my NSEW compass directions and two movement directions between them - which is good, as ships have big turning circles.
And the difference in distance is relatively small: moving between centers of two hexagons with sides 1 unit long equals a move of 1. Maybe you can adapt something like this to your existing hex maps? By the way: email or pm me if you still need help with map editing issue; I haven't forgotten, just been quite busy. Edit: after drawing it out, I saw that in fact you still end up with a hexagonal distance pattern, which is as you say a poorer approximation than a octagon so no gain there just with the number of movement directions.
X3M wrote: let-off studios wrote: Have you thought of using an offset grid? My apologies. I don't visit frequently enough to catch everything. Yes it takes a bit more thought to think about the alternating cost of diagonal moves. I think this makes it easier to look at the map and quickly see how far you can move. X3M wrote: An addition occurred this morning: Do you know something about soldiers turning on their spot?
I think this makes it too hard to turn around unless you're dealing with a LOT of movement points. One example of something like this is space hulk. The terminators get 4 MP and it costs them one to turn 90 degrees on the spot. This means that it costs them half of their go just to turn around on the spot.
Since their MP are also used for attacking, this makes facing critically important. But a normal soldier can turn on the spot much more quickly than that, so it doesn't make as much sense for their movement speed to halve just because they need to turn around.
So if you had, say 30 movement points and it cost you 1 per facing change so costs 4 to turn around with 8 facings it's only a small speed loss.
On the other hand I'd say so. I think this only makes sense if you use the point-based movement system for something else as well. Like different terrain types costing different number of points etc. Otherwise, you might want to ask yourself if this constant calculation however simple is necessary? If you really need the diagonal movement, and the spread between the movement points isn't very large, you may use "you may move diagonally once per turn" instead.
That would lead to similar pattern, but without calculation. Which confirms most conclusions in this topic. To Complex for gameplay]. Funny how I also tried with hexagons the wrong way first. It is much more difficult to picture how to do it right. But this method also requires one to have patience when figuring it out.
Having a history of math helps a lot here. Which most players do not have. The thing is, while the hexagon sometimes shows the desired dodecagon. If you look closely to the corners, they are indeed still hexagons. There is only a short while of illusion at a distance of 4 and 5. But calculating backwards shows that these 2 are also hexagons mathematical speaking.
In practise; the maximum movement is 5 for your desired dodecagon. If you use 6, you got your hexagon back. While 1. I don't think that 1. Meaning that using 1. This might sound strange. But have you tried 1. These 3 and 7 for "diagonal" movements also show at what minimum distance, you see the new desired shape.
At 6 and 14, you have your reconfirmation. While for the square grid, we can use a movement of 2 or more based on 2 and 3.
Now, lets see at the required distance for the shape, and the corresponding numbers for movement. Who would like to try to get the most optimal movement out of 28? Back to the 2 and 3. Same reason, but ages go down.
I figured that people like me have no problems with the squared grid. It is rather easy to follow. But I would certainly not use it for a kids game.
If I ever would go as far as designing more games. And the above shows what iamseph is saying. It is indeed better to avoid this complexity for the simpler games. While the octagon is rather easy in my eye's. And as the previously given link shows. It can be shown on maps as well for players to count in an easier way.
I have seen many games where fast units can only turn slowly on the spot. And, as how you have put it, a slow soldier can actually turn fast on the spot. If I can find a strategic value in these differences. I would like to apply it. If there is no strategic value in it; I consider it a waste of time for players. In my "completer" wargame, terrain does have influence. But in a sence of space that is.
It is a very easy concept. You look for your path. And see if each hexagon shows sufficient space. If not, you need to move your forces in 2 or more turns. Which also simulates slower movement.
This space can be different for different units. I expect that Roll20 will probably end up with a choice of distance metrics for the measuring tool, or perhaps a customisable formula. But if it does have to end up with only one, there is one thing I'd like to point out.
If you want to use a method that depends on counting squares and applying a simple formula, and the built-in measuring tool doesn't support it, then you are no worse off than on a real table. But if you are playing a game that depends on real measurement and the measuring tool doesn't support it you face quite the problem.
Real-distance measurement has a claim to be the highest priority distance measurement because it is the hardest to do without if you need it. Still all the games I play have one system of squares, hexes or whatever to regulate movements. The grid can vary from game to game, but it is there. All the VTT I know use a grid and grid measurements. And almost all of the tactical maps I can think of have a grid added upon them.
On the other hand, I don't know a game using real measurement tabletop wargames, only , that you think should be the basis for all the games. It would be great if the tool has toggles to use different mechanics for calculating distance to enable other systems.
I suspect that for ranged combat, if everybody was stuck with phythagoras, that wouldn't be too much of a problem. It's a straight-line and it's mathematically correct.
As agamegos's earlier example used However, figure movement is a different matter. It can be a squiggly line as the token moves around corners and obstacles.
It is NOT a simple matter of calculating distance from starting point to ending point by Pythagoras. They needed something fast to count how many squares you moved against your allotment of 4,6 or 12 squares. Since the distance involved does tend to be small during movement, compared to ranged combat, I think humans could do the counting by their game rules manually, rather than engage the VTT to do it.
And really, unless the VTT had your speed , and made you walk your token across the map so it could count squares moved, it's not practical for the VTT to do it. Since you can just drag and drop your token to any place, the VTT is clearly not managing that aspect of the game and it is the humans responsibility. Just like on a real table. I think it is worth mentioning that the distance tool still measures simply the greater of A squares down or B squares over instead of either a fraction calculated by pythagorus, or an approximate method of your choice.
This means for diagonal lines, the measurement tool is usually less accurate than eyeballing, not much of a tool at all.
I am with Janx that the raw pythagorean decimal not even snapping the start and finish location of the arrow to the center of squares should be used, to allow you to measure map distances and other things swiftly and accurately.
Allowing checkmarks, or even a whole seperate tool to sleect movement rules and display should be a job for another day, once you can use the measuring tool to measure. Any love here from the roll20 folks? Anything but the current metric would be an improvement for me, but I agree that the default for a measurement tool should be Right now we have to measure X, then measure Y, and do the math ourselves, which is only slightly faster than counting squares but ends up with fewer fingerprints on the screen.
Also for a laugh, use the measurement tool in hex grid mode. Even if some of these points have already been taken into consideration for the last update in the Ruler Tool, I want to say that I agree with them: I don't actually play any systems that use a square grid. Patrick C. Even if it can use 1 yard hexes for tactical situations and combat, the general idea is using real measurement for everything, instead of "gamist", arbitrary units.
Distances are given in feet and miles, rather than arbitrary units; times are given in minutes and seconds. That also makes it easy to translate. It means that distances are given in feet and miles and yards, that's all. From what can be seen in the system, in the scenarios, in the maps sold by SJG, even from what can be deduced from the evolution of the game from TFT to Man to Man to GURPS 1 to 4th ed , it seems that tactical combat is expected to be played on 1 yard hexes.
That just means that your grid is expressed in real world units, no more. On the above discussion, using real measurements did mean no grid and no movement or distance regulations through a grid, just measuring, like wargamers on a tabletop. We used to play shadowrun on a large mat and used measuring tape for distances; I don't know if that's normal for the game or not. Andrew P.
0コメント