Does the term "a creature" include yourself?
- Thread starter Skottie
- Start date
Aulirophile
First Post
Logically that would mean if you had a "melee 2" attack you could only attack at melee 2. Since that would be retarded, you're clearly wrong. Also it'd mean you couldn't make an MBA against a Tiny creature in your space, which you can, so you're wrong again.
Origin Square only specifies the starting location of the attack, and "Range" is explicitly the maximum range. There is no "minimum" range, and there would have to be for your statement to be anything but nonsense.
I have answered this before. As per rules, range "melee 2" means any two squares (1 or 2 squares, as so chosen) adjacent from the origin square. It does not mean you can only attack at a square that is two squares adjacent from the origin square. However, you can only make an OA to an adjacent enemy if you have a reach weapon. This is all covered on page 100, 201, and 270. And of course I am using Rules Compendium.
Edit:
You have to shift to be able to attack unless a power grants melee 0. This is in previous post. This is what makes tiny creatures nasty if played right. Making players use actions.
Last edited:
Aulirophile
First Post
....So 0 squares is not within 1 square of the origin square of a melee attack? Uh-huh. That math needs work.
Page 100: "Melee [number]: The power can be used against a target that is within the specified number of squares of the power's origin square. For example, a melee power that has a range of 1 can normally be used against an adjacent target, wheres a melee power that has a range of 0 can be used only against a target sharing the attacker's space.
No math necessary. It is clean and concise.
This can only be wrong. There is no rule anywhere that says this, and there would have to be. Nothing in the definition of 'origin square' says that it is excluded from its range, be it melee range, burst, blast. It would have to. Not even the description of Burst excludes the origin, only the "creator" in the cases of close bursts. (reference: heroes of the XXX essentials books). origin squares are legitimate targets for all attack types.
There are a number of creatures that enter your square (swarms, tiny, etc). It makes no sense that you can't attack them, and certainly isn't said/implied in the rules.
There are plenty of creatures with melee 0 range, and nowhere is it said this is a special thing. They have range zero, that means that can only attack within their origin square. There is no special explanation anywhere that says this is special, because attacking at range 0 is covered within and acceptable by mellee attack's initial description.
DracoSuave
First Post
What.
So, you count as a creature for the purpose of fireball but not for other powers.... This does not make sense.
You do not target yourself, it targets you? So an Area attack works entirely different in terms of targetting than other powers because....
.....I'm sorry. You cannot invent rules that do not exist to support your case regarding what the rules say.
Bloodied enemy MUST be an enemy. It must also be bloodied. But creature does not mean 'enemy or ally.'
It means 'CREATURE'.
Creature is 'A creature of any sort.' The additional whether clause is to indicate that enemy or ally status is irrelevant to this definition.
I am not attacking you, I am attacking a lack of premise in your argument, and that is NOT an ad hominem.
First off, the burden of proof is on you to provide pertinent rules text to support your case. It is not ad hominem to insist that you actually supply rules text that says what you claim. It is proper debate.
Where the origin square is irrelevant to this discussion. The rules for what you may target count origin square for concerns of line of sight, and line of effect. Origin square is never mentioned re: Creature, Ally, Enemy, or anything else.
Melee powers do require a target in order to target. Every melee power does, however, and every melee power has, following the Melee entry, a range that is either a numeral (1, 2) or a variable representing reach (weapon, reach).
The point you've missed here is that nothing in the entry for the Melee attack type restricts the minimum range of the power to 1. You are inferring that it does, but this rules text does not exist. And again, origin squares do not target. You do. This invention of yours may help in grokking the basics of how the rules work for various attack-types, but it is not rules correct, and has no place in a discussion on what the rules actually do.
If you are unable to take actions, you are unable to take free actions. That makes that powers that allow you to take attacks as free actions, either your own OR someone else's, will not allow you to do so as you are forbidden from taking that action. Powers that force you to attack without taking an action will not be stopped by you being forbidden to take actions.
So, yes, in this instance (a power forcing you to attack yourself) the inability to take actions is irrelevant, you are not taking an action, therefore nothing is forbidding you from attacking yourself.
This is trivial. There are thirty-two potential lines of effect in this scenario. Let's call the creatures A and B, and the corners of those creatures A1 through A4, and B1 through B4. 1 is in the northwest corner, and clockwise from there you count off 2, 3, and 4.
There are two scenarios for adjacency. Either they are horizontal/vertical to each other, or diagonally adjacent.
If they are horizontally adjacent, (in this instance, A is on the west, B is on the east), then you can draw an unbroken line of effect from A1 to B3, from A4 to B2, and vice versa. You can also draw unbroken lines of effect from A2 to B2, A3 to B3. Even if B was in terrain that broke line of effect, you can draw an unbroken line of effect from A1 to either B1 or B4, or from A4 to B1 or B4.
The final scenario is if both creatures are in blocking terrain. Even then, however, you can trace a line from A2 to B1, or A3 to B4.
Line of effect is -very- difficult to get in the way of for adjacent creatures... the only case I can think of is an effect that blocks all line of effect explicitly, or one specific corner case where two creatures are adjacent diagonally, but there are corners between them. Wall sides do block line of effect for this purpose.
However, all this is moot... the real question is, can a creature have line of effect to itself, or can an origin square of line of effect to a creature in that same square?
The answer is trivial as well. There are unbroken lines of effect going from A1 to A2, A3, and A4. And if in terrain that blocks line of effect? There's an unbroken line from A1 to A1.
A square has line of effect to itself in all but the most extreme corner cases, and those cases are not relevant to this particular rules question.
The origin square for a melee power is the attacker's square... but that does not logically mean that the origin square and the target cannot be one and the same.
No page you've pointed to actually countermands that, and in fact, that interpretation is contradictory to how very common powers work.
An example: Scorching Burst. The creature in the origin square of a scorching burst is quite targetted by it. It has line of effect to the origin square. And you can decide the origin square is your own square if you like, to 'groundpound' it. Not that it's a tactically smart idea, but you -can-.
I do agree that a close burst does not affect the creator (unless a specific exception is given). That is not the same thing as 'All powers that target creatures cannot target the creator.' In fact, you're trying to use a specific exception and claiming it is somehow the general rule?
I don't understand what the point of that example is.
Except you are also a creature, and therefore, 'a creature of any sort.' The only instance that would render creature to not target you is if you were NOT a creature of any sort. In that cause, you would not be targettable by any other power that targets creatures. And, because in this instance, 'you' means the actor of one's powers, that would mean that any creature with powers is not a creature of any sort, and therefore cannot be targetted by powers.
Again, this is a rules interpretation that breaks the ruleset... and therefore it is problematic.
I will agree that origin square and target mean different things. However, there is not a single solitary shred of rules text that says that creatures occupying origin squares are not targetted by that power. If you have a feat that moves the origin square of a close burst, you are still not affected by it. The power doesn't affect you because you are not affected by your own close bursts, not because of where the origin square is. Conversely, you have full reign to target a creature in the origin square of an area attack. In the case of some Area powers, like Cloud of Daggers, that's your only possible option.
Origin Squares don't target anything. You do. This rule does not exist, and possibly explains your odd interpretations here.
How is creature any different? The sentences are semantically equivalent.
And even so, specific beats general works here against you. There is no text that excludes you from the class 'A creature of any sort.' For your interpretation to be valid, the power MUST say 'A creature of any sort, excluding yourself.' Nothing excludes you.
Already did.
However, I must point out where I think your misunderstanding of the rule arises from:
Origin squares do not target things. You do. Your power, your target. If a fighter has something that triggers off of you not targetting them when you attack, if you used an area attack, by your definition, even if the attack targetted the fighter, the fighter would still trigger his ability. This is false... you HAVE triggered the fighter. Origin square is for determining line of effect and line of sight.
Nor do the concepts 'enemy' or 'ally' have meaning towards a square Squares do not have enemies or allies, because they do not have teammates or companions, something essential for the enemy/ally distinction.
This is another case of confusing an example of what is possible with the extent of what is possible.
Contrast the example of melee 1 with melee 0. The first case says 'Can normally be used against' where as the second case says 'can be used only against'.
The first is a statement of inclusion, where the latter is a statement of exclusion. For powers, the numerical range simply states the number of squares that the target must be within. This is the same for every power, regardless of attack-type. (And before we go on, attack-type is the correct term, even for utility powers)
In the case of Melee 1, normally adjacent monsters are the only ones you can target because the vast majority of monsters cannot occupy your space. Thusly, normally, it means adjacent. However if a monster can occupy your space, you can certainly attack it, as counting squares away from you, including its own space, is less than or equal to 1.
(Technically, your own space is range 1 from yourself, as in counting range, you do count the space the target occupies as one square, so... 0+1=1. Melee 0 is an exception, and it explicitly states that it means you can only attack your own square.)
Last edited:
Aulirophile
First Post
Your grasp of the English language when your counter-argument involves posting that text that proves my point, and you wrong, can't possibly be said to be anything but bad.
