Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2485212" data-attributes="member: 31734">The first thing you have to do is accept (i.e. agree) that you can attack someone from one of your corners to one of theirs (subject to my restriction that it must actually go through their square, regardless of how small an area it passes through).&nbsp; I think that this is correct, though, because it's how the rules on cover, concealment, etc. also work.&nbsp; I'm only adding in the additional restriction of going through the square (not just the target's corner) because of the &quot;directly towards&quot; phrase.&nbsp;So, as A charges X in a non-gridded Real world A's lower left corner would pass through X's upper right corner.&nbsp; Since A can attack from that lower left corner and X can be attacked at that upper right corner, this must logically be a valid charge.&nbsp; If you overlay the grids at the point A attacks and then force everyone into the closest approximating square, A would clearly be positioned in the upper square.&nbsp; A significantly greater majority of his Space would be in the upper square and not in the middle square, despite the fact that no matter how you slice it the line you draw would never actually go through the upper square.&nbsp;In a gridded system, however, you have to follow the path laid out by the squares.&nbsp; It is my opinion that you follow the gridded path most closely resembling the Real path, while maintaining the approach vector (please excuse the term).&nbsp; In this situation as clarified in the Real example above, I think it's clear that A's ending square is the upper one.&nbsp; In other words, you could not draw the line such that A attacks from his lower left corner to X's upper right corner and then position A such that that is not the closest (or most reasonable) approximation.&nbsp;Now, how much of my position is explicit rule-based vs. interpretation?&nbsp; I suppose we could debate that further, but I think that this view is not only possible within the rules, but the only one which is entirely consistent.&nbsp; When that happens, I have to say therefore it's the correct one.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 2485212, member: 31734"] The first thing you have to do is accept (i.e. agree) that you can attack someone from one of your corners to one of theirs (subject to my restriction that it must actually go through their square, regardless of how small an area it passes through). I think that this is correct, though, because it's how the rules on cover, concealment, etc. also work. I'm only adding in the additional restriction of going through the square (not just the target's corner) because of the "directly towards" phrase. So, as A charges X in a non-gridded Real world A's lower left corner would pass through X's upper right corner. Since A can attack from that lower left corner and X can be attacked at that upper right corner, this must logically be a valid charge. If you overlay the grids at the point A attacks and then force everyone into the closest approximating square, A would clearly be positioned in the upper square. A significantly greater majority of his Space would be in the upper square and not in the middle square, despite the fact that no matter how you slice it the line you draw would never actually go through the upper square. In a gridded system, however, you have to follow the path laid out by the squares. It is my opinion that you follow the gridded path most closely resembling the Real path, while maintaining the approach vector (please excuse the term). In this situation as clarified in the Real example above, I think it's clear that A's ending square is the upper one. In other words, you could not draw the line such that A attacks from his lower left corner to X's upper right corner and then position A such that that is not the closest (or most reasonable) approximation. Now, how much of my position is explicit rule-based vs. interpretation? I suppose we could debate that further, but I think that this view is not only possible within the rules, but the only one which is entirely consistent. When that happens, I have to say therefore it's the correct one. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification