Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?

[Ziana]

You are implying that counting X squares from center in all directions is a use for defining the area of the blast. That is the area of the burst in the sense the origin is in the center of the burst.

Yes, that's what I said. Counting from the center is for bursts. Blasts are measured on the sides, or width and height. I was responding in that section to the comment that bursts use a different method of measurement, and so necessarily conform their shape to the battlegrid. A burst of 5 squares is 5 in all directions on the grid, and will always result in a square.

Since bursts can only be squares, and for wall spell effects, diagonals aren't permitted, I think it should be self-evident that blasts are also meant to conform to the grid, not be counted diagonally, with all the consequences that entails.

I think a rhomboid is a great approach to houseruling interesting angles that is consistent with the expected area for effects.

By the way, I share the same interpretation of the rules as you do as to the shape of the area as well as the area that it includes.

 

[Insignia]

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but according to the definitions of close and area attacks on page 271, an area of effect "has a certain size". How does that work with an interpretation that involves changing the size of the area?

 

[Torg Smith]

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but according to the definitions of close and area attacks on page 271, an area of effect "has a certain size". How does that work with an interpretation that involves changing the size of the area?

It does not really add any value. It is very vague.

 

[silentounce]

I'm about to throw this for a loop. I know dracorat will like this. This is what the rules say, "A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side."

Bold is mine, obviously. Notice that they say "a" side, not every side, all sides, etc. So really, as long as one side of the area meets that specified number the rest of the sides can contain as many squares as you like. And that's RAW.

See how ridiculous this gets?

 

[Dracorat]

Since "a side" could arbitrarily be any of the sides you wouldn't want to create a shape that fails the rule on any of its sides.

I am not arguing fanaticism here. I am arguing that constraining the shape to east/west & north/south is not required.

At this point, I think my reasons are very clear, as well as my standpoint.

As I stated before, I have no desire to "convert" anyone, but rather, offer the OP a view point I believe is perfectly valid.

 

[MarkB]

Since "a side" could arbitrarily be any of the sides you wouldn't want to create a shape that fails the rule on any of its sides.

I am not arguing fanaticism here. I am arguing that constraining the shape to east/west & north/south is not required.

At this point, I think my reasons are very clear, as well as my standpoint.

As I stated before, I have no desire to "convert" anyone, but rather, offer the OP a view point I believe is perfectly valid.

If you can come up with a diagonal version of the blast that doesn't amount to just tacking on four squares to the horizontal one at east, west, south and north, that's reasonable. If not, what you're creating isn't a variant blast, it's explicitly an enlarged blast.

 

[Ziana]

I am arguing that constraining the shape to east/west & north/south is not required.

Rule Zero is that nothing is required. But anything to the contrary isn't mentioned, described, suggested or indicated in the rules. Additionally, it contradicts both how bursts and walls work (bursts are necessarily constrained to grid squares, and walls specifically deny diagonal hops), the visual examples provided ("How do blasts work?" "Here, let me show you them!"), as well as ignoring the deliberately simplified nature of the 4E system and how square measurements are consistently used throughout.

It's not a valid viewpoint. It's one that depends on a deliberate exploitation of the fact that the rules don't account for all possible misinterpretations or twisting. But as I keep explaining, they don't have to. The merely provide the foundation which reasonable players have to work from.

How many minions can a 10 square blast kill?

 

[Ziana]

If you can come up with a diagonal version of the blast that doesn't amount to just tacking on four squares to the horizontal one at east, west, south and north, that's reasonable. If not, what you're creating isn't a variant blast, it's explicitly an enlarged blast.

This. You know, in all this, I didn't even catch that. "I'm going to arbitrarily move my blast area one square farther away and add four more squares. But I ROTATED it!".

 

[Torg Smith]

I'm about to throw this for a loop. I know dracorat will like this. This is what the rules say, "A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a specified number of squares on a side."

Bold is mine, obviously. Notice that they say "a" side, not every side, all sides, etc. So really, as long as one side of the area meets that specified number the rest of the sides can contain as many squares as you like. And that's RAW.

See how ridiculous this gets?

The ‘a’ side was the point I was trying to make earlier. The example on page 272 clearly states ‘The wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, which means the power affects a 3-square-by-3-square area adjacent to you. The ‘which means’ is clearly a clarification of the rule as opposed to an arbitrary example. This defines the area as a square. A square has all four sides of equal length.

 

[Zustiur]

I would suggest laying it out this way instead of using a diamond

.....
.x...
.xx..
.xxx.
.cxx.
...x.

The 'square' is 'turned' but does not make a diamond.
It's still 3x3, and it still only uses 9 squares.