Can you do a "diamond" shaped blast?

[Dracorat]

Claiming that the rotated version is wrong "because it affects more than 9 squares" is stuffing words in to the rules's mouth. It says "3 squares on a side". The diagonal has 3 squares on a side.

Claiming that the diagonal has 20 sides is quite a stretch as well. Anyone proposing rotation understands that the diagonal has 4 sides and is marking squares off according to the rotated orientation and the rule that says "three squares on a side".

 

[Ziana]

Claiming that the rotated version is wrong "because it affects more than 9 squares" is stuffing words in to the rules's mouth. It says "3 squares on a side". The diagonal has 3 squares on a side.

Please see my post above. The diamond presented is not a 3 by 3 figure, it mathematically has properties that make it, by definition, not an area of 3 rows by 3 columns.

Additionally, as I previously stated, it is not the rules' or the authors' problem to attempt to address every possible demented misinterpretation. "The rules do not say you can't light the battle mat on fire and declare victory that way. It doesn't! Therefore it's legal!"

Rather, the rules describe the area a spell consists of, and provide multiple visual examples. They say what to do and how to do it. The burden is on you to show where the rules state you should count diagonally on alternating rows and create a much larger geometric figure than is described by the rules. If you're unwilling or unable to grasp the intent of the rules, then I submit that a RPG rulebook written in plain English is not for you.

A 10x10 burst such as Maelstrom of Chaos covers an area of 100 squares, less the wizard. If you create a diamond figure of 10 parallel lines by 10 lines, and count the squares between those lines as well, what's the total area it covers?

The diamond is not a simple rotation. It's a simple consequence of the "diagonal moves take 1 square" rule that the result will be larger than a 3 by 3 square. Since that rule nowhere is said to apply to spell areas, doing so is not provided for by the rules.

You can house-rule whatever you like. But as far as I know, discussions of house-rules are supposed to take place in the house-rule forum?

 

[Ziana]

No one has disagreed with what the writers intended for this rule.

Yes, they have, starting from page one. The question was whether the diamond figure is consistent with the rules. It isn't. It is an invention that the rules do not suggest or depict. Furthermore, as I've shown, it plainly contradicts the defined area.

Some have pointed out that a literal interpretation without intent can allow this.

The rules "allow" for anything. Set the battle mat on fire. What the rules do not do, is say that this is correct.

If you do not want to get into a RAW discussion then don't.

Maybe those who are unable to deal with rulebooks in plain English shouldn't try to hijack every simple question about the rules, taking it off topic?

There is probably not a single rule in the book that couldn't give rise to a petulant discussion of how far it can be misinterpreted, by those who lack the ability to read in context. It's neither amusing nor interesting, and certainly doesn't help improve anyone's game experience.

 

[Dracorat]

The diamond presented is not a 3 by 3 figure, it mathematically has properties that make it, by definition, not an area of 3 rows by 3 columns.

Once again you have inserted words in to the rule's mouth.

It says 3 squares on a side. It says nothing about rows and columns.

Finally, I submit that if you are incapable of responding in a courteous (and non-snarky) manner then you might find it best to not visit this thread again.

 

[Ziana]

Once again you have inserted words in to the rule's mouth.

Not at all. The rules straightforwardly describe how to determine a blast area on the battle grid. The aim of course is to provide for a simple means to determine spell areas.

An ideal geometric figure consists of "3 squares by 3 squares".

How many squares across (or extending on the X axis) are there?

How many squares down (or extending on the Y axis) are there?

Finally, I submit that if you are incapable of responding in a courteous (and non-snarky) manner

I'm not being snarky. I submit that being deliberately obtuse, distorting rules, and inventing problems where there are none indicates a complete lack of courtesy and respect for other players.

 

[Dracorat]

My figure is 3 squares by 3 squares. And if things were so clear, this thread would not exist.

 

[Torg Smith]

Well I have to say that the rules only state a number of squares on a side. No were in the rules do they say this number applies to any more than one side. They have simple examples that show a square effect but nothing that says more than one side has to have X number of squares.

 

[Dracorat]

It does say a square, so all sides would have to have 3 squares. That's not really in question, orientation is.

 

[Torg Smith]

It does say a square, so all sides would have to have 3 squares. That's not really in question, orientation is.

Where does it say the area is a square?

 

[Ziana]

My figure is 3 squares by 3 squares.

Answer the questions.

An ideal geometric figure consists of "3 squares by 3 squares".

How many squares across (or extending on the X axis) are there?

How many squares down (or extending on the Y axis) are there?

And if things were so clear, this thread would not exist.

The question was answered in the first few posts. It's only rules-lawyers who as I said get some sort of satisfaction out of trolling and starting arguments over trivialities that make this continue any longer than it needed to.