Charge - To nearest square? Huh?

[Bagpuss]

If charging round corners is good enough for Han Solo it's good enough for me.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!

 

[Dracorat]

Pull: When you pull a creature, each square you
move it must bring it nearer to you.

I disagree with your assessment that north then east in the diagram is not "one step closer to you" as it is the only path along which such movement is possible.

The square before the corner is two squares away from the banana. The square on the corner is two squares away from the banana. Just because I can't move directly across the corner on a diagonal doesn't alter those distances.

I also disagree that since you can't move them, the distance isn't altered. A "square" you can't move in to due to terrain isn't a "square" - it's an obstruction.

Moving from one square that's two squares away from the target to another square that's two squares away from the target is not moving towards the target.

I quite agree, but still disagree that we got no closer as we moved around the corner.

Let's say the banana has a Pull-2 power. He cannot pull the monkey around the corner; he can't move the monkey diagonally across the corner (since forced movement can only move you somewhere you can walk to), and he cannot pull the monkey north-then-east, because the first square of movement is not moving the monkey closer to him.

See my first statement of this post. Moving a person then north takes them two squares away, then one square away. From an initial point of being 3 squares away.

Page 273 talks about counting distance...

Counting Distance: When counting the distance from one square to another, start counting from any adjacent square (even one that is diagonally adjacent but around a corner) and then count around solid
obstacles that fill their squares. You must choose the most direct path to a target when counting squares for range or when determining the extent of an area of effect.

It explicitly states when counting distance, you count around solid obstacles.

If we are using the forced movement model of one-square-closer to adjudicate 'directly towards' for a charge, the monkey cannot charge north-then-east around the corner, because the north movement does not bring him one square closer to the banana.

Only if I accept your explanation that it's not closer, which I don't and I believe that the solid object counting rule of above explains why.

For another example, let's say the Banana King is protected by several banana bodyguards. The monkey wishes to charge the Banana King.

Would you say this is a valid charge?

--------
---K----
--------
--BBB---
---M----

--------
---K----
--1-----
-2BBB---
--3M----

Three squares is the minimum amount of movement required for the monkey to reach the 'nearest square from which he can attack his target'. But that square is only two squares away from his starting position.

I'd call this an invalid charge... but it's an identical situation to the corner above (which I'd also call an invalid charge).

-Hyp.

I call this an invalid charge as well as the guards are not solid obstacle that fill their squares.

OTOH, I do call this a valid charge:

---X---
--XBK--
-X-####
--X####
--M####

 

[arscott]

I'd say no--The closest square that the monkey can attack from would be the square that contains the wall corner--which is obviously occupied.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Page 273 talks about counting distance...

Counting Distance: When counting the distance from one square to another, start counting from any adjacent square (even one that is diagonally adjacent but around a corner) and then count around solid
obstacles that fill their squares. You must choose the most direct path to a target when counting squares for range or when determining the extent of an area of effect.

It explicitly states when counting distance, you count around solid obstacles.

It does. But read the rest of what you quoted: "even one that is diagonally adjacent but around a corner".

-------
--cdB--
--b####
--a####
--M####

When counting the distance from square b to the Banana, we "start counting from any adjacent square (even one that is diagonally adjacent but around a corner)". That's square d. Square d is 1, the Banana's square is 2. So square b is 2 squares from the Banana. Square c is also two squares from the Banana. So moving from square b to square c is not getting closer to the Banana. It requires less movement to travel from square c to the Banana, than from square b to the Banana, but neither b nor c is closer.

We're still counting around solid obstacles, because none of the squares we counted are filled. But your quote for counting distance explicitly states that you count the diagonal around the corner, not the long path around the corner. Even though that's not a path you can actually travel.

-Hyp.

 

[Dracorat]

It does. But read the rest of what you quoted: "even one that is diagonally adjacent but around a corner".

Yes, but that's where you start, not what you count.

-------
--cdB--
--b####
--a####
--M####

When counting the distance from square b to the Banana, we "start counting from any adjacent square (even one that is diagonally adjacent but around a corner)". That's square d. Square d is 1, the Banana's square is 2. So square b is 2 squares from the Banana. Square c is also two squares from the Banana. So moving from square b to square c is not getting closer to the Banana. It requires less movement to travel from square c to the Banana, than from square b to the Banana, but neither b nor c is closer.

We're still counting around solid obstacles, because none of the squares we counted are filled. But your quote for counting distance explicitly states that you count the diagonal around the corner, not the long path around the corner. Even though that's not a path you can actually travel.

-Hyp.

I highly disagree that counting diagonally across a corner is counting distance. Diagonal is the starting point of the example given, but not a consideration of the actual counted distance, which goes around the object, not simply adjacent to it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Counting distance is not difficult in 4e. A square is a square, diagonal or not, occupied or not, it's still there. Counting movement or determining the affected area of a burst requires you to go around obstacles, counting distance does not.

There are oddities in this that result from eliminating the 1.5 square diagonal of 3e. One of them is that going around a barrier oriented perpendicular to your movement along a row or column of squares is free if you start and end far enough back from the barrier - but, if the barrier is perpendicular to a diagonal path of movement, going around it always takes more movement.

Zig-zag charges are an artifact of the same simplification, /if/ you interpret 'directly' as 'by the shortest distance' as opposed to 'in a straight line.' IRL, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. In 4e, the shortest distance between two squares is a straight line along a diagonal, or any path within a 90-degree angle and back again of a straight line along a row or column. If you want to get silly, you can also protest that only movement along a row, column or diagonal is movement in a straight line, since anything else only /aproximates/ straight-line movement.

It's just one instance among many where 4e's reality check bounces.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, but that's where you start, not what you count.

Certainly. The result is the same, though.

The monkey is trying to get to square d. What's the distance from square d to the monkey? We start from any square adjacent to d, even if it's diagonally across a corner - that's square b. Add in square a and the monkey's square, and the distance from square d to the monkey's square is three squares.

The monkey moves 1 square, to square a. The distance from square d to the monkey is now two squares.

The monkey moves 1 square, to square b. The distance from square d to the monkey is now one square.

The monkey moves 1 square, to square c. The distance from square d to the monkey is now one square - the last square the monkey moved did not move him closer to his destination.

-Hyp.

 

[Dracorat]

Certainly. The result is the same, though.

The monkey is trying to get to square d. What's the distance from square d to the monkey? We start from any square adjacent to d, even if it's diagonally across a corner - that's square b. Add in square a and the monkey's square, and the distance from square d to the monkey's square is three squares.

The monkey moves 1 square, to square a. The distance from square d to the monkey is now two squares.

The monkey moves 1 square, to square b. The distance from square d to the monkey is now one square.

The monkey moves 1 square, to square c. The distance from square d to the monkey is now one square - the last square the monkey moved did not move him closer to his destination.

-Hyp.

You keep asserting your way of counting as fact.

I believe your way of counting contradicts rules, as stated above.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You keep asserting your way of counting as fact.

I believe your way of counting contradicts rules, as stated above.

Do you dispute that when I count the distance from square d to the monkey's starting position, I begin at a square adjacent to square d (even if it is diagonally but around a corner) and count from there?

Do you dispute that if I begin at a square adjacent to square d (even if it is diagonally but around a corner) and count from there, the count is three squares?

-Hyp.

 

[Dracorat]

Do you dispute that when I count the distance from square d to the monkey's starting position, I begin at a square adjacent to square d (even if it is diagonally but around a corner) and count from there?

I don't dispute that's the starting point.

Do you dispute that if I begin at a square adjacent to square d (even if it is diagonally but around a corner) and count from there, the count is three squares?

-Hyp.

Yes, I count it as four, using the rules above that state you count "around" the corner.