Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="phloog" data-source="post: 5447342" data-attributes="member: 59219">(QUOTING SOMEONE ELSES rules quote, so hope they got it right)&quot;Page 100: &quot;Melee [number]: The power can be used against a target that&nbsp; is within the specified number of squares of the power's origin square.&nbsp; For example, a melee power that has a range of 1 can normally be used&nbsp; against an adjacent target, whereas a melee power that has a range of 0&nbsp; can be used only against a target sharing the attacker's space.&quot;I think I agree with an earlier poster in that I think that the problem is stemming from Shikami having an odd definition of &quot;within&quot;&quot;Within the specified number of squares&quot;...so if I'm reading Shikami's posts correctly, the origin square is not &quot;within&quot; 1 square of the origin square...?&nbsp; For me, in these terms a number can either fall within a range, or outside a range, or if you want a third it can exist on the fringe, but clearly 0 does not fall on the fringe between, say, 1 and 2.Shikami, a serious question:&nbsp; Do you accept as an adequate (for these purposes) definition of 'within' the idea that it involves a distance that is less than or equal to some specified value?&nbsp; If not, how are you defining &quot;within&quot;If you don't define it as &lt;=X , then I'm confused.Now imagine a Melee 7 power if such existed.&nbsp; I think you would agree that it could hit someone at 7 squares out, but also 6, 5, 4, 3, etc.&nbsp; Or are you suggesting that it can only hit at exactly 7?And the 'etc.' is where you're losing us I think.&nbsp; My definition of &quot;within&quot; in terms of squares means that it encompasses all distances less than or equal to the specified value.&nbsp; Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that the logical progression ends right before 0 -- essentially that 0 (in the same square) is not &lt;= X, where X is the value.&nbsp; Our assertion is that 0 is less than 1.Now take it to the practical, and I think that unless you're just arguing for argument's sake you'll agree that even if you were right about that rule (you aren't) that your interpretation makes no sense in practice . &nbsp;A melee attack could include a swat with the bare hands, correct?By your interpretation, if I kick a beehive, and now have 4,023 bees swarming about my head, I am completely unable to swat at them unless I move over a bit...I need to step 5 feet over to be adjacent to the swarm, drawing OAs, and then swat over at them.If you want to HOUSE rule that you can't attack someone in the square you are in with a pike, that might make sense (but I could still probably hit someone with the shaft), but I think that by the rules I'VE read, and by just sensible looks at the impacts in game, the idea that you can attack someone who is 5' away from you with a dagger, but you can't stab someone who is getting a piggy back ride from you, is a bit silly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="phloog, post: 5447342, member: 59219"] (QUOTING SOMEONE ELSES rules quote, so hope they got it right) "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, whereas a melee power that has a range of 0 can be used only against a target sharing the attacker's space." I think I agree with an earlier poster in that I think that the problem is stemming from Shikami having an odd definition of "within" "Within the specified number of squares"...so if I'm reading Shikami's posts correctly, the origin square is not "within" 1 square of the origin square...? For me, in these terms a number can either fall within a range, or outside a range, or if you want a third it can exist on the fringe, but clearly 0 does not fall on the fringe between, say, 1 and 2. Shikami, a serious question: Do you accept as an adequate (for these purposes) definition of 'within' the idea that it involves a distance that is less than or equal to some specified value? If not, how are you defining "within" If you don't define it as <=X , then I'm confused. Now imagine a Melee 7 power if such existed. I think you would agree that it could hit someone at 7 squares out, but also 6, 5, 4, 3, etc. Or are you suggesting that it can only hit at exactly 7? And the 'etc.' is where you're losing us I think. My definition of "within" in terms of squares means that it encompasses all distances less than or equal to the specified value. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that the logical progression ends right before 0 -- essentially that 0 (in the same square) is not <= X, where X is the value. Our assertion is that 0 is less than 1. Now take it to the practical, and I think that unless you're just arguing for argument's sake you'll agree that even if you were right about that rule (you aren't) that your interpretation makes no sense in practice . A melee attack could include a swat with the bare hands, correct? By your interpretation, if I kick a beehive, and now have 4,023 bees swarming about my head, I am completely unable to swat at them unless I move over a bit...I need to step 5 feet over to be adjacent to the swarm, drawing OAs, and then swat over at them. If you want to HOUSE rule that you can't attack someone in the square you are in with a pike, that might make sense (but I could still probably hit someone with the shaft), but I think that by the rules I'VE read, and by just sensible looks at the impacts in game, the idea that you can attack someone who is 5' away from you with a dagger, but you can't stab someone who is getting a piggy back ride from you, is a bit silly. [/QUOTE]

Verification