Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Waldo" data-source="post: 1040825" data-attributes="member: 13316">Caliban... we totally agree.  That's sort of sad. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />My response with problems about range came from:This number includes the squares around the caster and the 4 squares at the final intersection.  I thought you were supporting this theory when you disagreed with my next post, in which I wasn't specific about why the 'far side' was important.  You aren't.  My fault.  I was trying to maintain that the line couldn't affect squares it just touched at the end of its area or range simply by the means of "squares it touches" rule in the illustration. I was not saying that the first diagram didn't affect 14 squares, I had decided this was correct.  I attempted to use the fact that the line 'touched' the other squares near the caster, and they were still unaffected according to the PH illustration, to invalidate the former idea.  Unfortunately, you didn't have that idea at all.I've always agreed with this, but the rules seem inconsistent.  So this doesn't follow the 'touching' rule because of a somantic rule?  Dicey way to write rules.  I guess that's why we get pictures.  No no.  The reason I initially refuted the intersection rule was because it made the numbers so different according to the diagrams in this thread. Once I accepted that a 10' wide line was affected when going straight (18 squares in my example), I accepted that intersections include all 4 squares, because the number of affected squares remained close with those assumptions.  That was way back at:Although now the diagonal is 16, because of the range limitation.I thought that's what I was trying to do <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> That's exactly why I joined this thread.  I thought it silly that a straight version of the 4th illustration was 9 squares at best and a diagonal version was 18.  That seemed absurd.  Now that the straight version does 18 and the diagonal does 16, everything's groovy.  But I note that some non-straight versions (that aren't at 45 degrees) will still have varying numbers of squares, most even further below the 45 degree angle.Man, we could have finished this a long time ago.  I wish I had realized that your first assessment actually matched what I came to agree with during the beginning of the thread.  Sorry about the confusion, and the earlier snippiness.  At least I learned from this thread, unlike many others.</blockquote>

Verification