Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jens" data-source="post: 1048740" data-attributes="member: 605">Jhyrryl,I agree that things should be kept simple. But why do you *have* to draw lines between the squares? Why not take a chess board? That 'definition' of a grid of squares should be as good as drawing the boundaries between the squares. Now, it seems to me that your argument above relies on the squares being bounded and that the borders are shared to the degree that it cannot be made using a chess board. [Here, I would have liked to put a small bitmap I made, but how to display it? I will try putting it in an attachment.]Also you say that &quot;The definitions of squares 1 and 2 share a common line segment that runs between points B and E. Because all the points along that segment exist in the set of points that define the area of both squares 1 and 2, a spell's line effect that is designated to run along such a segment, must affect both squares.&quot; The first part I agree with, that's the implication of the definition of squares that you use. But whether &quot;a spell's line effect that is designated to run along such a segment, must affect both squares&quot; depends completely on what the rules say, and in one place it says it does and in another it says it doesn't.Ah, well. I guess it doesn't matter that much anyway.Agreed <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jens, post: 1048740, member: 605"] Jhyrryl, I agree that things should be kept simple. But why do you *have* to draw lines between the squares? Why not take a chess board? That 'definition' of a grid of squares should be as good as drawing the boundaries between the squares. Now, it seems to me that your argument above relies on the squares being bounded and that the borders are shared to the degree that it cannot be made using a chess board. [Here, I would have liked to put a small bitmap I made, but how to display it? I will try putting it in an attachment.] Also you say that "The definitions of squares 1 and 2 share a common line segment that runs between points B and E. Because all the points along that segment exist in the set of points that define the area of both squares 1 and 2, a spell's line effect that is designated to run along such a segment, must affect both squares." The first part I agree with, that's the implication of the definition of squares that you use. But whether "a spell's line effect that is designated to run along such a segment, must affect both squares" depends completely on what the rules say, and in one place it says it does and in another it says it doesn't. Ah, well. I guess it doesn't matter that much anyway.Agreed :) [/QUOTE]

Verification