Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 3208341" data-attributes="member: 31734">No, although I may have tried that earlier (or someone did).  I conceded that point earlier to KD on the grounds that the web takes a round to burn away.  Based on the rules on spreads, though, I don't think that the burning is necessary to negate the cover.  Thus, my stance is based on any spread, not just a fire-based spread. Not quite.  This may be what it seems like to you, but it's not correct. My interpretation is that there is no cover vs. the spread by the time the spread gets to the (next) square.  IMO, this is the only interpretation you can have because otherwise you have no method in which to adjudicate an effect spreading around a wall.  Compare these two situations, where we assume that range is not a factor (widened or whatever).  I'll use your interpretation as an attempt to show why I think it's invalid.A. A point on the other side of a wall from the origin of a spread effect.  The effect spreads around the wall despite the fact that the point has total cover from the origin, because that's what the rule says it does.B. A point 20 or more feet inside a web from the origin of a spread effect.  The effect does not spread to the point because the point has total cover from the origin ("...if you draw a line as per the cover rules, you will always go through a corner that has cover and you will never find a line that does not go through cover...").Aren't you using the point-origin cover rule to negate one scenario and not the other?</blockquote>

Verification