chain lightning and walls

[exid]

just to be sure:
can a CL go through a wall (first target the wall and the a creature in the zone behind the wall)?

[Zuberi]

Yes it can. Be aware though that because of the Wall's unique placement between zones, counting range from it may not be entirely intuitive. The 0 to 1 range of Chain Lightning means that the subsequent attack can only hit a target in a zone adjacent to the wall, because 0 would be where the wall is between zones, and 1 would be an adjacent zone (or another wall adjacent to an adjacent zone).

[Halewijn]

Zuberi, you are incorrect.

A while back there was a huge disussion about walls and ranged attacks. The conclusion in the end was that the attacker could "choose" in which zone it was positioned for counting. This way giving ranged (1-2) attacks the possibility to hit a wall adjacent to their zone.

Applying the same rule here, makes it possible to shoot further.

Also "0 would be where the wall is between zones". We never use these spaces to count anything. As far as I know, that space is indefinitely small.

[exid]

ok for the wall-passing (it's what is written, but it's so unnatural, i wanted to be sure)

about range, i see it as Zubery said: the wall is not in the adjacent zone, so the adjacent zone is range 1 from a wall.
about targetting a wall it's written in the rulles supplement that if you want to target a wall you have to target an adjacent zone... so i don't see how to taget an adjacent wall with a 1-2 attack...

[Halewijn]

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=15699.0

[Halewijn]

ok for the wall-passing (it's what is written, but it's so unnatural, i wanted to be sure)

about range, i see it as Zubery said: the wall is not in the adjacent zone, so the adjacent zone is range 1 from a wall.
about targetting a wall it's written in the rulles supplement that if you want to target a wall you have to target an adjacent zone... so i don't see how to taget an adjacent wall with a 1-2 attack...

Like this

[Zuberi]

Zuberi, you are incorrect.

A while back there was a huge disussion about walls and ranged attacks. The conclusion in the end was that the attacker could "choose" in which zone it was positioned for counting. This way giving ranged (1-2) attacks the possibility to hit a wall adjacent to their zone.

Applying the same rule here, makes it possible to shoot further.

Also "0 would be where the wall is between zones". We never use these spaces to count anything. As far as I know, that space is indefinitely small.

You are confusing counting distance for a ranged attack originating from a wall with counting distance for a ranged attack targeting a wall. They are not the same thing. When targeting a wall, you count distances to an adjacent zone exactly how you stated. However, when counting distances FROM a wall, the first zone you encounter is a distance of 1 zone away from the wall.

Thus, if you have a creature in a zone adjacent to the wall, the wall is both 0 zones away from the creature and 1 zone away from the creature when measuring from the creature. However, the creature is exactly 1 zone away from the wall when measuring from the wall. No more and no less. That's why I felt the need to mention this in the first place even though it was not a part of the question. It is quite unintuitive.

[Halewijn]

you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?

[exid]

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=15699.0

but that's against the rulles!
how an attack that cannot hit a close object could hit a close wall?

i read that there was an official Laddinfance-word here, but how is ot explained?

[Zuberi]

you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?

I'm afraid so.

[Halewijn]

you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?

I'm afraid so.

Yeah, well, not gonna happen in my world.. that's just too ridiculous.

but, tbh: never had this occur ever in a game. 

[exid]

you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?

I'm afraid so.

that's logical: the wall is not in a zone (rulles) and to target it you have to target an adjacent zone.
i see why the adjacent zone is 1 from the wall, but i don't see why the wall is not 0 from the zone...

[Zuberi]

you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?

I'm afraid so.

that's logical: the wall is not in a zone (rulles) and to target it you have to target an adjacent zone.
i see why the adjacent zone is 1 from the wall, but i don't see why the wall is not 0 from the zone...

I apologize, I made a mistake in my distances with my example. The adjacent wall would be at both a distance of 0 and 1 from the zone and either could hit it. The adjacent zone though would be exactly a distance of 1 zone away from the wall. I have fixed my previous post.

[exid]

i see why the adjacent zone is 1 from the wall, but i don't see why the wall is not 0 from the zone...

I apologize, I made a mistake in my distances with my example. The adjacent wall would be at both a distance of 0 and 1 from the zone and either could hit it. The adjacent zone though would be exactly a distance of 1 zone away from the wall. I have fixed my previous post.

So the wall IS 0 from the zone! I understand that (to hit a wall i have to target the adjacent zone, so the adjacent zone is distance 0)
But you say the wall is distance 1 from the zone TOO. How do you explain that?

[Zuberi]

you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?

I'm afraid so.

Yeah, well, not gonna happen in my world.. that's just too ridiculous.

but, tbh: never had this occur ever in a game. 

The issue here is that the wall is not in a zone. It is between zones. However, distances are only measured in zones. This causes problems when trying to determine where exactly a wall is in relation to other things.

Let's look at measuring distance for effects originating from a wall first. A range of 0 always means it has to target things in the same zone as the source of the effect. In the case of a wall, there is no zone at range 0 because the wall is not in a zone. Meanwhile, a range of 1 always means the zones adjacent to the source of the effect. For a wall, that means the two zones bordering the wall.

Now, when we try to measure the distance for effects targeting a wall we have a different set of issues. If you want to target a wall adjacent to the zone you're in, we have a really serious problem. The wall is not in your zone, so it's not at a range of 0, and it's not in the adjacent zone, so it's not at a range of 1 either. It exists in between these two measurements. Unfortunately, these are the only measurements that we have available due to the way the game is designed. One falls short and the other overshoots, so neither really works and both are equally valid. This was the source of the great debate in the thread that Halewijn linked to. Instead of arbitrarily deciding to use one over the other, the official stance of Arcane Wonders is that since both are equally valid, both are acceptable to use. You can target the wall with both a ranged 0 effect and a ranged 1 effect.

I hope that makes sense. It is a bit of a headache to wrap your head around, I know.