Why do Judge's hate Warlocks?

99 posts / 0 new
Last post
Last week I played in a LFR mod where there were 2 Warlocks including myself. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. The judge in question ruled that you can't use another warlocks curse for extra curse damage when it clearly states that "a cursed enemy is more vulnerable to your attacks." Not "An enemy cursed by you is more vulnerable to your attacks."

Yes I see only getting your Pact Boon from your own curse as this is clear in the rules, but why is it that Warlocks are punished in a multi-warlock party? Its not like rangers or rogues get punished by having more than one in the party. Warlocks are underpowered as is compared to the other strikers.

So my question is. Is it legal for a judge to rule that a Warlock can't get his extra damage off another Warlock's curse? By RAW a Warlock should get his extra damage. Is it legal for a judge to go by his interpretation of RAI and completely ignore RAW?

Theziner
Actually, the RAW isn't quite as clear as you might like. I've seen it argued convincingly both ways and to the best of my knowledge it has not been clarified by errata.

Frankly, warlocks are a problematic class. On the whole they are underpowered in terms of damage output. At the same time they have some unique rule mechanics that are not particularly clearly defined. Due to this, depending on build and rules interpretation they tend to swing wildly between underpowered and situationally broken. 90% of the time they are underperforming strikers and 10% of the time they are derailing the battle and killing the fun for the other players.

So when there is some question I've found that judges tend to go with the more restrictive interpretation. It isn't always fair to the warlock player but tends to prevent surprises at the table for the DM and other players.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
Theziner, you are correct. A Warlock targeting a cursed enemy deals extra damage, regardless of who cursed him.

A judge should not be blatantly altering a PC's class features.
Judges don't hate Warlocks. As Telvin3d said, it's not so clear cut. They wrote it in a way that can be convincing either way. Personally I fall on the side of extra damage vs. your cursed target only. That doesn't mean I hate Warlocks.

Believe me, there are some serious language/grammer nerds that have parsed the Warlock's Curse rules ad naseum and it can be read both ways.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Is it legal for a judge to rule that a Warlock can't get his extra damage off another Warlock's curse?

Yes.

I think the right interpretation is that a warlock deals extra damage regardless of who cursed the target, but that's not the only valid interpretation.

Welcome to table variation and the absence of campaign DMs.

My suggestion would be that, in tables with more than one warlock, you ask the judge if he has any issue with your interpretation and have the discussion before the adventure starts. Personally, I'm more prone to considering questionable interpretations before combat than in the middle, so in general, if you're doing something that you're aware some DMs disagree as to the correct interpretation, I recommend not springing it on the DM in the middle of combat. (YMMV, as some advocate hiding such interpretations from the DM in hopes they don't notice, which I don't recommend.)

Besides the obvious grammar argument, the other point you might want to raise to a skeptical DM is that the designers recognized that "a marked enemy" refers to any marked target, and so errata'ed the Fighter's combat challenge to specify "an enemy marked by you", but when errata'ing the Warlock curse section at the same time, they left it as "a cursed enemy".
On the other hand, you could look at it this way...

What is the likelihood that the source of your warlock's power is exactly the same as another warlock's? I'm not talking about the likelihood of you both having Star Pact (for example) -- I'm talking about what is the likelihood that both of your Star Pacts came from the exact same Far Realms entity, in which case why would you gain extra damage from powers granted by some other entity? And it makes even less sense if you both have different pacts.

I'm not trying to make a RAW argument (which I agree is still vague enough to go either way), but for you to actually think about how your characters came about their powers, and the fact that the PTB would likely not structure their magic such that their minions (i.e., you the warlock) could cooperate in such a way as the OP described...
There's also a feat in Arcane Power that lets you get around it in no uncertain terms. Not only that, but you get CA too.
90% of the time they are underperforming strikers and 10% of the time they are derailing the battle and killing the fun for the other players.

I agree with everything else in the quoted post except this. I'd set the numbers closer to 1 in 50 (98% and 2%) than 1 in 10 (90% and 10%) as cases where the warlock derails a battle or ruins a table because of fun killing.

I assume the fun killing thing is a reference to the two rod business, or possibly to Cursebite, because other than these two fringe cases warlocks are all suck, all the time, including my own level 5 warlock.
There's also a feat in Arcane Power that lets you get around it in no uncertain terms. Not only that, but you get CA too.

If you're talking about Accursed Coordination, yeah, that strongly implies that you cannot get curse damage on a creature cursed by another warlock. (Otherwise, why create a feat which allows multiple curses on one creature?)
Multiple Pact Boons, and as mentioned above (but I can't confirm since I am not at home), Combat Advantage.
What DM's hate is the capacity for one charactor to wipe out scores of minions at once. Don't think that's a big deal well it is if the minions are meant to by time for the villain to do X in a mod. Now all of a sudden the BBEG has to deal with PC's in their face earlier than a DM would like which in turn makes it harder to give the PC's a challenge.
What DM's hate is the capacity for one charactor to wipe out scores of minions at once.

It isn't just that. Its the fact they can do it guaranteed. If someone casts Fireball and rolls well, that's terrific! But to use something must of us consider broken, its just going to make things far too easy. The mods are easy enough as it is.
Rod of Corruption/Reaving combo isn't the topic here. I don't use that combo and only one person in my gaming area that I have seen uses this on his/her warlock.

I don't see how you can argue both ways here. A cursed target is more vulnerable to your attacks. The judges that have ruled against using other people's curse did it out of what they thought RAI was not actually on what it said in the book.

Personally I feel that Warlocks are a more complicated and tactical class that the other strikers. People that don't understand the warlock powers tend to rule against them. They equate the curse to the ranger's quarry or even the fighter's mark.

Theziner
There's a thread on the striker board that's gone on for five pages about this. In essence:

1: It isn't clear cut one way or the other.
2: One interpretation almost invariably leads to more fun and less frustration for the players at the table than the other.
Late to the thread, but as someone who plays a striker as his primary, I wanted to chip in.

Argument: I'm on the side of ANY curse works for ANY warlock. I use the fact that curses can't be turned off or over-written as supporting arguments (unlike a mark which can apply to whomever placed it last).

Anecdote: I was fortunate enough to play at a table DMed by Mearls at DDXP. There were two warlocks at the table (including mine) - when I went to deal extra damage to a target cursed by the other warlock, he questioned it.

When I argued the RAW, as well as my above reasoning he nodded, told me "Oh, I guess that makes sense - go ahead!" and for the rest of the game the curse ONLY mattered for who got the boon.

Lesson: Even R&D seems to be unclear on the issue, and can be persuaded one way or the other. Expect table variation (and expect me to keep arguing for any/any).
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

I use the fact that curses can't be turned off or over-written as supporting arguments (unlike a mark which can apply to whomever placed it last).

Of course as I saw someone mention (not sure if it was in this thread or on the Yahoo group) it would make the Accursed Coordination feat pointless:

You can place your Warlock's Curse on a creature that is already affected by another characters's Warlock's Curse. ...

Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Of course as I saw someone mention (not sure if it was in this thread or on the Yahoo group) it would make the Accursed Coordination feat pointless:

Nah.

It means the difference in who gets the pact boon when the target drops.

A feylock who "needs" a teleport to get out of a tight spot finds this an important distinction when the targets nearest him are already cursed. Accursed Coordination means it's one less thing he has to worry about.

A Dark Pact Warlock who's trying to save up a bunch of charges before going off to face the BBEG would want this as well - because it means the "other" warlock in the party isn't stealing "his" charges.

Hardly useless to those two.
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

I dunno. It seems to me moee logical that the curse works similar to hunter's quarry (taht is: you have to cure, not another), and it also fits lore better (your curse gives you benefits, not someone else).
But it would be useful to have this answered.

Gomez
I dunno. It seems to me moee logical that the curse works similar to hunter's quarry (taht is: you have to cure, not another), and it also fits lore better (your curse gives you benefits, not someone else).
But it would be useful to have this answered.

Multiple rangers can quarry a target - you're effectively saying that having multiple warlocks in a party is a vast detriment (even beyond any opinions you may have on how bad warlocks suck). More importantly, hunter's quarry has specific language restricting it to your quarry, while curse does not.

If you're talking about Accursed Coordination, yeah, that strongly implies that you cannot get curse damage on a creature cursed by another warlock. (Otherwise, why create a feat which allows multiple curses on one creature?)

It does nothing of the sort - Accursed Coordination gives you combat advantage if you can get a 2nd curse on and means that pact boon benefits are not "wasted" by another warlock. It doesn't have to do anything at all with curse damage to be worthwhile.

There's certainly some unclear ruling going on, but I've yet to sit at a table in which the DM had actually read the rules and errata and then decided it worked that way. They almost always go 'But Rangers work like...' then 'Oh. Huh'
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Hardly useless to those two.

But it does mean the feat is more useful for all Warlocks.

I'd say if you want to avoid arguing and table variation (I personally see both sides have a valid argument. The fact that Mike Mearls didn't know of this interpretation crosses out the fact he was persuaded), take the feat.
Why should I be forced to take a feat when its situational at best for my character who is already feat starved. I can see this feat being great for a home game where there are two warlocks in the party, but I encounter another warlock about once in 4-5 games. (The mod I played had 3 infernalocks including myself lol) Only one time did the judge rule that curse damage was applied for anyone's curse.

Frankly I'm kind of fed up with being nerfed. I've had 3 items nerfed on my character. I've had judges rule that I needed to end up at least 3 squares away for my shadow walk to trigger ( i couldn't walk 3 squares back then walk two squares forward and get my concealment) on top of this curse bull. Is it so complicated that they can't open the book and read the Warlock entry? I'm frustrated about ambiguous rules and every other striker (which is 3/4 of most lfr groups) out damaging me. As an infernalock, the control side which is supposed to compensate for my damage is sadly lacking.

Don't get me wrong. I love my character. It is probably twice as fun as those boring archer rangers or two weapon fighters, but the warlock seems to get the shaft in more ways that one. It seems the symbolic Warlock Rod is actually the short end of the stick.

Theziner
Why should I be forced to take a feat when its situational at best for my character

You don't have to. If you prefer to take other feats and have DMs apply different rulings to your character, go for it. If you want to be able to have consistent rulings applied to your character then you're going to have to take the feat until such time as WotC makes it clear which ruling is the correct one.

Frankly I'm kind of fed up with being nerfed. I've had 3 items nerfed on my character. I've had judges rule that I needed to end up at least 3 squares away for my shadow walk to trigger ( i couldn't walk 3 squares back then walk two squares forward and get my concealment) on top of this curse bull. Is it so complicated that they can't open the book and read the Warlock entry?

If its such a problem for you, take a different class. Because your inpreterpation that you can walk away 3 squares and then walk back 2 and still have Shadow Walk, while technically correct, isn't how I would rule it.

If ever you had me as your DM I wouldn't let you do it (unless someone could show me a Wizards source saying that's how they intended for it to work). Such is life when you are in a living campaign. You could of course report me for not interpreting the rules as written but instead using common sense in applying rules. And I'd have no way to stop you. If WotC thought it important enough they could revoke my DMing privileges. Although frankly I'd prefer they say outright how its suppose to work.

As a player I am very careful when relying on anything that isn't black and white.
If its such a problem for you, take a different class. Because your inpreterpation that you can walk away 3 squares and then walk back 2 and still have Shadow Walk, while technically correct, isn't how I would rule it.

This you are 'interpreting' wrong, and RAW are actually clear, for once. The rule states you need to move three squares. It says nothing about needing to end three squares away from your starting position to benefit.

Imagine this setup: W--E W=Warlock - = empty space E = enemy. If the warlock moves two squares forward and one square back, would you take the opportunity attack? Of course you would. So you'd give the warlock the penalty of moving through that square, but not the benefit?

A more understandably debatable point is whether or not you can benefit from shadow walk if you teleport. I'd say yes, but I play a feylock, so I may be a little biased on that point. I can see the argument both ways, and would (grudgingly) accept if that ruling went against me.
This you are 'interpreting' wrong, and RAW are actually clear, for once. The rule states you need to move three squares. It says nothing about needing to end three squares away from your starting position to benefit.

What's the point to requiring the movement be 3 squares away from the originating square, if you're just going to let the person move back to the original square? I've never come across this interpretation before. Every time I've seen a Warlock they always assume they have to end their turn 3 squares away.

Imagine this setup: W--E W=Warlock - = empty space E = enemy. If the warlock moves two squares forward and one square back, would you take the opportunity attack? Of course you would. So you'd give the warlock the penalty of moving through that square, but not the benefit?
Are you saying Warlocks only have to move 3 squares in total? The feature clearly says
if you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn

. So you're hypothetical of moving forward 2 squares and then back 1 square seems to be against the rules regardless.

[EDIT]: Looking on the forums I'll admit that everyone here seems to take it for granted that Shadow Walk activates after you've moved 3 squares away from the original square, so I'll let them walk back to their original square. But I won't be telling my local Warlocks about this.
I think we agree on that, then.

So, back to multiple cursed targets...
I have had players that pull the "drag the NPC back and forth through the damaging area" between the same two squares.

The rules often don't forbid it.

I will, however, make it strongly known that I find it cheesetastic and if they wanna pull rules cheese then I as the judge will feel no guilt about doing the same back.

I don't alter the rules. Why would I when there's so many ways to mess with the players entirely within the rules?

:D



-karma
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
I have had players that pull the "drag the NPC back and forth through the damaging area" between the same two squares.

The rules often don't forbid it.

Well, that's the whole point of a damaging zone. In SToS we have had a lot of fun with the Druid's Fire Seed doing that. Oh, you want to move out of the zone? Boom, pushed right back in!

Now if it's 2 squares within the zone, then no, that wouldn't work since you have to move into the zone or start your turn there (typically, although i haven't seen a zone that didn't say that).
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
What's the point to requiring the movement be 3 squares away from the originating square, if you're just going to let the person move back to the original square?

Renewed Stealth check rolls, if the warlock was already in Stealth. Barring other powers/abilities, of course.
I think the warlock is just too plain different for some DMs. You can do less damage than a defender, but the way you cause the damage causes the DM to question the mechanics. You are spike-prone and have some horrible-sounding effects and powers, all of which draw attention. Meanwhile, the ranger is dealing insane damage with their At-Will, round after round, without question.

The warlock is still fun. Each pact and their powers bring awesome power concepts and boon concepts. They take terrific strategy to be successful, making them a complex tactical class that can be a fun challenge for an advanced player. And, they can be really strong, dealing some really strong dmg/effects in spikes.

But, as another wise poster said, it is best to clear the questionable stuff with the party and DM beforehand. Figure out if you will deal damage to a target cursed by another warlock. Figure out if everyone is cool with clearing minions. Figure out if some PCs want to be dealt damage with powers. If not, switch PCs. A good strategy is to keep your warlock in the same level band as another PC. Try to play the warlock, and if the table isn't friendly to warlocks, swap it out for the other PC.

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

I have seen people complain about Druids power level also. I usually chalk it up to a player not "getting it." I have seen some extremely effective Warlocks in the hands of smart players. I have seen Warlocks that were "just there." I have seen very effective Druids too. Then again, i also chalk the Druid thing up to players who were too used to the inasanity that was the 3e Druid. :P
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
I'm with Dragon9 on that part. I understand the mathetmatical argument stating that Warlocks do less damage than other Strikers and I've run the math myself. That doesn't change the fact that I've seen some extremely effective Warlocks at some of my tables and I've seen some other Warlocks that were barely there.

The player behind a Warlock most definitely matters. More so than most classes, even if I can't explain why.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.
That is why I love my character. I consider myself an advanced player and try to get the most possible out of every single power, feat and magic item. I'm playing a Hexforged and put myself down as a melee striker.

For Shadow Walk it says that if you move 3 squares away from your starting location you get concealment. Not that you need to end up 3 squares away from your starting location. I look at it like a trigger. Once you have moved those 3 squares then your concealment activates and you are free to move where you like including right back to your origin square. Judges that rule otherwise because they don't think the flavor of the class feature matches are morons. The books frankly say to reflavor your powers however you like. My character needs to build up steam and smoke and does this by moving (Warforged Steampunk Flavor).

I just can't stand how some judges can justify making the game less fun for players of Warlocks by stating RAI when they haven't talked to the designers or don't have psychic powers to read their minds.

The job of a judge is to make the game fun for all. Restricting one class from using all their abilities lessens the experience for those players. They don't bat an eye when the twf does 50-100 damage with Rain of Blows, but that 3.5 average damage from my d6 on a power that does less than 20 damage offends them. Just because they think the designers intended it to be doesn't make it right for them to DM enpower my character to be less fun. I think I will ask the next one if they think that the designers intended the Fighter to be the best striker in the game.

Theziner
For Shadow Walk it says that if you move 3 squares away from your starting location you get concealment. Not that you need to end up 3 squares away from your starting location. I look at it like a trigger. Once you have moved those 3 squares then your concealment activates and you are free to move where you like including right back to your origin square. Judges that rule otherwise because they don't think the flavor of the class feature matches are morons. The books frankly say to reflavor your powers however you like. My character needs to build up steam and smoke and does this by moving (Warforged Steampunk Flavor).

Build up all the steam you want; calling judges morons for ruling on something that is able to be interpreted in multiple ways will do you no favors down the road.
[INDENT]On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from
where you started your turn, you gain concealment
until the end of your next turn.[/INDENT]
You read the power as "if you move at least 3 squares" and "away from where you started your turn", while some judges read it as "if you move at least 3 squares away" and "from where you started your turn" -- both are valid interpretations.
I just can't stand how some judges can justify making the game less fun for players of Warlocks by stating RAI when they haven't talked to the designers or don't have psychic powers to read their minds.

Do you think local judges are trying to squeeze you out of RPGA because of some personality clash you may have? It sounds like you are being treated differently than other players.
I don't really as a DM, I'm not in love with Avengers though as a DM...lol *joking*

Warlocks really just have a few points that aren't as clearly stated in the rules as players/DMs would like. I suggest as a player ask the DM before a mod starts how he handles x,y,and z rules questions about gray area warlocks powers/effects. If you don't like his mindset and how he will rule on it, play another character. If you aren't able to play another just take that into consideration with your tactics and strategy. Just because your warlock can't be the minion slayer of the world at every LFR DMs table doesn't mean your not able to do decent damage and your job as a striker. Warlocks are designed overlay as single target strikers for the most part, so being able to kill some minions with some 2 rod gear combo and a minor action is cool if it happens but not epic failure if it doesn't. It just means *gasp* that the other 3-5 players at the table need to also do stuff to effect the combat and contribute to the encounter and the fun of the module.

Thanks and always good gaming,
~Matt Butler
Champions of the Realms Event Organizer

Champions of the Realms Yahoo Group- Indianapolis, IN
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/championsoftherealms/

Champions of the Realms Warhorn Site
http://www.warhorn.org/ChampionsOfTheRealms/
I agree with everything else in the quoted post except this. I'd set the numbers closer to 1 in 50 (98% and 2%) than 1 in 10 (90% and 10%) as cases where the warlock derails a battle or ruins a table because of fun killing.

I assume the fun killing thing is a reference to the two rod business, or possibly to Cursebite, because other than these two fringe cases warlocks are all suck, all the time, including my own level 5 warlock.

Bah. Warlocks don't suck. WotC just set people up for dissappointment by labeling them strikers. They're really single target controllers--look at it that way and they can be quite effective. They just don't fill the same role in the party that a ranger does, that's all.
Build up all the steam you want; calling judges morons for ruling on something that is able to be interpreted in multiple ways will do you no favors down the road.
[INDENT]On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from
where you started your turn, you gain concealment
until the end of your next turn.[/INDENT]
You read the power as "if you move at least 3 squares" and "away from where you started your turn", while some judges read it as "if you move at least 3 squares away" and "from where you started your turn" -- both are valid interpretations.

Maybe I was a little harsh about calling them morons. I just can't see how it can be interpreted any other way. What you just quoted says exactly the same thing. Yes I moved 3 squares away from where I started. Shadow Walk happens immediately as you move 3 squares away. Is there any other power that triggers at end of movement or end of turn like your saying this does? Shadow Walk doesn't say you need to end up 3 squares away, it says "On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn."

Anyway I think I definitely will have to start every lfr session with how each judge will interpret some unclear points. Its annoying and tedious but until the designers get off their butts and clarify these specific points then the player of the Warlock will have to do these things.

Theziner
May I'm a moron or maybe I'm not. I really like the Shadow Walk class feature for Warlocks. I rule that you have to move 3 squares away from your starting location -- which means, IMO, actually be 3 squares away from your starting location.

Otherwise, the class feature could read "On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn." (Having "away from where you started your turn" in the description does actually mean something.)
May I'm a moron or maybe I'm not. I really like the Shadow Walk class feature for Warlocks. I rule that you have to move 3 squares away from your starting location -- which means, IMO, actually be 3 squares away from your starting location.

Otherwise, the class feature could read "On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn." (Having "away from where you started your turn" in the description does actually mean something.)

Imagine this situation. My feylock walks out from cover to get his prime shot, ending his move action three squares away from where he started. He attacks a cursed foe and drops it, gaining a teleport, and wants to teleport back into cover. I think that's a good way to take advantage of my class features. Would you rule that if he teleported back anywhere into the three square radius of where he began his turn, the concealment would not apply?

What about if the guy dropped later in the round and I wanted to teleport?

I guess the question that needs answering is: do you have to actually end your turn three squares away from where you began it (in which case, why doesn't it phrase it that way), or does your movement have to take you through a point three squares away at some point?

The three square rule can still mean something if the latter is the case, as a warlock in a confined space may not be able to get it at all, or at least without provoking OAs. There is a difference between moving any three squares and moving three squares away from where you began and back again.
I guess the question that needs answering is: do you have to actually end your turn three squares away from where you began it (in which case, why doesn't it phrase it that way), or does your movement have to take you through a point three squares away at some point?

You only have to move 3 squares away from your starting position. That's what the rule says. It says nothing about having to end your movement 3 or more squares away. I don't understand how DMs are misreading this. It's about the only clear cut class rule the Warlock has. I won't bother re-quoting the text as a few others have already done so.

W--X--- If the warlock starts at W and moves to X (3 squares away)

---(W)--- He gains his Shadow Walk concealment. Now he likely has more than a 3 movement. So he could then go:

(W)--X--- back to his original square and still have his concealment since he moved 3 squares away (position X) from his starting position (which is now his ending position) Or:

---X--(W) he could continue on to end 6 squares away. (or could have moved in another direction, etc.)
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused (including to myself perhaps). Once you've moved 3 squares away from your starting position you've got the Shadow Walk concealment thing going on, even if you continue to move (or teleport back) to your original position.