Community

I’ve removed content from this thread because Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here:

wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.

The thing is, Plague, I keep bringing up examples like this that require handwaved SvG explanations from you under your interpretation.  My interpretation does not require any of that, as it's internally consistent.

What I don't understand is that given that what LoW and I are saying is consistent with all of the rules for reactions and interrupts, internally self-consistent, works with all powers, and doesn't outright break any of them, you still believe that a different interpretation is the only valid one.

I am not saying the RC is wrong.  Not anymore.  I'm saying your interpretation of what it does say is wrong, because your interpretation is arbitrary and inconsistent.

• Arbitrary - Requires unsupportable decisions to ignore the rules in order to get powers to function, using nothing but SvG as justification, when SvG requires explicit exemptions rather than "well, the power doesn't work by RAW."  Requires arbitrarily assigning "event" status to things that are not explicitly given event status in the rules; the two things that are explicit are attacks within a power, and squares of movement within an action.
• Inconsistent - Requires the definition of 'attack' to be different in several places within the immediate reaction context.  Immediate reaction rules call out reactions to an attack as taking place after the attack.  You simultaneously claim that the immediate reaction rules uses one definition of attack, while the trigger for the immediate reaction uses another.  

In comparison to these points, my position is as follows:

• Not Arbitrary - Relies solely on what is explicitly RAW.  Immediate reaction text gives two things that can be reacted to:  "actions or events."  It further gives two specific examples of things that aren't actions that can be reacted to, which resolve before the action that contain them resolve: attacks and squares of movement.  I cannot say from the RAW that these are positively the only two things that are not events, but I can say that they are the only two things that I know are events.  So I do not claim that anything else is, in fact an "event" as per the immediate reaction rules unless there is direct rules text.  Furthermore, all powers currently written are completely functional as written with the exception of a few that were mislabeled as reactions that are required to be interrupts.  No pseudo-SvG exceptions required.  The only source of ruling decisions is explicit rules.
• Consistent - "Attack" has one definition that is used throughout the immediate action rules, both for interrupts and reactions.  At all points in the rules, the word "attack" has the same meaning and the same function, whether it be in the trigger or in the rules text.  Failing to do this results in inconsistencies, which are only handled by arbitrary decisions.

RC 197 deserves special mention:

RC 197 Immediate Reactions: An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a trigger. The triggering action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place. An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish. 

Both interpretations are consistent with this rule.  I can't emphasize this enough:  this rule does not invalidate either interpretation.  The difference between us, though, is that you make an assumption as to what "event" means and I make no assumption.  You claim it's each portion of the Making Attacks process, whereas I claim that there is no rule that says to do that.  I claim that the two things described as reactable that aren't actions are "events" but in the absence of any further rules governing reactions to things that aren't actions I can't accept any other definition of "event."



At this point I have to go back to a prior question, which you did not answer:  What, exactly, will it take for you to be convinced?  If you cannot conceive of that, then we're not having a debate, we're having a shouting match.  In my case, what will convince me that I'm wrong is an explicit reference in the rules that describes the Making Attacks sequence as individually-resolved events in the context of immediate actions.  Until and unless you can provide that, I will continue to consider your position to be based on an assumption, rather than rules text.

Oct 31, 2011 -- 12:53PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

What would convince the RC says what Event are ? A quote defining what Events are. Also, that the RC says targeting is part of an attack ? A quote sayiong it is.

My main, single point is that the book does say that two things are Events:  attacks, and squares of movement.  It does not say that other things aren't events, but not saying that they aren't events is not the same things as saying that they are events.

Also, the dark chocolate is mine.  YOU NO CAN HAS!

Okay, maybe a little.

Oct 31, 2011 -- 2:24PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

The thing is, Immediate Reactions (RC 196) does not say these are two events neither. One is stated as an exemple, the other say likewise. None specifically calls them as event or action.

Even Trigger doesn't define what's an event. 

RC 195 Trigger: A Trigger is an action or event or an effect that allows the use of a Triggered Action.  

Yes, but it *does* say, outright, that a reaction to an attack takes place before other events of the same action, and that a reaction to a step of movement takes place before other events of the same action.

(While also, I must point out again, saying that you must react to something *before* targeting if you want your reaction to resolve before the attack.  And it would say something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT if you COULD react to targeting.  Which it doesn't.)

Those things aren't triggered by an attack.  Attacks have a specific rule stating that if you react to any part of the attack, your reaction resolves after the attack resolves.

And if you are bloodied or drop to 0 hp or spend a surge as part of an attack (e.g. Hit: Wis damage and you can spend a healing surge), then you do resolve those reactions after the attack

Because the rules tell you that attacks work that way.  Things that aren't attacks aren't relevant to that aspect of it, because they're not attacks and they don't follow the rules for reacting to attacks.