Community

Oct 4, 2011 -- 12:21PM, ChaosMage wrote:

Oct 4, 2011 -- 11:59AM, Nelphine wrote:

Pro's for Interpretation B) We don't make any assumptions about the rules.
Con's for Interpretation B) We have a loophole in RAW, where we have to assume that the english definition is good enough.  Assumptions are still bad.

Add to the "Con's for B" that it requires reading two consecutive sentences as contradicting each other.  It relies on the assumption that the first sentence means nothing and the second sentence is overriding; A relies on the assumption that both sentences have meaning, but the example after the second sentence provides context for what the second sentence means.

The sentences 2 and 3 don't contradict each other. 3 come clarify that the Trigger resolve, not necessarly the action that contain the Trigger. The Trigger action or event can be contained in an action.

Whats contradicting here ? 


1. An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a Trigger.

2. The Triggerring action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place.

3. An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

Here is my point clearly laid out in the Rules:

1. An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a Trigger. 
   I can act in response to being targeted
 
2. The Triggerring action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place.
    I am targeted completly before my Darkness take place

3. An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish
    My Darkness wait for me to finish being targeted, not necessarly for the action that targeted me. 

There's no way I can argue with someone who simultaneously says:

"Pro's for Interpretation B) We don't make any assumptions about the rules."

and

"Clearly, being targetted is 'a thing that happens', as is being hit,  being damaged, and the myriad of other possibilities that occur  mid-action, including WotC's examples of 'an attack' and 'an individual  square of movement'."

Clearly where?  What rule are you using to make this clear determination?  There isn't one.  You're assuming that your personal preferences about what an "event" means is actually a rule, and there isn't one.  Sure, it doesn't say that it's not an event, but using that as a basis for claiming that it is is called the Munchkin fallacy.

The statement causing the problem is:

RC 196 Immediate Reaction: An  immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a Trigger. The  Triggerring 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. Exemple: An Elder Dragon’s Claw Attack Power is a standard  action that allow two attack rolls againt the same target. The Dragon  faces Fargrim the Fighter, who has an Immediate Reaction (Veteran  Gambit) that is Triggerred by being hit with a melee attack. If the  Dragon uses Claw Power and Hits Fargrim with the first attack roll, he  can use Veteran Gambit in response to that hit. In that case, the  Immediate Reaction waits for that hit to be resolved, but does not wait  for the entire Power to be resolved.
Likewise, an  Immediate Reaction can interrupt movement. Here’s how: If a creature  Triggers an Immediate Reaction while moving (by coming into range for  insyance) the Reraction can take place before the creature finishes  moving, but after it has moved at least 1 square. In other words, an  Immediate Reaction can be in response to a square of movement, rather  than to n entire move action

It specifies that the trigger is an "action or event."  The first part is easy.  We know what an action is, and how to deal with it.  Actions are defined, and straightforward.  The second part is the one that's not defined, at all.  And it is not the case that just because it's not defined you can make up whatever your magic 8 ball said should be an event, and call it a rule.  The rules system doesn't work that way.  The entry then goes on to give some examples of events that are reactable, as well as how to resolve them.  Great.  Now we know of two examples.  It's still not a rule, and you won't have me claim that it's the only potential situations that you could react to.  It's examples.  But we do know that those two examples work.

What we don't know is what other things are "events."  And your personal preferences as to "what makes sense" regarding the Making an Attack sequence isn't a sufficient basis to make a ruling.  It makes fine grounds for a houserule, but it's most certainly not "evidence" that you're correct.

The rules say what you can do.  You can react to an action, or to this nebulous thing we don't understand called "event" and gives two examples.  They don't have to say you can't interrupt the Making an Attack sequence with a reaction, but that's irrelevant.

This has Munchkin fallacy written all over it.  Inventing rules text rather than using solely what's there.


To put in an extreme hyperbole, imagine if there were a power that said "You must use your starship's laser cannons as a weapon for this power" and "starship's laser cannons" was never defined anywhere else.  And I mean anywhere else.  You can't argue that your longsword might be a starship's laser cannon, just because starship laser cannon isn't defined but it's clearly a weapon because it has the word "cannon" in it, so you should be able to use your longsword as a weapon for the power.  It's inventing a rules relationship in the absence of actual rules text.  You can't do that.

I mean if its no defined its because it easy to figure out right ?

Being targeted is an event, like being bloodied or reduced to 0 HP

And targeting an enemy is an action, like attacking or damaging.

Its easy no ?