Community

I have to agree with plague on the definition of 'away'. Although, maybe not his position regarding the unspecified subject.

Away has two potential meanings here. The abusable version means: to increase distance from. The nonabusable and closer to RAI means: to leave a location.

Based on the obvious RAI, sanity, and balance, definition two seems the one we should advocate. Yes, there is an interpretation that works with the first. But no sane table would let it happen, save for lawls. So why bother?

I would refine plague's reading to the following: the subject is being adjacent to you (since it is the defined trigger). If the enemy, during its turn, leaves this space, then it takes damage. Potentially, this could trigger more than once iff the creature somehow reentered and left the space again during its turn.

Do you find fault with interpreting 'away' as "leaving a specified location", as opposed to "increasing distance from"? Cause if not, then we at least have a RAW point that jives with RAI, which honestly, is about as much as we can ask for. Even if it leaves open the possibility for the other, common sense will quickly nerf it all on its own, so long as a viable alternative exists.

Right. But there isn't a stated necessity for it to be symmetrical to push. We could just as easily compare it to a different mechanic. Like grabbed.

Any effect that moves you while grabbed but still adjacent to the grabber does not break grab. Away (as defined as leaving a location) is also not 'broke' by moving around the bb user. The analogy is even strengthened if a grabber has a triggered effect when a target breaks their grab, since now neither triggers if you get moved around the focal point, but if you leave that area, you end up punished (but not for continuing to get further from the initial location).

Ah, because it already uses 'away'. Well, its not like WoTC doesn't own a thesaurus/only uses 3 loaded words already :s
Between 'attack' and 'wielded', I think that's enough precedent to say they have absolutely no consistency on how a word is applied (sometimes within the same rule!). So detaching 'away' from the pushed context shouldn't be terribly out of place.

Seriously, though. Someone buy these guys a thesaurus.

Or you can just go with the natural meaning that moves away means the target moves further away from the caster.  That's the natural reading of the power; other interpretations are just attempting to twist the wording to fit a desired outcome.  Abuse is prevented by realizing that the power only triggers once.  So no matter how many times the target moves away, he just gets blasted on the first move.  That's the response customer service suggested, and it's the one that (surprisingly) makes the most sense. 

The only real issue is how the concept of only triggering once works with Storm Pillar (and probably other similar powers).  The natural conclusion is that Storm pillar would also only trigger once, as the wording is quite similar.  (Moves away vs enters a square).  Alcestis claimed that there was a FAQ that specifically stated that Storm Pillar triggered once per square, but I haven't found it.  The only reference I found was a rules update that reads:

Add 'on its turn'... The intent is that the pillar provides a controlling effect on the battlefield, and this prevents it from being used in conjunction with forced movement to deal a disproportionate amount of damage."

This certainly suggests that the devs think it triggers once per square.  Unfortunately, it also fails to fix the problem.  A PC can just ready a forced movement power to occur on the target's turn and then use something that gives a free slide 10 or so to annihilate the target.