Community

Apr 30, 2012 -- 8:34PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

It does not say he make its attack again

The trigger is hitting with an attack, and the effect involves making an attack. In other powers this means two separate attack rolls, which places the onus on proving the same attack roll is instead used here. "Its attack" implies that the same attack power is used, but doesn't necessarily imply that the same attack roll is used.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:50PM, MarkB wrote:

It's cleaner to re-roll the attack

Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to, even though I wanted it to be otherwise.

May 1, 2012 -- 12:21AM, TorianT wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:50PM, MarkB wrote:

It's cleaner to re-roll the attack, because attacks against different targets may have different modifiers or even different rolls.

Just as a for-instance, if an Avenger makes an attack against his Oath target and is then Dimensional-vortexed to a different target, would you still let him keep the higher of two attack rolls against that target? 

Since the trigger is an enemy hitting with an attack, it is not necessary to needlessly generate thought examples. Enemies are monsters not player characters and therefore don't have OoE.

But they could easily have something similar. That was merely a for-instance - I'm not going to try and run through all possible permutations of monster powers to find an obscure example when there's a well-known one readily available.

But nevertheless, since we already know that the attack hit, we are past the point where OoE or other similar effects have been triggered, so they can not be triggered again.
Modifiers are applied to an attack roll and can still be applied, if a target change occurs.

It's an interrupt power, so we're not past the point where the attack hit - we're going back to before it hit. The point is, the subject is now attacking a different target, which means it can't benefit from effects that apply to the original target - and some of those effects can affect the die roll itself, not just the modifiers applied to it.

May 1, 2012 -- 12:54PM, Alcestis wrote:

Common error, Interrupts happen after their trigger starts but before it resolves. So you haven't gone back to "before" the hit.

After the triggering action starts. The hit is part of that action, not the whole of it.

If we haven't gone back to before the attack hits, we can't possibly redirect it against a new target.

May 1, 2012 -- 11:08AM, Mand12 wrote:

Cleanliness isn't itself a reason to rule one way or the other.

Off-topic: it seems that all other things being equal, cleanliness itself can be a reason to rule one way or the other, unless one places no value on cleanliness.