Can an immediate interrupt stop movement?

[mysticknight232]

My group is having a debate over the Hunters Weave Through the Fray power specifically, but this quesetion applies to similar interrupts as well. I don't have access to the power, but i believe it's an immediate interrupt that says you can shift your wis mod as an imm. interrupt if an enemy moves into a square adjacent to you. Per the compendium definition of Interrupt, if you invalidate the triggering action i.e. moving adjacent to you in this case, the action is lost.

So here's the real quesetion...my party is arguing that if my hunter shifts INTO and stays in the square that the mob wants to shift into as part of my Imm. Int., i would therefore invalidate the triggering action meaning the mob would lose the rest of his movement action and have to stay where he is. Whereas if i shifted away from the mob, the mob could continue it's movement since by definition of an interrupt, i'm not stopping his movement.

Can anybody confirm if this is how it would work? the scenario is a mob is going after a squishy and they think i could step in front of the mob to stop it's movement and make it attack me instead of continuing on to the squishy target (ignore the fact that if i didn't move the mob would simply grant me an OA from moving next to me then moving away from me to get to the squishy)

Interrupt: An immediate interrupt lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves. If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, that action is lost. For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy’s attack action is lost.

 

[DracoSuave]

If an enemy were to move to a square, and as an interrupt, you move into that square instead, then you occupy the square which will negate his movement. Then he'll be adjacent to you, and he'll have to either provoke an OA to keep moving, or attack you.

This is perfectly acceptable.

 

[the Jester]

I think your group's interpretation is pretty silly. If the guy you're interrupting still has movement, I see no reason why he couldn't complete his move action.

He may still end up adjacent to you anyhow.

Invalidating actions is more for things like "Hah! As an interrupt I shift away from your melee attack!"

 

[keterys]

It is my understanding that you have invalidated a square of movement, and the remaining movement may then be taken. Though it much more likely provokes an opportunity attack at that point.

 

[mysticknight232]

OA's aside, keterys pointed out the real question...have you invalidated a single square of movement or have you invalidated the entire movement?

just by reading the definition, the mob wanted to move into square #1. as an interrupt i move into square #1 invalidating that movement. if something is invalidated by my interrupt, that action is lost acroding to the compendium, meaning the movement action, or whatever is left of it anyway, is lost.

if this isn't how it works, my group will need verifiable evidence because they never believe anything i post from the forums. (I know you guys are reading this!!)

 

[Aulirophile]

Each square of movement is atomic, if you want to move 3 squares to look around a corner, see a Dracolich, get scared, and move back 3 squares? Totally fine. The player has invalidated that one square of movement and then the monster can finish his move action and/or attack.

 

[Fifth Element]

With respect to interrupts, each square of movement is treated like a seperate action, which is why you can interrupt someone at a particular point in their movement and don't have to let him finish his move action first.

You can prevent a creature from moving into a particular square, but if he has any squares of speed left and has a valid square to move to, he can keep moving.

 

[keterys]

just by reading the definition, the mob wanted to move into square #1. as an interrupt i move into square #1 invalidating that movement. if something is invalidated by my interrupt, that action is lost acroding to the compendium, meaning the movement action, or whatever is left of it anyway, is lost.

Do you also rule that way for someone doing Tornado Strike, where you can attack 1 or 2 creatures: You choose to attack 2, one shifts out of range. Attack on the second guy invalidated?

Remember that the 'action' in this case is the "triggering action" - a word used in immediate rules to also include "events", such as a door opening. In the case of movement, it's explictly broken up into one square segments - even when used as part of a standard action power, like a charge or deft strike. You haven't inalidated their attack, nor have you invalidated any other part of their movement. Unless, of course, you've prone, stunned, or otherwise _actually_ invalidated it.

I'd be very curious if there is any rules example, or FAQ response, that would support invalidating a move and attack power by stepping into one of the intended squares and nothing more.

 

[Markn]

When it comes to movement, I thought that if a square was deemed not legal to move into you moved back to the last legal square and chose a new square. Thus, if someone used an immediate interrupt, to move into a square you wanted to move into, you would just get to choose a new square.

 

[cdrcjsn]

You know, going into this, I was in the "each square of movement is a discrete action" camp and wouldn't have allowed negating the move with the interrupt.

Then I thought about charges. Would negating the conditions of a charge (2 squares of move) invalidate the attack? I would say yes, mainly because it's a discrete Standard action (move+attack).

But wait, isn't move just a discrete move action? As in spend a move action, and you may move a number of squares equal to your speed? Does movement happen in discrete one square jumps, or do you essentially declare your entire path of movement when you declare the move action?

I can't find any wording to support discrete one square moves. The rules do seem to imply that the entire movement path is declared when you announce the move action.

Waiting on a FAQ on this one, but put me in the "interrupts can negate movement" camp for now.