Gaining vs. Granting Combat Advantage

[Dan'L]

I've noticed before that some things say "x causes a creature to grant CA" while others say "x causes a creature to gain CA." And up until now, it was all kind of one and the same, CA was CA, doesn't matter how you got it, you have it.

But now, with Holy Symbol Expertise, what was once simple may now be rendered more intricate.

With HSE, if you satisfy the requirement of using a holy symbol to make an implement attack, then you do not grant CA (with a specific excepted clause).

But my question is, can something gain CA against a creature without the creature granting CA? Could a Warlock with Hidden Sniper and Shadow Walk gain CA against the Cleric with HSE?

I'm tempted to say "yes" to the Warlock, because (1) I see a difference in the rules wording that may (now) be significant and (2) flavor-wise, the source of CA comes completely externally from anything that the Holy Symbol wielder affects.

But I'm equally aware that this may be splitting hairs a little too fine.

Opinions?

-Dan'L

 

[Dausuul]

I've noticed before that some things say "x causes a creature to grant CA" while others say "x causes a creature to gain CA." And up until now, it was all kind of one and the same, CA was CA, doesn't matter how you got it, you have it.

But now, with Holy Symbol Expertise, what was once simple may now be rendered more intricate.

With HSE, if you satisfy the requirement of using a holy symbol to make an implement attack, then you do not grant CA (with a specific excepted clause).

But my question is, can something gain CA against a creature without the creature granting CA? Could a Warlock with Hidden Sniper and Shadow Walk gain CA against the Cleric with HSE?

I'm looking in the Compendium, and it says "Your enemies cannot gain combat advantage against you, unless you use something that makes you grant combat advantage." Seems pretty clear.

In general, gaining versus granting seems to be a question of where the effect is coming from--attackers gain, targets grant. Suppose Bob the Fighter (the attacker) has combat advantage against Ugg the Troll (the target). If that CA comes from something Bob did, it's "gained." If it comes from something Ugg did, it's "granted."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, i would argue, that even with HSE you would grant combat advantage when stunned or dazed... but i don´t want to attract a Rules Lawyer...

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, i would argue, that even with HSE you would grant combat advantage when stunned or dazed... but i don´t want to attract a Rules Lawyer...

Have you used an ability that says "You grant combat advantage?" No? Then your enemies don't have CA.

That's how I'd interpret it. Granting CA and gaining CA are not two separate mechanics; they're just passive and active ways to describe the same effect.

 

[Nullzone]

gain vs grant more defines a certain scope of the effect. You can personally gain CA against something that nobody else can, but if the target grants CA, then everyone has it. The fighter can both gain and grant CA, after all, since there are some class powers that say "The target grants CA until the end of your next turn" or similar.

I'd have to say that since 4e is exception based then the cleric's anti-CA would overrule any powers that would otherwise give an attacker CA against you.

 

[Dausuul]

gain vs grant more defines a certain scope of the effect. You can personally gain CA against something that nobody else can, but if the target grants CA, then everyone has it.

Except there are powers like "Malicious Shadow" which say, "While adjacent to the shadow, enemies grant combat advantage to you." (Emphasis mine.)

I really don't think there's a rules difference between "gain" and "grant." They just use whichever one makes for cleaner, simpler text. The above line could have been written, "You gain combat advantage against all enemies adjacent to the shadow." Likewise, it's simpler to say "You grant combat advantage" than "All other creatures gain combat advantage against you."

 

[Nullzone]

I didn't say there was a rules difference, I was just clarifying a different perspective of the language. Clearly it goes both ways, but I could see someone inadvertently looking at it as "I didn't do anything to gain CA, therefore everyone has CA against it" or vice versa based strictly on the way you defined it.

 

[DracoSuave]

So many hairs. So many splits.
If gained and granted CA are actually different then game elements that trigger off of granted CA ignore when you gain it. No +2 to hit. No sneak attack.

Clearly this is rediculous.

As for conditions, unless it is selfimposed, it is not your effect and you do not grant CA. HSE has only one exception: "did you do it?" Why would conditions be magically different?