Warlord and Tactical Shift

[vhailor]

1.Tactical Shift
Daily ? Martial
Immediate Interrupt Ranged 10
Trigger: A creature hits your ally with a melee or a ranged attack
Effect: The ally can shift a number of squares equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier.

Question: If the creature attacks the ally with a ranged power and the ally shifts to an adjacent square to the enemy, does the ally make OA?


2. A Warlord (or any other character) acts before an ally and gives a bonus to the ally until the end of the Warlord's next turn. The ally's turn comes and he uses the benefit given by the warlord. If the warlord chooses to Delay, and the ally's turn comes again, does he gain the bonus again, or it doesn't apply anymore? If it does, would the ally benefit from the bonus from Warlord's Favor again in this turn?

 

[JGulick]

1.Tactical Shift
Daily ? Martial
Immediate Interrupt Ranged 10
Trigger: A creature hits your ally with a melee or a ranged attack
Effect: The ally can shift a number of squares equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier.

Question: If the creature attacks the ally with a ranged power and the ally shifts to an adjacent square to the enemy, does the ally make OA?

IMO, no. The trigger is being hit not being attacked, so the attack has already been made and resolved. Any OA would need to come BEFORE you resolve the attack.

Or, in a more orderly fashion...

1) Announce attack (determines type of attack and target)
1i) Check for and resolve OAs, Trigger any Interrupts based on Attacking, potentially changing or negating the attack
2) Resolve attack (determines hit or miss)
2i) Trigger any Interrupts based on Hitting or Missing, potentially changing the hit/miss/damage
3) Apply results of the hit

(Xi) can negate or modify (X) because that's what interrupts do. In this case, (2i) can mess with (2) by, for example, moving your ally out of Line of Effect. But it can't take you "back in time" to an already resolved step (1).

2. A Warlord (or any other character) acts before an ally and gives a bonus to the ally until the end of the Warlord's next turn. The ally's turn comes and he uses the benefit given by the warlord. If the warlord chooses to Delay, and the ally's turn comes again, does he gain the bonus again, or it doesn't apply anymore? If it does, would the ally benefit from the bonus from Warlord's Favor again in this turn?

This is clearly answered on PHB288, under "End Beneficial Effects when You Delay". "You can't prolong a beneficial effect by delaying."

 

[vhailor]

Thanks a lot.

 

[inati]

Since it is an immediate interrupt, it supersedes the trigger hit.

Interrupt: An immediate interrupt lets you jump
in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting
before the trigger resolves. PHB 268.

As for the ranged attack and the OA, that's a very intriguing scenario.

I would rule:
Yes, the warlord would interrupt the attack, the target could shift next to the enemy, the ranged attack tries to resolve but triggers the OA from the target which interrupts the ranged attack, and after making a basic melee attack, the ranged attack would resolve.

 

[Kordeth]

Since it is an immediate interrupt, it supersedes the trigger hit.

Correct.

As for the ranged attack and the OA, that's a very intriguing scenario.

I would rule:
Yes, the warlord would interrupt the attack, the target could shift next to the enemy, the ranged attack tries to resolve but triggers the OA from the target which interrupts the ranged attack, and after making a basic melee attack, the ranged attack would resolve.

I agree, because I like rewardding clever tactical thinking.

 

[JGulick]

But you're actually turning off the requirement for clever tactical thinking this way in far more cases than you're adding to it.

Certainly this power can negate the hit. I don't deny that. In fact, it is specifically designed to do that, since it is an interrrupt that triggers on the hit itself.

But by allowing OAs to be declared after the hit has been determined, you're allowing people to make a MUCH easier decision on OAs. Now they can only use attacks (and, say, exactly which Power to attack with via things like HBO) in the full knowledge that they're negating a HIT, not just negating an attack.

Not so big a deal with OAs, since you get one per opponent's turn anyway (unless they have action points or another way to make more than one attack)... But it's going to reduce the tactical decisions required in selecting when to use your Combat Challenge to a much less interesting choice.

The ruling here has far-reaching repercussions, and I'd be very careful about deciding based on a narrow single case.

 

[Kordeth]

But by allowing OAs to be declared after the hit has been determined, you're allowing people to make a MUCH easier decision on OAs. Now they can only use attacks (and, say, exactly which Power to attack with via things like HBO) in the full knowledge that they're negating a HIT, not just negating an attack.

Umm--nothing here would negate the attack, unless you manage to kill the monster in one blow with your OA. A monster can make a ranged attack against you if you're adjacent just as easily as if you're 1 + (warlord's Int bonus) squares away.

Not so big a deal with OAs, since you get one per opponent's turn anyway (unless they have action points or another way to make more than one attack)... But it's going to reduce the tactical decisions required in selecting when to use your Combat Challenge to a much less interesting choice.

Wait, what? When the heck did we start talking about Combat Challenge?

The ruling here has far-reaching repercussions, and I'd be very careful about deciding based on a narrow single case.

I think you're overestimating the reach of this rule's repercussions. Once a round, IF you're attacked by a bad guy with a ranged attack AND if he's within 1 + your warlord buddy's Int bonus squares AND your warlord buddy is within ten squares of you, you can charge the enemy (flavorful description here, not talking about the charge action) and thwack him. He still gets his attack unless he's dead, which (unless you know he's a minion) is significantly chancier than the possibility of running behind a piece of cover or total cover nearby.

 

[Nail]

Tactical Shift (Warlord Utility 10)
Daily ? Martial
Immediate Interrupt Ranged 10
Trigger: A creature hits your ally with a melee or a ranged attack
Effect: The ally can shift a number of squares equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier.

Question: If the creature attacks the ally with a ranged power and the ally shifts to an adjacent square to the enemy, does the ally make OA?

Great question!

The trigger is "A creature hits your ally with a melee or a ranged attack". Since this power is an immediate interupt (p. 268), the attack has happened - and the "hit" has happened! - but has not been resolved. I read that to mean "the enemy has already attacked, the attack hit, but damage isn't rolled yet."

OAs occur as an interupt as well. But the wording says (p. 290):

"If an enemy adjacent to you uses a ranged power or an area power, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy."

Note it says "uses", not "used".

When you (as a result of tactical shift), shift adjacent to the ranged attacker, he has already used the attack. He's already hit your buddy! The attack is not completely resolved, but it has already happened.

So....no OA.

And given that the ranged attacked still has line of sight to the target, and the target is still within range, I'd say the target (of your Tactical Shift) still could be damaged by that unresolved ranged attack.

 

[Nail]

Since it is an immediate interrupt, it supersedes the trigger hit.

In this case, that's not strictly true.

It interupts the hit before the hit is resolved. I'd say that happens after the attack roll (after all, you can only use the power if the ranged attack hit), but before the damage roll.

 

[Zsig]

I'd say Yes, you can, simply because to me at least, the distinction between "Hit" and "Attack" becomes lost when it comes to Immediate Interrupts.

Some powers clearly state that the attacker will hit "nothing but air" while others with the exact same wording doesn't say anything.

"Trigger: you're hit by an attack"
"Trigger: you're attacked"
"Trigger: you would be hit by an attack"

To me they're all the same.

EDIT: I think Nail has a good point though, in that case then, I think he's right, mostly due to the wording on the Op. Attacks