What happens with reliable multi-target powers?

[Burr]

And if I try to walk to a point in space, I'll never get there because I have to cover half the distance first, and then half the remaining distance, and then half the remaining distance...

We can always interpret a miss if we break a power apart during the analysis. However, the right question to ask isn't whether a some arbitrary piece misses, but whether the power as a whole misses.

 

[Surgoshan]

I agree, Burr, the real sticking point here is on the definition of "miss". If the power has hit, then the power has hit and expended. If the separate attacks made as part of the power all miss, then the power has missed and is not expended.

 

[Mort_Q]

You claimed Rules As Written, that's how it works. Your claim is false. Rules As Written, if you miss at all it's retained.

Obviously, that's not how it's intended to work. But don't claim RAW when you mean RAI.

It is written as intended. If you hit, at all, then you haven't missed.

 

[Grazzt]

It is written as intended. If you hit, at all, then you haven't missed.

Yep. This. If you hit 1 guy, and miss 10, you still hit. Power is gone.

 

[keterys]

I'd already sent something in to customer service requesting they change the language on it, myself.

Others could, too.

 

[Liebot]

This doesn't need to be clarified or errata'd though, the intent is clear and any alternative reading is broken if it allows the fighter unlimited use of a burst power. That would encourage the fighter to miss.

 

[Zurai]

It is written as intended. If you hit, at all, then you haven't missed.

So you're saying there's only one attack roll? Because clearly, a miss is a miss. There isn't a separate definition in the rules for missing on an attack level vs on a power level. A miss is a miss.

The exact rules text is, "Reliable: If you miss when using a Reliable power, you don't expend the use of that power."

From there, it's a very simple logical construct. I can even give it to you in code:

int iAttacks = 4; // set to number of attacks; using 4 as an example
int iAttackBonus;
int iDefense; // these two can be whatever; doesn't matter for the example
bool bMissed = false;

for (iAttacks; iAttacks > 0; iAttacks--)
{
	if (iAttackBonus + (rand()%20 + 1) < iDefense)
	{
		bMissed = true;
		doAttackMiss();
	]
	else
		doAttackHit();
}
if (!bMissed)
	doExpendPower();

return;

Basically, each time you make an attack roll, you ask "Did I miss?". If the answer is ever "Yes", you don't expend the Reliable power. That's how the rules are written. The rules are not written as intended, because there's no way defined to distinguish between an attack missing and a power missing.

 

[Zurai]

This doesn't need to be clarified or errata'd though, the intent is clear and any alternative reading is broken if it allows the fighter unlimited use of a burst power. That would encourage the fighter to miss.

I disagree completely. ANY time the rules as written clash so obviously with the rules as intended, there needs to be errata. Errata is far more important for glaring issues than for subtle issues.

 

[Surgoshan]

Zurai, you have to try to misunderstand the intent to get the RAW to work that way. As I said, the only possible lack of clarity is in what it means to miss. The clear intent of the rules is that the power as a whole only misses if every single attack made as a function of that power misses. If any of those attacks hits, then the power has hit and is expended.

 

[Liebot]

Zurai, please don't be tedious. We see your point, but it's clearly not supposed to function that way, making further discussion unnecessary.