Search results

Was stated at the developer Q&A panel, Gencon 2008, that is the official line from the development team. Period. I can see you haven't read the thread, I encourage you to do so, because those are the facts. If you want to not be aware of the facts in a debate and then feel insulted that you're...

Your numbers are still wrong. I'll ask the same question: you self-admitted you didn't understand the math, how can you competently claim there is no problem if you can't do the math? Nothing else fixes the problem. You fall behind by 4. There is nothing else in the whole game that even comes...

Reactions respond to squares of movement individually, and indeed one of the examples of this in the books is specifically about how Reactions can invalidate charges. It isn't very likely though, since they would be pushed 1 away.... and then would continue to charge. They'd need to have just...

Well, it was the only argument that actually fit in with the RAW (and thus the only one worth repeating). SvG requires explication, so the "it just does" argument was... um.. yeah. ;)

All creatures are aware of the effects of all powers and effects to which they are subjected. However, in the case of the Warden, Battlemind, and Fighter, their mark is disassociated from their punishment mechanic. So, RAW, no, monsters will not know what happens if they violate the mark till...

Swapping places is a slide, by RAW (couple powers make specific exceptions and are teleports). No timing questions for charges on Combat Agility, after they enter the square resolves as a reaction, and invalidated charges is one of the examples of a reaction that responds to movement. The PG...

But it is not in the RC, which is what I said. ;)

He's playing a Cha-Paladin without Divine Power options? Um. Taclord, or Warlord in general, is terrible with that group. Without Divine Power a Chaladin has no options for a strong MBA, and the Rogue won't have a particularly good MBA either (Brutal Scoundrel does not lend itself well to PHB1...

Dozens. Staggering Note (Bard At-Will) for one. Many of them have specific language because they also involve movement, but not all of them by a long shot. And it isn't like this is the first time a feat (or other game element) has been made non-functional because of a rules change. Some...

Unless you wish to take the position that all granted MBAs have infinite range (because that is the logical conclusion of your position), then... no. It isn't "clear" because it is not explicit. In order to modify something you must do so explicitly. That is RAW, what the rules actually say...

Imagine a power that said "You make an MBA against the target" and the target was out of range. What would happen? You'd make the MBA, and the MBA would auto-miss because you're out of range (and it is worth noting, for this example, that there are powers that say "regardless of range" or...

Exceptions require explication. I didn't miss it, you're just wrong. By strict RAW, they don't work. Also Specific vs General actually isn't in the RC either.

It is supported by the rules, actually. ^.^ And.. um, changes to powers doesn't mean they weren't No Action, just that the devs didn't feel it was appropriate. That actually strengthens the position that they are, in fact, No Action... else no change would've been needed.

SoR is item, Shard is untyped. Build is fine, if he is making encounters easy it is because he is playing tactically. Your obvious bias "Player A is playing the game 'like you're supposed to'" is the problem. And calling him a Scrub, etc., like others in this thread I'd encourage him to find a...

Considering CharOp actually cares about RAW far more then any other community I've seen, that is an endorsement that it is correct more then anything else. The alternative is that, for instance, the MBA is a Standard Action outside of your turn.... which isn't supported at all. No Action is...

No, it isn't hard at all, especially because we know because several abilities have the exact same trigger and some of them have been FAQed. The RAW is abundantly clear on the matter. No Reach = Halo of Warding doesn't work for you. And you don't want to get into a RAW debate about the RC...

So your theory is that people who write Dragon articles and people who edit Dragon articles are mechanically incompetent? Um. Actually neither PG nor Halo trigger off of Forced Movement. Per the RC, Forced Movement never triggers Opportunity Actions of any kind that are Triggered By Movement...

No.. first time I read Polearm Gamble it was obvious to me. There isn't anything inherently wrong with lacking system mastery, but it is something you should be aware of about yourself. I, for instance, am aware my Japanese is atrocious. I have a low mastery of the subject. I was merely pointing...

Halo of Warding comes from a Dragon Magazine article dedicated to the Greatspear using Avenger. Sometimes things are designed with particular items in mind. If you lack the system mastery to notice that, you can run into problems (though I find it obvious). That is what forums are for. Asking...

I'm a regular CharOp poster. >.> Anyway. Dead is the best condition, but E+1 encounters with MM3/MV are reasonably threatening even to optimized parties. E+3 can actually result in TPKs of optimized characters (CharOp runs several weekly games via MapTools, some for LFR and some home groups...