Search results

Eh, it needs clarification either way. It says it leaves your hand free, and a free hand can wield a weapon. A free hand can certainly hold something, so Implements would work. Then you get into the whole switching grip is a free action thing and Swordmages are just fine. Hence my initial...

/shrug. CS is consistently wrong on rules question, including disagreeing with FAQs (and actual rules, but hey). Your anecdotal experience notwithstanding. And, as mentioned, CS doesn't actually work for WotC. They are a third-party company. It is worth noting that the sole arena where CS was...

No it isn't. SWORDMAGE WARDING While you are conscious and wielding either a light blade or a heavy blade, you maintain a field of magical force around you. This field provides a +1 bonus to AC, or a +3 bonus if you are wielding a blade in one hand and have your other hand free (not carrying...

4e has a lot of sanctioned play where you are required to play by RAW. Considering the investment they have in that (and in the continuing development of widespread LFR via the VTT) tight rules seem like a good thing. Somehow.

/yawn. Specifically modifies the range (hey, look, it actually is Specific vs General. You found one! Good job.) "Implied" is not specific, either. Specific requires specificity. Again, you're not making a rules argument. By the rules, you're wrong.

Bards would still have Bard only rituals and free one/day casting of same. Classes that get RC for free also get some benefit from it (free rituals, special rituals, etc.,)

And if your Free Action Attack Power happens to be an MBA or RBA or etc, then you will see no difference. In the dozens of corner cases that use Free Action Powers that are not Attack Powers to generate No Action Attacks, or Free Action Utility Powers granting Attacks (but not Attack Powers), or...

Actually it is worth noting that in Sanctioned Play, CS is no longer official. CS rulings have zero impact in the 2.0 LFR CCG. Only the official FAQ, written by developers, and source material qualify. So in the only arena it was in any way official, it no longer is. And the source material...

Free Action Attack Power. The distinction is incredibly important.

No. OA is a Power. MBA is a Power. Power grants ally MBA against a specific target. Can the ally make the MBA regardless of range? Under your logic, the answer is yes. Under the actual rules, the answer is no (and you can't pick and choose here, the logic is the same in both cases, so...

Well, but we're just saying we don't personally think it was intended. For all we know it was intended and that is why it was phrased that way (it wouldn't the oddest rule ever, after all). We can't know, short of a developer saying so. Opinions are never rules, no matter how sound they may be...

Yeah... that really isn't the broken part of the potential here. ^.^ Something like 2d6 brutal 1 on a charge that averages a more then a hundred damage, pushes, prones, and dazes on something that has Defender defenses is closer to the reality (and that is scratching the surface). Shield...

If that is what it said, but it doesn't. It says the feat applies, with the restriction that is has to add to attack or damage rolls. It is possible that it is just poorly phrased (God knows I'd bet money on it) but RAW you get all the side-benefits. This might even work in the OCB actually, I...

This exact debate happened in the Fighter Handbook on CharOp not to long ago. Conclusion: Yeah, it works by RAW. Particularly nasty when you can take an Arena weapon that counts as multiple types of a weapon (Spear/Axe, Heavy Blade/Polearm, etc).

Exactly, nothing is changing how powers work... you're just conveniently ignoring that powers have range and targeting requirements for some bizarre reason. So you agree your argument is wrong, you cannot simultaneously deny the hypothetical power working and accept PG works. Now that is a...

No... game elements can not work. Barreling Charge doesn't work, for instance. Dozens of stealth related things don't work due to stealth errata, for several months roundabout charge did nothing at all. Stuff doesn't work all the time in fact, so that isn't a sound argument (nor is it an actual...

I've had CS tell me Fighters can't mark with attacks against non-adjacent enemies. CS is not a reliable rules source. Period. With that out of the way, if the Dominator isn't the one executing then.. uh, it doesn't work because Dominate says your allies/enemies don't change. Doesn't work...

I understand you think there is a difference. But there isn't. Powers have specific rules that you're not addressing, not the least of which is that they require their range and targeting rules be followed. Of course it breaks, because the rule is poorly written (in this case). You're just...

Badly.

But it doesn't say so. It says 'Make an OA against the target'. OK, I use that power... out of range, fails, done. For the exact same reason that a Polearm without Reach would fail, the power lacks sufficient range (MBA, in the latter case). If that weren't true you'd never need the text...