Adent Champion. Rules lawyers required

[keterys]

True, but only because you can trigger crits on misses.

So if you knock prone on a critical hit, and do half damage on a critical hit, if you use a daily, you could get the following situation?

Crit: 80 damage and knocks prone
Hit: 30 damage
Miss: 15 damage
Holy Ardor Miss: 40 damage and knocks prone

Out of curiosity, do people who think Holy Ardor's language in lacking a 'can' is purposeful _also_ think that the lack of a can in Steel Vanguard Veteran and Cutthroat Scrutiny are also purposeful? Because it really seems more likely they just forgot on those other two powers.

Finally, can someone who has received a customer service response that Holy Ardor allows this please copy the conversation into the thread? There was a claim that CustServ had ruled both ways, but I only saw the one ruling that Holy Ardor still required a hit.

 

[Kraydak]

So if you knock prone on a critical hit, and do half damage on a critical hit, if you use a daily, you could get the following situation?

Crit: 80 damage and knocks prone
Hit: 30 damage
Miss: 15 damage
Holy Ardor Miss: 40 damage and knocks prone

Yes, with two caveats:
a) Holy Ardor isn't the only way to get crit-misses.
b) Some (all?) sources of extra damage on crits may not be effected by the half-damage on miss.

 

[keterys]

Yes, with two caveats:
a) Holy Ardor isn't the only way to get crit-misses.
b) Some (all?) sources of extra damage on crits may not be effected by the half-damage on miss.

a) I guess I'll take your word for that one.
b) Interesting. So if it was 30 normal (15 half), but if you max the normal it's 42, and you got 38 extra from the critical hit damage... you'd halve the 42 to 21, then add the 38, to 59?

 

[CovertOps]

So if you knock prone on a critical hit, and do half damage on a critical hit, if you use a daily, you could get the following situation?

Crit: 80 damage and knocks prone
Hit: 30 damage
Miss: 15 damage
Holy Ardor Miss: 40 damage and knocks prone

Out of curiosity, do people who think Holy Ardor's language in lacking a 'can' is purposeful _also_ think that the lack of a can in Steel Vanguard Veteran and Cutthroat Scrutiny are also purposeful? Because it really seems more likely they just forgot on those other two powers.

Finally, can someone who has received a customer service response that Holy Ardor allows this please copy the conversation into the thread? There was a claim that CustServ had ruled both ways, but I only saw the one ruling that Holy Ardor still required a hit.

I've been trying to reconcile this with the rules. This may be a case where...dare I say it....you can't crit because crit is a type of hit and not a miss? And no Artoomis, this is not an admission that a crit is therefore a hit.

 

[DracoSuave]

*If* critical hits are a subset of hits, *THEN* there is, very much, a contradiction. This is in the same sense that I don't have to say, every time, that every time you use the rules for a halberd, you also use the rules for a polearm. Because a halberd is a subset of polearms, if I give you a halberd, I am also giving you a polearm.

If, and ONLY if, said critical hit is guaranteed by the ability. If the critical hit is not guaranteed 100%, then the ability -saying- you have a critical is not a guarantee of a critical, and is not a guarantee of a hit, and therefore does not override the rules that say 'This is not a guarantee of a hit.'

 

[Artoomis]

It's really simple Artoomis, but you don't even bother addressing my issue at all. My point is that if you compare your attack roll and that attack roll says you miss then you never get to invoke Holy Ardor or any other critical power because you never get to the "Apply Damage" phase of attack resolution and therefore you are (were?) never granted the critical hit in the first place...

Well, by that logic you'd never get an Automatic Hit.

First, you'd roll to hit. If you did not beat the defender's attack roll, you'd miss and never move on down the possible attack results to Automatic Hit.

If you missed, you cannot continue on to check for a automatic hit, because you've already missed.

Really, you are making the wrong argument. Page 276 defines Critical Hit whereas page 278 explains it and adds more details on how to rule on them.

Your argument about you can "score a critical hit" and still miss is fundamentally flawed because of the very definition of Critical Hit on page 276.

Instead, you should focus on why "score a critical hit" in plain language really means only "potentially score a critical hit."

Arguments around that at least have some merit. You argument that a critical hit can be a miss is essentially that black is white, and thus cannot stand.

Again, I point to the fact that page 276 states that there there are only two possible "Attack Results: "Hit and Miss."

Critical Hit falls into the category of "Hit."

Given that fact, how can a Critical Hit turn out to be a Miss? It's simply not possible and would indeed be akin to stating "black is white."

 

[Dan'L]

Finally, can someone who has received a customer service response that Holy Ardor allows this please copy the conversation into the thread? There was a claim that CustServ had ruled both ways, but I only saw the one ruling that Holy Ardor still required a hit.

Without going back & searching all the posts, from what I remember: quite possibly it can't be done. The individual who posted that CustServ had green-lighted Holy Ardor's auto-hit-crit followed up that it had been a telephone conversation, and therefore had no written record of the exchange. If someone else has received a similarly affirming response over e-mail, they have not weighed in with it here.

-Dan'L

 

[CovertOps]

I have nothing else to say if you're not going to try to deny my position. I am going to take your lack of rebuttal as an acceptance that my position is correct. Your comments lead me to believe that you have not even tried to either understand my argument or even bothered to read my posts. You ignore the substance of what I'm saying and just selectively respond to the most insignificant parts. For example your first point is silly if you had read the rules...

"Well, by that logic you'd never get an Automatic Hit." Step 4 of the attack resolution includes 2 FULL PAGES OF RULES ending with the block about hits and misses (which incidentally includes the automatic hit rule).

Artoomis...you really need to sit down one night with your PHB and actually read the whole section. Look at it's organization. Read the steps that you are required to take and then all the supporting rules that go with it. Look at the flow of the rules. You're too focused in on just one particular part.

That and despite your best efforts at a denial the critical hit rules are on p278. Assertions to the contrary are unfounded. Try reading the headers above the rules blocks. On p276 the header clearly says "Attack Results" and on p278 you find the header...wait for it......"Critical Hits".

 

[Artoomis]

...Try reading the headers above the rules blocks. On p276 the header clearly says "Attack Results" and on p278 you find the header...wait for it......"Critical Hits".

True - but Critical Hits are defined on page 276, not page 278. They are simply further explained (or even "further defined," if you like) under the Critical Hit header.

I do not see how you can deny that a Critical Hit falls into one of two possible Attack Results - Hit or Miss, and it is a Hit.

I know you want to focus on page 278 and other rules, but they are irrelevant since the basic rule (Attack Results) defines a Critical Hit result as on of the possible Hit results (as opposed to a Miss).

It is not possible to reconcile a successful Critical Hit as producing a Miss with the rules on page 276.

If you can show how the rules on page 276 can be reconciled with how scoring critical hit being a miss, then I might tackle your other points, You have not done that because it can't be done, which leaves me no reason to go further.

 

[DracoSuave]

Blah and stuff

So all this has proven is that a successful Critical Hit is a successful hit. Congrats. That also proves an unsuccessful hit is therefore an unsuccessful Critical hit. This is not debatable, it's logic 101.

Now present that Holy Ardor automaticly produces a -successful- critical hit. That's the crux of the issue, and it's time to stop dancing around it.

The thing is, you cannot prove it, because it has already been disproven by counterexample. It is also proven that stating an event happens is not necessarily sufficient for that event to happen. It is also proven that the word 'can' is not relevant to this, that even a definitive event can be prevented by the rules.

Because you cannot then prove that it automatically successfully produces a critical hit, you cannot use that to prove that it automatically hits.
And because you cannot prove it automatically hits, you cannot rationally assume that it hits.
Because you cannot use that assumption, it cannot counter a rule that tells you it does not automatically hit.

Therefore, the argument 'It says you crit, therefore it must hit' is debunked.