Commander's Strike, is it an attack in itself?

[Tony Vargas]

About the CS response that identifies C'sS as 'a melee weapon attack.'

Again, this hasn't conjured up a meaning for 'attack' by itself. 'Melee weapon' is an 'attack type & range.' 'Melee' is an attack type. Quite a lot of powers have an attack type & range that are not attacks, at all. Knight's Move, for instance, has an attack type & range of Ranged 10, it is 'a Ranged 10 attack.' It even provokes. But, it's not an 'attack' in that it has no attack line, does no damage, is a utility rather than an attack power, and can only affect an ally - pretty different from the usual sense of 'attack.'

 

[DracoSuave]

1) Attack types are explicitly called out as pertaining to non-attacking powers, so the presence of an attack type doesn't make it an attack, or even insist that it could be. Nor do the rules suggest otherwise.

2) Commander's Strike is an at-will attack power, with an attack type of Melee weapon, and an attack line that by definition tells you how to attack with the power.

At some point, you gotta say 'This is an attack.' And Attack:, by dint of its definition saying that it is the rules for telling you how to attack with that power that defines it as an attack. You can't execute instructions for how to attack with something and not be attacking with that something. Common sense has to apply here.

 

[Nifft]

About the CS response that identifies C'sS as 'a melee weapon attack.'

Again, this hasn't conjured up a meaning for 'attack' by itself. 'Melee weapon' is an 'attack type & range.' 'Melee' is an attack type. Quite a lot of powers have an attack type & range that are not attacks, at all. Knight's Move, for instance, has an attack type & range of Ranged 10, it is 'a Ranged 10 attack.' It even provokes. But, it's not an 'attack' in that it has no attack line, does no damage, is a utility rather than an attack power, and can only affect an ally - pretty different from the usual sense of 'attack.'

I do share your (implicit) disdain for CustServ. What I quoted was the FAQ, which I consider to be several rungs up the intellectual food chain from CustServ.

The difference in play ought to be minimal even if you (or your DM) decide to rule that Commander's Strike is not an attack on the part of the Warlord, but only on the part of the Fighter. Really, the only situation where it's going to matter is in a situation like the Warlord being Marked by a Fighter-like or Paladin-like critter who gets to hurt the Warlord if he attacks someone else. Most other Mark-effects (-2 to attack roll, reduced damage, etc.) won't matter, since the Warlord isn't making attack rolls or dealing damage.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Tony Vargas]

It wasn't my intent to show disdain. They said it was a 'melee weapon attack,' and it is. I was just saying that doesn't establish a definition of 'attack' by itself, since saying 'a melee weapon attack' is just talking about attack type & range. And, indeed, that was the context of the statement: the range at which the power could be used.


Draco: Yes, at some point, you have to say 'yeah, this is an attack.' Thing is, you could say that when you get to the attack line, and conclude it's the ally that's really attacking. Again, because there's not definition for 'attack,' by itself. And, as ambiguously as it's been used, so far, there wouldn't be much point to creating one.

So, powers should just be phrased without keying off 'attack' as if it had an explicit unambiguous meaning - and those that already do so, need a ruling or a update for clarification.

 

[kugelkj]

So, powers should just be phrased without keying off 'attack' as if it had an explicit unambiguous meaning - and those that already do so, need a ruling or a update for clarification.

Just to bring the conversation back to the OP... Aegis of Shielding triggers off of a hit, not an attack.