Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 4936282" data-attributes="member: 996">There's no question that Commander's Strike is oddly worded, and that wording has odd consequences.&nbsp; For instance, you couldn't use a power that gives an ally an attack 'as a free action' to give that attack to a stunned or dazed or dead ally.&nbsp; Commander's Strike, OTOH, doesn't grant a free action, it doesn't place any requirement upon the ally at all, in fact.&nbsp; (Fortunately, you can construe the requirements of an MBA, other than the Standard Action, of course, as still aplying to the ally, though it's not clear exactly where you draw the line).That C'sS has an attack &amp; hit line rather than an effect line has been used to argue that it, in fact, has unlimitted range, rather than melee:weapon range.&nbsp; Funny, huh?Anyway, while you can indeed argue that the presence of the attack line makes C'sS different from other powers that grant free attacks in an effect line, I don't think it conclusively makes it 'an attack,' for the very simple reason that the game declines to adequately define 'attack.'&nbsp;&nbsp; Attack rolls, attack types, attack actions, attack lines, yes - but not 'attack.'&nbsp; Any power so badly phrased as to say &quot;.... when attacked,&quot; is necessarily ambiguous and it's up to the DM to come up with a reasonable interpretation.Draco, I actually do find your interpretation reasonable, and wouldn't argue it (much) were I a player in your game.&nbsp; However, the alternate interpretation isn't that bad, either.&nbsp; Whether it's the warlord or the ally that's deemed to be 'attacking,' the power could be used to activate or avoid something triggered on condition of 'attacking.'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 4936282, member: 996"] There's no question that Commander's Strike is oddly worded, and that wording has odd consequences. For instance, you couldn't use a power that gives an ally an attack 'as a free action' to give that attack to a stunned or dazed or dead ally. Commander's Strike, OTOH, doesn't grant a free action, it doesn't place any requirement upon the ally at all, in fact. (Fortunately, you can construe the requirements of an MBA, other than the Standard Action, of course, as still aplying to the ally, though it's not clear exactly where you draw the line). That C'sS has an attack & hit line rather than an effect line has been used to argue that it, in fact, has unlimitted range, rather than melee:weapon range. Funny, huh? Anyway, while you can indeed argue that the presence of the attack line makes C'sS different from other powers that grant free attacks in an effect line, I don't think it conclusively makes it 'an attack,' for the very simple reason that the game declines to adequately define 'attack.' Attack rolls, attack types, attack actions, attack lines, yes - but not 'attack.' Any power so badly phrased as to say ".... when attacked," is necessarily ambiguous and it's up to the DM to come up with a reasonable interpretation. Draco, I actually do find your interpretation reasonable, and wouldn't argue it (much) were I a player in your game. However, the alternate interpretation isn't that bad, either. Whether it's the warlord or the ally that's deemed to be 'attacking,' the power could be used to activate or avoid something triggered on condition of 'attacking.' [/QUOTE]

Verification