Forced Movement and Walking Wounded

[amysrevenge]

In almost all cases, forced movement has no direct negative consequences (beyond being moved to a place you didn't choose yourself). I think that this is insight into the elusive "intent" of the rules. With that in mind, I'd say that there are two arguments that suggest that forced movement doesn't trigger the Walking Wounded effect.

1) "moves more than half its speed in a single action" suggests (but doesn't explicitly say) that it means the target's own action, not someone else's action.
2) You generally can't use forced movement to trigger anything bad (beyond the movement itself) for a target.

Neither of these is explicit. However, I would definitely rule them this way.

 

[Hypersmurf]

2) You generally can't use forced movement to trigger anything bad (beyond the movement itself) for a target.

So what's your ruling on Forced Movement and Blood Pulse - the creatures takes damage for each square it leaves?

What about the Wall of Fire or Blade Barrier example?

-Hyp.

 

[amysrevenge]

So what's your ruling on Forced Movement and Blood Pulse - the creatures takes damage for each square it leaves?

What about the Wall of Fire or Blade Barrier example?

-Hyp.

Would be similar at my table - you probably have to do the moving yourself to take the effects (thus nerfing some of these zones and the like - I followed some of the slide/push through a wall of fire arguments and still feel the same way). I know it's not a popular interpretation, and I am willing to be convinced otherwise - I'm on the verge of waffling on it as we speak lol.

I just think that anything that seems too good (like controllers regularly doing substantially more single-target damage than strikers ever could) is too good.

 

[Alraiis]

Whatever the ruling for walking wounded at a given table, I (for my part) definitely think it should be consistent with blade barrier, blood pulse and wall of fire. Though I'd be inclined to rule the opposite of amysrevenge, we at least agree on consistency. When a power says "If a creature moves/enters/leaves...," either forced movement counts for those purposes, or it doesn't. The "half its speed" bit might suggest intentionality, but I don't think it requires it.

Obviously, as SweeneyTodd and others say, it's a DM call.

 

[FadedC]

Whatever the ruling for walking wounded at a given table, I (for my part) definitely think it should be consistent with blade barrier, blood pulse and wall of fire. .

Well I actually disagree that these things should have consistent rulings because they are worded very differently.

Blood pulse punishes you for leaving any square
Blade Barrier and Wall of Fire punish you for entering specific squares
Walking Wounded punishes you for moving.

I would personally rule that walking wounded only triggers on an actual move, and not a push, pull or slide. The rules on push/pull/slide do in fact specifically say that are "Not a Move".

Meanwhile blade barrier and wall of fire create a dangerous area on the board, and the rules are pretty clear that you can force move somebody into those (though they get a save). And blood pulse just says for every square they leaves.....they went out of their way to make any reference to moving so this would seem to also indicate it triggers on forced movement.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well I actually disagree that these things should have consistent rulings because they are worded very differently.

Blade Barrier and Wall of Fire punish you for entering specific squares
Walking Wounded punishes you for moving.

These aren't worded all that differently, though.

Wall of Fire: "If a creature moves into the wall's space..."
Walking Wounded: "if the target moves more than half its speed..."

Is the difference between "If the orc moves into square X" and "If the orc moves N squares" such that the phrase "If the orc moves" should be read in two entirely different ways?

The rules on push/pull/slide do in fact specifically say that are "Not a Move".

And Wall of Fire damages a creature "If a creature moves into...". Since Push/Pull/Slide specifically say "Not a move", doesn't that mean by the same logic that the creature has not moved into...?

If the word "Move" prohibits forced movement from triggering Walking Wounded, the word "Move" should also prohibit forced movement from triggering Wall of Fire's damage. If Wall of Fire's damage can trigger from forced movement despite the word "Move", then Walking Wounded should trigger from forced movement despite the word "Move".

I don't see how one can reasonably say "Move means 'move' in one case, but not the other".

Meanwhile blade barrier and wall of fire create a dangerous area on the board, and the rules are pretty clear that you can force move somebody into those...

I agree that you can force them in (unless one subscribes to the 'obstacle' loophole), but the question at hand isn't "Is forced movement into a Wall of Fire possible?", but rather, "Does forced movement into a Wall of Fire count as 'moving into the wall's space'?"

-Hyp.

 

[FadedC]

These aren't worded all that differently, though.

Wall of Fire: "If a creature moves into the wall's space..."
Walking Wounded: "if the target moves more than half its speed..."

Is the difference between "If the orc moves into square X" and "If the orc moves N squares" such that the phrase "If the orc moves" should be read in two entirely different ways?

Interesting to note that wall of fire is worded completely differently then every other zone effect in the game (or at least every one I have looked at). All other effects use enter instead of move.

By the letter of the rules, it would seem that forced movement would not in fact work on wall of fire, but would work on every other zone based conjuration. I personally feel that wall of fire was simply worded poorly and that this is not the intent of the rules, but you can decide this for yourself I guess.

 

[amysrevenge]

I would be willing to concede that "enter" and "leave" could maybe be involuntary, while "move" has to be intentional... Not sure yet though.

 

[Alraiis]

By the letter of the rules, it would seem that forced movement would not in fact work on wall of fire, but would work on every other zone based conjuration. I personally feel that wall of fire was simply worded poorly and that this is not the intent of the rules, but you can decide this for yourself I guess.

Where, in the letter of the rules, are "entering" and "leaving" squares thus defined, and thus made distinct from "moving into" squares?

 

[Alraiis]

Put another way (as I dive off the deep end into Excessively Anal Mode):

Is forced movement... movement? If it is, it must follow that a creature that has been pushed, pulled or slid X squares has, by definition, moved X squares. This would also mean, by my assumption, that the creature has entered every square it is forced into and leaves every square it is forced out of.

To me, this is obvious. The only argument against this interpretation is the single point on 285 in the Forced Movement box that says "Not a Move." Language everywhere else uses the word "move" liberally in descriptions of push, pull, and slide effects. (Only the one who is directing the movement is different.) Now, even still, this stark "Not a Move" may seem clear, but this short phrase is fully explained by the text following it, and "move" in this context is simply referring to the target's own capability to move itself. Naturally, the target isn't moving itself---it's being forced to move---but it still moves.

The question then becomes: Is there meant to be a rules distinction, in powers or anywhere else, between "moves" and "is moved [by someone or something else]" beyond the distinctions already spelled out in the forced movement section? That is, if a power says "If a creature moves, X" is the requirement for X satisfied by forced movement?

You may think, syntactically, that the reflexive is implied (that is, that "If a creature moves" means "If a creature moves itself"), but this isn't necessarily the case. If you move a creature, the creature moves.