Irresistible Force vs. Unmovable Object - Exception Based Rules?

[AZRogue]

Ok, pet peeve of mine but...

Shift is the new name of the 5' step.
Slide is forcing movement upon somebody.

I realize they sound similar, just like Burst and Blast, but they're not the same thing.

Thank you.

Sorry. I refuse to say "Slide" as a game term, though. I will instantly imagine the penguin from Fight Club and giggle.

Thank you.

 

[keterys]

Okay, so new term for slide time:

Push, Pull, Shift, Move have to be avoided.

propel, drive, budge, thrust,
fling, toss, hurl, heave, launch, pitch,
place, transpose (tho I think this is too close to teleport for me)

 

[AZRogue]

Okay, so new term for slide time:

Push, Pull, Shift, Move have to be avoided.

propel, drive, budge, thrust,
fling, toss, hurl, heave, launch, pitch,
place, transpose (tho I think this is too close to teleport for me)

Hmm. Propel would work for me, heh.

 

[Cadfan]

This could be a problem, if the designers screw up when writing rules. But it doesn't have to be a problem. So lets hold off complaining about how it is a problem until it actually becomes one.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Sorry. I refuse to say "Slide" as a game term, though. I will instantly imagine the penguin from Fight Club and giggle.

Thank you.

I didn't giggle, but I did smile. I have to watch that movie tonight after the kids go to bed.

 

[VannATLC]

C'mon! Don't you know? The first spell or ability goes onto stack...

You win @ thread.

You're wrong, but I'm a MT:G geek. So.

I don't see this kind of scenario occuring, to be honest.

As stated already, you'll get the "X is immune to Slide effects."

Then you'll have the ability "X is slid y squares, irrespective of immunities."

The ability contains the necessary key words to over come the initial immunity. And, if it doesn't, then it doesn't overcome the immunity.

 

[AZRogue]

I didn't giggle, but I did smile. I have to watch that movie tonight after the kids go to bed.

The First Rule of 4e is ... you don't talk about 4E.


The Rouse is obviously Tyler Durden. Sir.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As long as no designer comes up with the idea of "stacking" exception based effects.
Power A: Make immediate attack against shifter
Power B: Shift so that it negates an opponents ability to make immediate attacks.
Power C: Make an immediate attack even if shifter normally negates this.
Power D: Upon reading, your head explodes in Burst 2, 2d6+CHA damage.

I'd say we won't see anything like this in the core rules, and I hope it won't happen in WotC supplements either. But take care if you create your own house rules, or if you're reading (or writing?) 3rd party supplements...

The problem isn't new. 3E had it already, and I suppose every game has it.
I fondly remember Shadowrun. There was armor, and vehicle armor. Vehicle armor reduced damage, and if your weapons powerniveau didn't beat the vehicles armor rating, you wouldn't deal damage at all. (Oh, and your powerniveau was halfed, anyway). Then, they introduced APDS ammunition. That allowed you to penetrate normal armor better (halfing its armor rating), but had no special effect against vehicle ammunition. And then they added AntiVehicle ammunition. That let you deal full damage, and half the vehicles armor rating against you. Awesome. From a *plink* to *boom, there goes the Tank* with one ammo clip change! (A Ruger Super Warhawk loaded with AV was all you needed to bring down a Banshee, which is something like a armored hovertank) And no, this didn't have any special effect against human bodies (off course, still worked like APDS against regular armor).
But well, Shadowrun also contains ECCM - Electronic Counter Counter Measures from the start...

But I digress...

 

[Derren]

So, my question is this: If one character has a 'specific' ability that keeps him from (let's say) being Shifted, and another character uses a 'specific' ability that forces someone to Shift, which 'specific' ability wins? The irresistible force, or the unmovable object? Has anyone seen something on this? I imagine that this was considered by the designers. Have we just not seen the rule on this particular scenario?

Considering how 4E is designed the thing which is probably most in the spirit of 4E is that the PC wins.
So if the PC is unmoveable he wouldn't move. If a PC uses his irresistible force it moves. If no PCs are involved whatever benefits the PCs more happens.

 

[Imban]

This could be a problem, if the designers screw up when writing rules. But it doesn't have to be a problem. So lets hold off complaining about how it is a problem until it actually becomes one.

This is actually a general problem with exception-based rules: Exalted is one game that calls the issue out and addresses it specifically. Generally, conflicts resolve easily, except for when it's not at all obvious which exception is paramount.

For instance...

"This would deal fire damage, except he's immune to fire damage, except it's special immunity-piercing fire damage." is easy to resolve.
"This spell can detect anything, even through spells that prevent detection." vs. "This spell blocks all magical detection from anything." is... less easy to resolve, unless proper care is taken not to write rules which result in these sort of cases (which is difficult, since you have to check every complex effect you write against every other complex effect in the game in order to be sure), or there's some universal guideline as to how to resolve these issues.