Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skallgrim" data-source="post: 4808029" data-attributes="member: 79271">This isn't a RAW argument, but I think that the best way to handle this (and similar cases) is to split attacks into types:Area attacks (burst, blasts, and zones) that include the character in the effect, of course, do not suffer the -2, and also cannot be "interrupted" by defensive shifting (etc), unless those abilities are specifically "Interrupts", as all foes are effectively attacked simultaneously.Attacks that specify two or more targets are, like area attacks, attacks that affect all foes simultaneously, and so, do not trigger the -2 for a mark so long as at least one of the targets is the marking character (and similarly, cannot be "interrupted" by a defensive move, unless such a move is actually an "Interrupt".Attacks which are written as multiple attacks are not treated as a single attack with multiple targets.  Thus, each attack which does not include the marking character triggers the mark, and each attack can trigger any defensive maneuvering.  This isn't clearly, or even necessarily, spelled out by the rules.   However, this 'ruling' does give a wider variety of power and defensive effects.  Some attacks don't trigger a mark, and others do.  Some attack sequences can be "interrupted" by defenses, and others can't.Not ruling this way means that ONLY single target single attacks are always punished by marking, and means that defenses which shift you away from attacks ONLY prevent attacks in subsequent turns, or from an attacker with a second attack action available.  As a matter of personal preference, I'd like marks to be a little more useful, and defensive "maneuvers" to be a little more useful than that.Otherwise, there is no functional difference between an attack with multiple targets, and an attack action which allows multiple attack rolls to be made (barring any other rule specifications).  I'd prefer to imagine that the writers wrote different rules in these cases so that they would be different in play, rather than functionally identical.</blockquote>

Verification