Rogue Sneak Attack Rules Question(s)!

[Black Knight Irios]

Ok seems we still agree on disagreeing. I try once more to get my point across.

Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and hit that enemy with an attack that uses a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling, the attack deals extra damage. If you have dealt Sneak
Attack damage since the start of your turn, you cannot deal it again until the start of your next turn. You decide whether to apply the extra damage after making the damage roll. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.

Above is the complete text on sneak attack (SA) from the update. Lets take just the part that tells us when we are allowed to apply SA.

when you have combat advantage against an enemy and hit that enemy with an attack [weapon usage mumbo jumbo] the attack deals extra damage.

So you want to use your SA to kill that pesky monster faster, but how do you know that you can use SA?
Once again step by step.
1) red must be true
2) green must be true
3) they must be true in that order (1 then 2) and they must be both true (1 and 2)
4) now you are allowed to apply SA to the damage roll

OTOH, you seem not to care at what point before the damage roll you have CA, you would allow 2 then 1 as well. But as I read and interpret it, it must be before you hit, so only 1 then 2 is possible.

EDIT:
I can see where your interpretation comes from.
Sometimes when we connect things with an AND it doesn't matter which comes first, like:
My car is fast and cool. <<>> My car is cool and fast. No change in meaning.
Another sentence:
When we have food in our mouth we chew and swallow. Turning this around leads to: When we have food in our mouth we swallow and chew. The sentence is still sensible but the order of the two actions is not corret. You can't chew something that has been swallowed.

Therefore, when I read a sentence with an AND I ask is the order important - would the meaning change if I turned it around - if the answer is yes, the meaning would change, it's the order of "events" and it should not be changed.

Now regarding our sneak attack issue I say I read it as written with the written order b/c turning it around opens up another possibility when you are allowed to apply SA. Since WotC did not make it clear wether turning around is allowed/intended or not we don't know who's right. Since you allow both readings you're at least 50% right.

 

[firesnakearies]

Once again step by step.
1) red must be true
2) green must be true
3) they must be true in that order (1 then 2) and they must be both true (1 and 2)
4) now you are allowed to apply SA to the damage roll

I think it's that number 3 that's questionable. I can definitely see how a person could make that interpretation, it's not entirely unreasonable. But it's also not entirely necessary. It's possible that you're adding that meaning in yourself, as the text per se does not make that an unavoidable conclusion.

Red must be true, green must be true, and they must both be true. That much is clear, and undisputed. Whether or not "they must be true in that order" is actually a rule or not is a matter of interpretation. And I think that it's not necessary to interpret the rule that way, nor desirable. I don't see that the rules demand that, and the text of certain powers strongly implies otherwise.

I get what you're saying, and see possible grounds for it, but I think that ultimately, you're inserting a restriction into that rule yourself ("they must be true in that order") that does not, strictly speaking, have to be there.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I think it's that number 3 that's questionable. I can definitely see how a person could make that interpretation, it's not entirely unreasonable. But it's also not entirely necessary. It's possible that you're adding that meaning in yourself, as the text per se does not make that an unavoidable conclusion.

Red must be true, green must be true, and they must both be true. That much is clear, and undisputed. Whether or not "they must be true in that order" is actually a rule or not is a matter of interpretation. And I think that it's not necessary to interpret the rule that way, nor desirable. I don't see that the rules demand that, and the text of certain powers strongly implies otherwise.

I get what you're saying, and see possible grounds for it, but I think that ultimately, you're inserting a restriction into that rule yourself ("they must be true in that order") that does not, strictly speaking, have to be there.

That's exactly why I put the EDIT part into my last post. Of course, the reason to disagree is the "order part". And just from reading the RAW you cannot say who is right or wrong. If we get a CS answer that is pretty much useless b/c at least 50% of the people are going to say CS has no idea what they are doing.
But even so I argue for the stricter reading of the rules I might allow Draco's reading in my games.


EDIT:
Of course, both interpretations have their own pros and cons, so neither of them is by definition more pro player than the other.

 

[Samir]

"Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and hit that enemy with an attack that uses a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling, the attack deals extra damage. If you have dealt Sneak Attack damage since the start of your turn, you cannot deal it again until the start of your next turn. You decide whether to apply the extra damage after making the damage roll. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases."

At the time you have hit this particular enemy, you check. Do I have combat advantage against this enemy? Check.

But you don't have combat advantage at the time you hit that enemy.

You get to decide whether to apply SA damage after making your attack's damage roll, but it never even triggered in the first place, because you didn't have combat advantage when you hit.

You don't even get to "decide whether to apply the extra damage," because there is no extra damage, because you didn't have combat advantage when you hit.

I get what you're saying, and see possible grounds for it, but I think that ultimately, you're inserting a restriction into that rule yourself ("they must be true in that order") that does not, strictly speaking, have to be there.

Changing the order of the phrase doesn't affect the meaning in this case: "when you hit an enemy with an attack and have combat advantage against that enemy" still requires you to have combat advantage when you hit the enemy to grant you Sneak Attack damage.

Compare to Darting Strike (D381):

Effect: You shift 2 squares to a space adjacent to the enemy
and make the following attack with combat advantage.
Target: The triggering enemy
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.

 

[DracoSuave]

But you don't have combat advantage at the time you hit that enemy.

You get to decide whether to apply SA damage after making your attack's damage roll, but it never even triggered in the first place, because you didn't have combat advantage when you hit.

The ability doesn't say that.

All it says is 'Do you have combat advantage?' and 'Did you hit the enemy?'

It does not say 'If you hit an enemy you have combat advantage against' which is a different phrasing. It seperates the two clauses. The phrase, as written, can be parsed this way, but that's not the only possible or more precise interpretation.

You don't even get to "decide whether to apply the extra damage," because there is no extra damage, because you didn't have combat advantage when you hit.

That's not what the ability says. The clauses are seperate.

Changing the order of the phrase doesn't affect the meaning in this case: "when you hit an enemy with an attack and have combat advantage against that enemy" still requires you to have combat advantage when you hit the enemy to grant you Sneak Attack damage.

The ability still doesn't say that.

Compare to Darting Strike (D381):

Well, if you're using Darting Strike as precedent, you have a very good case.

The order is Attack:, then Effect:, then Hit:, so it's certainly valid.

It goes:

Effect: .....make the following attack with combat advantage.
Hit:

And there's no secondary attack so, there's only one attack that refers to. And remember, powers are executed in the order presented.


So thusly, if Darting Strike is a valid precident, then what you've argued successfully is that the Attack: line is not when you roll the attack dice, but they are instead rolled at the Hit: line, thereby allowing the Effect: of Jumping Blade Assault to affect the attack roll.

Therefore, yes, you DO get your sneak attack damage.

 

[Samir]

The ability doesn't say that.

All it says is 'Do you have combat advantage?' and 'Did you hit the enemy?'

I disagree; I think rephrasing the ability as two questions gives it a different meaning than the original phrasing. Let's look at the wording of the trigger again:

Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and hit that enemy with an attack that uses a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling, the attack deals extra damage.

It sets up a trigger (as evidenced by the word "when") and an effect (Sneak Attack damage). The trigger is "when you have combat advantage against an enemy and hit that enemy with an attack" and the effect is "the attack deals extra damage." If at any point you meet the trigger conditions "when you have combat advantage against an enemy and hit that enemy with an attack," you are able to deal extra Sneak Attack damage.

It does not say 'If you hit an enemy you have combat advantage against' which is a different phrasing. It seperates the two clauses. The phrase, as written, can be parsed this way, but that's not the only possible or more precise interpretation.

It separates the two clauses with an "and." Even separate, the two clauses still refer to the same trigger: hitting the enemy with an attack. If you don't have combat advantage when you hit the enemy with an attack, Sneak Attack doesn't trigger.

Well, if you're using Darting Strike as precedent, you have a very good case.

The order is Attack:, then Effect:, then Hit:, so it's certainly valid.

It goes:

Effect: .....make the following attack with combat advantage.
Hit:

And there's no secondary attack so, there's only one attack that refers to. And remember, powers are executed in the order presented.

I think you misread; Darting Strike is Effect, then Attack, then Hit, which gives you your Sneak Attack damage by giving you combat advantage for the attack. This is in contrast with Jumping Blade Assault, in which the prone occurs after the attack (Attack, Effect, Hit), which does not give you combat advantage for the attack.

 

[DracoSuave]

I think you misread; Darting Strike is Effect, then Attack, then Hit, which gives you your Sneak Attack damage by giving you combat advantage for the attack. This is in contrast with Jumping Blade Assault, in which the prone occurs after the attack (Attack, Effect, Hit), which does not give you combat advantage for the attack.

Here's a screenshot from CB.

So.... what am I misreading here?

 

[Shin Okada]

Here's a screenshot from CB.

So.... what am I misreading here?

I say you are not misreading. The power does not make sense as it is.

The effect line says ".. and make the FOLLOWING ATTACK with combat advantage."

But there is no attack written below the effect line. So basically, this effect line does not give you anything as it is.

I guess WotC will issue an update for this power sooner or later. Say, moving the effect lie above the attack line.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

The order of the entries of the pic you posted looks totally messed up. I wouldn't use this power to argue in favor of any of those possible interpretations.

ATM I see no reason for going back and forth on the topic b/c w/o further input (custserv/faq/update) I see no possible outcome which we all can agree on based on the ambiguity of the RAW.

I have changed my point of view to accept that DS's interpretation is possible as well. Despite that I still believe that my interpretaion is RAI and therefore RAW if they would write things in an unambiguous way.

 

[Samir]

Here's a screenshot from CB.

So.... what am I misreading here?

It seems CB mixed up the order of the power.

Here's a screenshot from D381: