Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 4393715" data-attributes="member: 43019">This would be yet another mistake of yours <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Of course this is correct. It's completely ludicrous to allow it to happen, but polearm gamble _specifically_ says that it lets you take an OA, so clearly language that says you don't get one (such as range, powers that say no OAs, etc) don't apply. That is your argument. It's a lot easier to make the argument that it works on teleport, but it's only a mild escalation to allow it to hit someone teleporting from far away.And I've even see people try to say that it works, too. Or maybe you get the OA after they enter the square somehow. Cause how else would it work? People will go to great lengths to create an interpretation that suits them.Shield Push is on combat challenges, so you can't ready it... but if he has some other push attack readied... then either his trigger will occur when the enemy enters his square (before the attack is made for the charge) and if the enemy has movement left it can continue one more square and attack -or- it will be readied for the attack, in which case it will go off after the attack as an immediate reaction. OTOH, if a marked enemy next to a fighter attacks someone else and he has shield push, his combat challenge immediate interrupt will allow him to push the target away disrupting the attack entirely unless the attacker has sufficient reach. War Priest OA with tide of iron works similarly well.This debate proves otherwise.Specific says you get an OA. It doesn't say that limit still applies, much as it doesn't say teleport avoids OAs still, so clearly it trumps the general rule. Silly, right? Well, yeah, 3 requires 2 to work, but c'mon, it'd be funny <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Then why did you respond? You knew your stand inviting comparison to completely ludicrous arguments. Your stand is a hell of a lot better than those, but it shares a glaring weakness. You certainly may be right.And others certainly may be wrong.Without Wizards issuing an update or FAQ, though, there is insufficient evidence to back either side's ruling. No matter what, I don't think they intended to have forced movement trigger OAs, ever. Ever. So that's a blazing sign of intent on this rule for me. Shifts and teleports? Maybe. Honestly, the language of shift as leaving only could even indicate that it was changed specifically to allow shifting to trigger polearm gamble.But who knows? Be nice if it was written more clearly.</blockquote>

Verification