Snarling Wolf Stance = negates melee attacks for an encounter?

[Samir]

Sudden Bite. Uses what is in fact a completely separate power (Wildshape) and then allows you to make an OA. Care to make any more false statements about how there aren't any precedents for things already in the game for more then a year?

There isn't any precedent for a power saying "do something at x speed and do y (but no speed is listed specifically for y)" and interpreting that to mean y does not happen at x speed, as well, either.

And "pretty clearly too good" is, again, just an opinion. Not relevant to a rules discussion. Which I think is what this, since the original question was a rules question. Which has been answered by CS, which is the closest thing to an official answer you get till errata and/or a FAQ. If you don't like their answer, great, I'm happy for you. It doesn't change the RAW.

As anybody who has dealt with CS before knows, they are consistently poor at answering technical rules questions. CS has been wrong on RAW before, and they are simply not a reputable source for rulings. I wager that I could send the question to CS again and receive a response contradictory to the first.

RAW, the shift is a no-action that happens right after the MBA-as-OA occurs, meaning before damage is dealt.

RAW, only interrupts and opportunity actions can invalidate actions after they succeed. The shift is neither of these. Despite shifting out of range of the attack before damage is dealt, it still doesn't turn the hit into a miss, and you still take damage from the triggering attack.

Thus, RAW, Snarling Wolf Stance does not by itself negate hits.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

I think I'm more confused after following this thread... <grin>

I thought that (and our Saturday night group does this) if a power reads that if you are hit by an attack, (all for example here) and you have an immediate interrupt, and you teleport X squares away, that you take no damage, because the immediate interrupt resolves *before* the action that triggered it.

Not like my Avengers Resonant Escape, which is an immediate reaction, and resolves after the attack/trigger.

I mean, we took it that your foe swings at you - its gonna hit (good die roll), and the trigger goes off, you teleport away, resolved, then the attacking foes weapon sweeps down through the square where you previously were, resolved, missing you...and no damage.

In the case of Resonant Escape, we have been playing it on a multiple attack power, that the first attack hits (ones with separate rolls), and you teleport away, taking the damage from the first attack roll, but then the following attacks miss you.

<sigh> Is our group totally doing it wrong again?

 

[Samir]

I think I'm more confused after following this thread... <grin>

I thought that (and our Saturday night group does this) if a power reads that if you are hit by an attack, (all for example here) and you have an immediate interrupt, and you teleport X squares away, that you take no damage, because the immediate interrupt resolves *before* the action that triggered it.

Not like my Avengers Resonant Escape, which is an immediate reaction, and resolves after the attack/trigger.

I mean, we took it that your foe swings at you - its gonna hit (good die roll), and the trigger goes off, you teleport away, resolved, then the attacking foes weapon sweeps down through the square where you previously were, resolved, missing you...and no damage.

In the case of Resonant Escape, we have been playing it on a multiple attack power, that the first attack hits (ones with separate rolls), and you teleport away, taking the damage from the first attack roll, but then the following attacks miss you.

<sigh> Is our group totally doing it wrong again?

This is all completely correct. Interrupts occur before the triggering action, and Reactions can be used between individual attack rolls of a multi-attack.

The contention over this power is whether or not the shift granted by the stance is capable of invalidating the attack that triggered it.

I hold that it cannot. Only immediate interrupts and opportunity actions have the "interrupt" language that causes them to precede their triggers--"rolling back time," in a sense.

The shift granted by Snarling Wolf Stance does not appear to be part of the MBA-as-opportunity action, per the language of the power. It's a separate "no-action" which does not have the capability to turn a hit into a miss.

 

[Aulirophile]

As anybody who has dealt with CS before knows, they are consistently poor at answering technical rules questions. CS has been wrong on RAW before, and they are simply not a reputable source for rulings. I wager that I could send the question to CS again and receive a response contradictory to the first.

RAW, the shift is a no-action that happens right after the MBA-as-OA occurs, meaning before damage is dealt.

RAW, only interrupts and opportunity actions can invalidate actions after they succeed. The shift is neither of these. Despite shifting out of range of the attack before damage is dealt, it still doesn't turn the hit into a miss, and you still take damage from the triggering attack.

Thus, RAW, Snarling Wolf Stance does not by itself negate hits.

I would wager I've dealt with CS more then you have, so I would tend to agree. It doesn't matter, on any issue that is unclear by RAW they are the final arbiter for rules questions barring FAQs or errata. Just because you can ignore their answers in home-games doesn't make those answers incorrect, especially if the only reason is you happen to disagree with the answer.

And you are incorrect, there is nothing written anywhere that says the shift is a no-action. As I pointed out, this is not the first power that says "OA+something" and those powers all pretty clearly state the "something else" also happens at interrupt speed. You are welcome to argue punctuation, and your "opinion" of the power, but that won't actually change the answer. My objection is that you are saying you answer is RAW, and it isn't. At best your opinion is RAI, but that isn't provably true either, because we don't know what was intended.

I'd have no issue if you clearly labeled your opinion as such, rather then trying to claim it was RAW. It isn't.

 

[MortalPlague]

...It doesn't matter, on any issue that is unclear by RAW they are the final arbiter for rules questions barring FAQs or errata.

Wizards Customer Service: I’ve passed along this conversation to the game’s developers. Hopefully, we’ll see an update or FAQ entry covering it soon, but until then it’s up to the campaign’s Dungeon Master to decide. The DM is always the final arbiter on how they want their campaign to run. Have fun!

Emphasis mine.

Not that I would have thought that you could pick "at the start of their turn" as a trigger.

I wonder if you can ready your action for the moment the next enemy takes its 'Standard Action'. Such a readied action might work well if there is only one adjacent enemy.

I always rule that you can only ready an action in response to an actual game world happening. There's no shining light that indicates when someone's "turn" begins, but you can ready an action to attack them if they start to attack someone. Readying an action for the start of someone's turn feels like metagaming...

 

[Aulirophile]

Emphasis mine.

Just because you can ignore their answers in home-games...

Selective quoting also yours. Ignoring or changing a rule in a home-game doesn't make it any less a rule.

 

[Samir]

I would wager I've dealt with CS more then you have, so I would tend to agree. It doesn't matter, on any issue that is unclear by RAW they are the final arbiter for rules questions barring FAQs or errata. Just because you can ignore their answers in home-games doesn't make those answers incorrect, especially if the only reason is you happen to disagree with the answer.

Does this mean if I get another answer from CS that contradicts the first, the latest answer is correct?

And you are incorrect, there is nothing written anywhere that says the shift is a no-action.

There is nothing written about the action type of the shift; as such, it takes no action to complete.

As I pointed out, this is not the first power that says "OA+something" and those powers all pretty clearly state the "something else" also happens at interrupt speed.

The example you gave (Sudden Bite) is itself a power that is an opportunity action. Thus, all of its effects are part of that opportunity action.

Snarling Wolf Stance is a minor action that enables a stance with a trigger that triggers two different actions, one that has a listed action type and one that does not. The same metric does not apply.

You are welcome to argue punctuation, and your "opinion" of the power, but that won't actually change the answer. My objection is that you are saying you answer is RAW, and it isn't. At best your opinion is RAI, but that isn't provably true either, because we don't know what was intended.

I'd have no issue if you clearly labeled your opinion as such, rather then trying to claim it was RAW. It isn't.

You would do well to do the same.

It is my opinion that my answer is RAW, and that yours is not. It is your opinion that the reverse is true. Let us be clear about this.

My objection is that you are saying your answer is RAW, and it isn't.

 

[Aulirophile]

Does this mean if I get another answer from CS that contradicts the first, the latest answer is correct?


There is nothing written about the action type of the shift; as such, it takes no action to complete.

The example you gave (Sudden Bite) is itself an opportunity action. Thus, all of its effects are part of that opportunity action.

Snarling Wolf Stance is a minor action that enables a stance with a trigger that triggers two different actions. The same metric does not apply.

You would do well to do the same.

It is my opinion that my answer is RAW, and that yours is not. It is your opinion that the reverse is true. Let us be clear about this.

My objection is that you are saying your answer is RAW, and it isn't.

Sure. They will give you an identical answer, the question has been asked so often they literally have written it up and started c/ping it, since I've seen multiple CS reps respond with identical wording.

My "opinion" agrees with CS. That makes it RAW. It doesn't matter what your opinion is. I know that must sting, that people actually hired by the game company to answer questions have more weight to their answers then you.

On the other hand, persisting in saying your answer is RAW when it disagrees with CS is sort of like lying, and that kind of makes you a liar, so my sympathy is somewhat abated.

 

[Mallus]

Or, how about this, I think it isn't powerful enough for a level 5 daily.

Is this what you think, or are you just feeling argumentative?

Oh, I am, of course, because apparently all you need to be right is an opinion.

I'm less interested in being right than discussing how to make the game we enjoy playing work better in play.

Would you like to discuss why my solution isn't good/workable/fair -- or, like I mentioned earlier, are you just looking for an especially pointless argument?

 

[Mallus]

That makes it RAW.

My question to you is 'does it make the game work better?'

That's the only sensible metric, no? Unless the goal is to create a rule set which works badly. In which case, we should be playing Synnibar.