Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4988288" data-attributes="member: 51942">I currently play it as counting a single attack power as an attack: i.e. if you can attack multiple targets, and at least one of them is the creature that marked you, you have not violated the mark.However, I must say that the interpretation by AbdulAlhazred + Nifft has something going for it.&nbsp; For one, there are some odd &quot;impossible&quot; corner cases if you consider that attack powers may be interrupted:For instance, a ranger using attacks on the run may stop unexpectedly before making the second attack.&nbsp;&nbsp; What if the second attack was the one you intended to use to target the creature that marked you?&nbsp; If you take the -2 penalty, then under this interpretation that was incorrect if you do attack the marked creature.&nbsp; Or, you don't take the -2, but then the marked creature could conceivably just change it's mind half-way - but that's just asking for metagaming abuse.So, I'm thinking that Nifft+AbdulAlhazred interpretation is probably more solid without overpenalizing a marked creature too commonly.&nbsp; I sent a question to CS, let's see what they say...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 4988288, member: 51942"] I currently play it as counting a single attack power as an attack: i.e. if you can attack multiple targets, and at least one of them is the creature that marked you, you have not violated the mark. However, I must say that the interpretation by AbdulAlhazred + Nifft has something going for it. For one, there are some odd "impossible" corner cases if you consider that attack powers may be interrupted: For instance, a ranger using attacks on the run may stop unexpectedly before making the second attack. What if the second attack was the one you intended to use to target the creature that marked you? If you take the -2 penalty, then under this interpretation that was incorrect if you [I]do[/I] attack the marked creature. Or, you don't take the -2, but then the marked creature could conceivably just change it's mind half-way - but that's just asking for metagaming abuse. So, I'm thinking that Nifft+AbdulAlhazred interpretation is probably more solid without overpenalizing a marked creature too commonly. I sent a question to CS, let's see what they say... [/QUOTE]

Verification