Vengeful Parry trick?

[DracoSuave]

Compare to Come and Get It:

Come and Get It - You pull each target 2 squares to a space adjacent to you. You cannot pull a target that cannot end adjacent to you.
Vengeful Parry - You shift 1 square and then slide the target 2 squares to a square adjacent to you.

PHB 1 powers are not worded using the same templating as PHB 2 powers. Not really an apt comparison... see below.

My guess is that these two should have much closer wording. But this is just a guess to the rules as intended. As written, yes, I think you could use parry to dodge an attack.

Come and Get It predates PHB2 where the 'you don't have to pull to a specific destination' is given as a game rule. So, it needed the text in order to be clear by that ruleset. Now that rule is in play, and such text is no longer necessary; in fact 'Slide x squares to y destination' is the current standard templating, as the number of squares prevents a slide that covers the entire battlefield.

Ideally the rules would do something define allow two options: May (slide/push/pull/shift) is implied and means you can choose to do X or fewer squares unless Must is used, in which case you can not use the power/feat/whatever if you can't.

I seem to recall that there are powers that have an involuntary element to their shift/forced movements, however those are so absolutely rare (I think I remember one at most) that no specific templating is required for it. The general rule covers it just fine, and the exceptions are so rare that spelling out the mandatory nature of the movement in the power itself is no loss of elegance or simplicity.

They don't need to add 'May' and 'Must' templating to cover a singular exception that I'm not even sure even truly exists. What's the point of 'Exception based design' if you have to retemplate everything just so that exceptions don't need to exist?

 

[DreamChaser]

This is no different than the word AND in many other sentences within powers. For example:

Covering Attack

Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and an ally adjacent to the target can shift 2 squares.

The "and" does not change the normal shift (or slide) rules unless it explicitly states that it does. People are reading too much into this. There would need to be a sentence in the power similar to "in order to shift a square, the foe must be slid at least one square" for the shift / slide rules to be overwritten.


I'd be interested in the exact text of the CS reply.

This response is comparing apples to oranges. The question I raised is not whether the AND exists but rather a question of different wording: This power is not worded the same way as covering attack.

It says the following:

Hit: 2[W] + Wisdom modifier damage. You shift 1 square and then slide the target 2 squares to a square adjacent to you.

Two key differences from covering attack. First, the secondary effect is a separate sentence from the damage. Second, the two parts of the secondary effect are connected by AND THEN instead of AND.

There is no syntactic (sentence structure) reason for "THEN" because the sentence would still be grammatically correct without it. It's inclusion therefore could be (and is likely) lexical (intended to change the meaning of the sentence). And then differs from and in that it creates a clear sense of order and (possibly) implied causality (If / then).

We know that forced movement is optional unless the power says "must". That is not under debate AND if the word "THEN" were not present in the power description, I would agree that it applies. However, AND THEN leads my to infer that the two movements are together an effect:

IF you shift THEN you slide the target adjacent.

IF (by use of the not forced to shift rule) you do not shift THEN you do not slide the enemy.

Take as a mental exercise the question of whether you would permit a player to use the second half of the movement without the first:

An avenger with a special ability that allows them to increase the reach of a power by 1 is attacked by a creature with reach. The character and the creature are not adjacent when the attack is made.

Would you permit the avenger to move the enemy but not shift himself?

You might. That is fine. You are opting for the AND THEN in the sentence to be meaningless and no different from the AND used in others.

If you don't, the it stands to reason that the two movements are in fact a linked action...an IF THEN statement.

I interpret the THEN as having meaning and implied causation. I do not believe that this is a house rule, either.


DC

 

[DreamChaser]

As an addendum, I will point out for the sake of fairness, that other Avenger powers are not phased in this same way even when they seem to have the same intent: force the creature to follow you around the battlefield.

Overwhelming strike for example.

The fact that this issue is so hotly debated draws light on the inconsistencies inherent in language (expecially rules language) and that (no matter what we might claim) there are few instances that get this much debate that are actually as clear cut as we might claim.

I suppose it comes down to YMMV.

DC

 

[KarinsDad]

This response is comparing apples to oranges. The question I raised is not whether the AND exists but rather a question of different wording:

You claimed that "and" could be interpreted that both must occur. You equated it to "if then" instead of "and". If anyone is comparing apples to oranges, it is you. If they meant "if then", then they should have used those words.

Your original response on whether the slide was dependent on the shift was a valid question, but once the PHB II rule was trotted out, it became moot. Continuing a grammatical depth discussion on what "and" means seems pointless.

a (damage) and b (shift) and c (slide)

All of these happen unless there are rules that a, b, or c are optional. In the case of shift and slide, they are optional. And means and, but it doesn't mean that a, b, or c cannot be optional.

The fact that this issue is so hotly debated draws light on the inconsistencies inherent in language (expecially rules language) and that (no matter what we might claim) there are few instances that get this much debate that are actually as clear cut as we might claim.

I think it stopped being hotly debated once Journeymanmage realized that the PHB II rule existed.

 

[DracoSuave]

This response is comparing apples to oranges. The question I raised is not whether the AND exists but rather a question of different wording: This power is not worded the same way as covering attack.

It says the following:

Hit: 2[W] + Wisdom modifier damage. You shift 1 square and then slide the target 2 squares to a square adjacent to you.

Two key differences from covering attack. First, the secondary effect is a separate sentence from the damage. Second, the two parts of the secondary effect are connected by AND THEN instead of AND.

There is no syntactic (sentence structure) reason for "THEN" because the sentence would still be grammatically correct without it. It's inclusion therefore could be (and is likely) lexical (intended to change the meaning of the sentence). And then differs from and in that it creates a clear sense of order and (possibly) implied causality (If / then).

We know that forced movement is optional unless the power says "must". That is not under debate AND if the word "THEN" were not present in the power description, I would agree that it applies. However, AND THEN leads my to infer that the two movements are together an effect:

IF you shift THEN you slide the target adjacent.

IF (by use of the not forced to shift rule) you do not shift THEN you do not slide the enemy.

Take as a mental exercise the question of whether you would permit a player to use the second half of the movement without the first:

An avenger with a special ability that allows them to increase the reach of a power by 1 is attacked by a creature with reach. The character and the creature are not adjacent when the attack is made.

Would you permit the avenger to move the enemy but not shift himself?

You might. That is fine. You are opting for the AND THEN in the sentence to be meaningless and no different from the AND used in others.

If you don't, the it stands to reason that the two movements are in fact a linked action...an IF THEN statement.

I interpret the THEN as having meaning and implied causation. I do not believe that this is a house rule, either.


DC

However, 'AND THEN' is not in any way, shape, or form, a contradiction of the existing rules.

You can parse the power as 'Shift or not shift a number of squares, and then slide or not slide the opponent a number of squares to a square adjacent to you.'

The above sentance makes perfect logical sense, and therefore the term 'and then' is not a contradiction of the general rules for the voluntary nature of shifts and forced movements.

And therefore, as it is not a contradiction, you cannot call it 'Specific beats General.'

 

[mneme]

I'll note that on a power level, there doesn't seem to be a problem. VP is -much- more effective when you are hit with an attack that will be negated by the penalty--that way you don't have to forego the oath-powered counterattack (if the attack's by your oath target, anyway). That it -can- be used to dodge an attack entirely (if the attack is at the edge of its range) is a useful second ability, but particularly for a Champion of Unity, you're likely to be hit with at least one power that's in range for you to negate it with the penalty instead.