Arena Rex Forums

Arena Rex Forums
It is currently Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:05 am

All times are UTC-05:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Ban-Luca's Stall ability
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:10 pm 
Offline
Noxius
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:49 am
Posts: 14
Location: Frederick, MD
Ban-Luca can stall opponent models' movement. Is this only for active model movement, or does it apply for any sort of movement? I don't expect a reaction to a reaction, but Leo can do a Reposition/Pounce at the start of his action. Can Ban-Luca stall that Pounce?

Thinking "in real world" terms, it would seem as though a ready person with a long spear would be the ideal way to deal with a charging or leaping lion. I just want to know what thoughts are, to help with a decision for my local crew. Leo is popular!

_________________
-Jeff [LemonKraken]


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:42 pm 
Offline
Crudus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:19 am
Posts: 112
It is my understanding that with Stall, Ban-Luca can not stop Leo's re-position movement, but she can stop his Attack.

So the way I am reading the rules: Leo activates > declares Attack Action > triggers Pounce > re-position within 3 inches of Ban-Luca > Ban-Luca declares Stall reaction to this unique trigger > Leo's Action (Attack), immediately ends.

So Leo would get to move within engagement range, but he would not be able to roll any dice for his attack. Leo would subsequently be able to take an additional Attack Action at the cost of an additional fatigue level, to which no reactions can be taken, as Ban-Luca is now fatigued, and the reacting player has used up their single reaction per opponents turn.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:44 pm 
Offline
Viridis
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Scandinavian Denmark
As I recall, a similar question has been asked here once, and it was clarified that Stall is as permissive as it possibly can be.

Stall trigger: When an enemy model moves within 3 inches of this model.
Stall effect: Immediately end that model's action.

Leo can make a 3 inch reposition move before he makes an attack as part of his Pounce rule.

As I understand it, as soon as Leo moves to anywhere within 3 of BL, she can Stall him. That means his action immediately ends. The question is whether the reposition is part of the action, which is an Attack action. Kraken suggests that it isn't, but I would say that it is. The reposition isn't the attack - but I would argue that it is a part of the attack action, since it happens in between the declaration of the attack and the resolution of it.

I would imagine that is the intent anyway.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:12 am 
Offline
Crudus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:19 am
Posts: 112
This is an interesting distinction, whether or not "Pounce" is considered part of the Attack action, or if it is separate and distinct. I can certainly see the argument that is is part of the Attack, and therefore Stall stops him in his tracks. However, the exact wording of the two abilities is what makes me think Ban-Luca can not stop the Reposition, so I will elaborate a bit.


Stall specifically states: "Trigger: When an enemy model moves within 3 inches of this model; Effect: Immediately end the models action".

Pounce specifically states: "When this model declares an attack during its activation, it may Reposition before resolving the attack."


My interpretation is that Pounce is separate and distinct from the attack action for a couple reasons:

First, the Pounce ability specifically states the Reposition occurs prior to the resolving the attack (the declared "action"). So based on this alone, it looks to me like Pounce is distinct from the attack action.

Secondly, is the minor technicality of "may". This indicates it is permissive, not mandatory. Thus indicating that Pounce is not an integral part of the attack action, as you can choose to use it or not. If the wording was "must" Reposition (which would be silly, as Leo would be constantly leaping all over), then Leo simply could not attack without first moving, which is the specific trigger of Stall. This point is relatively minor, but it adds additional weight to the first point.

In any event, as I said this is an interesting distinction that I could see being ruled either way. I can definitely see this being addressed in a future FAQ.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
Viridis
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Scandinavian Denmark
I agree that without further clarification, it could go either way. We have nothing other than individual intuition to go on in either case.

The way pounce works is:

1. Declare attack action.
2. Pounce.
3. Select target.
4. Resolve attack.

You feel like step 2 isn't part of the attack action because you see only steps 3 and 4, actually attacking, as being the content of the attack action. I think that makes sense from a perspective of classification. But that leaves the Pounce as a weird "nothing" that isn't classified as anything, neither part of any action or reaction. And this doesn't work very well in terms of an intuitive result in this particular interaction. If we were going the "what makes intuitive sense?" route, then it makes no sense to me why stall should be able to stop a Move action, but not a reposition that has snuck in before an attack via a special rule. It's not an intuitively desirable result in my view.

So since the rules don't specify, and we have to use our intution to get a ruling either way, I would prefer the interpretation that says that the Pounce rule implicitly makes the reposition into a part one of the attack action, and which can therefore be stalled.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline
Crudus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:19 am
Posts: 112
O I completely agree with you on the intuitive part, when I visualize Leo pouncing on a foe, its all part of a single nasty attack. He's not jumping up close, then stopping, and going "OK, I'm going to attack now". My whole argument is more of a Rules as Written, vs Rules as Intended. And as anyone who plays a lot of tabletop war games knows, sometimes the way a rule is written and applied in a competitive sense, doesn't make the most intuitive sense when visualizing the act.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:56 pm 
Offline
Viridis
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Scandinavian Denmark
For sure. But I don't agree that the rule is written one way. The rule isn't written either way. So I don't see any RAW vs RAI. There is no RAW. There is nothing, except a guess as to what the I might be.

Edit: OK, maybe that's a bit harsh. I can see an argument that in the absence of anything specifying either way, it requires more leeway to assume that the reposition is part of the attack action than to assume that it isn't. I just feel like since the result of saying that the reposition isn't part of the action means that the reposition is part of nothing, that is an unlikely assumption, whereas making it part of the action seems like a likely assumption. And since we have to assume either way, why would you choose the unlikely assumption? When you don't have to, since it doesn't say that?

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:07 pm 
Offline
Crudus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:19 am
Posts: 112
The special Reposition movement isn't "nothing", it's the special ability Pounce.

Here is a link to a similar question regarding Intervene.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35152&start=10

Intervene - When declaring an Assist Reaction, this model may move up to 3 inches toward the attacker or defender. After this model Assists a friendly model, this model may move up to 3 inches."

Note that with Intervene, the reacting model gets to preform the "special movement" regardless of whether or not they get to actually preform an assist. Even though in order to trigger the movement, they had to declare the assist reaction. In this specific instance, the movement granted from Intervene is entirely separate from the assist itself, even though it couldn't happen without an assist being declared.

I see Pounce the same way. It can't happen without an attack being declared, but it is "not" the attack itself, it's a separate special ability.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:15 pm 
Offline
Viridis
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Scandinavian Denmark
By "nothing", I mean not part of any action or reaction, which a reposition normally would be.

But fair point.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:03 am 
Offline
Viridis
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Scandinavian Denmark
Still friends right? ☺

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC-05:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
Theme Created by HOLLYSMOKE
Theme updated to phpBB 3.1.3 by KamijouTouma