Arena Rex Forums

Arena Rex Forums
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:33 am

All times are UTC-05:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
Crudus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:19 am
Posts: 112
Yes, I agree. And like I said before, without any official word, we are going to have a repeat of the Stheno vs Tribune thread.

Quote:
You said that yes, Rebuff totally is triggered by the declaration of attack.
No, Rebuff is triggered by an "attack" specifically, not a declaration. (It would trigger vs a Spite attack that deals no damage) The special rule makes no mention of "declaring" in the same way Taunt does. So to me that mean's it isn't an issue of declaration, but rather what constitutes an attack.

A large portion of my understanding of how "attacks" work comes from the Aegis of Fame ruling specifically. So, I do want ask, based on how you interpret the rules, do you you think Aegis of Fame should apply to a Counter Attack or Opportunity Attack? Why or why not?


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:06 pm 
Offline
Viridis
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Scandinavian Denmark
KaptainWalrus wrote:
A large portion of my understanding of how "attacks" work comes from the Aegis of Fame ruling specifically. So, I do want ask, based on how you interpret the rules, do you you think Aegis of Fame should apply to a Counter Attack or Opportunity Attack? Why or why not?


I had a longer answer typed out, but it was just a rehash of what I said in the other thread. So to boil it down...

In this particular case of Aegis, my interpretation of the rules is that currently, RAW rules and given rulings contradict each other, so we have to look to what seems to be the intent behind the rules instead, and play it that way.

My understanding of the intent is as such:

- Aegis only triggers off declared attacks, not any other attacks.

- An opportunity attack is resolved as an attack 100%, and so is a succesful counterattack. Noting that the resolution of an attack and the declaration of an attack are two separate things, and the two reactions are not declarations of attack.

Make of that it what you will.

I suppose that means that I agree with your view in one aspect: I see the following as being completely different things.

- Declarations of attacks
- Declarations of opportunity attacks
- Declarations of counterattacks

These are completely separate. So if a special ability wanted to trigger off of the declaration of all of these, they would have to list all three. Like you have been saying.

The problem, really, is that lots of special rules refer to "when this model attacks" or "after an attack by this model" and so on. But an attack has two separate parts: The declaration, and the resolution. Just saying "when this model attacks" doesn't specify which part the ability is talking about.

But it becomes relevant because the two reactions aren't *declared* as attacks, but they are *resolved* as attacks. And therefore it becomes unclear whether those abilities work with them or not.

So Aegis should specify that it only works when an attack is declared. And Rebuff should specify that it only works when an attack is resolved.

I think that's my current take on it...

(Caveat: Counterattack is only resolved as an attack if it gets net successes. Otherwise it is resolved as a defense.)

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:54 pm 
Offline
Viridis
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Scandinavian Denmark
I suppose if you wanted to go into detail, an attack could be broken down further. It could actually be made properly understandable then.

Attack action steps:

1. Declare the attack (state "I am making an attack")
2. Roll the attack (roll active ATK dice vs passive DEF or ATK dice) - only proceed if succesful
3. Resolve the attack (apply damage from damage tree)

Opportunity Attack reaction steps:

1. Declare the opportunity attack (state "I am making an opportunity attack")
2. Roll the attack (roll active ATK dice vs passive DEF or ATK dice) - only proceed if succesful
3. Resolve the attack (apply damage from damage tree)

Counterattack reaction steps:

1. Declare the counterattack (state "I am making a counterattack")
2. Roll the counterattack (roll passive ATK vs active ATK) - only proceed if succesful
3. Resolve the attack (apply damage from damage tree)

Spite vitality box effect steps:

1. Mark box with the Spite effect.
2. Roll the attack (roll active ATK dice vs passive DEF dice) - only proceed if succesful
3. Resolve the attack (apply damage from damage tree)

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:00 pm 
Offline
Crudus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:19 am
Posts: 112
I appreciate the response. I'm not going to dig too much into a full response to you at the moment, since you already know my general position, but I do have a follow-up question.

Quote:
- Aegis only triggers off declared attacks, not any other attacks.


If this is the case, why do you think they specifically worded Aegis of Fame and Taunt differently, with respect to the "declare" trigger?

As in, why isn't Aegis of Fame worded "An enemy gladiator model must spend 1 Favor to declare an attack against this model"? Or to reverse the situation, what if Taunt was worded "Models engaging an enemy model with Taunt may attack only models with Taunt"?


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:41 am 
Offline
Viridis
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Scandinavian Denmark
KaptainWalrus wrote:
I appreciate the response. I'm not going to dig too much into a full response to you at the moment, since you already know my general position, but I do have a follow-up question.

Quote:
- Aegis only triggers off declared attacks, not any other attacks.


If this is the case, why do you think they specifically worded Aegis of Fame and Taunt differently, with respect to the "declare" trigger?


As I wrote in the other thread - I think it's unintentional that Aegis doesn't include the "declare" wording. Looks to me like when they wrote the Aegis wording, "to attack" was assumed to include declaration, because the specifics of how reaction attacks work weren't as crystallized out as they are now.

Part of why this makes sense to me is that Hermes, the only model with Aegis, has black and white art. As far as I can tell, all the models with Taunt have colour art. (Right now I can think of Viatrix, Medusa, Ur-Kek.) This leads me to think that Hermes is an older model with older rules, and Taunt was written later, when the rules were better defined.

I know it is kinda heresy to suggest that rules might actually be written wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. There are other examples in the game of where the rules aren't written precisely enough to avoid weird interactions.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:22 am 
Offline
Crudus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:19 am
Posts: 112
Quote:
I think it's unintentional that Aegis doesn't include the "declare" wording.
It is a bit odd that Aegis is written the way that it is, so I agree with you there.

However, the fact that Walker has spoken directly on it, and they haven't chosen to errata that rule is what makes me think that is "was" intentional to omit declare. And I agree, it does indirectly place more uncertainly on many other possible reactions. But in my mind, this particular ruling is what makes me focus on the definition of attack, rather than the declaration step. (as you're well aware, haha)

In any event, I appreciate the discussion. And I definitely agree, ruling Aegis the way it has been, does bring up several other questions needing clarification that have been brought up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:55 am 
Offline
Viridis
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Scandinavian Denmark
KaptainWalrus wrote:
However, the fact that Walker has spoken directly on it, and they haven't chosen to errata that rule is what makes me think that is "was" intentional to omit declare.


What Walker wrote when he spoke on it is also exactly what makes me think that it works the way I think it does! :)

The question was: Does Opportunity Attack trigger Aegis?

Walker's Answer: No, Opportunity Attack skips straight to rolling dice and resolving damage.

So Walker is directly saying that Opportunity Attack only contains steps 2 and 3 of being an attack, in terms of my explanations above. It skips step 1 - declaring an attack. Therefore it doesn't trigger Aegis.

We just come to two different explanations for why he would say this. You come to the conclusion that no part of Opportunity Attack is an attack in any way. I come to the conclusion that he is saying that Aegis is intended to trigger on declaration, which I feel his answer implies.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:13 am 
Offline
Viridis
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:38 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Scandinavian Denmark
It's funny, I feel like if we had contained this debate to one thread, I'm sure it would be the longest rules forum thread ever, even though it is practically just the two of us. We keep going back and forth.

Since nobody else is offering views on the meat of the question, I think I might post a spy question on facebook that should give at least a few gut reactions on what people think the intent is...

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:18 am 
Offline
Crudus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:19 am
Posts: 112
Haha, for as long as this discussion has gone on, I think I'm actually going to do an almost complete 180, and change my opinion regarding what is an "attack", and say the declaration aspect is more important. I also am now thinking "treat as" is the same thing as "is", going back to the Stheno vs Tribune question.

I have spent a while re-reading through the rules and focused on some things I haven't thought about as much as I should.

Combat-pg. 7: “To resolve an attack, the attacker rolls a number of d6’s equal to their ATK and the defender rolls equal to their DEF. Any die that rolls 4 or higher is counted as a success. The defender’s successes are subtracted from the attacker’s; if the attack has any remaining successes (net successes) it is considered a successful attack.”

“Opportunity Attack- Effect: Roll ATK +1 bonus success versus opposing DEF of that enemy model”

“Counterattack- Effect: Roll your ATK instead of DEF against the attack. If you roll more net successes than the attacker, resolve those successes as if you had made a successful attack. Declaring a Counterattack reaction is not considered declaring an attack against the opposing model.

Damage Tree-pg. 7: “After making a successful attack, apply your net successes to the attacking model’s damage tree,…”

If Opportunity Attack, "isn't" an "attack," you would not be able to deal any damage, since the damage tree rule specifies "successful attack", and doesn't list Opportunity attack specifically. The same applies to Counterattack, meaning "as if" does in fact mean "is". And and the addition of the clause stating it's not considered declaring an attack, gives more weight to the importance of the "declaration" step in regards to other interactions.


I appreciate the continued discourse. Even if it has been mainly the two of us going back and forth, it has certainly been helpful to allow my to look at the language of the rules in a different light.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:38 am 
Offline
Crudus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:47 pm
Posts: 257
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Though it’s been mostly the two of you discussing, there are definitely others of us reading that appreciate the discourse.

I think an explicit clarification on whether or not Counterattacks and Opportunity Attacks count as attacks and therefore trigger the same after effects that an attack would would be quite helpful at this point.

_________________
Morituri te salutamus.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC-05:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


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