Arena Rex Forums

Clear turn attacks aren't really outside the normal attack structure. I was just pointing out that the ways for them to occur, usually rely on tactics or special rules to even happen. So they are more uncommon.

Incite and Frenzy attacks would still follow the normal attack structure in every way.

Wild attacks, are more of an exception. They lack the declaration and targeting steps. They were mainly what I was talking about with a separate part of the chart

Yeah, I agree with that. Instead of declaration and targeting, they have triggering and maneuvering, if you will.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log

What do you think about Ambush? Should it trigger Aegis?

Text: Choose a Zephyri gladiator model in your cohort and immediately resolve an attack with 1 net success against a model engaged by it.

I guess there are two ways you could interpret how you are meant to execute the ambush.

The "normal attack way" with four steps:

1. Pay 1 Favor to trigger Ambush.
2. Choose a target for the attack.
3. Replace the combat roll with "gain 1 net success".
4. Resolve attack damage.

The "special exception way" with two steps:

1. Pay 1 Favor to trigger Ambush.
2. Resolve attack damage, with the following modifications: Pretend you scored one success and choose an engaged model to receive the damage.

The normal attack way would trigger Aegis, and the special exception way would not, as I see it.

As I said before, I lean towards the special exception way being what they intended, based on how the rule is written, but would like to hear your opinion.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log

I agree with you, I think Ambush does not trigger Aegis. It says resolve, so to me that skips all other steps and goes right to damage.

Yeah. My only problem with that is that it clearly doesn't skip straight to damage - neither the triggering nor the damage itself dictates who it is you are attacking. So targeting has to happen somewhere before the damage is applied.

I don't mind saying that Ambush follows the "special exception" thing above if that is really the intention, and it seems to be. But it doesn't sit right with me. Ambush is described as an attack and you choose a target for it. Spite is described as an attack and you choose a target for it.

The only reason we have for inferring that Ambush isn't meant to trigger Aegis is the wording about "immediately resolve", which Spite doesn't have. Those words don't get past the wording on Aegis in any way that I can see... but we are guessing that that's the intent. I feel like that isn't currently something I can base a logical explanation on, so I need more...

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log

Ambush has a target in effect, but the word "target" doesn't explicitly appear. It simply says resolve an attack against an engaged model. So it is different enough in wording to make it sufficiently outside the structure of normal attacks.

But we both clearly agree it's a special circumstance. So the end result stays the same regardless.

The word "target" doesn't explicitly appear anywhere else either. It doesn't say "target" in Spite. It just says "make an attack". Here it says "immediately resolve an attack". What is the difference between those two sentences in terms of what they tell us to do?

I feel like we both sense that there is a difference, intent-wise - and I assume the intent behind "immediately resolve" is "nothing can prevent this attack" - but it annoys me that this is just an implication and a feeling.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log

Attack: Target an enemy model within the engagement range of the attacking model. Resolve the attack as described in the Combat section.

Combat: “To resolve an attack, the attacker rolls……if the attacker has any remaining successes it is considered a successful attack.”


Spite says "make an attack". The rules for Attack say target. Ambush says “resolve an attack”. So in my head it skips over the first part of the attack rule and rolling dice, and jumps straight to the “remaining successes” part.

I get what you're saying. I'm just not a fan of the Magic-style "target" keyword thing - not because it doesn't say anything about it in the rules, but because it is a contradictory principle to the structured chart principle I have been working with so far. Searching for target keywords is the same as going "in this example, the structure doesn't work, so let's find a different principle instead" - but I want the structure to work for all examples, otherwise it clearly isn't valid for future examples we haven't come across yet, which would make me sad. A principle that doesn't apply to all relevant situations is a worthless principle.

I guess I can crowbar Ambush into the four-phase structure and have it not trigger Aegis like this:

1. Pay 1 Favor to trigger Ambush.
2. Select Ambush target.
3. Roll Ambush combat (which is always a net 1 success for the aggressor).
4. Resolve combat damage.

It would work by saying that in phase 2, the Ambush isn't actually an attack yet, just like opportunity attack - it only becomes an attack when it is succesful. It just requires us to interpret "immediately resolve an attack" to mean "this event only counts as an attack when it turns from a combat into a successful attack". As opposed to Spite which counts as an attack as soon as it has triggered.

That actually works pretty well. Hmm.

Now I'm happy again. I'm so glad we keep discussing this! Keeps my brain working.

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log

In defence of the target principle, I imagine that you could probably answer all the same questions using a "keyword" principle instead of a structure principle. You would just need three keywords that I can see - "target", "declare", and "attack".

That principle would go something like: To figure out whether any kind of damage-related event in the game triggers abilities like Aegis or Taunt, go through all related rules references that the effect involves, and then ask three questions.

1. Does the word "target" figure anywhere? If not, then it doesn't trigger Aegis.
(Example: Ambush)
2. Does the word "declare" figure anywhere? If not, then it doesn't trigger Taunt and cannot be counterattacked.
(Example: Spite)
3. Does the word "attack" figure anywhere? If not, then it doesn't trigger Rebuff or Retaliate and can't be used with Envenom.
(Example: Rebuff)

That's probably more the kind of principle that the writers had in mind. The main reason I like the structure chart as a visual aid is that it handles (or is the expression of) the "go through all related rules references" part of the keyword principle.

I think it might be nice with three charts.

1: Attack compared with the two reactions (Opp Attack and Counterattack).
2. Attack compared with the two special abilities (Spite and Ambush).
3. Attack compared with the two beastly attacks (Wild and Hazard).

_________________
My Arena Rex painting log