Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: diceman on November 22, 2013, 10:13:05 AM
-
I think I already answered my own question, I just wanted to make sure: that extra Melee-Attack I get with BATTLE RAGE, must I use this on the same creature I've already attacked, or am I allowed to retarget? Should be legal, right?
-
If you're talking about battle fury, I'm pretty sure it targets the attacker, not the attacked. I don't remember whether it affects the creature's next unresolved attack that round or just its next attack.
I need to look over the card text again...
-
Oops, yes, of course I meant BATTLE FURY (have to constantly translate from the German Texts, when posting here). ;)
And, yes, as far as I know, BF targets the Attacker. Now, what I meant was: say my Timber Wolf (with BF on it) has already resolved an attack against the Darkfenne Hydra. Now for the Bonus-Melee-Attack from BF: must the Timber Wolf again attack the Hydra (same target), or may he also choose another viable target-creature within the same zone?
-
Same target. Think of it like the trait double strike, as opposed to sweeping.
-
Imaginator is incorrect. The new attack granted with Battle Fury goes through all of the Combat Steps, including Step 1: Declare Attack, in which you select a legal target for the attack. This can be different from the original target.
-
Battle Fury states "The extra attack counts as part of the same attack action." So I think Imaginator is correct on this one.
-
"The next time this round the target creature makes a melee attack, if that attack is not a Counterstrike, at the end of that attack action it may immediately make another quick action melee attack. This extra attack counts as part of the same attack action. Only one Battle Fury spell may be cast per round on the same creature."
That is the full text from Battle Fury. The part about being a part of the same attack action makes it exactly the same as double strike, triple strike, AND sweeping. It simply means that it can not benefit from things like melee +X a second time. It has nothing to do with targeting.
The part about being at the end of the attack action means that it occurs during Step 8: Attack Ends, and not during Step 5: Additional Strikes. This makes it even more similar to Sweeping than Doublestrike.
In the end though, the key thing to look for is the total lack of any targeting restriction in the text. If it doesn't restrict your target, then you can choose your target.
-
Ahh interesting does that mean a battle fury strike could be attacked by a damage barrier more than once?
-
Page 27 of the Rulebook v2.0 states "A damage barrier can attack each attacker once each round." This prevents it from hurting the attacker during a Battle Fury attack.
Now, the wording on Counterstrike is a little more ambiguous. On page 28 it states: "A creature may make one counterstrike against each creature that attacks it with a melee attack (even if the attacker attacks it with more than one strike during the attack)."
Now, since Battle Fury does not count as an extra strike, we could almost ignore the parenthesis and scratch our heads as to whether the preceding text limits us to one Counterstrike against them per round, one per attack action, or one each time the Step is encountered. I could see arguments for any of these three interpretations.
-
Ok, one more question now. Damage barrier says that it only attacks after all additional strikes, so is battle fury considered an additional strike that happens before damage barrier or is it the exception to the rule due to the fact it only starts after the original attack finishes. If it is the exception would it be possible to cancel the battle fury attack if the damage barrier stunned the target or does the stun only come into effect after the battle fury finishes due to rule that the stun marker would not be resolved until the next round?
-
This 1 is dirty... Official answer on this please.
Do battlefury trigger an additional counter strike if the attack choose to hit the same target both with his attack he gets from spending the action marker and the attack from battle fury?
Prior to errrata it would be an easy "yes".
-
Damage barrier says that it only attacks after all additional strikes, so is battle fury considered an additional strike that happens before damage barrier...
Battle Fury is not an additional strike. It happens during Step 8 which occurs after the Damage Barrier (Step 6) of an attack.
Now the stun is a very good question. On both page 9 and page 28 of the Rulebook v2.0 it talks about how a condition applied from a damage barrier or counterstrike is not "resolved" until the end of the next action phase. It also talks about how resolving the condition at the end of an action phase removes that condition. Therefore, in both cases, I presume it is talking purely about removal and not the application of conditions. Thus, my assumption is that stun does get applied immediately by the damage barrier or counterstrike.
Then we have a new question on our hands as to whether stun just prevents you from initiating an action or if it can stop an action that is already in progress. I could be wrong about this, but I believe it would stop the Battle Fury, and here's why. During Step 1: Declare Attack, you must check to see if you can legally attack your target with the Battle Fury attack, and I would assume the answer to that question is "no" because you are stunned.
Official answer on this please.
I think some clarification would be nice regarding Battle Fury and Counterstrikes myself. Maybe a little help on the stun question as well.
-
Battle Fury does trigger damage barriers. This is because the extra attack is triggered after all the steps of the attack sequence, then it takes you back to the beginning to run through again.
Now I'll be looking at the stun question later and I'll try to get you guys an answer.
-
Battle Fury does trigger damage barriers.
I apologize for giving misinformation in that case. However, I think you guys need to update the rules with this information as the passage I quoted from the rulebook on page 27:
A damage barrier can attack each attacker once each round.
seems to strongly suggest you can not attack the same creature twice with the same damage barrier in the same round.
-
I can totally understand that sir. I'll have to talk to Bryan. I can see where your ruling came from. I'll bring this up with him when I'm looking up the stun ruling.
So I guess now, I'm not as sure on the ruling, but I will get back to you all.
-
Then we have a new question on our hands as to whether stun just prevents you from initiating an action or if it can stop an action that is already in progress. I could be wrong about this, but I believe it would stop the Battle Fury, and here's why. During Step 1: Declare Attack, you must check to see if you can legally attack your target with the Battle Fury attack, and I would assume the answer to that question is "no" because you are stunned.
If we read the rules carefully, we can conclude that it would not stop an action already in progress.
Battle Fury text: "The next time this round the target creature makes a melee attack, if that attack is not a Counterstrike, at the end of that attack action it may immediately make another quick action melee attack. This extra attack counts as part of the same attack action. Only one Battle Fury spell may be cast per round on the same creature."
Even if Battle Fury start from step 1 to through step 8, it is part of the same action.
Stun makes creature Incapacited.
Incapiced text: "An Incapacitated creature cannot take any actions, including moving,
attacking, guarding, casting spells, or counterstriking."
That's the interesting part. Cannot take any actions, but the creature is not taking an action, it is already in its attack action since Battle Fury extra attack is part of the same action.
Now, the Step 1 text (and where you are wrong about being legally able to attack the target):
"Announce which attack you are using. If your creature has
more than one attack, represented by more than one “attack
bars” on its card, you must choose only one attack to use.
You must choose an attack whose action icon matches the
type of action you are taking (for example, a full action icon
will require the creature to use a full action to make that
attack).
Then, announce what target you are attacking. You must
choose a legal target for your attack:
If you are making a melee attack, the target must be in the
same zone as the attacker. If there are enemy guards in the
zone, you must choose one of the guards to attack (see
“Guarding” on page 29).
If you are making a ranged attack, the target must be in range
of the attack. A ranged attack ignores guards. All ranged
attacks have a minimum and a maximum range. The target
must be in a zone that falls within that range (see “Counting
Distances” on page 10). Also, a ranged attack must make sure
it has a clear LoS (line of sight) - see “Line of Sight” on page
17. All ranged attacks ignore steps 6 and 7.
Pay Any Required Costs
Sometimes you will have to pay an additional cost in order
to make an attack. For example, an enchantment may force
you to pay mana before your creature can attack.
You must pay these costs during the Declare Attack step, or
the attack is canceled.
If you discover that you cannot legally attack your target
during this step, you may cancel the attack and choose a
different target, or even take a completely different action.
Remember: If a Flying creature attacks a non-Flying object,
it loses Flying until the end of the attack. See “Flying” on
page 15.
If later during the attack you discover that your target is no
longer legal (for example, it has been Pushed or Teleported
out of range), the attack is canceled.
If the attacker is Dazed, at the end of the Declare Attack Step
he must roll to see if his attack misses. If it misses, skip to
Step 5: Additional Strikes. See “Daze” in the Codex."
Nowhere in Step 1 it require you to be not-Incapacited. The legality of a target is not dependant of attacker's condition.
And for damage barrier/counterstrike, it all depends if you consider "attack" and "strike" to be the same thing or not. Personally, I would allow damager barrier/counterstrike to only hit once.
I think the intention behind Battle Fury was to grant the next attack equivalent of "Sweeping or Doublestrike", but they wanted to allow it on Full Action attack too without allowing 2 Full Action attack and they could not word it like "grant next melee attack either Sweeping or Doublestrike" because if the attack was already DoubleStrike, they wanted it to get a 3rd strike.
-
But if you use BATTLE FURY as a kind of Sweeping Action, you absolutely have to check again, if you can legally attack your new opponent. Look up "Sweeping" in the Codex:
The second attack occurs at the end of the attack sequence from the first attack. Start a new attack sequence beginning with the Declare Attack Step.
And another attack should just not be possible, if you have been stunned. This totally goes against the propagated "intuitiveness" of the game. So then we could maybe argue, that another strike against the same target would be possible, while switching targets would be illegal (when you've been stunned). Just my 2 cents. ;)
-
But if you use BATTLE FURY as a kind of Sweeping Action, you absolutely have to check again, if you can legally attack your new opponent. Look up "Sweeping" in the Codex:
The second attack occurs at the end of the attack sequence from the first attack. Start a new attack sequence beginning with the Declare Attack Step.
And another attack should just not be possible, if you have been stunned. This totally goes against the propagated "intuitiveness" of the game. So then we could maybe argue, that another strike against the same target would be possible, while switching targets would be illegal (when you've been stunned). Just my 2 cents. ;)
No you do not. It is another attack sequence, but it is not another ACTION, which is what Incapacited prevent. Incapacited prevent to take an action, it doesnt prevent it to continue.
-
Wildhorn, I respect your opinion and applaud the work you have done to support it. Unfortunately, I believe you have failed at proving your point. I still believe it could be interpreted either way and that we need an official answer on the matter.
The legality of a target is not dependant of attacker's condition.
This statement is just plain false. There are several conditions that affect legality. For example, Stuck makes it illegal for a flying creature to target another flying creature. Taunt makes it illegal to target any creature other than the one that taunted you. Finally, Stun makes it illegal to attack anything at all. For the first two conditions, we can find explicit rulings that prevent them from affecting an action in progress. The wording on Stun and Incapacitate is not as clear.
An Incapacitated creature cannot take any actions, including moving, attacking, guarding, casting spells, or counterstriking.
This statement COULD be interpreted to mean you can not initiate such actions. It could also be interpreted more broadly to mean such actions are simply illegal to perform. The latter interpretation allows for the condition to impact an action already in progress.
And we still have the issue of whether a second Damage Barrier and Counterstrike attack can be made against the attacker. Even Laddinfance has stated he is unsure about this.
Conclusion: We need some clarification from Arcane Wonders.
-
Wildhorn, I respect your opinion and applaud the work you have done to support it. Unfortunately, I believe you have failed at proving your point. I still believe it could be interpreted either way and that we need an official answer on the matter.
The legality of a target is not dependant of attacker's condition.
This statement is just plain false. There are several conditions that affect legality. For example, Stuck makes it illegal for a flying creature to target another flying creature. Taunt makes it illegal to target any creature other than the one that taunted you. Finally, Stun makes it illegal to attack anything at all. For the first two conditions, we can find explicit rulings that prevent them from affecting an action in progress. The wording on Stun and Incapacitate is not as clear.
I didn't choose properly my wording. I should have wrote that attacker being stunned doesnt affect legality in targetting. Stuck and taunt affect targets that are allowed. Stun doesnt do that. So even stunned, you can target something you would normally be able to.
An Incapacitated creature cannot take any actions, including moving, attacking, guarding, casting spells, or counterstriking.
This statement COULD be interpreted to mean you can not initiate such actions. It could also be interpreted more broadly to mean such actions are simply illegal to perform. The latter interpretation allows for the condition to impact an action already in progress.
Stun effectivly prevent to initiate attack action. With Battle Fury, if you read the text on the card, you don't initiate an attack action, it just continue the same attack action. What it does is it grant another melee attack, not an attack action. It is very clear.
Because if we take it the way you want to imply it, then stun would prevent a creature to be Force Pushed since it would be illegal for it to move.
And we still have the issue of whether a second Damage Barrier and Counterstrike attack can be made against the attacker. Even Laddinfance has stated he is unsure about this.
If we follow rules, DB and CS only affect a creature once. Doesnt matter if it pass by the step again. To me its very clear too.
-
Page 23:
If later during the attack you discover that your target is no longer legal (for example, it has been Pushed or Teleported out of range), the attack is canceled.
In my opinion this is the only logical, most intuitive interpretation. Game-Mechanics and rules aside, if you just step back for a second and look at the situation: you are STUNNED! How can you make another attack?
And we still have the issue of whether a second Damage Barrier and Counterstrike attack can be made against the attacker. Even Laddinfance has stated he is unsure about this.
I'm not as good with words with you, but this situation is also pretty clear to me. If you look at the rules:
A damage barrier can attack each attacker once each round. If an attacker makes multiple strikes, the damage barrier only gets to attack once after all the attacks are complete.
I think it's pretty clear: Every creature has exactly 1 chance to make 1 Damage Barrier-Attack against each Attacker. So if it is being attacked again by another creature in the same round, of course the Damage Barrier would strike. But not with the same creature, who's just using BATTLE FURY. Because it's the same attacker. We also have to take in account, that the main reason for the extensive wording on the card was to to make clear, that Melee+1-Traits may not apply more than once during one Attack-Sequence. Everything else is just what we may read into it, to prove our points in a moot discussion.
-
Stun effectivly prevent to initiate attack action.
It could be interpreted that way, but that's not the only interpretation as I pointed out. You could also read it as being unable to perform the action at all.
Because if we take it the way you want to imply it, then stun would prevent a creature to be Force Pushed since it would be illegal for it to move.
A Push is different from a Move is different from a Teleport. Three completely different beasts which have nothing to do with one another. For example, Unmovable prevents you from Pushing a target, but the target is still able to Move. Meanwhile, Restrained prevents an object from Moving but you are still able to Push it.
Your interpretation is perfectly valid, Wildhorn, but it is not the only interpretation possible with the way the rules are currently written.
If we follow rules, DB and CS only affect a creature once. Doesnt matter if it pass by the step again. To me its very clear too.
I thought the rules on Damage Barrier was very clear as well (I think Counterstrike is a little less clear) but Laddinfance threw a monkey wrench into that. He is an official representative of Arcane Wonders and he has stated that he believes both of those would get a second attack, contrary to our reading of the rules. He has also stated that he is no longer certain if that is indeed the case though, so we are now waiting for confirmation what the official answer is.
-
Stun effectivly prevent to initiate attack action.
It could be interpreted that way, but that's not the only interpretation as I pointed out. You could also read it as being unable to perform the action at all.
I do not interpret anything. I am just reading what is written black on white... Err scroll-colored. Incapacited prevent to take attack action. In the case of Battle Fury we do not take an attack action, we are just continuing the one that as already been taken.
Because if we take it the way you want to imply it, then stun would prevent a creature to be Force Pushed since it would be illegal for it to move.
A Push is different from a Move is different from a Teleport. Three completely different beasts which have nothing to do with one another. For example, Unmovable prevents you from Pushing a target, but the target is still able to Move. Meanwhile, Restrained prevents an object from Moving but you are still able to Push it.
I know all that. I was just saying that if you claim that Incapacitate make all the thing it list illegal, then the stunned creature can't be moved because Push is a move. NOT a Move Action but still a move. Just like Battle Fury makes you do another attack NOT an Attack Action.
-
I do not interpret anything. I am just reading what is written black on white... Err scroll-colored.
The act of reading is the act of interpreting. Otherwise words would just be pictures of squiggly lines. The word "take" has many interpretations, or definitions if you prefer that terminology. Dictionary.com lists 96 definitions for the word "take" (just counting it as a verb, not a noun). Looking over that list, you will see that your answer is not the only one. Both of the answers I have provided are indeed valid.
In the case of Battle Fury we do not take an attack action, we are just continuing the one that as already been taken.
Again that depends on your definition of take. You could be considered to still be in the process of taking that action, rather than having already taken it.
I know all that. I was just saying that if you claim that Incapacitate make all the thing it list illegal, then the stunned creature can't be moved because Push is a move. NOT a Move Action but still a move
Reread the codex for Incapacitate. It does not say you can not be moved, it says you can not take a move action. As you have admitted, a Push is not a move action.
Just like Battle Fury makes you do another attack NOT an Attack Action.
Nobody is claiming that Battle Fury lets you take another attack action. We are claiming that you are still in the process of taking an attack action under some definitions of the word take. If you find yourself unable to take an attack action while you are in the middle of taking one, it is a reasonable conclusion that you can not finish your attempt to take said action.
-
The new official rule/faq:
When a creature makes an attack, it normally ends its Action Phase after that attack. Conditions that are normally processed or removed at the end of an Action Phase, such as Stun and Daze, are not processed or removed if they were just received from a Damage Barrier or Counterstrike attack. In this manner they have an opportunity to affect the creature for an entire Action Phase (the next time it acts again).
Stun is not processed.
-
I am a little disappointed that the update to the FAQ did not resolve the questions within this thread.
When a creature makes an attack, it normally ends its Action Phase after that attack. Conditions that are normally processed or removed at the end of an Action Phase, such as Stun and Daze, are not processed or removed if they were just received from a Damage Barrier or Counterstrike attack.
Stun is not processed.
And? All it is saying is that Stun is not removed, changed, or affected in any way by the action phase ending if it was just applied during that action. We already knew that.
a wall attack could Stun or Restrain a creature during its attack, and the creature would be unable to move and would not complete its move into the new zone.
This statement tells us that Stun actually can affect an action already in progress. If anything, I'd say this supports the interpretation that the Battle Fury attack (and Sweeping attacks) would not be able to take place if you became stunned in the middle of your action. However, I'm still not convinced that is in fact correct. I would like a more explicit answer.
The extra attack follows all the steps of an attack (including the Counterstrike and Damage Barrier steps).
We already knew that it followed these steps. Our question was whether or not it was a legal target for the same Damage Barrier or Counterstrike to target it a second time. If you use Battle Fury to attack a second, different target, then it is clear that you would be subject to Damage Barriers and Counterstrikes form the additional target, but if you use it to attack the same target an extra time, the wording on those steps seems to indicate you are no longer a valid target.
-
If the rules team has time this week we will look into this.
Laddin send out an email please.
-
In the newly released FAQ its specified that Adramelach cannot sweep a flying and a non-flying with his Full Round attack.
It must be either Flying-Flying or non-flying-non-flying.
How is it with Battle Fury? must it then be flying-flying-flying / flying-flying OR non-flying-non-flying-non-flying / non-flying-non-flying
(depending on wether he uses Full round attack + QC or QC + QC)
Im really starting to hate the errate made to this card...
-
Regardless of how many attacks you make or what gives you the ability to make multiple attacks, your attacks have to either all be against flying creatures or all against non-flying creatures. This is because it depends on what trait your creature has.
A creature can not gain or lose the Flying trait in the middle of an attack action.
If a Flying creature makes a melee attack against a non-Flying creature, it loses the Flying trait
Therefore, if your first attack is against a flying creature, none of your additional attacks can be against non-flying creatures because you can not give up the flying trait to land and hit them. If your first attack is against a non-flying creature, none of your additional attacks can be against flying creatures because you no longer have the flying trait until the end of the attack.
-
What about battle fury on someone with a Lash of Hellfire? Does reach change this?
-
Reach does indeed have an impact.
On page 23 of the FAQ, it explains the reasoning behind the rulings in the Sweeping section clearly enough so that we understand it is dependent on whether the creature has flying or not as to whether its attacks can target a flying or a non-flying creature. Sweeping is just a specific example throughout the first 2 paragraphs.
When we get to the 3rd paragraph though, it is a bit less generic when it says that Sweeping attacks with Reach can ignore this restriction. Since the only thing that has changed is the addition of the Reach trait (without which Sweeping attacks are subject to this restriction) it is logical to assume that it is the Reach trait that allows you to ignore the restriction.
Thus, even though it is not spelled out exactly for us, it is clear that Reach allows a creature to attack either a flying or a non-flying opponent regardless as to whether the attacker has flying or not.
What is not clear, is if the Reach trait affects whether or not you lose the Flying trait. This could be important because if it does cause you to lose flying, then the order of your attacks could matter if they don't both have reach. For instance, if you use a Full Attack with Reach to attack a non-flying creature and then use a Quick Attack from Battle Fury that does not have reach, you would only be able to attack non-flyers because the first attack grounded you.
Summary
Reach attacks allow you to ignore the normal restrictions and attack both flyers and non-flyers. However, the order of your attacks may be important if they don't all have Reach. The rules are not clear on that.
-
But if you use BATTLE FURY as a kind of Sweeping Action, you absolutely have to check again, if you can legally attack your new opponent. Look up "Sweeping" in the Codex:
The second attack occurs at the end of the attack sequence from the first attack. Start a new attack sequence beginning with the Declare Attack Step.
And another attack should just not be possible, if you have been stunned. This totally goes against the propagated "intuitiveness" of the game. So then we could maybe argue, that another strike against the same target would be possible, while switching targets would be illegal (when you've been stunned). Just my 2 cents. ;)
Best answer in this thread.
Does conditions apply after first strike? Yes. Because of new attack sequance.
Does counterstrike or damage barrier attack twice? No. Because limited once per round on the same creature.
If u have Reach do you lose Flying when attacking non-Flying? No. (Think of it like having long stick). So having full action attack action with reach shouldn't change your position and you could choose with quick action attack without Reach to attack Flying or non-Flying.
-
I'm kind of glad you necro'd this thread. They have released both a new rulebook and a new FAQ since this was last discussed, and the discussion did not end very satisfactorily. Thus it seems appropriate to look and see if the new material addresses things, and indeed it does offer some wisdom.
The section on Battle Fury on page 29 of the FAQ is now quite clear that conditions do affect it and if you use it against the same target as the initial attack sequence you will not suffer a second counterstrike or damage barrier. This is very good to know.
As far as flying and reach is concerned, page 15 of rulebook v3.0 makes it clear that a flying creature must lose flying whenever it melee attacks a non-flying creature and there is nothing in reach that counteracts this (rule wise). The sweeping section on page 23 of the FAQ tells us that a creature may attack both flyers and non-flyers with a reach attack regardless of whether or not the attacker has flying though. Since a creature can not gain or lose flying in the middle of an attack action, I am having difficulty rationalizing these two statements for them both to be true.
If the creature initially attacks a non-flying creature with a melee attack, even one with reach, it seems he would lose flying. However if he initially attacks another flyer, he would retain flying but be able to still attack non-flyers with subsequent reach attacks as part of the same attack action? If so, then why does the first scenario cost him losing flying? Also, if any scenario allows him to melee attack a non flying creature while he still has flying himself, we run into an issue with guards being unable to counterstrike him.
Currently the only creature affected by this seems to be kralathor with eagle wings, but it is confusing and needs some clarification.
edited after additional research. Hopefully this doesn't cause issues if anyone read the first draft, but I am tired and going to bed.
-
This is definately a grey zone your highlighting here.
Imo Krathalor with eaglewings does not lose flying when attacking a ground unit.
So if he attacks a guard while flying the guard cannot counterstrike.
Imo Reach shouldnt trigger damage barrier either, just like ranged attacks doesnt.
-
"Also, if any scenario allows him to melee attack a non flying creature while he still has flying himself, we run into an issue with guards being unable to counterstrike him."
It should appear so.
Let's take an example, Wizard with Mage staff (Reach) attacks a Flyer who has counterstrike enchanment.
1. Wizard does not gain Flying, but he is able to attack a Flyer (the same should apply to Flyer who is attacking non-Flyer, he does not lose Flying, he has Reach.)
2. If Flyer reveals enchanment, he cannot counterstrike, because he is out of reach (also he cannot lose Flying in the middle of action).
If Flyer with Reach attacks non-Flyer guard, it uses the guard but is not able to Counterstrike.
So there is a need for the rules to updated:
1. Flyer with Reach doesn't need to lose flying when attacking non-flying.
OR
2. A creature with Flying trait, cannot use Reach trait. (So when Flying is attacking non-Flying, he must lose Flying, then he can utilize his Reach trait via Sweeping or Battle Fury).
After writing it down i was firm about nr1, but it seems nr2 doesn't contradict any rules.
Also there is the question Non-Flying attacking with Reach a Flying with Counterstrike?
-
Current wording in the codex for reach.
Reach:
This melee attack can target and attack Flying creatures in the same zone.
This is made before Kralathor & Togorahwas released and back then it was only Equipment for mages that had reach.
Since mages currently still have no ways of getting the flying trait and there is no cards that grant regular creatures reach - then at the point it wasnt required to cover that situation in the codex.
Strictly following the codex for reach, means that flying units with attacks that has reach has no effect.
-
So Nr. 2 is correct when (should have checked the codex) :D glad to sort it out.
So only left to figure it out:
Non-Flying attacking with Reach a Flying with Counterstrike, does he get to counterstrike?
-
Lets say a flying unit with a melee attack that has reach should not provoke a counterstrike when attacking a guard.
This leads to the next problem:
Should a non-flying creature with reach still provoke a counterstrike when attacking a non-flying creature then?
Sometimes a melee attack has reach because the creature its very tall (krathalor and Togorah), other times its because they have a long reaching weapon.
Both have been put into the same box. Having that in mind, it makes sense to counterstrike vs flying Kralathor but not so much vs a flying warlock with lash .
( i realize the warlock cant fly in the first place.)
All this considered i would like to retract my earlier opinion about reach shouldnt provoke counter strike - though it sometimes doesnt make much sense.
to sum it up:
Reach has nothing to do with counter strikes no matter who is flying and not.
Strictly using refering to the current codex Flying Kralathor will lose flying when attacking a non-flyer.
If he is previously battlefury'ed then his second attack can be vs either flying or non-flying because his melee has reach.
Edit:
To add to the confusion.
A flying hydra will be able to counterstrike vs either a flying or non-flying Kralathor or a Warlock with lash.
This seems dirty.
-
It feels dirty because it is incorrect. The rules on counterstrike are very clear that you must be able to legally target your attacker, therefore if your attacker is a flyer and you are not, or vice versa, you will not be able to counterstrike. This is not necessarily a problem as long as it has been considered in the design when balancing the relative power of reach. If reach allowed a flyer to attack a non-flyer without losing flying it would dramatically increase its power as counterstrike normally comes from guarding.
You can still counterstrike a non flyer with reach if it attacks your non-flyer because there is no targeting issue. They are both on the ground and in the same zone and thus in melee range. Damage barrier doesn't have these issues because they happen automatically without needing to target at all. They occur if you are out of range or even even killed after getting hit.
Now it is true that reach only mentions being able to attack flyers with melee attacks in its codex entry, which would indicate that it doesn't affect flyers at all. However the FAQ says it does affect flyers by allowing them to split a sweeping attack to hit both flying and non-flying creatures (page 23). This isn't really an issue if their first target is on the ground because then they would lose flying and also be on the ground and reach would work as intended. However, if their first target is a flyer they would not lose flying and still be able to hit a non-flyer with their second sweeping reach attack.
Unless of course you can think of a reason why attacking a flyer would cause you to lose flying, the second attack could not make you lose it because it is part of the same attack action. And you can not gain or lose flying during an attack action.
This is definitely a corner case as it would currently involve kralathor with eagle wings receiving a battle fury and then splitting his attack to first hit a flyer and then hit a non-flyer. Even then it wouldn't matter unless the non-flyer had a counterstrike. A very specific situation which we shouldn't worry too much about, but it is possible and so does need some kind of ruling.
Either you are able to attack a non-flyer without losing flying under these very specific and unusual circumstances, or you are not able to attack both flyers and non-flyers with a sweeping reach attack if both the attacker and first defender have flying.
The rules currently are a bit contradictory because the rulebook does not allow you to ever attack a non-flyer without losing flying first, but the FAQ is very clear that you can always split a sweeping attack if it has reach. Both documents are official and neither carries more weight than the other.
-
Well I know this has been a while, but I did want to answer the question. This is a pretty complicated rules interaction. But I think we can simplify it a little bit.
First, Reach is as written. This means that it does not benefit flying creatures. Part of flying means you can't take advantage of your reach as you would when planted firmly on the ground.
Second, Flying creatures must lose Flying to attack non-flying creatures. If a flying creature wants to attack a pedestrian creature then they need to swoop down to do so.
Third, a creature cannot gain or lose flying during an attack action.
So, what does this mean for the questions posed here? Well first, a creature with Flying and Reach, will still lose Flying when they attack a non-Flying object. Also, in order for a Flying creature with a Sweeping Melee attack with reach to attack both Flying and non-Flying targets then they will have to lose Flying (presumably by attacking the non-Flying creature first). Lastly, if you have a flying creature with counterstrike and they are attacked by a non-Flying creature with reach, then they cannot legally make their counterattack, because they cannot lose Flying during the attack action.
Hopefully these help! If you have any questions please ask.
-
Nice! And the rulings all make sense!
-
Nice! And the rulings all make sense!
Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!
-
+1 on this. Very well done.
-
I am glad to hear this ruling. It makes complete sense to me and is quite logical. Just for clarity's sake though, this does mean that if a flying creature with reach attacks another flying creature, they would not be able to make a secondary attack (sweeping or battle fury) against a non-flying creature, correct?
-
I am glad to hear this ruling. It makes complete sense to me and is quite logical. Just for clarity's sake though, this does mean that if a flying creature with reach attacks another flying creature, they would not be able to make a secondary attack (sweeping or battle fury) against a non-flying creature, correct?
Yes.
-
Well done Laddin! case closed 8)