This happened last night:

A Razorwing swooped down in a Lt. encounter and attacked. As a response the (Melee) hero wanted to play the Feat card Riposte after the attack but before the Razorwing went back up Soaring..

Riposte says: Play after a monster has attacked you with a melee attack. If able, you may immediately attack that monster. After your attack, the overlord resumes his turn as normal.

Soar/Swoop says: A soaring monster cannot normally be the target of a melee attack. However, monsters with Soar can choose to swoop down before attacking. If they do so, the extra range is negated until after the attack goes off, at which point the monster flies back up . Heroes may use interrupt attacks (even melee attacks, if in range) to attack a monster while it is swooping.

I interpreted this in the way that "flying back up" happens immediately after attack or is even part of the attack sequence (unless the OL decides to land the monster). So, either the monster flies back up first, making the Melee attack impossible, or both effects happen simultaneously and should be resolved in the order that the player decides whose turn it is (by extension using the clarification for start-of-turn effects and/or the priority rule of Feat vs. OL card, both from the FAQ).

Some heroes argued that the Riposte attack should be counted as an interrupt attack, yet this term is used in my view for Guard or Backstab attacks, which truly interrupt the OL´s attack sequence.

Thoughts?

I agree with you heroes, not sure if there is an official answer though.

Parathion said:

Riposte
Play after a monster has attacked you with a melee attack.
If able, you may immediately attack that monster.
After your attack, the overlord resumes his turn as normal.

Soar (swoop part)
If they do so, the extra range is negated until after the attack goes off, at which point the monster flies back up.

While the monster flies back up 'after the attack goes off', the riposte happens ' immediately ... after the attack'.

Therefore, the riposte goes first.
'Immediately' stuff must happen before 'not-immediately' stuff IMO.

The riposte is not an interrupt attack though, I think.

Hm, "the extra range is negated until after the attack". That´s nothing that actually has to be done actively or immediately or non-immediately - it simply is.

The Feat can only be played "after the attack", at which point the extra range isn´t negated anymore.

I guess the only leg the heros possibly had was that the Riposte could be an interrupt attack, so that the Swoop attack could be interrupted, as allowed by the rules for Soar.

The extra range is granted by the fact that the creature is soaring. If you allow the riposte to go off before the creature "swoops back up" then that's the same as allowing it to go off before the "extra range" is applied again. The extra range is a product of the soaring creature being "up in the air."

IF you allow the riposte to go off before the creature swoops back up. I agree with Corbon's interpretation, so I would say the extra range is a no-go for the riposte.

Parathion said:

"The extra range is negated 'after the attack' "
"the feat can only be played 'after the attack' "

That is the exact same timing/wording, so they 'trigger' simultaneously.
But the feat effect has 'immediately' and the extra range being negated effect does not.

Therefore, the feat effect must be done first.

I don´t know where you get that rigorosity from ("must be done first").

Feat is to be played after the attack (card text). After the attack, the negation of the extra range is over (rules).

Even if the Feat is played and resolved "immediately", it is still after the attack - do we agree to that part?

Parathion said:

Yes, I agree. But you are heading down an irrelevant path. Try actually reading and thinking about my last post.

Both the feat and the 'end swoop' trigger simultaneously. I demonstrated that with textual evidence . Since they trigger simultaneously, they go into a quene of effects with that particular trigger. Normally the player whose turn it is chooses which effects to resolve first in such a queue. However, one has the instruction to go 'immediately', one does not. That is where the "must be done first" comes from.

Your claim that '"nothing that actually has to be done actively or immediately or non-immediately - it simply is" (for the end swoop) is inaccurate and irrelevant. Ending the swoop is an effect, with a timing (after the attack). Playing the feat card can be done at any time (interrupting) but resolving the feat card is still done according to the card text.

Well, after the attack is over (which resembles the point of "immediately" resolving the Feat), there is no point in time at which the extra range is still negated - that´s plainly written in the rules, is it not? And that´s what I meant by "it is nothing to be done", or nothing to be triggered.

I understand your reasoning but I don´t follow it. Prerequisite for the Feat to be played (not be resolved, actually) is "after the attack". At that state and at that point in time, the extra range is in force again.

Corbon said:

+1

I agree with Corbon, the feat card has the word "immediately" which to my mind means "before anything else can possibly happen".

i agree with corbon. it even states at the end of riposte that the overlord resumes his turn as normal. as far as an interrupt, it is one, but it doesn't interrupt the initial attack, it interrupts immediately after the attack.

I think that the Soar rules are a mess, and that feat card would be both simpler and more interesting if it let you make an attack with a melee weapon that automatically affects only your attacker, regardless of whether you could normally attack them (it might as well represent an attack of opportunity when someone reaches into your space, and it's stupid that you can make an area attack hitting a bunch of other monsters that you couldn't make if that kobold chose not to attack you).

I think there's some argument to be made for both sides by RAW, but I also think that if FFG were ever to rule on this, they would almost certainly say that Riposte works. There's no particular reason that swooping monsters should be safer right after their attack than right before; the Soar rules were just worded that way because there was nothing that could interrupt after an attack at the time they were written.

Parathion said:

No. This is where you are drifting off the path.
There is equally no point in time before the feat card is played. Both have exactly the same timing (you still have not responded to this BTW). You seem to be imagining a timeline where each 'thing' is at a different point on the timeline. You then try to claim that because there is no 'thing' to ending the swoop, it doesn't actually go 'on' the timeline, but is a 'part' of the timeline - other things must go on one side of it or the other.
(I realise you aren't literally saying this, but I'm trying explain the way you are claiming it all works is a visual manner. Apologies if I misunderstand or misrepresent you, but I don't think I do.)
How I see you claim visualised is that the timeline is blue before the attack ends, and green after the attack ends. But there is no 'cross' at the 'point' of attack ending because the players don;t have to do anything, 'it just is'. The blue area is before the attack ended and the green area is after the attack ended. You are saying that the feat cannot be played while the line is blue, therefore it must be played while the line is green, and at that stage the swoop has already ended.
Wrong.
There is a 'cross' between the blue and green parts of the line. Ending the attack is a defined point on the line, which creates a cross, simply by defining it. Before that point the line is blue, and the Razorwing is 'down'. After that point the line is green and the razorwing is 'up'. Thus far we agree. But, the cross represents the ending of the attack. The razorwing moving is a 'game state change' and must also be represented on the timeline. So there is a circle immediately above the cross. Before the circle, the line is blue (R'wing down), after the circle the line is green (R'wing up).
However, the feat card trigger is also at the exact same point where the line changes. So on top of the cross (and circle) we put a diamond that represents the feat.

We now have three things happening together, without any 'time' passing between them.
We have to 'order' these things somehow, even though they effectively happen at the same 'time' because no 'time' passes between them.
The diamond and circle both have instructions to go after the cross even though no 'time' passes. So the cross goes first in our ordering sequence. We then must compare the diamond and circle. We are comparing them together because they both have the same trigger. We find that the diamond says 'immediately' and the circle does not, so the diamond has a higher priority than the circle. The diamond goes before the circle. No time has past between the cross and the circle. The timeline does not move forward while we are resolving these things. If the diamond did not get a higher priority through the use of the word 'immediate', then the acting player (OL in this case) would choose the order.

Parathion said:

At that state, and at that point in time, is exactly when the razorwing is changing state. It is not 'already' changed, it is right then exactly changing.

Strangely enough it also makes a lot more sense that way too. A riposte (real world meaning) is really part of the same 'attack combination', even if that is not the exact way it is written up.

I don't se how Riposte can no the considered an interrupt attack. It clearly interrupts the OL's turn else there'd be no reason to say that the OL's turn continues as normal. As an interrupt attack that's triggered during a swoop, it's allowed (by the swoop rules) to ignore soaring.

Thanks Corbon for explaining exactly what I meant (the blue/green timeline).

The conclusion from this however is completely different. The timeline is either blue or green - there is no point in time between that (what colour would that point have, none?).

During the attack, it is blue (extra range negated), but the Feat may not be played yet.

After the attack, the timeline is green, the Feat may be played, but at this point the extra range is in force - this is plainly written in the rules (the extra range is negated until after the attack - this means that after the attack, the extra range is not negated anymore).

Anything else regarding the transition point is made up in a reasonable and logical way - but it is still made up ruleswise. Or do you have anything in the rules to support your reasoning?

@James: No one is arguing that the OL turn is interrupted by the Feat card. Thus, the OL turn has to be continued after the Feat has been resolved, and that´s why it is written on the card. This doesn´t change anything regarding the timing of playing the Feat card, which is still after the attack.

Parathion said:

You are welcome.

Thanks for completely ignoring (neither acknowledging nor countering) everything I've had to say thus far that wasn't just making sure I understood what you were saying.

Thanks for repeating the same argument 3 times without any real additions, new angles or references, even when it has been deconstructed.

Parathion said:

Thanks for ignoring the textual evidence already presented and repeatedly referred to. Even when you were challenged over ignoring it.

Sorry if I sound a bit grumpy. It is deliberate.
I might be wrong, and if so I apologise unreservedly, but I really think you deserve a bit of grumpiness in this thread. Not because of conclusions, but because of what I wrote above.

Parathion said:

With the last post out of the way , back to the discussion.

Your argument is no less "made up in a reasonable and logical way" but is equally "still made up, ruleswise". In fact, it runs directly counter to the rule wording!

...the extra range is negated until after the attack goes off, at which point the monster flies back up .

First, 'after the attack goes off does not actually say, "immediately", "automatically" or "is defined by the attack being completed". It could be 30 seconds after the attack is complete. It could be 10 days after the attack is completed. Both would fulfill the requirements of being after the attack goes off. The context tells us that it is 'pretty much as soon as the attack is completed' but does not create any requirement of 'acting first' or 'immediately'.

Second, there very clearly is a specific point at which the 'monster flies up' (range is negated). You have denied this point. You insist that there is no point on the timeline, just a change of colour.

Parathion said:

As I already stated, and the textual evidence proves, there is a point on the timeline at which the monster flies up (when the extra range is negated). That point is where the circle (take the cross out of my previous example if you like) is placed and is precisely the place where the blue changes to green.
Now more than one thing can happen at the same point on a timeline. That is called being simultaneous. Simultaneous events have the same trigger and the same point on the timeline, but they still get resolved in some order.
There doesn't have to be a point 'in between' simultaneous events, so your point that there is no point in time when the extra range is still negated is not important. Agreed. There is no point in time after the monster flies up when the extra range is not negated. But there is a point in time when the monster flies up, and flying up is something that must be 'resolved', even if it is not an 'active' event.

The feat card is simultaneous with the monster flying up - both have exactly the same trigger, so the same point on the timeline.
So the diamond stacks with the circle.

When we come to resolve them, we find that one has 'immediately' in it's resolution timing, and the other does not.
So by default, we resolve the 'immediate' effect before the 'not-immediate' effect.

The immediate effect is still at the same 'point' as the non-immediate effect and there is no 'time' between them. That does not prevent one being resolved first.

Feel free to slam all your grumpiness into posts pertaining to statements made by me. Though I will never understand how someone reasonable and educated can get grumpy over a discussion on a boardgame forum.

With that out of the way, I have to say that you did not present any sparkling new arguments in your last posting as well.

The rules clearly state that the extra range is negated until after the attack. That implies immediacy regarding the re-application of the extra range after the attack to me.

It doesn´t say that after the attack a process is triggered and has to be performed that will de-negate the extra range - which might conflict with the immediate resolution of the Feat after the attack.

The part "at which point the monster flies back up" is barely more than flavour/explanatory text, since the monster is at range 1 in one moment and at range 5 the next moment. If it truly flew up and it was an interruptable process, there would be states at which the monster was at range 2, 3 and 4, all being eligible for interrupt attacks. Unless you think that the monster teleports back up or uses light speed or tunnelling effects, that is.

But since I know that you will not follow my line of reasoning, Corbon that you are , and you did not present anything to convince me so far, I guess we have to retreat to the good old "agree to disagree".

Parathion said:

I think this is basically what it all comes down to. To you that section of rules "implies immediacy regarding the re-application of the extra range", but to Corbon (and myself) it does not, mainly because it lacks the word "immediately" unlike the Feat card.

Hence as you say I think the "agree to disagree" is best, since that is really the crux of the matter and the key point that the two views do not agree upon.

I have not fully been following this guys, so please excuse me if I throw something in that has already been dealt with.

Have you guys considered the similarity of your discussion to the Knockback/DR issues?

Knockback: After inflicting at least 1 damage (before applying the effects of armor) to a figure with a Knockback attack, the attacker may immediately move each affected target figure up to three spaces away from its current location. The figures must be moved to spaces that do not contain other figures or obstacles that block movement. The figure does not actually move through the first two spaces - it is knocked completely over them. As such, this "knockback movement" is not blocked by any intervening figures or obstacles (though a figure cannot be moved through a closed door or wall).

A majority of players, for a very long time, took that to means that it happened instantly after damage was applied and therefore DR would trigger after the hero was moved.

Come the FAQ, it turns out that DR triggers prior to the movement (labeled as happening immediately). That implies that the attack has completely resolved, damage applied and wounds removed, PRIOR to the "immediate" knockback happening. At least for Knockback, we had the timing as "after inflicting damage".

So if Riposte's trigger is "play AFTER a monster has attacked you", to me that certainly implies that the attack has to resolve COMPLETELY and FULLY first (much like Knockback) at which point the extra range from Soar is back in place. Then the "immediately" kicks in, with the same timing as the Knockback movement.

Much of the grumpiness is due, in truth, to a 10mo old child just starting teething. But there are also certain rules of polite discussion which are being ignored.

Parathion said:

That's because you still, STILL, haven't addressed a single point I've made. You'v asked for textual evidence, received it, and ignored it. I don;t need anything new because you haven't responded to it in the first place.

I've addressed your argument, explained where it is at fault. You don't even address my counters, let alone my points.

Parathion said:

Agreed. As I said, the context implies 'pretty much straight away', a 'sort of' immediacy. However I don't see how you can, with a straight face, say there is any difference between 'after the attack' and 'after the attack'! Both are exactly the same. If immediacy is implied for negating the extra range, then immediacy is implied for playing the feat. Then we have actual explicit immediacy, which ranks higher than implied immediacy.

Parathion said:

No one said it is an interruptable process. It is not. But other things can happen at the same time and be resolved before or after it.

Parathion said:

But since I know that you will not follow my line of reasoning, Corbon that you are , and you did not present anything to convince me so far, I guess we have to retreat to the good old "agree to disagree".

Well, if you were polite enough to actually respond to my points, even to disagree with them then we could agree to disagree.

Big Remy said:

It isn;t as similar as it might appear. In fact if anything it is more similar to the Dark Charm/Rapid Fire discussion.

Big Remy said:

The things is, both things (Feat and negating the range) have exactly the same trigger . Both say they happen 'after the attack'. So they are simultaneous events, and happen at the same time with no 'time' between them. And neither can 'interrupt' the other.
But they still must be resolved in some order.
One says
Play after a monster has attacked you with a melee attack.
If able, you may immediately attack that monster.
After your attack, the overlord resumes his turn as normal.
the other says
If they do so, the extra range is negated until after the attack goes off , at which point the monster flies back up

Given the same trigger, and one has 'immediately and the other does not, the order seems obvious...

Kartigan said:

Oh it does imply immediacy. And exactly teh same implication is inherent in the Feat card, since it has the same trigger and same context.
However, explicit immediacy breaks a tie of implied immediacy!

WOW !!!! I have to say you guys are really passionate about this game at times. I do wonder if game designers sit down and debate this much about something so simple. The way I see it, and this is my opinion about it, it sounds more like an OL was getting upset because a hero players slapped down something he wasn't expecting and got a little thrown by it, tried to make an argument of it, failed and now has jumped onto the forum to make a case and get someone to side with him so he can go back to his buddies and say "See, some guys of the forums said (blank) and so thats what we will do and I am right." Its just that simple.

But I would also like to point out that in Soar (RtL) it states "Heroes may use interrupt attacks (even melee attacks, if in range) to attack the monster while swooping. After looking through the options for the heroes the only things I can find for an interrupt attack is Guard, Back Stab and Riposte. so there seems to only be 3 limited situations that will not happen often be cause to of them are random draws and the other is a choice the player has to make before hand. So why nitpick over the wording of what comes first, the chicken or the egg garbage. And give the hero with the melee attack an chance to actually beable to hit a target that he otherwise would never ever be giving a chance to hit.

This discussion goes right back to balance of (or lack of that so many seem to say it has) when something pops up that gives some sort of balance the players turn and start bickering over the one thing that helps balance the game, (as stated above) a chance for a hero that is focused in melee a slim chance to nail a monster with soar that he could normally not hit at all.

Corbon said:

I did understand and adress your points, but probably not clear enough for you. You did not present any, ANY, further textual evidence besides quoting parts of the rules. Unless you see your own typed explanations as "textual evidence", that is.

Corbon said:

Could you please cite a place in the rules, where they state that explicit immediacy ranks higher than implied?

Nonetheless, it is not necessary at all that your explicit immediacy ranks higher, since I maintain that there is nothing to be done regarding the range after the attack. It is already at 5 by the time the feat is eligible to be played, as is plainly written in the rules (again).

If the rules would say something like "after the attack, the extra range will come into force again" - then you might have a case.

Well, since I suggested to agree to disagree, I thought this had strongly implied already that I disagreed with your points and did not have to say so explicitly.

@honKYkat73: This discussion has nothing to do with decisions that have to be made at the table. The actual situation was an absolute non-issue, or even better, it was for the advantage of the hero, since he could use his feat against a hard-hitting silver beastman rather than a swooping copper Razorwing, barely being able to get through his armour. You are entitled to your opinion that Riposte is an interrupt attack, but that would make an Alertness attack an interrupt as well.

Alertness is an interrupt attack. It quite clearly interrupts the monster's activation. If it's not an interrupt, it doesn't work at all.