Arena Tournament Round 93: Abogralia vs Bebe

[ArenaManager]

Arena Tournament, Round 93: Abogralia vs. Bebe

Map:http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab330/ArenaManager/Arenas/09-dawn_arena.png
Extra notes: Houses are on average 20 feet high (just use that average figure all over the house), hay piles are up to 10 feet high against the walls. And, I don't care whether you're immune to sanctuary effects, you are not immune to the arena's sanctuary effect. Creatures summoned during the 1st round are also affected by the sanctuary effect.

XP Award: 300 XP
GP Award: 300 GP

Abogralia 2 (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=191974) - Scorer
Bebe (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=215030) - candycorn

All Combatants, please roll initiative and declare final purchases, if any

[candycorn]

Let's start off with initiative, I suppose.

Init:[roll0]

Preparations/etc (Refs/Observers only):Spell list:

Cure Light Wounds x3
Entangle x2

Meld List:
Riding Bracers, Blink Shirt (1), Dissolving Spittle (0)

[Scorer]

Reporting in

[roll0]

Still need to think purchases, will do in night...

[candycorn]

Wow, we tied. Since initiative rolls aren't opposed, do we re-roll?

[TheFallenOne]

higher modifier goes first

[hustlertwo]

Probably making you one of the very few people to win initiative after rolling a 1.

[TheFallenOne]

yeah, though some people won although they didn't roll at all since their opponent rolled first and they'd beat their result even with a 1

[Scorer]

I'm buying 2 Resist Energy CL 1 (100gp) for now, reserve right to reactionary...

[TheFallenOne]

though it's kinda obvious, you still have to declare the element the potion protects against

[candycorn]

though it's kinda obvious, you still have to declare the element the potion protects against

This. Please list that they protect against acid, for my personal sense of well being.

In response to the potions (valid only if they do proect vs Acid), I'll pick up a Sling (no cost), 30 sling bullets (3 sp), and a Scroll of Summon Dire Hawk (300150gp).

[Scorer]

Ah yes, it is acid of course, sorry... Let me think my reactionaries...

[Scorer]

Ok, I buy yet another protection from acid (50gp) and 2 Hide from animals potions... (100gp)

[candycorn]

Oops, I used the wrong price for that scroll. It's 150gp, not 300gp.

Does this affect your reactionary?

[Scorer]

I will also buy a tanglepatch (100gp)

[TheFallenOne]

Tanglepatches were reprinted in Magic Items Compendium at 200 GP, 5 turn duration

[Scorer]

Oh right.. I'm taking it back then, since I have not enough money...


Mhhh... then I guess I can stock my splashes for next games...

With that 100gp instead I'll buy 3 more Alchemists (60gp) and 4 Acid Flasks (40gp)

[candycorn]

Then I will add Summon Swarm to my scroll (150gp)... For the same reason. ^.^

[Scorer]

Looks like I'm ready to go...

[candycorn]

Assuming you mean "No further purchases", so am I.

Begin in C10, with my animal companion in D10. In hand, I have nothing.

What is your starting location?

[Scorer]

X10, with grappling hook and potion in hand

[TheFallenOne]

Get this party started then. I'll keep a watch over this match

[candycorn]

In that case...

Bebe, Round 1, First to Act

Animal Companion: Double move from D10 to P11.
Me: Double Move from C10 to S9.

Done.

Stats:Location: S9
HP: 9/9
AC: 15 (Touch 15, FF 13)
In Hand: Nothing
Active Effects: None
Spells:Cure MINOR Wounds x3
Entangle x2
Meld List:Riding Bracers, Blink Shirt (1), Dissolving Spittle (0)

AC:
Location: P11
HP: 11/11
AC: 18 (Touch 16, Flat Footed 18)
Active Effects: None

[Scorer]

Abogralia 1st Turn

Hum...

Free: Drop Grappling Hook
Standard: Drink potion

Resist Energy Acid

Move: Y14

STATS

Abogralia started @ X10
Abogralia ended @ Y14
HP 8/8
AC 19 (10 +3 armor, +5 dex, +1 size) Touch 16 FF 14
20 bolts left
(20 carried of a 95 total owned)
8 MW bolts left
(8 carried of a 8 total owned)

Hand 1 Wielding: Free
Hand 2 Wielding: Free

Crossbow (Not Loaded)

1x Resist Energy (Acid)

Resist Energy 1/10 Rounds

Grappling hook on X10

[candycorn]

Bebe, Round 2

Animal Companion: Double move from P11 to Z15. This provokes an AoO, if you have any weapons with which to make one.

Me: Move from S9 to Y15. This also provokes an AoO, if you can make one.

Done.

Stats:Location: Y15
HP: 9/9
AC: 15 (Touch 15, FF 13)
In Hand: Nothing
Active Effects: None
Spells:Cure MINOR Wounds x3
Entangle x2
Meld List:Riding Bracers, Blink Shirt (1), Dissolving Spittle (0)

AC:
Location: Z15
HP: 11/11
AC: 18 (Touch 16, Flat Footed 18)
Active Effects: None

[Scorer]

Abogralia 2nd Turn

Free: 5' step to X13
Move: Draw Potion
Standard: Drink potion

Hide from Animals


End of Turn

STATS

Abogralia started @ Y14
Abogralia ended @ X13
HP 8/8
AC 19 (10 +3 armor, +5 dex, +1 size) Touch 16 FF 14
20 bolts left
(20 carried of a 95 total owned)
8 MW bolts left
(8 carried of a 8 total owned)

Hand 1 Wielding: Free
Hand 2 Wielding: Free

Crossbow (Not Loaded)

1x Resist Energy (Acid)
1x Hide from Animals

Resist Energy 2/10 Rounds
Hide from Animals 1/100 Rounds

Grappling hook on X10

[candycorn]

AC: Sprays to the NW. Fortitude Save Please.

[Scorer]

Just exactly why does the AC sprays? As far as RAW I read, AC will do so only if threatened and there is no threat to him.

[candycorn]

It does so because it's my AC, and my AC has been handled to do so. You know as well as I that RP considerations are waived in the arena, and "feeling threatened" is an RP consideration.

[Scorer]

What kind of action is to spray?

[TheFallenOne]

"Feeling threatened" is no RP consideration, it's just something with rather lacking definition. I'd be generous with the interpretation if an animal feels threatened since thanks to it's owner it will be aware who is an opponent, but there are situations where "feeling threatened" doesn't apply. This is one such situation

Scorer
Anyway, if you reveal the Hide from Animals now things will be easier. She'll learn soon anyway

[Scorer]

Just for the record one of the potions is Hide from Animals, so there is no threat at all for your AC.

[candycorn]

I would argue there is. Even if it cannot DETECT an opponent, it just saw one vanish into thin air, while in a hostile encounter. There are many cases where people with guns that cannot detect a foe, but nonetheless have reason to believe one is there, will fire blindly into the darkness, because they feel threatened.

In addition, players have always been able to choose the nature and method of their animal companion's attacks. Even timid animals that normally don't attack anything will attack if handled to do so. And when they attack, the player that controls them has the choice of the manner in which they attack.

That section also states that a swindlespitter has no interest in fighting other creatures. Guess what? It's a animal companion, and it has been trained in a manner that allows it to attack. It also states that Swindlespitters Flee from blinded opponents. Does that mean I have to have my AC run away if blinded?

No. Because the animal has been trained. It does not act as it would solely in the wild. It acts according to its training and its handling, and it's being handled to perform the action that I listed.

If you wish to contest this, my interpretation of the rules, then I'm going to lodge an appeal.

[hustlertwo]

I would argue there is. Even if it cannot DETECT an opponent, it just saw one vanish into thin air, while in a hostile encounter. There are many cases where people with guns that cannot detect a foe, but nonetheless have reason to believe one is there, will fire blindly into the darkness, because they feel threatened.

In addition, players have always been able to choose the nature and method of their animal companion's attacks. Even timid animals that normally don't attack anything will attack if handled to do so. And when they attack, the player that controls them has the choice of the manner in which they attack.

That section also states that a swindlespitter has no interest in fighting other creatures. Guess what? It's a animal companion, and it has been trained in a manner that allows it to attack. It also states that Swindlespitters Flee from blinded opponents. Does that mean I have to have my AC run away if blinded?

No. Because the animal has been trained. It does not act as it would solely in the wild. It acts according to its training and its handling, and it's being handled to perform the action that I listed.

If you wish to contest this, my interpretation of the rules, then I'm going to lodge an appeal.

Poor guy. You're new, so this might be your first time doing what all of us do eventually: attempting to fight RAW with real-world logic. It hurts the brain to accept it, but according to the D&D higher-ups, your AC has completely forgotten Abogralia (accursed swear filter won't let me abbreviate proper).

In other words, you can question it, but unless you have specific rules entries to back up your assertions, you will not succeed.

[candycorn]

Poor guy. You're new, so this might be your first time doing what all of us do eventually: attempting to fight RAW with real-world logic. It hurts the brain to accept it, but according to the D&D higher-ups, your AC has completely forgotten Abogralia (accursed swear filter won't let me abbreviate proper).

In other words, you can question it, but unless you have specific rules entries to back up your assertions, you will not succeed.

People who are not in the match: Please do not interfere just to patronize me with "poor guy". If you actually have something to contribute, please do, but I find the nature of your post insulting, frankly.

My argument is that the conditions under which an animal will use its abilities and attack are altered by the training provided to the animal. "Feeling threatened" is NOT defined by RAW.

Therefore the opposing view that "if a creature cannot physically see an enemy" in an area where things fight to the death, when its master is obviously on guard, then tra-la-la it's going to lie down and take a nap because there are no threats so it's at ease

...is also unsupported by RAW. So I'm not arguing against RAW.

What I'm arguing is what "feels threatened" can entail. Firing to cover the last place you saw something is a rather reasonable interpretation, that is not contradicted by RAW.

So please don't tell me I'm arguing against RAW... when I'm not. I'm arguing against one person's interpretation of a phrase which is not laid out in RAW.

What is RAW is that it's an Ex ability, usable as a standard action, that is considered an attack by RAW. Handling my animal to attack is a trick that it has been trained to do, by RAW. I have the latitude to choose what attacks my AC uses, by arena precedent. All I'm asking for is that precedent be upheld.

[TheFallenOne]

OK, first, Candy, calm down here. I could just invoke "# What a High Referee says, goes." but I rather not. Animal Companions, even docile ones, attack because they've been trained to with Handle Animal. But the poison spray has the explicit requirement that the creature feels threatened, and even Handle Animal says


Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able

which you can't do since it isn't aware of Abogralias presence.

RAW says it must feel threatened. Just because this is ill-defined doesn't mean we black out the requirement. SO you want a different ruling, give me some convincing RAW or ask for a second opinion from another High Ref(you know, like Hustler who you just told off rather harshly) or Big K himself

[candycorn]

OK, first, Candy, calm down here. I could just invoke "# What a High Referee says, goes." but I rather not. Animal Companions, even docile ones, attack because they've been trained to with Handle Animal. But the poison spray has the explicit requirement that the creature feels threatened, and even Handle Animal says



which you can't do since it isn't aware of Abogralias presence.

RAW says it must feel threatened. Just because this is ill-defined doesn't mean we black out the requirement. SO you want a different ruling, give me some convincing RAW or ask for a second opinion from another High Ref(you know, like Hustler who you just told off rather harshly) or Big K himself

And I could, as I have done, invoked my right to challenge that ruling. There are higher refs than you, and I've stated that if you with to contest my interpretation, I will appeal it. Such an appeal has already been lodged in the waiting room.

In that case, my action will be, as a free action, to threaten my AC. I'll make a fist at it or somesuch. Now it is threatened, and it automatically uses its ability to spray northwest. There's no RAW stating that it must use the spray on the creature threatening it, and it has now been threatened.

[TheFallenOne]

And I could, as I have done, invoked my right to challenge that ruling. There are higher refs than you, and I've stated that if you with to contest my interpretation, I will appeal it. Such an appeal has already been lodged in the waiting room.

In that case, my action will be, as a free action, to threaten my AC. I'll make a fist at it or somesuch. Now it is threatened, and it automatically uses its ability to spray northwest. There's no RAW stating that it must use the spray on the creature threatening it, and it has now been threatened.

You don't need to tell me that there is a higher Ref than me(a. There is a higher Ref than me among the active ones, unless there is a seniority system among High Refs not spelled out anywhere). But it seems I need to tell you that you should be a little bit less aggressive in your discussion style with people who try to make these matches run smoothly in their free time. This being the internet, there is always room for misunderstanding, but I really don't like the vibe I get from your posts adressing Hustler and me.

Anyway, a ruling by two High Refs has been made, that's the best you will get unless Big K steps in himself

[candycorn]

That was in response to "well, I could just use my High Ref status to bully you, but..."

My response was what actions I intend to follow if you actually DO that. So if you'd care to make your rulings courteously, I'll respond in kind. If you start with, "well I could just tell you to shut up and take it", then don't be surprised if I'm less than cheery back. I appreciate the effort that ANY ref takes to keep this running. What I don't appreciate is the discourtesy.

You made a ruling that the animal must be threatened to spray.

I have a standing question for: "can I threaten the animal to compel it to spray".

If the answer to that is: yes (which, as far as my opponent and you have demonstrated, would fulfill any requirement listed), then, by previous precedent, I control the specifics of my animal companion's actions, which includes the direction of the spray.

If the answer to that is: "no", then I would like specific RAW support for that ruling.

[TheFallenOne]

"well, I could just use my High Ref status to bully you, but..."

That was more meant along the lines of "Although I made a ruling, I'm open to a civil discussion if you present your case well". As I said, this being the internet, things can be misunderstood, so I'd appreciate it if you don't jump all Miko-esque on the one interpretation that makes me look like a jackass

Actually, no, it wouldn't even make me look like a jackass. There is a reason for the rule, and saying "This is my decision, it stands unless overruled by Big K or challenged by another High Ref" is not bullying

Anyway, since we're both invested in this discussion we're not neutral anymore, but I doubt I came off as discorteous towards you

[candycorn]

Currently researching: Arena Waiting Room 8 for precedents in relation to high ref request for precedent in the current waiting room. This is posted to provide notification, so as to prevent DQ. I will continue these as necessary until I have gone through all threads, or located such precedent.

[hustlertwo]

{Scrubbed}

[TheFallenOne]

... wow. I feel really reminded of this strip. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0250.html) First you explain why and how you feel sympathetic for her, then you drop this little gem of a bomb


I find that it might have been a bit of pre-emptive karma for your being a pissy little ingrate to Fallen and myself

Awesome. Not because of any dislike for Candy, but because the delivery was a natural 20

Now, I've seen Candy post before in Neverending Dungeon and I'm honestly surprised by her behaviour here because she really doesn't score any sympathy points with her behaviour today. Maybe she just had a bad day, but even if it was an honest misunderstanding for both Hustlers and my intentions behind our words I'd strongly urge you to not try to see the worst in people and come to gripes with the fact that you can be wrong about rules. I've been wrong, my opponents have been wrong(on way more match-deciding things than this here) but it never devolved into an argument like this here

[candycorn]

{Scrubbed}

@Rudeness:Ingrate? I have been quite grateful for the services that have been provided. Scorer can attest, in Round 92, that I am quite appreciative of his High Ref involvement. Also, I'm quite polite and kind to him, whether a ruling goes my way or not. I argue my point, but I do so respectfully.

Yes, I appreciate the services that are provided. I am quite grateful for that. However, if you expect me to be grateful for perceived rudeness, you have another thing coming. There is plenty of room for honest disagreement, and open discussion of views, without resorting to what you just said. I've told you that I don't care for the tone of a previous post, and I find it insulting. I've said NOTHING about you as a person. I've said NOTHING disparaging you.

And you call me a douchebag, and childish? And you compound what you claim is a misunderstanding, and me seeing unkindness that wasn't there by deliberately being antagonistic, condescending? And saying as much?

I can accept that the difficulty in expressing yourself over the internet through typing can lead to one person saying one thing, and someone else seeing another....

But why on EARTH would you compound it by being deliberately mean? Yes, I am a new player. I can admit that. Does that make my reservations any less valid? Does that mean that the same consideration should not be applied to my interpretation? Does that make my opinions of less worth or merit? Does it mean that in a vague rules situation, I can't argue my case, and have it looked at on its merits?

In this case, I don't see the RAW preventing what I am trying to do. I ask for an explanation. The explanation given doesn't convince me that the other side is based in RAW, so I contest the ruling.

But calling me a douchebag crybaby diva for protesting what I honestly feel as rude treatment? Intentionally or not, I was offended.... But why compound accidental rudeness with deliberate? It doesn't make you seem like the voice of reason here.


{Scrubbed}
Well, it's a bad day now. And so far, I have:

1) Contested a view on the poison.
2) gotten a counter ruling
3) disagreed with the counter ruling, and asked for justification
4) appealed that ruling
5) Attempted a workaround under that ruling to accomplish what I was trying for within the bounds of it.

Along the way, I've felt like some of the comments directed at me were a bit less-than-friendly, and I've said as much. And in response, I get one person deliberately being condescending (and saying that in very precise terms), directly insulting me (unless there's another way I can take "tantrum", "diva", "douchebag" and "things would be better if you were gone")....

And another person hailing it as awesome.

How exactly am I SUPPOSED to take that?

[candycorn]

Regardless, High refs have said it's legal with a push check, so I'll attempt that.

Push check: [roll0] DC 25.

EDIT: Failure.
I'll then handle it to move to W12.

I'll use my standard action to Ready an action: Cast Entangle if my opponent takes any move action and then does anything else.

Done.


Stats:Location: Y15
HP: 9/9
AC: 15 (Touch 15, FF 13)
In Hand: Nothing
Active Effects: None
Spells:Cure MINOR Wounds x3
Entangle x2
Meld List:Riding Bracers, Blink Shirt (1), Dissolving Spittle (0)

AC:
Location: Z15
HP: 11/11
AC: 18 (Touch 16, Flat Footed 18)
Active Effects: None

[TheFallenOne]

Now now, I explicitedly called out that I consider the delivery as awesome. And concerning


And in response, I get one person deliberately being condescending (and saying that in very precise terms), directly insulting me (unless there's another way I can take "tantrum", "diva", "douchebag" and "things would be better if you were gone")....

And another person hailing it as awesome.

That's very much not true, the part I hailed didn't contain those insults and condenescence you complain about. Guess what, there is a reason I didn't say "Dude, awesome how you called her a douchebag"

Looking over the discussion, you heated it up for nor apparent reason. You felt insulted by Hustler although pretty much no insult was intended and told him to keep out here unless he contributes to the rule question. That's when I asked you to remain calm and made clear I'm willing to have a discussion on the ruling, provided it is held in a civil manner. At least that was what I was trying to say, you understood it as bullying. Your discussion style seems rather agressive in response to true or imagined slights(as you see Hustler well remembers your rather harsh reaction to a non-Ref reading your Ref spoiler and trying to help) and in response to that he told you in no uncertain(and I'd say a bit too clear) terms that he doesn't like the way you discuss here and treat people who are wrong in your opinion. And he's right. You took hustlers and my interference in the worst way possible, but the first time anything insulting came your way was Hustlers last post(though admittedly, quite a bit of it)

[candycorn]

Non-match issue:

Now now, I explicitedly called out that I consider the delivery as awesome.
You'll pardon me if I can't seem to find any aspect of the post you quoted that I would consider as anything other than "reprehensible".


That's very much not true, the part I hailed didn't contain those insults and condenescence you complain about. Guess what, there is a reason I didn't say "Dude, awesome how you called her a douchebag"The part you hailed called me a pissy little ingrate. Is that not an insult, in your mind?

Looking over the discussion, you heated it up for nor apparent reason. You felt insulted by Hustler although pretty much no insult was intended and told him to keep out here unless he contributes to the rule question.Waiting room threads are common threads, right?
Match threads are for match participants and refs acting in the capacity of a ref, right?

His post did neither.
I was requesting that irrelevant discussion not clutter up the thread. Nice to see how well that worked out.


That's when I asked you to remain calm and made clear I'm willing to have a discussion on the ruling, provided it is held in a civil manner. At least that was what I was trying to say, you understood it as bullying.No, that I understood as you willing to discuss things. I found the
"I could just invoke "# What a High Referee says, goes." "
as a bit bullying. Yes, you have a High Ref hat. It was probably as unnecessary to point out that power as it was for me to say there are refs higher up than you. Why bring that up, unless you're going to invoke it? It just seems a bit power trippy to me.

Your discussion style seems rather agressive in response to true or imagined slights(as you see Hustler well remembers your rather harsh reaction to a non-Ref reading your Ref spoiler and trying to help) and in response to that he told you in no uncertain(and I'd say a bit too clear) terms that he doesn't like the way you discuss here and treat people who are wrong in your opinion. And he's right. You took hustlers and my interference in the worst way possible, but the first time anything insulting came your way was Hustlers last post(though admittedly, quite a bit of it)No, I took things the way I read them. I took you citing the powers you could invoke as a way to emphasize the power you had in the discussion. My response was that I was willing to find a higher power if I didn't like your answer. I took his "poor new guy" comment as ill-informed, a bit on the condescending side (though he may have meant it as an attempt at empathy), and irrelevant to the match discussion.

Let me make something clear: Your involvement was not interference. It was a Ref, acting as a Ref, making rulings as a Ref, and discussing a rules issue as a Ref. That is involvement, certainly, but it's not interference. You have a valid and legitimate reason to be in the thread, and I've never stated otherwise.

I'd appreciate if any further discussion on this matter be handled in PM's. It really doesn't need to be a public discussion, and is only cluttering up the match, which likely only adds to ref and player work in figuring out what's going on.

[TheFallenOne]

By now I think this was an honest misunderstanding, final statement and then from my side this should be resolved


The part you hailed called me a pissy little ingrate. Is that not an insult, in your mind?

It is an insult, but on a way lower level than douchebag etc. The part I objected to implied that I hailed all he did as awesome("the part I hailed didn't contain those insults" was what I said, not that it didn't contain any) and while I liked the delivery of the sudden shift, I object to the suggestion I consider calling you a douchebag as a great thing


Waiting room threads are common threads, right?
Match threads are for match participants and refs acting in the capacity of a ref, right?

Wrong. Though irregularly, people do comment on the games of other players and there's nothing wrong with it as long as it doesn't influence the match or give hints. A little comment on an unlikely roll there, a little friendly taunting there, seen it, done it


No, that I understood as you willing to discuss things. I found the
"I could just invoke "# What a High Referee says, goes." "
as a bit bullying. Yes, you have a High Ref hat. It was probably as unnecessary to point out that power as it was for me to say there are refs higher up than you. Why bring that up, unless you're going to invoke it? It just seems a bit power trippy to me.

I felt it necessary to remind you I have this option in the future in case the discussion comes to no result or fails to remain civil like I already feared at that point. You seemed really adamant on being right so I had to remind you of that rule, like I said it's there for a reason. You can disagree, reason with me by citing precedent and RAW or appeal to another High Ref, but I can make a call, that's how things run around here.


onward with the match then

[candycorn]

Courtesy note (due to clutter text): the remainder of my turn is in post 44. The turn is currently Abogralia's.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked for an unreasonable hostility and flaming in a two page thread. You can restart this if all involved can conduct themselves with the civility required by the Forum Rules.