Bane into Counteract

[Draven]

Player A swings a Weapon Strike Doom, hitting Player B’s shield.

Player B: Bane! (Source of bane is irrelevant)

Player A: Bane!

Player B: Counteract!

This seems legal to me, since Bane doesn’t change that Player B met the requirements to counteract, and Bane has never transformed any aspect of an attack before.

That being said, in this scenario, could Player A have used Counteract instead of Bane? I want to say yes, because the attack would have been otherwise validly blocked, but Counteract specifies that “they otherwise validly block.” Player B blocked, Player A did not.

This would have another implication with Intercept.

Player A gets struck with a Weapon Strike Shatter Spirit on their shield, and Player B Intercepts it.

If the intent is that Counteract can be used on an attack that is validly blocked, then it applies in both these scenarios. If the intent is that it can only be used by the player who validly blocked it, then it cannot.

 

[Sage of Legaia]

It's legal; you can only use one of any particular defense against a single attack, but using a Bane and then a Counteract (or Parry, or Dodge, or Evade) is totally fine.

Player A could have used Counteract in the first scenario, since a Returned attack is counted as whatever the original attack was with regards to defenses.

In the second scenario, Player B should be able to use Counteract with no issue as long as they had a weapon or shield in their hand to Intercept with.

 

[Draven]

It's legal; you can only use one of any particular defense against a single attack, but using a Bane and then a Counteract (or Parry, or Dodge, or Evade) is totally fine.

Player A could have used Counteract in the first scenario, since a Returned attack is counted as whatever the original attack was with regards to defenses.

In the second scenario, Player B should be able to use Counteract with no issue as long as they had a weapon or shield in their hand to Intercept with.

Intercept doesn’t require use of a Weapon or Shield, however.

 

[Alkalin3]

I kind of feel like the simplest scenario is the best, even if it's not the most player friendly. Once you retribution you've given up your chance to counteract. I think having someone respond to a bane with a counteract is going to add more layers of confusion to an already confusing interaction.

In regards to intercept, I feel like you shouldn't be able to counteract a weaponstrike. You haven't validly blocked it, and if intercept granted you the ability to have "validly" blocked a blow, intercept would be the same as parry. Since if you intercept 5 normal, you take the damage.

 

[Alkalin3]

To expand more, if you bane a charm/shun/repel, you become the caster. The attack has changed some what. In the same line of thinking, I don't think it's a stretch to apply this logic to counteract.

 

[Draven]

For me, I suppose it mostly matters on whether or not it is more important that the original attack was validly blocked, or whether or not it matters who validly blocked it.

If it only matters that it was validly blocked, then counteract would be viable in every scenario.

If it matters who validly blocked it, then Player B could validly block it after the double Bane.

I definitely don’t think that Bane should inherently remove the possibility of Counteract; Returns have never once changed the aspect of an attack. While it’s true we’re introducing new mechanics and concepts, I feel like this should remain true.

 

[Sage of Legaia]

Intercept doesn’t require use of a Weapon or Shield, however.

True, but Counteract does require you to validly block the attack, so to me the conditions of use for Counteract haven't been met if they don't have a way to block the attack, even if the original target did.

In regards to intercept, I feel like you shouldn't be able to counteract a weaponstrike. You haven't validly blocked it, and if intercept granted you the ability to have "validly" blocked a blow, intercept would be the same as parry. Since if you intercept 5 normal, you take the damage.

True, but because Counteract specifically is only used against Weapon Strikes, there's inherently no difference between blocking it and not other than being able to use the skill; I'm inclined to say that if you have a weapon or shield in hand that could have reached the point the Weapon Strike hit, then you should be able to use Intercept and then Counteract, same as if you used Intercept and then popped a Weapon Shield.

I'm particularly inclined to rule this way because otherwise Parry is entirely superior to both of those skills in every way except XP cost, and Counteract otherwise can't be used to defend your allies the way Parry can. If nothing else, it adds a teamwork element to the skill, and I'm all for that.