Does a flying creater get a Aoo against another flyer when it pass it by?
I have a Arcadian Avenger activate 2 squares away from a darkmantel then on its way to destination it passed the darkmantel does the dark mantel get a Aoo since it is also a flyer?
Reason I ask is that a flyer has to take off which pervokes a Aoo with a adjenct so for it to get a Aoo it would have to take off first since it is sitting on the ground when a flyer goes by it.
So a flying creature is on the ground till it moves so how can it get a Aoo on  a flyer pass by its square that didnt start adjacent to it.

I would say a flying creature is on the ground until it moves: no OA.

The Flight entry in the Rule Book says:

Flight: A flying creature can move through nonflying enemies.....

I would think this means that yes a flying creature does provoke OA's from flying over enemy fliers.
I know it was flat out stated at GenCon and other places on the WOTC boards that flying does provoke from other fliers but this is the only official thing I can find right now.

yeah I found the same thing in the rule book but it didnt say that flyers to provoke a Aoo from other flyers so was wondering but if they said so a GenCon and WOTC boards that is good enoght for me thanks

from the Rulebook, page 20:

When a flying creature moves, it does not provoke opportunity attacks from adjacent nonflying creatures.

Basically, two flying creatures will always treat each other as if neither had flying for purposes of opportunity attacks and legal position.

that's easy to forget,

D.

I had the same idea, but I know a flyer does get an AoO, when another flyer goes by.  Doesn't make sense, but that is the way it is being ruled right now.

Yeah, flight isn't 3D so much as it's a parallel plane above the battle map (as, I suppose, burrowing is a parallel plane below the battle map). Anyway, flying past another critter with flight provokes the OA, but that makes no sense, because the other creature with flight is considered to have landed when it's not its turn.

Dave

Also, if taken to an extreme, it's assuming that the flyer is flying up to get the AoO, which should provoke AoOs from everything adjacent to it, but doesn't. This is definitely one of the new rules I dislike very much.

I've posted some stuff about this on the Gleemax boards. We'll see what the community at large has to say.

Please jump in over there and stir the nest.

Dave

* Moving to skirmish *

Just don't think of it in RPG terms. Problem solved.

It doesn't make sense on any terms.

Sure it does. Creatures with flight, effectively don't have it vs other flying creatures. I don't see where the logic problem is.

Kevin's point works. The logic of the skirmish game is independent of the logic of the RPG. While the word "flight" has analogues in the real world and in D&D that we're used to, all we have to do to make the skirmish game work is re-define it. We could pick any other word, call it that, and then say creatures with that ability can't use that ability to pass through spaces of enemy creatures with that ability.

Doesn't mean I like it, because the explanations--within the skirmish rules (which is why I included the parenthetical comment from the rulebook)--reach out of the game and into either D&D or the real world. But, hey, what are we going to do? All games have to use a language and therefore will reach outside themselves.

Dave

Einstein would roll in his grave right now if he knew how newtonian DDM is. Flat planes and all. Wheres the curvature of space/time!

Thought i'd throw my two cents in.

Dude,

Einstein's not in a grave, he's in a space ship.

Dave

They're considered "landed" after they activate, thus provoking OA's when leaving a threatened square.  Ergo, a flying creature should be able to fly right by them without drawing an OA.  It made sense in 1.0, there was no need for the change.  I have already accepted it.  Still, it doesn't mean it makes sense in the skirmish game.

Them being "landed" is an RPG concept,  not a skirmish concept.

The skirmish concept is that they only provoke OA's on the first square of movement. Nothing to do with "landing" or "flying over" the enemy.


and if you really want to apply the RPG. Then maybe the other creature flies up and attacks you when you try and fly by or something. A bit of a stretch but really this is a made up world. Everythings a stretch.

well put dave

But, that's debatable.  The skirmish rulebook, page 20, does say...

"Exception: The first square of a flying creature's movement still provokes opportunity attacks as normal. (It spends that first square "taking off.")"

That phrase "taking off," is straight out of the rule book, and "taking off" implies "having landed."

Dave

But "landing", especially when in quotes also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with flight. "taking off" could just be considered leaving the square.

To put it in an RPG phrase (;P). You are taking off to the town down the road. Or something of the like.

You are in effect, taking off from the square.

The fact that they did it in quotes or italics is an attempt to clarify the rules for people. Nothing says its an RPG term at all :P


Besides, the designers are all RPers, there are likely to be instances of flavor text in the rule book, while they aren't examples of actual rules.

I know. And, like I said above, I happen to agree that the easiest solution is to distance yourself from the RPG side of things and try to remain "within" the skirmish game, and think of "Flight" not as what real birds and butterflies can do, but simply a special ability in the game. (Kinda like ignoring the fact that real horses can jump when trying to understand why a knight can break the normal movement rules in chess. After all, real bishops can jump and don't always walk along diagonal paths.)

But, I figured I'd pull out another piece from the other side. If the designers are going to use RPG analogs, then it's fair (maybe not wise, but fair) to call them on it, and point out that the rule about flying and OAs isn't necessarily sensible from the point of view of the RPG analogies they themselves are using as examples.

Dave

But their RP analogy doesn't even necessarily refer to actual "flying", like up in the air, at all. You could draw that conclusion certainly, but there are other situations where the wording fits as well. How do you know your RP version is whats being used? Do you just assume it matches your opinion rather than that you could be wrong? How do you tell?

Trying to make the game fit into some sort of world logic (even RP logic) really doesn't mean anything. This is skirmish, not RPG, in the same way that Superman Returns is not Superman 2-4 . It is with the same premise, but goes ahead and ignores what happened in the original, and does it's own thing ;P.