Cloud of Knives kills minions?

[hamishspence]

its a matter of plausibility

Lots of powers have special effects, dependant on the weapon, on a hit. When the special effect is not dependant on hitting, it is listed under Effect, or attack.

If it was the only power in the game with an effect that always happens, yet isn't listed under effect, it would be very odd.

By contrast, if it was a power with an unusual effect dependant on hitting, its format would match that of many other powers.

Indention is not a rule, it is a format. How common are exceptions to that format?

Silverstep: multiple attacks, a hit-line (push) and an indented-line (weapon, improved push)
It also has an effect-line (shift), with indented-line (weapon, improved shift)

The format is clear, every hit benefits from the weapon property. And there is an additional property, not dependant on hitting. Also improved with the weapon.

By the Silverstep format, and that of many other powers, special properties for Weapon, indented under Hit, key after every hit. And if you don't hit, that particular special property doesn't activate.

Saying "Format is irrelavent" would basically make for alot of confusion. Why say "This power is formatted wrong" if it is consistant with other powers.

Weapon: Can do many things. Its not that much of a stretch to say that it can grant a secondary attack.

 

[SadisticFishing]

Okay, let me argue Rain of Blows. Rain of Blows is CLEARLY only two attacks. In the hit line, it doesn't say "1[W]+strength per attack", it says "1[W]+strength". So, even if it is two attacks, it only does the damage once, by the rules. And that's silly.

The two attacks thing comes from the extra bit below, the Weapon thing. No way a level 3 encounter power was meant to attack three times, possibly four with your reading. My main question is, do you need to hit to get the second attack? And the only answer I could come up with is "yes", because every other "Weapon:" section that happens on a hit OR miss comes before the Hit: line. There are only two or three, and it's almost obvious, though not quite.

Okay, back to the argument at hand - this is semantics, and the reason I continue arguing using the same premises is that... No one has disproven the premises, and if my premises are right, the rest of the argument is 100% logical.

Though you have definitely given reasonable doubt, and I'm not sure I'm right anymore, so much as that I'm not wrong.

But also, using the odd minion rules to try to disprove me "but what if the minion dances around in the knives and runs in and out of the area over and over!" is not a valid argument, as minions DO NOT DO THAT.

Cloudkill and Poison Cloud don't disprove my argument in any way, shape, or form. They just cause odd exceptions that are all over the place in 4e. My assertion is that THEY are the weird exceptions, and Cloud of Daggers isn't.

 

[Chen_93]

So does this mean that:
a/ the example is incorrect, and a magical wall of fog that springs from the ground to obscure a dungeon corridor is not, in fact, an example of an area attack?
or
b/ the example is correct; the Area keyword is sufficient to define a power as an area attack, despite it being a utility power that requires no attack roll, and all the references to attacks requiring attack rolls are general principles that don't necessarily apply to certain specific attacks?

-Hyp.

If you're looking at RAW, choice A is not really a valid choice, until an errata changes the example.

Now, the clarifications in the minion article or whatever, as well as common sense, does imply that all the effect things SHOULD kill minions and the whole "A missed attack does not harm" or whatever that sentence is, is meant purely for things like fireball, reaping strike, hammer rhythm etc. This is however, RAI.

By RAW, that one wall of fog example really does support the initial idea that a missed attack (regardless of its effects) does not damage a minion.

 

[SadisticFishing]

Wall of Fog doesn't do damage, does it?

So how is that relevant to minion killing? They don't die when they've been effected by an attack, they die when they take damage.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

Sadistic Fishing, I would ask that you respond to those who have pointed out that there exists at least one definition of the term "attack" different from the one you are using(that has no explicit definition in the core rulebooks) posited in the core rulebooks. Is there a reason(other than it supports your argument) that this isn't the attack being referred to in the minion entries?

 

[hamishspence]

to sadisticfishing

Mourn appeared to be saying that, no matter what, Rain of blows gives you 3 attacks, because the secondary attack is listed as part of Weapon, not Hit.

I was saying that Rain of blows gives you 2 attacks, unless you hit, where you get a secondary attack for each hit. Because, Weapon is indented under Hit. reason for up to 2 secondary attacks? Fits with silverstep, which also has multiple hits and a weapon special ability. And so on.


(I was convinced after much eloquent arguing, before, I thought 2, only 1 secondary attack, only on a hit with primary)

If RoB ALWAYS granted you the secondary attack if you had the weapon, then the format would be inconsistant with the format of the other fighter powers.

 

[SadisticFishing]

Sadistic Fishing, I would ask that you respond to those who have pointed out that there exists at least one definition of the term "attack" different from the one you are using(that has no explicit definition in the core rulebooks) posited in the core rulebooks. Is there a reason(other than it supports your argument) that this isn't the attack being referred to in the minion entries?

I'm using the only definiton of attack which makes sense. An attack. Either an attack power, or an attack roll. In this case, I'm using it as power, because attack rolls do not do damage on a miss, attack powers do. It's relatively easy to read "a missed attack roll never damages a minion" as "this statement means nothing", because attack rolls don't damage minions. Sadly, I don't have my books on me again, so I can't check how the full minion description thing is worded.

Because it supports my argument is a compltely valid reason for reading it that way. It makes sense that by "attack", they mean "attack".

EDIT: Once, Rain of Blows only does damage once. Even if you hit twice, if you're reading it as you are. Rain of blows is basically: Attack, if you hit, attack again.

 

[hamishspence]

R.e RoB damage once? Why? Look at Vorpal Tornado

That can hit multiple targets and has a single damage line.

while it is true that RoB can only hit on target with its primary attacks, it seems pretty clear that the Damage is per attack. And, by extrapolation to other powers, Weapon entry takes place for every attack. And Weapon entry says: You get a secondary attack.

maybe, compared to Twin Strike, it should have said Damage: X per attack, but the general rule is: mutliple attacks, damage applies to every hit.

Or Dragons Fangs. Says: two attacks against one target or one attack against each target. But gives fixed damage and doesn't say "per target"

Rain of blows just says "two attacks" But they work in a similar way.

Hit "What happens when an attack roll succeeds" p57. And you are making two attack rolls.

 

[NorthSaber]

The two attacks thing comes from the extra bit below, the Weapon thing. No way a level 3 encounter power was meant to attack three times, possibly four with your reading.

Did you notice the power right beneath Rain of Blows, Sweeping Blow? It can grant up to 8 attacks, and is also a level 3 encounter power. Rain of Blows allows the X attacks it gives to be focused or spread around, which balances it out.

For Rain of Blows to be clear, the Weapon: line should be included in the Hit: line, but that would go against the clear formatting. Also, I believe the Hit: line should say "1[W] + Strength modifier damage per attack", since obviously the power can be used to make several attacks. As I have figured it, "two attacks" in the Attack: line mean that resolve everything below twice from top to bottom.

But I think people here are arguing two different things: some are arguing how the rules read when taken literally, others are arguing how the rules are probably intended to be read. This is probably why there's so much head-butting.

 

[SadisticFishing]

That'snot at all the same thing. Attacking multiple people is easy. Hitting one person four times? Not so easy. Also, being surrounded isn't really a good thing.

Specific beats general, and Rain of Blows specifically doesn't say "per attack". Nowhere in the rules is there the general rule "if you have multiple attacks, they each do damage as a base attack", and even if there were, Rain of Blows would not follow that rule, as it specifically doesn't.

Weird, isn't it? Rain of Blows is two attacks.