Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4357821" data-attributes="member: 2011">And that is just too terminology literal for some people playing the game to figure out easily. Not everyone analyzes the rules to death like you do Hyp. To some people, a target and a creature being attacked are the same thing in the game."Walls do not target creatures. They have no target."Would it have been that hard for WotC to add this?I'm glad that Hyp can distinguish, but then again if that's the case, why did you need to contact CustServ? Oh yeah. Because it is not crystal clear to the general 4E playing community here.If "target" only means powers with the Target line, then they have to be careful when using that term.If "attack" only means powers with the Attack line, then they have to be careful when using that term.They weren't. Those words are used willy nilly throughout the PHB. They use the word target when talking about skills with relation to a creature. Page 56, the very first sentence in the Area section talks about targets, even though Areas do not need to have targets.An attack is an attack. Attack should be the superset of all attacks, not the subset of all attacks that have certain characteristics.Sorry, but they should have different unique and distinct terminology for different things and they should not re-use words when they are terminology words, and they should not have phrases in the rules that state:An area attack's area of effect sets the targets it affects if there are area effects that cannot have targets. If that is the case, they should clarify this sentence.In fact, they should not have called them Area Attacks in the first place. Not all of them are Attacks (using the Attack Power definition). Not all of them are Attacks (using the Attack Check definition).This is typical of WotC. They re-use the same word in the rules both as specific terms and as general English words and hence they sometimes have slightly different meanings and it's a pain in the butt.PS. I think it is totally non-intuitive that a Divine Challanged marked Wizard cannot use Wall of Ice as an attack against the Paladin, especiallty if his Attack spell kills the Paladin, and still take DC damage. That's just plain dumb. But, that is only my opinion on how the rule should have been.Maybe they'll get it right by 5E.</blockquote>

Verification