Does the term "a creature" include yourself?

[moxcamel]

I've had a related question come up with the Swordmage power Dimensional Vortex
.....
Anyway, the way we play it at my table is that a creature can't be made to attack itself unless there's something specific in the power that says otherwise.

Agreed, this is a power that was clearly meant for the creature you choose to be a creature who is not your target. Otherwise there's always a target in range.

 

[DracoSuave]

First off you are on the path to understanding this. The problem is you are making it too complicated. The semantics are simple. On page 106 there are only three targets-plain and simple. The targets define how to understand them. Now the excepetion to everything is this: Specific beats general.

As an origin square (melee, close, range, area) you have to understand what validates a target. There are only three types and these types have specific responses to the power. There is creature, enemy, and ally.

And of those, 'creature' does not exclude you from the power. The existance of other types does not change this VERY simple concept. A creature means, 'A creature by any means' and then goes on to explain that enemy or ally status does not affect the ability to be targetted by it. What it DOES NOT say is that you cannot be targetted by it because you are excepted from being a creature for this purpose.

It calls out 'creature by any means', you qualify under that, nothing disqualifies you, so after this point, it doesn't matter what entries can be written here be they 'enemy', 'ally', or even 'five eyed walrus from the Far Plane.'

This is it, unless a specific is noted or required by power. Such as bloodied ally, prone, etc. These are the defined terms plain and simple. They do not go further than this (unless specific). So, no, "you/self (personal powers define this)" is not a valid target, unless it is specific for such. You have to think you or the power are the origin square-that is it. And then a target.

Your logic has a problem. You yourself claim that the rules for targetting cannot have an exception unless it is noted specifically.

THE FOLLOWING DO NOT EXIST IN THE RULES:

'You can only target allies or enemies.' This rule does not exist.
'When refering to a creature of any sort, you are not considered a creature for this purpose.' This rule also does not exist.

Without those rules, a power does NOT have to include an exception to target you. All the power needs to target you is some description of a class that includes you, or to refer to you directly.

There are five words that refer to a class you belong to. 'A creature of any sort.' There are zero words that make you an exception to that.

That is how specific vs general works.

Incorrect, this is me explaining the semantics of a target. Read page 105 "Choosing Targets" first. Now, creature pg 106: "means a creature of any sort, whether it is an enemy or an ally of the power's user." This is it. Creature by defined terms can be BOTH-this is it. Not one or the other as it is with enemy, or ally.

The word 'Whether' does not imply the Exclusive Or relationship. It simply means that the antecedent may or may not contain the qualities that follow. Contrast with either, which DOES explicitly enforce an Exclusive Or relationship.

For it to mean what you claim, it would have to say '...a creature of any sort, and either an enemy or an ally.' It does not. It says '...a creature of any sort, whether it is an enemy or an ally....'

The word 'whether' does not mean what you think it means.

e.g.: If "Target: is ally in burst." Origin square cannot target enemy nor creature and power has an optional affect if so desired by targeted ally (Note the specific. Since it is ally, singular. It of course can only target an ally not allies). If "Target: is creature in burst." Origin square can target an ally or an enemy with ally having no option to disregard the affect. If "Target: is enemy in burst." Origin square cannot target creature nor ally. if "Target: is each creature." There is no distinction between enemy and ally, and also the ally cannot disregard the affect.

Irrelevant. All that is relevant is the following:

Does there exist text that says that 'a creature of any sort' does not include you?

What you have provided is not an exception.

Again, reading too far into it with no regard for the semantics. If the specific targets you/self/personal-which you will see in the power's resolutions if so-then you/self/personal is a valid target. If not, you only have creature, enemy and ally using your origin square as what is needed to see if line of effect, line of sight, cover and concealment take place.

We don't care how you resolve Personal 'attack-type' powers. That's not relevant to the task at hand. We don't care how you resolve powers that include 'you' as a target. That's also not relevant to the task at hand.

We care about whether or not 'creature' excludes you, and what you have yet to do is provide a single sentance that says it must.

Text that says it does: Exists.
Text that says it does not: Does not exist.

If you want to look at semantics, you have to examine what actually exists.

It is very relevant and you are very incorrect. Not only that you are blatantly excluding the rules mechanic, but what is funny is you disregard my statement only to say that which I said "All melee cares about is if the target is in range."

'A melee power usually targets one or more targets within its range'

That's all that there is to say on it. Being zero squares away from the origin square of a power does put you in range of that power, and nothing in the melee entry makes an exception to that.

First off for melee to work you have to have all the basics, such as capable to take actions, target, et al.

Which is irrelevant to the question. If you are incapable of taking actions, you might not be able to attack yourself. However, if the attack is not taken as an action, then you are not prohibited to attack yourself.

For the sake of this discussion, in its context (an individual compelled to attack itself with a power) it's assumed the basic ability to take actions is in effect.

Second-which is the most important-you have to have line of effect. If you do not, you cannot attack the target! Melee 2 does not mean you cannot attack melee 1. Melee 2 means (as I said in previous example): 2 squares adjacent from the origin square. Meaning anything in the 1 or 2 square adjacent to the origin square. Note, that there is no addition with reach to this melee range.

Line of effect requires you be able to trace an unbroken line between one of your corners and any corner of the target.

Draw a square.
Now draw an X in the square like you're scoring a strike.

You'll now notice that every corner of your square is connected to every other corner of your square with unbroken line of effect.

You cannot target yourself at all. You are not the target and the origin square, unless specific is given.

Melee is specific enough to make yourself the origin square.

And your logic is circular. 'You cannot target yourself because you are not the target' is bad.

Incorrect see above. To note though, you are on the right path when you are finally thinking that you are not the origin square,a target, but the lose it after that.

Wrong. For a melee attack, the origin square is the attacker. The only attacks off the top of my head that don't use the attacker as the origin square are Area attack-type powers, and Close bursts.

Incorrect see above. The powers, in general, do not have a mechanism for attacking oneself. However, nothing says that it cannot be adjudicated to create such in your game.

You've yet to even present the thesis the mechanism does not exist. The problem here is you've inferred that you cannot target yourself, and used that as the basis of an argument that you cannot target yourself.

What you have yet to do is actually prove you cannot target yourself. So let's start again.

Ahem.

Creature means '...a creature of any sort...' No one is arguing that.

Now please present the text that then makes it so that only allies and enemies are included in this clause. And the clause after one indicates that enemy and ally status are irrelevant.

As an example:

'Member of this club can come to my party, whether they are of the Montague family, or the Capulets.'

You wish to speak of semantics... please tell me. Does this statement mean that ONLY Montagues and Capulets can come to my party? Or does it mean that I don't CARE if they are Montagues or Capulets so long as they fit the qualifying 'member of this club' clause?

More over, the text does not even try to be exclusionary.

'The most common targets are creatures, enemies, and allies.' is not the same statement as 'You can target creatures, enemies, or allies' and CERTAINLY not the same statement as 'You can ONLY target creatures, enemies, or allies.'

You've taken the statement 'The most common entry here are these three things' and used that to 'logically' infer that if you do not have the second, or third quality in that list, you therefore cannot have the first. This is a complete bastardization of the rule as it is written.

The basic fundamental premise of your argument is incorrect, and is not supported by the rules. Arguments based on that premise are invalid.

 

[Aulirophile]

Wow Draco, I usually just give up when people are obstinate. Nice post.

 

[Mirtek]

Since he is origin square and the range is typical 1

Barring very few special cases, a range always give you your maximum range. You can chose to attack at less range than your maximum. If you have melee range of 1 you can attack at melee range 0

 

[DracoSuave]

Wow Draco, I usually just give up when people are obstinate. Nice post.

I gots a reputation and a multiplier to maintain.

 

[Shikami]

I've had a related question come up with the Swordmage power Dimensional Vortex. It reads:

Quote:
Trigger: An enemy hits an ally with a melee attack
Target: The triggering enemy
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will
Hit: You teleport the target 5 squares. The target then makes its melee attack against a creature you choose. If no creatures are within range of the target, the attack is expended.
Take a look at that Hit line. If the creature can attack itself, I'm trying really hard to think of a situation where the last sentence could come into play. The attacker is always in melee range of itself (unless there's some bizarre corner case I can't think of).


I interpret this to mean that, at least for this particular power, a creature can't be made to attack itself. My interpretation could be wrong, of course, but if it's wrong then that last sentence confuses the heck out of me!


Anyway, the way we play it at my table is that a creature can't be made to attack itself unless there's something specific in the power that says otherwise.

This one is simple; it is an immediate interrupt. The trigger is the enemy (note a target) whom hits an ally (another defined target term) with a melee attack within 10 squares of your point of origin. Target is now the creature that triggered your interrupt by hitting your ally with a melee attack (melee attack meaning any attack used by the creature).

You attack, and if you are successful you teleport the target 5 squares from his origin square. Which then completes the melee attack-meaning that which it was using prior to the interrupt. This is against a creature-enemy or ally as per defined terms. If none are in range he swings and misses automatically. If it was a power that was used it may be gone for the encounter. His action used is also expended-because that was his action.



I will get to the other posts soon.

 

[OnlineDM]

Wow, there's a lot of back and forth in this post! If I'm following correctly, Shikami claims that a creature CAN'T attack itself and DracoSuave claims that a creature CAN attack itself. I think.

DracoSuave, I know that you're a good rules source. Would you mind opining on my question about Dimensional Vortex, where it seems that the phrasing of the last sentence is implying that the creature can't attack itself? Am I reading an implication that's not actually there?

 

[DracoSuave]

I've had a related question come up with the Swordmage power Dimensional Vortex. It reads:

Trigger: An enemy hits an ally with a melee attack
Target: The triggering enemy
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will
Hit: You teleport the target 5 squares. The target then makes its melee attack against a creature you choose. If no creatures are within range of the target, the attack is expended.

Take a look at that Hit line. If the creature can attack itself, I'm trying really hard to think of a situation where the last sentence could come into play. The attacker is always in melee range of itself (unless there's some bizarre corner case I can't think of).

This I can answer very easily.

Not all attacks are 'Target Creature.' If the attack that you vortex is one that 'Targets one enemy' than in that instance, you cannot have the attack target himself, and if no other creatures are in range, the attack would have to be expended.

Mind you, a lot of that is redundant text. The attack could be expended if you had no legal targets anyways; if you teleported him so his original target was out of range, and did not chose a new target for him (perfectly legal) it'd still be expended because it would be invalidated. The text is still handy, sometimes it's a good idea to answer 'rules questions' and 'corner cases' before they come up.

This power does not indicate that a seperate 'you cannot target yourself' rule is in place. A psion's Forceful Push power, for example, can very well target himself with it.

 

[OnlineDM]

Thanks, DracoSuave. So you're saying that if the attack that's being interrupted targets "one creature" (as a typical melee attack from a monster would), then Dimensional Vortex could cause the creature to attack itself. But if the attack that's being interrupted targets "one enemy" then if you teleport the creature to a spot where it has no other enemies in range, the attack does nothing. That makes sense.

I'm still going to house-rule it differently at my table, but it's good to know how the rules as written work here.

By the way, I completely agree with the Forceful Push and would rule it as written at my table, that the Psion can target himself with it. But I'm doing that because Forceful Push is not an attack.

Even though I now have a better understanding of RAW here and I accept that by RAW a creature can attack itself, I'm still ruling at my table (an acknowledged house rule) that unless a power specifically states (or strongly implies in my subjective opinion) that a creature can attack itself (or be made to attack itself), it can't. It's a house rule that makes sense to me, so I'm going with it. But now I know that it's a house rule.

 

[Shikami]

And of those, 'creature' does not exclude you from the power. The existance of other types does not change this VERY simple concept. A creature means, 'A creature by any means' and then goes on to explain that enemy or ally status does not affect the ability to be targetted by it. What it DOES NOT say is that you cannot be targetted by it because you are excepted from being a creature for this purpose.

It calls out 'creature by any means', you qualify under that, nothing disqualifies you, so after this point, it doesn't matter what entries can be written here be they 'enemy', 'ally', or even 'five eyed walrus from the Far Plane.'

Incorrect. A target creature is enemy or ally. Now, if this was a fireball-as with a previous example-the origin square targets creatures. Meaning, you as in ally, because you are an ally to origin square which targets you as in creature. You did not target yourself. It targets you. This is the issue that many of you are having.

Your logic has a problem. You yourself claim that the rules for targetting cannot have an exception unless it is noted specifically.

It is not my logic it is the game's, and yes. Specific beats general. An easy example is bloodied enemy. The target cannot be an enemy nor can it be a creature. It has to be a bloodied enemy. If it said bloodied creature it can be enemy or ally. Very simple logic really.

The word 'Whether' does not imply the Exclusive Or relationship. It simply means that the antecedent may or may not contain the qualities that follow. Contrast with either, which DOES explicitly enforce an Exclusive Or relationship.

For it to mean what you claim, it would have to say '...a creature of any sort, and either an enemy or an ally.' It does not. It says '...a creature of any sort, whether it is an enemy or an ally....'

The word 'whether' does not mean what you think it means.

Whether - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (meaning enemy or ally) Simple logic again and the defined terms given in the rules.

Irrelevant. All that is relevant is the following:

Does there exist text that says that 'a creature of any sort' does not include you?

What you have provided is not an exception.

Incorrect. Creature is the defined target. Creature is an enemy or ally. Very relevant and logical-as per the rules.

We don't care how you resolve Personal 'attack-type' powers. That's not relevant to the task at hand. We don't care how you resolve powers that include 'you' as a target. That's also not relevant to the task at hand.

We care about whether or not 'creature' excludes you, and what you have yet to do is provide a single sentance that says it must.

Text that says it does: Exists.
Text that says it does not: Does not exist.

If you want to look at semantics, you have to examine what actually exists.

Ad hominem and creature is not you for you are, generally, the origin square. Creature is target which is enemy or ally.

'A melee power usually targets one or more targets within its range'

That's all that there is to say on it. Being zero squares away from the origin square of a power does put you in range of that power, and nothing in the melee entry makes an exception to that.

Incorrect the power, unless specific, does not target. You the origin square using the power targets either a creature, enemy or ally, as specified by power.

Which is irrelevant to the question. If you are incapable of taking actions, you might not be able to attack yourself. However, if the attack is not taken as an action, then you are not prohibited to attack yourself.

For the sake of this discussion, in its context (an individual compelled to attack itself with a power) it's assumed the basic ability to take actions is in effect.

Incorrect. If you are incapable of taking action(s) the creature only does start of a turn and the end of a turn for the creature. It cannot do action of a turn. Pg 197-199

Line of effect requires you be able to trace an unbroken line between one of your corners and any corner of the target.

Draw a square.
Now draw an X in the square like you're scoring a strike.

You'll now notice that every corner of your square is connected to every other corner of your square with unbroken line of effect.

Lay down a battlemat, and drop two minis adjacent to each other for melee combat. Draw a line of effect as per pg 107.

Melee is specific enough to make yourself the origin square.

And your logic is circular. 'You cannot target yourself because you are not the target' is bad.

Incorrect. Origin square is pg 99 (And also on 101, 102, 104).

Wrong. For a melee attack, the origin square is the attacker. The only attacks off the top of my head that don't use the attacker as the origin square are Area attack-type powers, and Close bursts.

Yes, it is the creator's space! Wow, you actually have the logic here. This is what I have been saying in every post. One thing a burst does happen in the origin square, but!: "Unless a power indicates otherwise, a close burst does not affect the creator. Even though the burst does include the origin square (normally the creators space)." Therefore, I am correct.

You've yet to even present the thesis the mechanism does not exist. The problem here is you've inferred that you cannot target yourself, and used that as the basis of an argument that you cannot target yourself.

What you have yet to do is actually prove you cannot target yourself. So let's start again.

Ahem.

Creature means '...a creature of any sort...' No one is arguing that.

Now please present the text that then makes it so that only allies and enemies are included in this clause. And the clause after one indicates that enemy and ally status are irrelevant.

As an example:

'Member of this club can come to my party, whether they are of the Montague family, or the Capulets.'

You wish to speak of semantics... please tell me. Does this statement mean that ONLY Montagues and Capulets can come to my party? Or does it mean that I don't CARE if they are Montagues or Capulets so long as they fit the qualifying 'member of this club' clause?

More over, the text does not even try to be exclusionary.

'The most common targets are creatures, enemies, and allies.' is not the same statement as 'You can target creatures, enemies, or allies' and CERTAINLY not the same statement as 'You can ONLY target creatures, enemies, or allies.'

You've taken the statement 'The most common entry here are these three things' and used that to 'logically' infer that if you do not have the second, or third quality in that list, you therefore cannot have the first. This is a complete bastardization of the rule as it is written.

The basic fundamental premise of your argument is incorrect, and is not supported by the rules. Arguments based on that premise are invalid.

Now please present the text that then makes it so that only allies and enemies are included in this clause.

Pg 105: The target must meet the power's target definition. Pg 106: Creature means a creature of any sort, whether it is an enemy or ally of the power's user. Then there is enemy and then there is ally. It is not saying creature=anything. It is meaning creature of any sort of the two targets, whether enemy or ally. Sort meaning "group" permutation. E.g.: you can have 6 creatures, three are allies and three are enemies. Semantics.



Every post I have made has had examples and resolve of the powers. Therefore, the mechanisms are indeed there, logical, and semantical. I can prove easily it Target=creature, enemy or ally. You are the creator, the origin square. Origin square does not=target. Because target is creature, enemy, or ally. Unless specific beats general.

Your logic is not equal to the gaming defined terms for a proper rebuttal, but I will entertain this question because: Actually you are being obtuse-note grammar. The context is missing. Meaning you wish to lay a trap by not giving specifics of the situation and rather argue semantics. However, by the statement you mean any (note, you left "A", as in A "any" member out of the statement and assuming this was an error in typing) member of "this club" even if they are one of these two houses can come to your party. Meaning that you may be addressing someone that has issue or even prejudice with the invitation(s). However, creature is not the same. They mean by sort of the two targets: enemy or ally.

Now, that I have entertained your question. I would like you debunk my Dimensional Vortex post, actually any of you. Where do you find error with it, if any actually existing. Not by your adjudicating terms, but by the defined terms of the game only, as I have done.