Twin Strike question

[ForbidenMaster]

Doesn't that flavor create a logical problem in some cases, like when the two targets are on opposite sides of the ranger from each other? I would view that flavor instead as Split the Tree where you are essentially using one attack roll (the better one).

Hes just THAT good.

 

[Istar]

Dont complicate it any more than you need to.

Its 2 attacks.

Attack 1: Decide a target, roll a D20, calc. damage.

Attack 2: same

How hard is that ??????????????

 

[Mort_Q]

Dont complicate it any more than you need to.

Its 2 attacks.

Attack 1: Decide a target, roll a D20, calc. damage.

Attack 2: same

How hard is that ??????????????

How about this?

• Choose Target 1, Choose Target 2
• Attack 1: Roll d20, calc. damage
• Attack 2: Roll d20, calc. damage

 

[DonAdam]

How about this?

• Choose Target 1, Choose Target 2
• Attack 1: Roll d20, calc. damage
• Attack 2: Roll d20, calc. damage

This is how I read it. Makes it different from Dual Strike.

 

[Samir]

This is how I read it. Makes it different from Dual Strike.

Dual Strike was already errata'd, now it hits two different targets and can't hit the same target twice.

 

[DonAdam]

Dual Strike was already errata'd, now it hits two different targets and can't hit the same target twice.

I was referring to the errata'd version, which gives the secondary attack on an effect line after the primary attack (as do other powers such as Wildblood Frenzy).

If it's "two attacks," I read it is "declare both, execute both."

If it's on attack with "effect: make the same attack... again," I read it as sequential.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was referring to the errata'd version, which gives the secondary attack on an effect line after the primary attack (as do other powers such as Wildblood Frenzy).

If it's "two attacks," I read it is "declare both, execute both."

If it's on attack with "effect: make the same attack... again," I read it as sequential.

Except the rules really are quite clear, I don't know where there is any real ambiguity. The "resolving an attack" procedure is followed for an attack. Twin Strike has 2 attacks, you follow the procedure twice, once for each attack. Seems clear as day to me.

I think people get confused between an attack power which grants attacks, and the individual attacks which are granted, which follow the procedure. Where there could be ambiguity, powers which are area attacks, the rules clearly state a different procedure where you roll to-hit for each target and then damage is dealt once. Admittedly this is not spelled out with a separate attack procedure rules block, but the differences are clearly indicated in the rules describing close and area attack types and it is pretty easy to understand that in those cases its one attack and you need to simply iterate the "roll to hit" step as many times as needed before going on to the following steps.

There is a lot of potential variation in powers too, so the procedure has to be interpreted in a slightly flexible manner. Supposing you had a power with a target line "2 enemies in burst" (on a close burst power) then obviously the "select a target" step has to be iterated since it is ONE attack. But in the case of multiple attack powers this simply isn't the case, each attack stands alone as the rules clearly state.

Admittedly its possible to come up with a scenario where things could be unclear since powers are intended to be able to be designed to do pretty close to anything the designer wishes, but that's what things like secondary attacks, effect lines, miss lines, and special sections are intended to cover.

 

[Regicide]

I think people get confused between an attack power which grants attacks, and the individual attacks which are granted, which follow the procedure.

A lot of things get written as if an attack power and an attack are interchangeable. It's not well defined.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If it's "two attacks," I read it is "declare both, execute both."

I think Samir sufficiently explained in post #14 why this interpretation is not correct. Can anyone who thinks that you declare both targets initially rebut his post?

If it's on attack with "effect: make the same attack... again," I read it as sequential.

Do you have any examples of such a case?

 

[DonAdam]

All of my reasons are circumstantial, and probably won't satisfy people that want to apply the general procedure.

Do you have any examples of such a case?

Yes, I named two in the post: the errata'd Dual Strike and Wildblood Frenzy. Its possible these mean the same thing as "two attacks" (except for legal target differences), but I suspect not. That's part of the reason: I assume (perhaps without warrant) that there must be a difference given the different wordings.

The other bit of circumstantial evidence, at least enough to satisfy me for ranger powers, is how Hunter's Quarry works. It says you can apply Hunter's Quarry damage after all attacks are rolled. I know its possible to do it after initial damage is rolled, but that's just wonky and more counterintuitive to me. I'd rather roll all the damage at once, after all the attack rolls are resolved.

I'll also admit to having a bias in favor of interpreting Twin Strike less charitably, since Rangers are already ahead of the curve.

I agree completely that a burst or area is one attack (e.g., it doesn't trigger a mark, whereas splitting a Twin Strike would).