"Whenever you hit an enemy"?

[Minifig]

I think I get where the confusion lies... if you have a hit line, it will often say 'Hit: The target takes so and so damage' even for multitargetting powers. This is for consistancy. You process the Hit line for -each individual target hit-. As an example:

Cylcone of Restoration Spinny Healer Dude Attack 20
Daily - Divine, Healing, Weapon
Standard Action - Close burst 1
Target: Each enemy in burst
Attack: Strength vs. AC.
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifer damage, and an ally within five squares of the target may spend a healing surge.
Effect: The target grants combat advantage. All allies within six squares of you gain temporary hit points equal to your Wisdom modifier.

If you hit three enemies with this power, that means that each enemy is hit, each triggering your hit-related triggers, and more-over, each enemy hit also causes an ally to spend a healing surge. 3 hits, 3 healing surges. This is because you process the hit line once per each enemy you hit. Then, yes, the effect says 'The target' but it is always assumed that 'The target' can refer to multiples or singular targets, so long as the target line of the power is satisfied.

See, that'd make sense to me that your 'to hit' trigger would trigger every single time that you actually.. well.. touch something with your Cyclone attack. EG: Every single time you roll your D20 and have a successful roll for it.

 

[Mistwell]

A quote that was pointed out to me in another thread:

"Automatic Damage: This article introduces some powers that auto- matically deal damage to one or more enemies. Keep in mind that because the damage is in the “Effect” line, the powers don’t hit, and therefore can’t benefit from effects that trigger off of a hit. Also, since the damage is a flat number, it isn’t considered a damage roll, and therefore it doesn’t benefit from effects that increase the result of a damage roll (but can still benefit from extra damage that doesn’t require a roll)."

Dragon 381 p. 65.

I would dearly like to know what AbdulAlhazred makes of this.

Abdul, you've gone from: "the DESIGNERS OF THE GAME state flat out unequivocally that Magic Missile hits" to "I'm pretty sure there was an actual post from one of the devs either in the thread linked above or in one of the other similar threads that have hashed this out over and over on Q&A." to "Why do I have to prove anything to you? ...It's...based on common sense" to now we have a Dragon article stating you're wrong, and still no quote from you showing this supposed developer declaring your position to be correct, and this issue having been put bed ages ago in you opinion.

All of this in a context where you've said to us "I fully understand 4e rules. What I think a LOT of people fail to understand is that the DESIGNERS OF THE RULES theory of what an RPG is and how it works MANIFESTLY correspond with my own a lot more than they do with yours. This is pretty apparent if you go read the statements they've made on various rules issues," which I find to be a pretty challenging statement.

So, how do you reconcile your position with that quote from the Dragon article?

 

[the Jester]

I would dearly like to know what AbdulAlhazred makes of this.

I'm starting to doubt whether he's going to bother responding. I've pointed this out to him multiple times now; but it's evidence against his position, so I don't think he's going to acknowledge it.

 

[DracoSuave]

See, that'd make sense to me that your 'to hit' trigger would trigger every single time that you actually.. well.. touch something with your Cyclone attack. EG: Every single time you roll your D20 and have a successful roll for it.

Prime the Fire works exactly the same way, except instead of your square being the point of origin, it's a square within 10 squares of you.

There ARE powers that work as you describe, with a target followed by 'splash damage', like Greenflame Blade of the swordmage at-wills. Area bursts aren't one of those.

I'm starting to doubt whether he's going to bother responding. I've pointed this out to him multiple times now; but it's evidence against his position, so I don't think he's going to acknowledge it.

I miss Obryn. If it were Obryn, he'd stick to his guns, kick logic to the curb and do the impossible, make a crazy bet out of it, and somehow.. SOMEHOW... come out on top.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I would dearly like to know what AbdulAlhazred makes of this.

I fully understand what AbdulAlhazred thinks about this. What I think Mistwell fails to understand is that the DESIGNERS OF THE INTERNET theory of what a MESSAGEBOARD ARGUMENT is and how it works MANIFESTLY correspond with his own arguments a lot more than they do with everybody else’s. This is pretty apparent if you know that AbdulAlhazred is Hypnotoad. Sure in an IDEAL world his facts would be perfectly consistent AND provide some evidence for his assertions, but they don't always ever. Thus he can make any number of arguments he wants about "anything" and you must believe him.

 

[the Jester]

Just one more poke to see if this thread is dead or if Abdul is still defending his position.

 

[Gradine]

I must say, the more that I've ruminated on this the more that I concede my original position, which was likely just as much borne out of frustration over being wrong than actual frustration over the decision itself. Then again, this tends to happen a lot whenever I express some disappointment with some aspect of 4e that I don't think makes sense, and then somebody here retorts by explaining how it makes perfect sense, from a certain point of view, like some god damned Jedi or something.

Wizards could still stand to, you know, expand the vocab a bit.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Just one more poke to see if this thread is dead or if Abdul is still defending his position.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I would give Grandine some XP for that last post, but it won't let me.

Anyway, congrats on putting the emotion of the discussion aside and coming to terms with the actual logic used. Saying "I might have been wrong" isn't a sign of weakness, in my opinion, so kuddos to you.

 

[thewok]

I think that to properly understand the rules of the game, you have to separate thematics from game terms. Magic Missile is the standout example of why this needs to be done.

Thematically, you fire out a bolt of arcane energy, which unerringly impacts its target. The missile hits its target every time you cast the spell, making it an incredible go-to spell for wizards.

In Game terms, "hit" is defined as a successful attack roll. Since the Magic Missile power has no attack roll (and, indeed, has no Hit: entry in the power description), then it cannot benefit from any effect that requires a hit. To say it another way, you choose a target, and the effect happens. It is certainly an attack, but there is no attack roll.

When discussing rules, always keep the definition of the game terms in mind, and try to ignore your preconceptions of what happens thematically.