Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5335889" data-attributes="member: 71571">Actually, his quote does not support the 'all attacks hit' thing.EDIT:  Went through the thread as well.  The designers never mention that Magic Missile hits the target.  They mention that it is making an attack.  That is all. Except hit is defined by the rules.  This 'auto-attack' thing does not exist in the rules, is never mentioned in the rules.  Executing the rules is not grasping at straws.  Saying that it's a hit because you heard somewhere some guy in a forum said it was is grasping at straws. Attack rolls produce hits.  Attacks may not produce attack rolls. Explain your logic here, you're contradicting yourself.  Damage dealt by an attack power is a hit, unless it's dealt to a monster you did not roll an attack roll against, unless you're not rolling any attack rolls?Cleave damage only occurs on a hit!  So you're saying that damage that does not occur on a hit does in fact hit but that damage that does occur on a hit may not in fact be a hit.Please explain the 'logic' behind this.  Page references would be nice.  Use the rules.  Or find the forum. Except of course for the self-contradictory part that relays on ambiguity and interpreting rules based on what some guy said in a forum somewhere. But that's not the right logic.An attack is defined not by the Attack 'line' but by being an attack power.  A hit is defined not by the hit line, but by being a successful roll of attack dice.  Also, effects are not restricted to the effect line either.Except the Faq does not say Magic Missile hits, and the update does not say Magic Missile hits.Incorrect.  The only logic that says that Magic Missile does not hit is because you never succeed on an attack roll.  That's all that is required, as a hit is A SUCCESSFUL ATTACK ROLL.It's the definition of a hit.  It shows 'Look, an attack roll. that is successful, is a hit.'  It's also based on PHB1 rules tech.  The precidents contained within that book still apply.The thing is tho, the rules still applies.  If, during your attack, you rolled the d20 and added modifiers, and beat the defense, you got a hit.  If your attack does not require this, you did not do that, and you could not have gotten a hit.  Just because Magic Missile is an attack does not suddenly make the need for that attack roll magically disappear.Effects of a power are not restricted to the effect line.  You're clinging far too much on the idea that it's the Hit line that defines a hit.  It does not.  It defines the RESULT of a hit for that power.  The definition of hit is a successful attack roll.No other text exists in the game to even hint that anything else could be a hit, barring a power that says, flat out 'You hit.'  But that's an exception.Pulling rules out of your ass often does.Where IS this rule change? That's the problem with your logic, you mention this rule change.   You point out its effects.YOU DO NOT POINT OUT THE RULE CHANGE.Simply put, your 'new definition for hit' does not actually exist.  It's a made up thing.  It's a vaporrule.  Point it out.  Cite a page.  Link the Rules Comp.  Show the errata.  Do -something- to prove this rule exists.There is a fully elegant solution.  Use the rule that exists.  It works.  Don't use 'some guy on a forum said blah somewhere' and call that a game rule.  Grab the book it is in, grab the page, and prove its existance.I'm pretty sure there isn't.  And I don't exactly trust your record of interpreting things on this topic.  So 'I'm sure it's there but I don't wanna look' ain't making your case.  All your case is in this regard is 'I heard a guy on a forum who I think said this.'  That ain't an argument. It says Magic Missile is an attack.  It does not say (nor imply) Magic Missile counts as making an attack roll, and it certainly does not say (nor imply) Magic Missile hits its target.It is defining the term 'making an attack' for the purposes of Greater Invisibility.  Making an attack is not the same concept as hitting.  It doesn't go beyond that point.And here is the truth.  He doesn't actually say that it's a hit.  So, your argument has gone from 'He said it was a hit!' to 'I'm sure he'd say it'd be a hit.'Thus, you've gone from saying 'This thread proves my argument!' to 'I'm sure he'd say my argument is proven!'Given your argument is now consisting of 'I heard some guy on a forum might say that if we asked him' that's not really a good argument.Try rules text, buddy.  Cite some rules, son!Bullocks.To hit is to equal or exceed a defense with an attack roll.  This works 100% of the time.  If you claim it does not, show me an example where this interpretation causes some sort of break down.  Some rules don't always work... this one is not one of those rules.And before you bring up magic missile, watch the rule in action.'Magic Missile doesn't roll an attack roll, so it cannot beat a defense, so it does not hit.'   BAM RULE WORKS PERFECTLY.Allow me to point out the fallacy of your argument for you:  Let's take the power Reveletory Strike, Ardent level 23, PHB3, unaugmented.Attack, Close burst 10, targets one one ally in burst, makes the target do an MBA as a free action, and other stuff if that MBA hits.Does this qualify as making an attack?  Yes.  It is an attack power, and it targets someone.Does this qualify as hitting the target?  No.  You are not hitting your ally.  You're not even attacking your ally.  But he's the target of the power, just the same as magic missile.  It has an effect on him, same as magic missile.  It is making an attack, same as magic missile.So why aren't you hitting him?  Because you're not rolling an attack roll... same as magic missile.</blockquote>

Verification