The Book of Zogross Hardscale

[Taeblewalker]

The Book of Zogross Hardscale



C3V Wave 1 – "Thormun's Reprieve"



http://www.heroscapers.com/community/gallery/files/1/zogross_hardscale___master_original.jpg

TRIBAL PROTECTION
An opponent's figure that is engaged to one or more Warriors or Protectors you control who follow Ullar may not attack Zogross Hardscale.

OPPORTUNITY STRIKE 15
If an opponent's figure that is engaged with Zogross Hardscale targets any other figure you control with a normal attack, roll the 20-sided die. If you roll a 15 or higher, no dice are rolled for this attack, no defense dice are rolled, and the attacking figure receives one wound.


The figure used for this unit is Lizardfolk Rogue figure from the D&D Giants of Legend set. Its model number and name is #35 Lizardfolk Rogue.


The PDF for this card can be downloaded here:

http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=3385

_________________________________________________________________

Character Bio:


"Tandros!" Ana called to me as she hurried in from the tavern's common room. I excused myself from the council and allowed her to lead me back to the small room we were using as a hospital. There lay a small girl, filthy and weeping.

Apparently the child had been part of a caravan lost a fortnight ago along the Western Heartlands near the Marsh of Chelimber. Covered in mud and clearly malnourished, she couldn’t do much but cry and cling to Ana’s leg. Sobbing, she told us of an ambush by rogues on a jungle path near an abandoned temple deep in the Sylathorn Swamp. I was familiar with the site, having cornered and killed a werewolf near there some years ago.

We left the next morning, accompanied by Darrak, knowing it could be a trap.

Emerging from behind walls of hanging vines and slithering up out of the water, they came: a score or more of lizardfolk, with more watching us from deeper in the swamp. Most were green, but some had red or yellow highlights, a rarity among their kind. It is well known that most stick to their own colors. I knew immediately what it could mean and that this could bode very ill.

The warriors parted and a larger than average and strangely unarmed lizard man approached us, scanning each of us in turn. Darrak's usual frown deepened to a scowl of disgust.

The "leader" motioned to a group of his kin standing to our left and a stocky, heavily scarred lizard came out, carrying a large, squirming sack. I could hear noises from inside. The creature gently set the sack before us; I looked to Ana to open it.

Moving as cautiously as possible, she opened the sack to reveal the only other survivor of the attack on the caravan: the twin sister of the girl we’d left behind at the tavern. Ana scooped up the child, speaking a few soft reassuring words. "It’s okay sweetie, you’re safe now." She put the child to sleep with a wave of her hand and laid her in the wagon.

What came next was as big a surprise as I've had in my many years as a fighting man: the lizard in charge spoke to us! "I Zogrossss Haaardsssscaale. Weee retuurn chiiildsss. Bhaad Mmennn deeaad. Noooo fiiight, weee traaade." It smiled with knife-like teeth nearly 3 inches in length. Clearing my throat, I replied. "Yes. We trade, no fighting. We’ll work something out with the merchants in the area."

He stretched out his razor-clawed hand as a sign of agreement. I returned the gesture and we shook, something which perhaps no lizardfolk and man had ever done previously. With that, the leader motioned once more and the lizardmen turned, skulking back into the swamps from which they had come.


_____________________________________________________________


-Rulings and Clarifications-

Q: If a figure adjacent to Zogross Hardscale is attacked by a unit that can hit multiple targets (i.e., Deathwalker 9000's Explosion Special Attack or Othkurik's Acid Splash Special Attack), can Zogross be affected?
A: Yes! If, for example, an Armoc Viper adjacent to Zogross Hardscale is attacked by Othkurik's Acid Spray Special Attack, the player controlling Othkurik may in fact choose Zogross Hardscale as a secondary target. Zogross simply can't be the primary target of such an attack.
_________________________________________________________________-Combinations and Synergies-



Synergy Benefits Received
- ACOLARH (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=8274) : Ullar’s Amulet
As a follower of Ullar, Zogross Hardscale may benefit form Acolarh’s ULLAR’S AMULET movement bonus
- ARMOC VIPERS (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=8275) : Ullar Warlord Bonding

As a Warlord that follows Ullar, Zogross Hardscale may benefit from Armoc Vipers’ ULLAR WARLORD BONDING activation bonus.
- GREENSCALE WARRIORS (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=29572) : Loyalty to the Lizard King and Lizard King Bonding
As a Unique Lizardfolk Hero, Zogross Hardscale may be chosen as a Lizard King and may benefit from Greenscale Warriors' LIZARD KING BONDING activation bonus

- ROMAN LEGIONNAIRES (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=8684) : Warlord Bonding
As a Warlord, Zogross Hardcale may benefit from Roman Legionnaires’ WARLORD BONDING activation bonusSynergy Benefits Offered





-TRIBAL PROTECTION: Warriors and Protectors who follow Ullar
*Armoc Vipers
*Atlaga
*Greenscale Warriors
*Jotun
*Protectors of Ullar
*Saylind the Kyrie Warrior
*Warriors of Ashra-OPPORTUNITY STRIKE: All units you control

_________________________________________________________________









-Strategy, Tactics and Tips-
N/A-Heroscapers Community Contributions-
Power Ranking and Master IndexZogross Hardscale - A tough and effective Lizard King, but doesn't bring quite as much to the table as the big dragons. B
Unit Strategy Review- TBA

http://www.heroscapers.com/community/gallery/files/1/1/1/8/zogross_original.jpg

[nate the dawg]

Very good work on this and the other two revealed today! I'm very much looking forward to using Zogross; I get the feeling that my Armocs and Protectors of Ullar will have the dust knocked off of them very soon!

As a simple, themed army, how about:

Zogross 120
Armocs x4 380
Awasome 500 / 14

Or, for a slightly thicker army:

Zogross 120
GSW x4 360
Aubrien Archers x2 500 / 19

Wave 14 is going to be fun! Keep up the great work folks!

[Ace_of_Spades]

I really like how much Zogross ties together Ullar. Between Zogross and Mittens, every squad besides the Shaolin Monks (they have Woo) has a bonus. He seems like a great addition to classic 'scape.

Also, Atlaga the Kyrie Warrior is a Warrior and should be listed under Tribal Protection.

[Grungebob]

I take it this guy can still be affected by splash damage from area effect special attacks even if the attacker is adjacent to a protector etc..?

[1Mmirg]

Yup, they just can't attack Zogross directly (i.e. target/select him).

[Lamaclown]

I take it this guy can still be affected by splash damage from area effect special attacks even if the attacker is adjacent to a protector etc..?
Since they aren't attacking him directly, yes he can be affected by the attack, just not directly attacked with it.

EDIT:
Ninja'd

[dok]

I take it this guy can still be affected by splash damage from area effect special attacks even if the attacker is adjacent to a protector etc..?Yep, he just can't be the target for an attack in that case.

[Grungebob]

Yup, they just can't attack Zogross directly (i.e. target/select him).Hmm. Yeah I think that pushes the terminology a tad but I get it. Cool custom.

['Scaper94]

Yup, they just can't attack Zogross directly (i.e. target/select him).Hmm. Yeah I think that pushes the terminology a tad but I get it. Cool custom.
IMO, this should be in the Rules/Clarifications portion of the OP. It could come up quite a bit in games and such.

Other than that, he looks great! Nice job C3V!

[Grungebob]

Yup, they just can't attack Zogross directly (i.e. target/select him).Hmm. Yeah I think that pushes the terminology a tad but I get it. Cool custom.
IMO, this should be in the Rules/Clarifications portion of the OP. It could come up quite a bit in games and such.

Other than that, he looks great! Nice job C3V!I just think it is odd tosay that a figure cannot be attacked and yet he can be affected by an attack. It's like saying that because I had a flu shot, I am protected against the flu.... Unless the flu comes to me by way of a sneeze in which case I am not protected.

[1Mmirg]

Yeah, it's an odd case, though, of course, there are few times when this is actually possible. Only a handful of Special Attacks can bypass this power in any way.

The goal is to avoid being able to purposefully target him. Collateral damage is tougher to control (and much more rare).

Thanks noting the possibility, GBob, and I agree that we should add a note in the Clarifications section.

[Lamaclown]

Yup, they just can't attack Zogross directly (i.e. target/select him).Hmm. Yeah I think that pushes the terminology a tad but I get it. Cool custom.
IMO, this should be in the Rules/Clarifications portion of the OP. It could come up quite a bit in games and such.

Other than that, he looks great! Nice job C3V!I just think it is odd tosay that a figure cannot be attacked and yet he can be affected by an attack. It's like saying that because I had a flu shot, I am protected against the flu.... Unless the flu comes to me by way of a sneeze in which case I am not protected.
I don't look at the power as a "magical effect" against attacks like a flu shot would be.

I see it as the whole theme of the card depicts. The Warriors or Protectors draw concentrated fire to themselves in order to protect Zogross, like jumping in front of the bullet. But if there is an explosion, it affects the whole area so the Warriors can't jump in front of the bullet to protect Zogross.

[Taeblewalker]

Updated the OP.

[Xotli]

Yup, they just can't attack Zogross directly (i.e. target/select him).Hmm. Yeah I think that pushes the terminology a tad but I get it. Cool custom.
IMO, this should be in the Rules/Clarifications portion of the OP. It could come up quite a bit in games and such.

Other than that, he looks great! Nice job C3V!I just think it is odd tosay that a figure cannot be attacked and yet he can be affected by an attack. It's like saying that because I had a flu shot, I am protected against the flu.... Unless the flu comes to me by way of a sneeze in which case I am not protected.

In retrospect, we should have used "target" instead of "attack" there. I take responsibility for missing that one.

Also, I think the OP should link to the gallery image here at 'Scapers.

[Dad_Scaper]

TW with the ninja-FAQ. Thanks, TW!

[Grungebob]

Yup, they just can't attack Zogross directly (i.e. target/select him).Hmm. Yeah I think that pushes the terminology a tad but I get it. Cool custom.
IMO, this should be in the Rules/Clarifications portion of the OP. It could come up quite a bit in games and such.

Other than that, he looks great! Nice job C3V!I just think it is odd tosay that a figure cannot be attacked and yet he can be affected by an attack. It's like saying that because I had a flu shot, I am protected against the flu.... Unless the flu comes to me by way of a sneeze in which case I am not protected.
I don't look at the power as a "magical effect" against attacks like a flu shot would be.

I see it as the whole theme of the card depicts. The Warriors or Protectors draw concentrated fire to themselves in order to protect Zogross, like jumping in front of the bullet. But if there is an explosion, it affects the whole area so the Warriors can't jump in front of the bullet to protect Zogross.

Oh absolutely! The theme is totally there and that's what makes this wording worth risking the oddity. You guys nailed the theme on all of these. Easily the best quality classic customs I have ever seen.

[ZBeeblebrox]

Oh absolutely! The theme is totally there and that's what makes this wording worth risking the oddity. You guys nailed the theme on all of these. Easily the best quality classic customs I have ever seen.

Thanks GB, that compliment means a lot coming from someone with your pedigree.

[Lamaclown]

Oh absolutely! The theme is totally there and that's what makes this wording worth risking the oddity. You guys nailed the theme on all of these. Easily the best quality classic customs I have ever seen.

Thanks GB, that compliment means a lot coming from someone with your pedigree.
I couldn't agree more with ZB.
Thanks, GB!

[dalu]

Yep, he just can't be the target for an attack in that case.
The goal is to avoid being able to purposefully target him.
In retrospect, we should have used "target" instead of "attack" there.

Attacks which doesn't target a figure.
Rhogar Dragonspine's Dragon Breath, where you don't target a figure, but must choose 3 spaces.
Mimring's Fire Line, where you don't target a figure, but must choose 8 spaces.
Can you hit Zogross with those attacks if engaged with him and one or more Warriors or Protectors you control who follow Ullar ?

Earth Elemental's Earth Slaw, where you don't target nor choose anything.
Can it be used if engaged with Zogross and one or more Warriors or Protectors you control who follow Ullar ?

Pelloth's Lolth's Wrath, where there is no targeting involved (read QA in his book);
Can it be used against Zogross if Pelloth is engaged with Zogross and one or more Warriors or Protectors you control who follow Ullar ?

[Taeblewalker]

Off hand, I'd say in the first three cases, he can be affected, but not in the last. But I'd like to see what others say.

[nate the dawg]

From the most recent FAQ.

Who is the target of Lolth's Wrath Special Attack? Can Pelloth use Lolth's Wrath while engaged?
There is no targeting involved because the Drow is “chosen” not “targeted”. While Pelloth is engaged, he can only use Lolth’s Wrath to affect figures he's engaged with. Once Pelloth is no longer engaged, he can apply additional skulls to other figures

Well, it doesn't say that it attacks the affected figure either.

One at a time, for each skull rolled, you may inflict 1 wound on a small or medium figure...

I don't see why Lolth's Wrath would not bypass this power.

[Xotli]

Yep, he just can't be the target for an attack in that case.
The goal is to avoid being able to purposefully target him.
In retrospect, we should have used "target" instead of "attack" there.

Attacks which doesn't target a figure.
Rhogar Dragonspine's Dragon Breath, where you don't target a figure, but must choose 3 spaces.
Mimring's Fire Line, where you don't target a figure, but must choose 8 spaces.
Can you hit Zogross with those attacks if engaged with him and one or more Warriors or Protectors you control who follow Ullar ?

Earth Elemental's Earth Slaw, where you don't target nor choose anything.
Can it be used if engaged with Zogross and one or more Warriors or Protectors you control who follow Ullar ?

Pelloth's Lolth's Wrath, where there is no targeting involved (read QA in his book);
Can it be used against Zogross if Pelloth is engaged with Zogross and one or more Warriors or Protectors you control who follow Ullar ?

My personal opinion is that if it ain't targeted, it can be damaged (and, in fact, if I had another shot at this power, I would push for "target" being right there in the wording). But don't take that as authoritative.

[capsocrates]

First, can Braxas target Zogross with her Acid Breath ability since it is not an attack?

Second, let me come up with some examples to make sure I understand this.

A) Syvaris is completely unengaged, six spaces away from Zogross, who is surrounded by friendly Armoc Vipers. Syvaris may attack and potentially inflict wounds on Zogross.

B) Siege is adjacent to and engaged with Zogross. Two Protectors of Ullar are adjacent to Zogross, but not adjacent to Siege. Siege may attack and potentially inflict wounds on Zogross.

C) Agent Carr is engaged with Saylind, four spaces away from Zogross, who stands alone. Agent Carr may not attack Zogross because he is engaged with the Saylind (standard rules of engagement).

D) Sgt. Drake Alexander is engaged with and adjacent to a Warrior of Ashra and Zogross. Sgt. Drake Alexander may not attack Zogross per Tribal Protection.

E) Othkurik is engaged with and adjacent to a Greenscale Warrior and Zogross. Othkurik may not target Zogross with his normal attack, but he may use his acid breath attack on the Greenscale Warrior and select Zogross as a secondary target, thereby potentially inflicting wounds on the Greenscale Warrior.

Is that about right?

[dok]

5/5, capsocrates. :D

Braxas can target Zogross because it's not an attack.

[capsocrates]

Okay, cool. I really like how that works. It's really unique, but (very importantly) it is very specific in such a way as to not be overpowered (custom cards lack such a level of specificity).

[IAmBatman]

I always understood "target" to mean that you check for clear sight on the hitzone of a figure you're attacking from the target point of your attacking figure ... in which case it's only something you do for ranged attacks. This has always been my understanding, at least. :reapershrug:

[flameslayer93]

I always understood "target" to mean that you check for clear sight on the hitzone of a figure you're attacking from the target point of your attacking figure ... in which case it's only something you do for ranged attacks. This has always been my understanding, at least. :reapershrug:

Targeting also is performed when using melee based attacks/effects as well. Although you'd be right about the process to see if you can target, that is not targeting. Targeting just means choosing in Heroscape. Does that make sense?

[IAmBatman]

I always understood "target" to mean that you check for clear sight on the hitzone of a figure you're attacking from the target point of your attacking figure ... in which case it's only something you do for ranged attacks. This has always been my understanding, at least. :reapershrug:

Targeting also is performed when using melee based attacks/effects as well. Although you'd be right about the process to see if you can target, that is not targeting. Targeting just means choosing in Heroscape. Does that make sense?

Choosing is usually a specific term used in special powers (like Jotun's throw or Ne-Gok-Sa's Mind Shackle). I understand what you're saying Targeting is here, but it doesn't match my impression of how the term has always been used. Of course, the only time I can recall targeting being referenced on an official card is on the Nakita Agents, and they also specify non-adjacent. So, I really don't know. Is this something official folks have ruled on?

[Grungebob]

Well, if we had done this power it would only work on normal attacks. That's just the way the "official" units were designed. The term "target" is something we avoided as much as possible.

[Scapemage]

Well, if we had done this power it would only work on normal attacks. That's just the way the "official" units were designed. The term "target" is something we avoided as much as possible.
Most of the time when do you something in a power involving another figure, the term "choosing" is used. So you don't "target" a figure for an attack, you "choose" it.

[BurnyFlame]

Well, if we had done this power it would only work on normal attacks. That's just the way the "official" units were designed. The term "target" is something we avoided as much as possible.
Thank you for that, honestly. I can't stand the confusion that the term "target" generates. The only word that is worse is "phase," but luckily that is not on any cards.

[dalu]

Well, if we had done this power it would only work on normal attacks. That's just the way the "official" units were designed. The term "target" is something we avoided as much as possible.
I agree, I would have preferred that the Tribal Protection power only activates on NORMAL attacks.

Just because simpler is better.

[Dad_Scaper]

Thanks, all. The feedback is greatly appreciated.

I *think* dok and Xotli both answered all the specific questions this formulation caused, but if there are more, please keep them coming (or repeat them, if one was missed).

[Grungebob]

Thanks, all. The feedback is greatly appreciated.

I *think* dok and Xotli both answered all the specific questions this formulation caused, but if there are more, please keep them coming (or repeat them, if one was missed).That is an important point. I think any question this power's wording raises has an easy answer. Like earlier when I first asked about this power and my question was easily answered with the "affected" clause. We are all rules lawyers here :heart:. This is a nice little microcosm of society here on Scapers.:lol:

[Sir Dendrik]

The really nice thing about Zogross is that he is an Ullar Warlord, but he's more or less never worth it with the Roman Legionairres. If you forsake Zogross's abilities, Ne-GoK-Sa is almost universally better.

So they help out the Armoc Vipers without just making the Legionairres more insane. That's good stuff.

I playtested Zogross, and he really brings the Armocs up a notch. Not to mention, he's very relevant to the Greenscales amidst a sea of stellar dragon competition.

[Sherman Davies]

I playtested Zogross, and he really brings the Armocs up a notch. Not to mention, he's very relevant to the Greenscales amidst a sea of stellar dragon competition.

Thanks, the intent was definitely to give the Greenscales a bonding option that was a viable Lizardfolk alternative to the powerful dragons.

[nyys]

Being someone who favors melee armies, I love a big ole brawl with Zogross in the middle stabbing the enemy in the back while his minions do the work. :twisted:

[Dad_Scaper]

I *think* dok and Xotli both answered all the specific questions this formulation caused, but if there are more, please keep them coming (or repeat them, if one was missed).
One more word on the subject: I received a PM asking about TW's answers and perceived differences with what Xotli and dok wrote.

I shouldn't have left out TW's name in this post; what he said is the *same* as what dok and Xotli wrote. No targeting of Zogross means no triggering of Tribal Protection.

Keep the questions coming, this is the place for 'em.

[The CEE]

Also, Atlaga the Kyrie Warrior is a Warrior and should be listed under Tribal Protection.Ace of Spades mentioned this back in the second reply to this thread. Someone should add Atlaga to the OP.

[Taeblewalker]

Also, Atlaga the Kyrie Warrior is a Warrior and should be listed under Tribal Protection.Ace of Spades mentioned this back in the second reply to this thread. Someone should add Atlaga to the OP.

Fixed.

[Xotli]

I always understood "target" to mean that you check for clear sight on the hitzone of a figure you're attacking from the target point of your attacking figure ... in which case it's only something you do for ranged attacks. This has always been my understanding, at least. :reapershrug:

Targeting also is performed when using melee based attacks/effects as well. Although you'd be right about the process to see if you can target, that is not targeting. Targeting just means choosing in Heroscape. Does that make sense?

Choosing is usually a specific term used in special powers (like Jotun's throw or Ne-Gok-Sa's Mind Shackle). I understand what you're saying Targeting is here, but it doesn't match my impression of how the term has always been used. Of course, the only time I can recall targeting being referenced on an official card is on the Nakita Agents, and they also specify non-adjacent. So, I really don't know. Is this something official folks have ruled on?

The word "target" definitely applies to melee attacks. Examples: Arkmer, Eltahale, Gurei-Oni, Moriko, Zombies, and even Nakitas (look at Engagement Strike, not Smoke Powder ;)). Also, the word "target" (and variations) is used on 16 official cards, not counting when it's only used in a power's name. :)

[IAmBatman]

I always understood "target" to mean that you check for clear sight on the hitzone of a figure you're attacking from the target point of your attacking figure ... in which case it's only something you do for ranged attacks. This has always been my understanding, at least. :reapershrug:

Targeting also is performed when using melee based attacks/effects as well. Although you'd be right about the process to see if you can target, that is not targeting. Targeting just means choosing in Heroscape. Does that make sense?

Choosing is usually a specific term used in special powers (like Jotun's throw or Ne-Gok-Sa's Mind Shackle). I understand what you're saying Targeting is here, but it doesn't match my impression of how the term has always been used. Of course, the only time I can recall targeting being referenced on an official card is on the Nakita Agents, and they also specify non-adjacent. So, I really don't know. Is this something official folks have ruled on?

The word "target" definitely applies to melee attacks. Examples: Arkmer, Eltahale, Gurei-Oni, Moriko, Zombies, and even Nakitas (look at Engagement Strike, not Smoke Powder ;)). Also, the word "target" (and variations) is used on 16 official cards, not counting when it's only used in a power's name. :)

Arkmer - special power that causes wounds, not an attack
Eltahale - good call, that's what I get for not being up on DnDscape
Gurei-Oni - another excellent call. Very strange to me that they didn't use "chosen" there
Moriko - excellent call, exactly the type of usage relevant to this discussion
Zombies - another one that seems almost interchangeable with "chosen" in the usage, but it definitely bolsters your point
Nakitas - see Arkmer

So, well played, sir. :-) I learned something today.

[Xotli]

:
:
Zombies - another one that seems almost interchangeable with "chosen" in the usage, but it definitely bolsters your point

I don't think there's much difference between "choose" and "target," to be honest. If you look at the language in Gurei-Oni's Tetsubo, Moltenclaw's Burning Breath, Moriko's Saber Storm, Othkurik's Acid Spray, Zelrig's Majestic Fires, etc, they all have the "choose a figure" and then refer to that chosen figure as the "targeted figure." I've always thought of "targeting" as the process of choosing a figure to attack: literally, the part where you say "and now I'm going to attack this dude"--that's the targeting.

So, well played, sir. :-) I learned something today.

We exist to serve, sirrah. ;)

[Grungebob]

We tried to avoid target because it is weakly supported in the rulebook. It is supported though, and we did use it.

Choose is different than target because it does not necessarily require the targeting procedure unless specified like when you choose a figure to be the target.. You could be told to choose anything no LOS required. Choose a figure you control. choose an opponent etc.

[IAmBatman]

I guess what gets me is that once you have an adjacency requirement, choose would seem like the better word than target, because you don't really have a need to check LOS against adjacent figures.

[Xotli]

We tried to avoid target because it is weakly supported in the rulebook. It is supported though, and we did use it.

Choose is different than target because it does not necessarily require the targeting procedure unless specified like when you choose a figure to be the target.. You could be told to choose anything no LOS required. Choose a figure you control. choose an opponent etc.

Ah, okay, that makes sense.

I guess what gets me is that once you have an adjacency requirement, choose would seem like the better word than target, because you don't really have a need to check LOS against adjacent figures.

Yes, but targeting doesn't have anything to do with LOS. It's just the act of picking who you're going to attack.

[IAmBatman]

According to GBob's last post, though, targeting requires the "targeting procedure" aka determining LOS, whereas choosing is basically targeting without needing to worry about LOS ... so LOS seems to be the key difference between the two terms here. Unless I'm reading his post wrong?
Anyway, nothing to do with this card, which absolutely is 100% consistent with how terms are used on cards, but more my trying to understand what exactly the terms mean and finding the usage on some official cards a bit ... odd. Not incorrect, just odd. :-)

[Xotli]

According to GBob's last post, though, targeting requires the "targeting procedure" aka determining LOS, whereas choosing is basically targeting without needing to worry about LOS ... so LOS seems to be the key difference between the two terms here. Unless I'm reading his post wrong?

Well, I won't go so far as to say you're wrong, but you're reading of his post definitely doesn't accord with my reading of his post. :)

Gbob sayeth:

Choose is different than target because it does not necessarily require the targeting procedure unless specified like when you choose a figure to be the target..

Nothing about LOS there. In fact, if targeting required LOS, it wouldn't make any sense for those cards that use the term on range 1 powers. Take zombies, for example. "All Zombies of Morindan in the attack must be engaged to the targeted figure." Engagement very specifically doesn't require LOS. And yet the figure being attacked is a "targeted figure."

Now, granted, Gbob does go on to say:

You could be told to choose anything no LOS required.

But I don't read that as implying that targeting does require LOS.

I think the correlation in people's minds between "target" and "ranged" is basically just a red herring due to the terms "targeting icon" and "target point." But IMHO those things tell how to target a figure when making a ranged attack, which does not in any way mean that you don't also target a figure when making a melee attack. Figures with range 1 and no ranged SA's still have target points, right?

Note that the official FAQ also includes some uses of the term "target" to refer to adjacent attacks (or to refer to classes of attacks which include some adjacent attacks), such as: Destructible Objects, and Tandros.

[IAmBatman]

Choose is different than target because it does not necessarily require the targeting procedure unless specified like when you choose a figure to be the target..

So, um, choose is different than target because choose doesn't require the targeting procedure. What exactly are we saying the targeting procedure is, if it has nothing to do with LOS?

[Xotli]

So, um, choose is different than target because choose doesn't require the targeting procedure.

Yes.

What exactly are we saying the targeting procedure is, if it has nothing to do with LOS?

Like I said, targeting is simply choosing a figure to attack. Ranged attack, melee attack: doesn't matter. Either way is targeting.

That's my opinion, based on the reading of the cards and the FAQ. Obviously I'm not a member of the rules team, so my opinion can't be considered official.

[IAmBatman]

Gotcha ... so the targeting procedure is choosing a figure to attack, versus choosing a figure in general, which can mean LOS has to be checked, in the case of a non-adjacent attack, but basically just involves everything you have to consider when making an attack versus just choosing a figure in general.

[Grungebob]

Gotcha ... so the targeting procedure is choosing a figure to attack, versus choosing a figure in general, which can mean LOS has to be checked, in the case of a non-adjacent attack, but basically just involves everything you have to consider when making an attack versus just choosing a figure in general.Yeah pretty much one of the loose rules of Heroscape. Take Gurei-Oni as an example. You target the figure he is attacking so it must meet targeting criteria, but you choose one other figure to be affected and the only criteria there is that it is adjacent to the targeted figure. You don't need LOS or even a reasonably believable situation, just adjacency to the target. My point is that targeting has rules and procedures while choosing is not bound by anything.

[IAmBatman]

I understand now, thanks, guys. :-)
You could choose a figure non-adjacent to Gurei-Oni, but when he targets, he's bound by his range and the rules of engagement, etc.

[Good Pig]

Glad the card for this guy is finished up. I might have to tear myself away from superhero scape for a bit to try him out. :)

[Son of Arathorn]

Um... For the record, in the OP Othkurik's SA is actually Acid Spray Special Attack. Not Acid Splash. Hmm. Acid Splash... possibilities...

[ZBeeblebrox]

Thanks I'll update the OP ;)

[Arch-vile]

I have been playing this guy with Armocs in a few games and really enjoyed him. It's nice to have a bonding option for the Armocs that actually helps them (Venoc Warlord is just an extra attacker).

I have found that Tribal Protection and Opportunity Strike is much harder to set up than I originally thought. It probably works better with Greenscales, since they have a lower move than the Armocs. However, when it works it is a blast to see Zogross Tail Whip somebody because they are too busy fighting a Viper. Zogross definitely requires a lot of strategy to play with and against to avoid the auto-wounds.

Zogross brings the Armocs back without helping the Romans at all, and while making a Lizardfolk hero. That's :up::up: in my book.

[1Mmirg]

I have been playing this guy with Armocs in a few games and really enjoyed him. It's nice to have a bonding option for the Armocs that actually helps them (Venoc Warlord is just an extra attacker).

I have found that Tribal Protection and Opportunity Strike is much harder to set up than I originally thought. It probably works better with Greenscales, since they have a lower move than the Armocs. However, when it works it is a blast to see Zogross Tail Whip somebody because they are too busy fighting a Viper. Zogross definitely requires a lot of strategy to play with and against to avoid the auto-wounds.

Zogross brings the Armocs back without helping the Romans at all, and while making a Lizardfolk hero. That's :up::up: in my book.

Yeah, Zogross is one of my most favorite C3V units. So much fun in a variety of ways. Glad you're enjoying him too!

[wolfeman1968]

Would it be safe to say...If I target a figure and they no longer have a visible hit zone then I just lost my turn, even if I could target someone else.
Or could I target another figure.

[1Mmirg]

You can choose to re-target and attack someone else (if available). (Targeting is pre-attack.)

[capsocrates]

OPPORTUNITY STRIKE 15
If an opponent's figure that is engaged with Zogross Hardscale targets any other figure you control with a normal attack, roll the 20-sided die. If you roll a 15 or higher, no dice are rolled for this attack, no defense dice are rolled, and the attacking figure receives one wound.

So, suppose Player 1's Sir Denrick is engaged with Player 2's Zogross. Can this scenario happen:

Player 1: "I think I'll attack this Armoc Viper here."
Player 2 rolls d20 and gets a 17
Player 2: "Take a wound."
Player 1: "Actually, I hadn't quite decided yet, I think I'd rather attack this other Armoc."
Player 2 rolls a d20 and gets a 19
Player 2: "Take another wound."
Player 1: "But I haven't even finally decided on who I want to attack yet!"

And it says "no dice are rolled for this attack," but what does that mean if the player targets another figure and then decides to target the original figure again. Is that still "this attack" or is it no longer "this attack" since he picked a different target to attack.

[The CEE]

OPPORTUNITY STRIKE 15
If an opponent's figure that is engaged with Zogross Hardscale targets any other figure you control with a normal attack, roll the 20-sided die. If you roll a 15 or higher, no dice are rolled for this attack, no defense dice are rolled, and the attacking figure receives one wound.So, suppose Player 1's Sir Denrick is engaged with Player 2's Zogross. Can this scenario happen:

Player 1: "I think I'll attack this Armoc Viper here."
Player 2 rolls d20 and gets a 17
Player 2: "Take a wound."
Player 1: "Actually, I hadn't quite decided yet, I think I'd rather attack this other Armoc."
Player 2 rolls a d20 and gets a 19
Player 2: "Take another wound."
Player 1: "But I haven't even finally decided on who I want to attack yet!"

And it says "no dice are rolled for this attack," but what does that mean if the player targets another figure and then decides to target the original figure again. Is that still "this attack" or is it no longer "this attack" since he picked a different target to attack.I would assume the intended purpose is that no attack can occur after a successful opportunity strike has been made.

[capsocrates]

OPPORTUNITY STRIKE 15
If an opponent's figure that is engaged with Zogross Hardscale targets any other figure you control with a normal attack, roll the 20-sided die. If you roll a 15 or higher, no dice are rolled for this attack, no defense dice are rolled, and the attacking figure receives one wound.So, suppose Player 1's Sir Denrick is engaged with Player 2's Zogross. Can this scenario happen:

Player 1: "I think I'll attack this Armoc Viper here."
Player 2 rolls d20 and gets a 17
Player 2: "Take a wound."
Player 1: "Actually, I hadn't quite decided yet, I think I'd rather attack this other Armoc."
Player 2 rolls a d20 and gets a 19
Player 2: "Take another wound."
Player 1: "But I haven't even finally decided on who I want to attack yet!"

And it says "no dice are rolled for this attack," but what does that mean if the player targets another figure and then decides to target the original figure again. Is that still "this attack" or is it no longer "this attack" since he picked a different target to attack.I would assume the intended purpose is that no attack can occur after a successful opportunity strike has been made.

Nope.

You can choose to re-target and attack someone else (if available). (Targeting is pre-attack.)

The same is true of the Nakita's Smoke Powder. Its a revelation to me.

[The CEE]

I would assume the intended purpose is that no attack can occur after a successful opportunity strike has been made.

Nope.

You can choose to re-target and attack someone else (if available). (Targeting is pre-attack.)

The same is true of the Nakita's Smoke Powder. Its a revelation to me.That's a good point you bring up. If that's the case, I've been playing Zogross incorrectly. I'm not sure what would happen in the situation described in your original question.

[Shedim Kabal]

I'm not sure I have a problem with someone risking three wounds to attack the same figure again...

[capsocrates]

I'm not sure I have a problem with someone risking three wounds to attack the same figure again...
Me neither, I'm just trying to figure out how it makes sense.

The situation with Nakita's confuses me almost as much.
"Maybe I want to attack the Nakita"
*rolls a 17*
"Nope."

At least in that situation, there's no wound inflicted.

[Grison]

[quote=capsocrates;1700546][quote]OPPORTUNITY STRIKE 15
If an opponent's figure that is engaged with Zogross Hardscale targets any other figure you control with a normal attack, roll the 20-sided die. If you roll a 15 or higher, no dice are rolled for this attack, no defense dice are rolled, and the attacking figure receives one wound.
...
I would assume the intended purpose is that no attack can occur after a successful opportunity strike has been made.

Nope.

You can choose to re-target and attack someone else (if available). (Targeting is pre-attack.)

The same is true of the Nakita's Smoke Powder. Its a revelation to me.

This was news to me as well. In the case of Zogross, I think that the part of the wording that confuses me is "...no dice are rolled for this attack, no defense dice are rolled..." To me, this implies that the attack does occur; it's just that no dice are rolled. Thus, the attacking figure has attacked, and cannot attack again (absent double attack or similar abilities).

I'm not trying to argue, but given the card wording I think that an official clarification in the first post would be helpful.

[killercactus]

I think the scenario is different.

Targeting is part of attacking. The reason you could switch targets with a Nakita Agent is because Smoke Powder took away their hit zones. That's the only reason the attack doesn't continue, because it's no longer possible. With Zogross, nothing stops the attack from continuing past the "targeting" stage. Opportunity Strike just makes the attack and defense dice for that attack zero, and the attacking figure receives a wound.

[Xotli]

OPPORTUNITY STRIKE 15
If an opponent's figure that is engaged with Zogross Hardscale targets any other figure you control with a normal attack, roll the 20-sided die. If you roll a 15 or higher, no dice are rolled for this attack, no defense dice are rolled, and the attacking figure receives one wound.

So, suppose Player 1's Sir Denrick is engaged with Player 2's Zogross. Can this scenario happen:

Player 1: "I think I'll attack this Armoc Viper here."
Player 2 rolls d20 and gets a 17
Player 2: "Take a wound."
Player 1: "Actually, I hadn't quite decided yet, I think I'd rather attack this other Armoc."
Player 2 rolls a d20 and gets a 19
Player 2: "Take another wound."
Player 1: "But I haven't even finally decided on who I want to attack yet!"

The definition of "to target" is "to announce who you plan to attack." If the attacker truly hasn't decided who they want to attack, you shouldn't have rolled the die yet. If s/he had decided, and you rolled, it's too late at that point for the player to say "oh, no, wait, I changed my mind!" It would be like moving the figure, taking your fingers off the figure, and then saying, "no, wait, I didn't want to move there." You may choose to let them take it back if you like, to be nice, but the rules say, once the decision is made, it stands.

[capsocrates]

OPPORTUNITY STRIKE 15
If an opponent's figure that is engaged with Zogross Hardscale targets any other figure you control with a normal attack, roll the 20-sided die. If you roll a 15 or higher, no dice are rolled for this attack, no defense dice are rolled, and the attacking figure receives one wound.So, suppose Player 1's Sir Denrick is engaged with Player 2's Zogross. Can this scenario happen:

Player 1: "I think I'll attack this Armoc Viper here."
Player 2 rolls d20 and gets a 17
Player 2: "Take a wound."
Player 1: "Actually, I hadn't quite decided yet, I think I'd rather attack this other Armoc."
Player 2 rolls a d20 and gets a 19
Player 2: "Take another wound."
Player 1: "But I haven't even finally decided on who I want to attack yet!"

The definition of "to target" is "to announce who you plan to attack." If the attacker truly hasn't decided who they want to attack, you shouldn't have rolled the die yet. If s/he had decided, and you rolled, it's too late at that point for the player to say "oh, no, wait, I changed my mind!" It would be like moving the figure, taking your fingers off the figure, and then saying, "no, wait, I didn't want to move there." You may choose to let them take it back if you like, to be nice, but the rules say, once the decision is made, it stands.
Except that seems to contradict the ruling on targeting figures. See this post (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1699214#post1699214), and the discussion that follows

Maybe I'm just blind?

- SMOKE POWDER 13 : ‘Targeting’ Figures For an Attack
If I ‘target’ a Nakita Agent, (or any figure adjacent to a Nakita Agent), and they successfully roll Smoke Powder, can I target another figure not adjacent to a Nakita Agent and attack them?
Yes. Before attacking a Nakita Agent, (or adjacent figure), with a normal ranged attack, you must first declare that you are targeting that figure. If Smoke Powder is successfully rolled, you may then target and attack any other figure within range. (dnutt99)

[Soundwarp SG-1]

Target:
A figure with a Range of more than 1 must always target
a figure it is attacking unless the two figures are engaged. Certain
special powers may be triggered while a figure is targeting or is
targeted. Note: A figure is not declaring an attack while targeting, and
a figure may target one or more figures before it actually attacks.

That's the definition from the last rule book.

I've always heard that you don't target figures you're adjacent to at all. Which is why the Warforged don't use any kind of targeting language for tactical switch.

[Bro-man]

Out of curiosity, is his bio going to be put up soon?

Oh and I like the figure by the way. Seen him used in a tournament and he did well against the opponent.

[ZBeeblebrox]

Out of curiosity, is his bio going to be put up soon?



:thumbsup:

[Bro-man]

Out of curiosity, is his bio going to be put up soon?



:thumbsup:

I'll take that as a yes.:)

[awesomeunleashed]

Out of curiosity, is his bio going to be put up soon?



:thumbsup:

I'll take that as a yes.:)

His bio has been up, or at least available, since before Wave 15... Look in the second spoiler.

[Bro-man]

Read the Bio, looks great and works perfectly with Zogross. Thank you so much for putting it up.

Is there a chance you will fix the other units that don't have there bios up?

[ZBeeblebrox]

Read the Bio, looks great and works perfectly with Zogross. Thank you so much for putting it up.

Is there a chance you will fix the other units that don't have there bios up?

I'll look at all the Wave 14 Books, but Wave 15 Bios are not completed yet...so stay tuned.

[Heroscaper Guy]

ZB, the Preyblood Thrall is the only wave 14 missing a bio that i saw. I saw the bio elsewhere though, was it on truth's blog maybe?

[Xotli]

The definition of "to target" is "to announce who you plan to attack." ...
Except that seems to contradict the ruling on targeting figures. See this post (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1699214#post1699214), and the discussion that follows

Maybe I'm just blind?

- SMOKE POWDER 13 : ‘Targeting’ Figures For an Attack
If I ‘target’ a Nakita Agent, (or any figure adjacent to a Nakita Agent), and they successfully roll Smoke Powder, can I target another figure not adjacent to a Nakita Agent and attack them?
Yes. Before attacking a Nakita Agent, (or adjacent figure), with a normal ranged attack, you must first declare that you are targeting that figure. If Smoke Powder is successfully rolled, you may then target and attack any other figure within range. (dnutt99)

I don't see anything in what you've quoted that contradicts what I said though. Smoke Powder just happens to specify that it only applies for non-adjacent attacks. That doesn't mean that adjacent attacks don't require targeting though.

I've always heard that you don't target figures you're adjacent to at all.

It's a common misconception. The easiest counterexample I can think of is Zombie Onslaught, but somewhere around here (quite possibly in this very thread!) there's a long discussion among myself, Gb, and Bats where we go over what targeting really means, examples of using the word to refer to adjacent attacks on official cards, and why Gb always tried to avoid using it whenever possible (which is probably why it doesn't show up in Tactical Switch).

[heroscaper2010]

120 Zogross
240 GWs x2
500 Armocs x4
500pts/19hex

[Shedim Kabal]

120 Zogross
240 GWs x2
500 Armocs x4
500pts/19hex
It seem like you got two squads doing the same thing... What's your thoughts on how it'd work?

120 Zogross Hardscale
180 Greenscale Warriors x3
100 Krav Maga Agent
080 Raelin v1
020 Marcu Esenwein
500/15

Similar to Unseen Shadowz 2nd place CSS2012 army, this is a classic turtle with a very difficult to punch screen. Marcu is a good glyph grabber for this army, something Unseen lacked.

[Grison]

Target:

A figure with a Range of more than 1 must always target
a figure it is attacking unless the two figures are engaged. Certain
special powers may be triggered while a figure is targeting or is
targeted. Note: A figure is not declaring an attack while targeting, and
a figure may target one or more figures before it actually attacks.

That's the definition from the last rule book.

I've always heard that you don't target figures you're adjacent to at all.


The bright red part (color added) above seems very precise in stating that only ranged attacks require targeting. Otherwise, why wouldn't it just say, "A figure must always target a figure it is attacking"?

If accurate, this creates further confusion regarding Zogross' wording, in that it would never be necessary for "an opponent's figure that is engaged with Zogross Hardscale" to "target any other figure you control with a normal attack."

Why? Because if the opponent is engaged with Zogross, then by standard rules they can only attack him or another figure they are engaged with -- and if they are engaged with the figure they are attacking, by the red text in the rulebook they need not target that figure before attacking.

If the team says that from a functional perspective, Zogross' power is intended to work a certain way, I don't question that. But there does seem to be a conflict among the described functionality, the card text, and the wording in the BFTU rulebook.

Respectfully,
- Grison

[Shedim Kabal]

...if they are engaged with the figure they are attacking, by the red text in the rulebook they need not target that figure before attacking.
I think Targeting for engaged figures is supported by the cards...

Zombie Onslaught Special Attack
Range 1. Attack 6.
Three Zombies of Morindan on the same level may combine their attacks and roll their attack dice as one attack. All Zombies of Morindan in the attack must be engaged to the targeted figure.

Tetsubo Special Attack
Range 1. Attack 3.
Choose a figure to attack. You may also choose another figure adjacent to the targeted figure to be affected by the Tetsubo Special Attack as well. Roll attack dice once for both figures. Each figure rolls defense dice separately.

Saber Storm Special Attack
Range 1. Attack 1, 2, or 3.
Moriko starts each turn with 6 attack dice. Choose any adjacent figure and attack by rolling 1, 2, or 3 attack dice. Moriko may keep making special attacks with 1, 2, or 3 attack dice until she has rolled all 6 attack dice. Moriko may target the same or different figures with each attack.

For almost all (but not all) attacks choosing = targeting.

[killercactus]

I think the scenario is different.

Targeting is part of attacking. The reason you could switch targets with a Nakita Agent is because Smoke Powder took away their hit zones. That's the only reason the attack doesn't continue, because it's no longer possible. With Zogross, nothing stops the attack from continuing past the "targeting" stage. Opportunity Strike just makes the attack and defense dice for that attack zero, and the attacking figure receives a wound.

What you guys are discussing now is why I thought this on the last page. It seems that targeting with Ranged units is slightly different than targeting with adjacent units, because there's an additional requirement of ranged attacks - line of sight to a part of their hit zone.

[Grison]

It seems that Zogross' card is no more inconsistent with the BTFU "targeting" language that the others Shedim cites. I'm fine with that. :)

But I also agree with killercactus' perspective, in that I don't see why an opponent would get to choose a new figure after Opportunity Strike activates. The power states, "no dice are rolled for this attack." To me, that's a plain text indication that "this attack" is indeed an attack -- just one with no dice. Since the opponent's figure has attacked, it can't normally do so again without some other ability that allows it.

If the intention of the designers is explicitly to allow multiple/repeating "choices of target" -- each with its own opportunity strike -- until opportunity strike fails, I'm fine with that, too (not that anyone asked). :)

I just think the card text is ambiguous enough that a front-page clarification/example is needed. It would be great if the example also made it clear whether an opponent can keep attempting to attack the same figure repeatedly -- which would seem to be the case if multiple attempts are generally allowed.

[Soundwarp SG-1]

You know, having looked through all the cards that have melee special attacks that target someone, one thing really stands out: They are either derived ranged special attacks, or are using 'targeted' were 'chosen' would make more sense. That makes me think that 'melee targeting' might be the result of some copy pasting and typos.

[Xotli]

Okay, first thing, guys: go back in this very thread and read posts #41 through #53.

The bright red part (color added) above seems very precise in stating that only ranged attacks require targeting. Otherwise, why wouldn't it just say, "A figure must always target a figure it is attacking"?

Yeah, Scy and I were just lamenting the unfortunate choice of wording for that particular glossary entry. I wish I could tell you why they stated it that way when it doesn't really work the way that it (vaguely) implies that it does, but I don't know. I can only tell you two definite things:
Regardless of what it says, it doesn't define the term at all, which is what a glossary entry should do. So it's not particularly useful as that.
I think what Gb says in the posts I directed everyone to at the top of this post is pretty clear, and I'll take Gb's word over a vaguely-worded, non-defining WotC "glossary entry" any day. ;)

I think Targeting for engaged figures is supported by the cards...

Very good. Note that that's pretty much the same list I present to Bats in the posts I reference.

For almost all (but not all) attacks choosing = targeting.

The easiest way to think of it is that targeting == choosing to attack. You can choose a figure to attack, or you can choose a figure for other things. "Choose" is commonly used instead of "target" in two situations:
It's a special power which is not an attack (e.g. Poisonous Acid Breath).
You get to choose other people to be affected by a Special Attack after you choose the target (e.g. Thunder Ram Assault).

But I also agree with killercactus' perspective, in that I don't see why an opponent would get to choose a new figure after Opportunity Strike activates. The power states, "no dice are rolled for this attack." To me, that's a plain text indication that "this attack" is indeed an attack -- just one with no dice. Since the opponent's figure has attacked, it can't normally do so again without some other ability that allows it.

No, wait, that was never in question ... was it? The fact that you can choose a different target after Smoke Powder but you can't after Opportunity Strike has nothing to do with the word "target." Smoke Powder interrupts your attack just after the targeting; you can't choose the same target again because of the "no visible hit zones" wording. Opportunity Strike, OTOH, cancels your attack just after the targeting. No more attack, no choosing a different target.

If the intention of the designers is explicitly to allow multiple/repeating "choices of target" -- each with its own opportunity strike -- until opportunity strike fails, I'm fine with that, too (not that anyone asked). :)

No, that's definitely not our intention. :) capsocrates was just asking why the attacker couldn't just say "oh, never mind, I didn't want to attack that person anyway" after Zog rolled for Opportunity Strike. For which the answer is: after you target, you don't get to change your mind, just like after you take your finger off the figure, you don't get to change your mind about where you moved it to.

I just think the card text is ambiguous enough that a front-page clarification/example is needed.

Oh, sure, I've got no problem with that. Feel free to propose something.

[Shedim Kabal]

But I also agree with killercactus' perspective, in that I don't see why an opponent would get to choose a new figure after Opportunity Strike activates. The power states, "no dice are rolled for this attack." To me, that's a plain text indication that "this attack" is indeed an attack -- just one with no dice. Since the opponent's figure has attacked, it can't normally do so again without some other ability that allows it.

No, wait, that was never in question ... was it? The fact that you can choose a different target after Smoke Powder but you can't after Opportunity Strike has nothing to do with the word "target." Smoke Powder interrupts your attack just after the targeting; you can't choose the same target again because of the "no visible hit zones" wording. Opportunity Strike, OTOH, cancels your attack just after the targeting. No more attack, no choosing a different target.

That actually was the very question:

You can choose to re-target and attack someone else (if available). (Targeting is pre-attack.)

It makes a lot more sense if Opportunity Strike ends the attack, than allows re-targeting...

[Grison]

Actually, the "repeated attempts" issue was indeed the major question, at least from my perspective:

I would assume the intended purpose is that no attack can occur after a successful opportunity strike has been made.

Nope.

You can choose to re-target and attack someone else (if available). (Targeting is pre-attack.)

The same is true of the Nakita's Smoke Powder. Its a revelation to me.That's a good point you bring up. If that's the case, I've been playing Zogross incorrectly. I'm not sure what would happen in the situation described in your original question.

Regardless of how "target" was defined, to me the overall card wording of Opportunity Strike didn't seem to support repeated attempts. I appreciate the confirmation that "no repeats" is indeed the intention.

With repect to a first-post FAQ entry, how about something like the following:

Q: If Opportunity Strike is successful, can the affected opponent choose a new target (as with the Nakita's Smoke Powder) and/or re-attempt their attack?

A: No. Opportunity strike does not prevent you from attacking like Smoke Powder; it negates the attack instead. Unless the opponent has multiple attacks, they're done.

[Crixus33]

Zogross Hardscale is probably my favorite C3V figure he also made me revise my belief that customs aren't compatible with official units. Thanks for changing my mind those who designed and play tested Zogross. Great job!:thumbsup:

[MegaSilver]

Zogross Hardscale is probably my favorite C3V figure he also made me revise my belief that customs aren't compatible with official units. Thanks for changing my mind those who designed and play tested Zogross. Great job!:thumbsup:

Now go and try Omegacron. :cool:

[Xotli]

But I also agree with killercactus' perspective, in that I don't see why an opponent would get to choose a new figure after Opportunity Strike activates. The power states, "no dice are rolled for this attack." To me, that's a plain text indication that "this attack" is indeed an attack -- just one with no dice. Since the opponent's figure has attacked, it can't normally do so again without some other ability that allows it.

No, wait, that was never in question ... was it? The fact that you can choose a different target after Smoke Powder but you can't after Opportunity Strike has nothing to do with the word "target." Smoke Powder interrupts your attack just after the targeting; you can't choose the same target again because of the "no visible hit zones" wording. Opportunity Strike, OTOH, cancels your attack just after the targeting. No more attack, no choosing a different target.

That actually was the very question:

You can choose to re-target and attack someone else (if available). (Targeting is pre-attack.)

It makes a lot more sense if Opportunity Strike ends the attack, than allows re-targeting...

Oh, okay ... I thought we were talking about what caps asked about. I didn't realize this went all the way back to that comment from 1Mmirg. I think the confusion stems from the fact that 1Mmirg didn't quote the question he was answering. Here it is:

Would it be safe to say...If I target a figure and they no longer have a visible hit zone then I just lost my turn, even if I could target someone else.
Or could I target another figure.

Now, granted, I can't speak for 1Mmirg. But I'm guessing what happened was that he just wasn't paying close attention to what Bo thread he was posting in, and the implication that it might have. Because his answer is absolutely correct: it just doesn't apply to Zogross. :D Opportunity Strike doesn't remove visible hit zones the way Smoke Powder does. Instead, "no dice are rolled for this attack, no defense dice are rolled, and the attacking figure receives one wound." It's really a different situation altogether.

Q: If Opportunity Strike is successful, can the affected opponent choose a new target (as with the Nakita's Smoke Powder) and/or re-attempt their attack?

A: No. Opportunity strike does not prevent you from attacking like Smoke Powder; it negates the attack instead. Unless the opponent has multiple attacks, they're done.

Sounds pretty good. I might change "they're done" to something more like "their attack is over," just to be clear, but otherwise it sounds good.