The Book of Zogross Hardscale

[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.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Ace_of_Spades

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]

Originally Posted by The CEE

Ace of Spades mentioned this back in the second reply to this thread. Someone should add Atlaga to the OP.

Fixed.

[Xotli]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

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]

Originally Posted by Xotli

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]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

:
:
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.

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ah, okay, that makes sense.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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:

Originally Posted by Grungebob

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:

Originally Posted by Grungebob

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.