<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0">
							<channel><title>New Posts For Thread: Is new magic missile an attack?</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/25307609/Is_new_magic_missile_an_attack</link><description>The new magic missile is an level 1 attack power, it is a ranged attack, and it has a target.&Acirc;&nbsp; But it doesn't have an attack line or a hit line.&Acirc;&nbsp; Should it count as an attack for, say, popping greater invisibility?&Acirc;&nbsp; What about for imposing penalti</description><item><title>Agreed. That's why the language for feats like Inevitable Shot or whatever need to be written with those sorts of facts in mind. It's why Reliable ended up being reworded so much.Wait-what's reliable's current wording?</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/25307609/Is_new_magic_missile_an_attack?post_id=460396553#460396553</link><description>Agreed. That's why the language for feats like Inevitable Shot or whatever need to be written with those sorts of facts in mind. It's why Reliable ended up being reworded so much.Wait-what's reliable's current wording?</description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:13:41 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>Fair enough.  I was just pointout that you miss and you don't hit aren't the same thing when there are multiple attacks involved.  :)</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/25307609/Is_new_magic_missile_an_attack?post_id=460396345#460396345</link><description>Fair enough.  I was just pointout that you miss and you don't hit aren't the same thing when there are multiple attacks involved.  :)</description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:12:14 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>It should probably be either "You miss all targets" or "you miss with an attack." Anything that isn't expected to work with a magic missile type attack really shouldn't have the type of wording that it does, just because, there's no real reason why y</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/25307609/Is_new_magic_missile_an_attack?post_id=460396065#460396065</link><description>It should probably be either "You miss all targets" or "you miss with an attack." Anything that isn't expected to work with a magic missile type attack really shouldn't have the type of wording that it does, just because, there's no real reason why y</description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:10:44 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>It isn't Purple Prose.&Acirc;&nbsp; There is a big difference for Close and Area attacks.&Acirc;&nbsp; For that matter, if it refers to the attack power as opposed to an attack, there is a big difference for Ranged and Melee attacks that have multiple attacks.</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/25307609/Is_new_magic_missile_an_attack?post_id=460395265#460395265</link><description>It isn't Purple Prose.&Acirc;&nbsp; There is a big difference for Close and Area attacks.&Acirc;&nbsp; For that matter, if it refers to the attack power as opposed to an attack, there is a big difference for Ranged and Melee attacks that have multiple attacks.</description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:06:12 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>Honestly, the "Greater Invisibility ends if magic missile is an attack" seems like the most relevant factor to me. Otherwise, a wand wizard can just hide 100% of the time.Edit: Besides which, the biggest argument against magic missile as an attack is</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/25307609/Is_new_magic_missile_an_attack?post_id=460386745#460386745</link><description>Honestly, the "Greater Invisibility ends if magic missile is an attack" seems like the most relevant factor to me. Otherwise, a wand wizard can just hide 100% of the time.Edit: Besides which, the biggest argument against magic missile as an attack is</description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:16:31 -0500</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
