[4e]tempest dance

[TGWG]

me and my friend have a disagreement over tempest dance (MP9). I say that all the attacks can be used on the same person because it doesn't specify any requirements for it's targets. (just a primary target, second target, third target). My arguement is that there is no reason why all these targets can't be the same. My friend thinks that each target has to be different because it says "second target," not the same target.

we tried to ratify this by looking at passing attack (PHB78). but there was still disagreement. tell me how should we interpret Tempest dance?

[Kurald Galain]

1. When using tempest dance (Martial Power, page 9) do I need to pick a different target for each attack?

Yes (that’s what “against a second target” means).

[Sstoopidtallkid]

1. When using tempest dance (Martial Power, page 9) do I need to pick a different target for each attack?

Yes (that’s what “against a second target” means).

My sig still applies. WotC didn't suddenly become sane with the release of 4.0.

[TheOOB]

But the FAQ isn't making a rule, it's just clarifying one.

If an attack tells you to choose two targets, you must choose two creatures to target. If you only choose 1, then you didn't choose two targets.

[Kurald Galain]

My sig still applies. WotC didn't suddenly become sane with the release of 4.0.

This is really off topic. The guy asked for an answer to his question, not for a debate on whether or not the official WOTC knowledge base is or is not "sane". The only reason why people call CustServ unreliable is because other people on message boards call them unreliable, citing "evidence" that is years old; that's quite a bit of circular reasoning there.

[Douglas]

My sig still applies. WotC didn't suddenly become sane with the release of 4.0.

I fail to see how that is relevant to this question. Yes, the FAQ is not errata and cannot override actual RAW. In cases where RAW is open to interpretation and contains insufficient hints for RAI, however, the FAQ is the next best source. This is exactly such a case, so the FAQ is relevant.

Though, actually, the flavor text description of the power seems to me to be hinting pretty strongly in favor of the FAQ ruling so I think the FAQ is really just backing up what's already there. Plus, my understanding of English grammar is that labeling something "second" automatically implies that it is different from the "first", and "third" is also automatically different from both first and second.

[NPCMook]

If it had stated "You can shift and make this attack again." Then you could attack the same target, but it states "You can shift and make this attack again against a second target." so you must choose another target, so don't use this move when there is only one monster around.

FAQ may not be RAW, but it certainly does clear up a lot of things.

[Izmir Stinger]

After seeing a CS response to a request for clarification on rain of blows where they said the maximum number of attacks it granted was 2, I stopped giving them much credence.

I'm sure it is just one or two guys at Customer Service that are screwing up the answers, but they are giving the rest a bad rep.

[NPCMook]

You can't blame them, most of the questions are probably badly worded with horrible English and Grammar tagging along making it nigh impossible for them to understand what the **** you are asking, when they finally get a decently typed question they are so confused and flabbergasted they don't know what to do.

[Colmarr]

And, Custserv comments aside, I fail to see how the words "second target" could be bona fide interpreted as meaning anything other than "a target other than the first target".

[TheOOB]

There really isn't any room for ambiguity. In 4e WotC has chosen their wording for such things fairly well and is fairly consistent. A second target is not the first target, and they would have said you could attack the same target if it was possible.

[Thanatos 51-50]

So - whats is stopping me from designating my first target as my second target?
If, say, he is the only creature that is a valid target?

[Kurald Galain]

So - whats is stopping me from designating my first target as my second target?
If, say, he is the only creature that is a valid target?

(1) your DM
(2) the FAQ
(3) the fact that every power where you can pick the same target twice explicitly states something like "secondary attack: the same or a different target". This is exactly like how every power that can target yourself or an ally specifies something like "target: yourself or an ally". This is because you are not your own ally, and neither is the first target a second target; everything else is just twisting words.

[Colmarr]

So - whats is stopping me from designating my first target as my second target?
If, say, he is the only creature that is a valid target?

The fact that "a second target" is not the same as "the target of your second attack".

[TheOOB]

So - whats is stopping me from designating my first target as my second target?
If, say, he is the only creature that is a valid target?

Because he wouldn't be a second target, he would still be the first target.

Second:

1. next after the first; being the ordinal number for two.
2. being the latter of two equal parts.
3. next after the first in place, time, or value: the second house from the corner.
4. next after the first in rank, grade, degree, status, or importance: the second person in the company.

In a series, the second thing is a different thing to come after the first. If an attack has a secondary target, that means that, by definition, the attack must have at least two targets, ergo the secondary attack which uses a second target must target a different creature then the primary attack.