Grinner wrote:
"...I think it sounds feasible, which is why I'm pretty sure someone will find a reason we can't do it."

Ah, Grinner, you lived up to your name.
Look what you made me do...

What I was trying to say is that in the rules for a multi-target attack, a target was further defined as a figure. Its because of this that I don't believe that you can target a wall as part of a multi-target attack. Sometimes I forget people can't read my twisted thoughts or understand how I get from A to G. Sorry about that.

Psylockeslover: I think that what it means is that you can only use up three of your damage per wall section. I know this sounds a little bit ridiculous but I think that if you can destroy two wall sections with flurry you can do it with multiple arrows.

All it says is that you cannot target a specific figure more than once. It does not define a target as a figure.

Flurry and multi-target attacks are completely different.

Flurry is 2 seperate attacks that deal the full damage to each target. A multi-target attack is 1 attack with more than 1 target. The damage from this attack is divided among the targets. The 2 cannot be compared to each other.

Psylockeslover, forgive me for differing here as I greatly respect your opinions, but I think your emphasis is misplaced in your quote. I think it should go on the attack, saying that if a character can make an attack worth 3, it can destroy a section of wall, thus if you have two arrows and a damage of 6 (after perplex, enhancement or what not), you can destroy two single piece of wall, one with each application of three damage. That's how I read it, at least.

I believe that this is where I disagree with PL on this. I believe the important wording is on the targeting. I believe the rules as stated are just making sure that people realize they can only destroy one square per target. If you can target two squares and can deal 3 damage to both then I believe you could.

On the idea of targeting two characters and a wall I don't know what to say. Something in my gut tells me you can't since you don't roll an attack roll to destroy a wall, but I don't believe this problem has ever come up before.

So there you have it.

You cannot include terrain in a multi-target attack. The rulebook explains all:

And if that still doesn't convince you:

You must do these two things: a) make an attack roll and b) compare it to the target's defense. If you cannot do either of these things, then the attack is illegal.

Well, I think we can blow a big hole in your first argument with the rules themselves:

Characters can destroy a single square of blocking terrain by targeting it with an attack that deals at least 3 damage in a single action (the character must have a damage value of at least 3, or have a power enhance its damage so that it will deal at least 3 damage in a single action).

Since the rules say you are targeting the single square of blocking terrain they contradict the definition (I know, we're all shocked that there would be a contradiction in the rules ).

I do expect your second argument to hold water, though, and be the reason this doesn't work.

Believe me, I don't mind someone disagreeing with me if they have a leg to stand on, as all these arguements have.

N.Ex: Ya, I saw the definition in the glossary as well. However, I feal, that this is another victim of poor word choices either in the glossary or in the rest of the rule book. At least twice in the rule book it mentions targeting something other than a character (specifically, objects and blocking terrain). By the dictionary definition, when you target something, you make it a target.

However, your second arguement is more valid.

Truthfully, I agree with Grinner. I believe that the intent of a multi-target attack is to target characters only. I just sometimes like to play the devil's advocate.....