What does “TARGET” Mean? (Rules Wording)

General Discussion
#1

Hey everyone, I thought this deserved its own thread because I wanted to start a discussion about rules wording…specifically, what the term “target” means.

I got hammered in the comments of my Valhalla and Lord Loki videos for being confused about it at first…and really, I might be that dense, haha! However, there are mechanics in the game that say “target” and it means you target your own heroes. So, with a card that has relatively neutral wording, like Lord Loki when it says “Copies target’s special skill,” it’s not super clear to me that I can’t target my own hero when there exists battle items that allow me to target my own hero. The mechanic to do that already exists!

What if I want to use Loki on my own Kunchen to heal, cleanse, and give the opponent defense down? The mechanic already exists to be able to target my own heroes, so if I am not allowed to, then I think the rules wording should specify exactly who I’m allowed to target.

Well, anyways, I might be the only one who doesn’t like how the card is worded. I absolutely love the hero and I’m glad SG created a card so interesting and fun. If you want to hear some extended thoughts and see some examples of how the word “target” is currently used in E&P, check it out…

7 Likes
#2

Seems like a valid point to me. Especially because Loki does no damage. Why not copy an allies skill.

1 Like
#3

Uh. What hero power allows you to select a member of your own team? Target has always meant a member of the opposing team in context of hero abilities.

Battle items are not heroes. They have entirely different rules for what constitutes a target. And that’s also been consistent (cf - scrolls of alteration).

3 Likes
#4

I watched the video you uploaded in lord Loki’s topic a few days ago and when you said that you’d like to copy Lady Loki ability, I got really surprised, as I hadn’t thought that an ally ability could be copied.

When I see the word target, I immediately think about the enemy, but seeing what you explained about the description of some objects, it’s true that the word target is used for both sides and it can be a bit ambiguous. Maybe the best solution, as you mentioned, would be that lord Loki’s special description was: "he copies any enemy special ability.

1 Like
#5

In a nutshell; the wording in the game is consistent to mean:

  • Target = enemy
  • Caster/ allies = your team

So the wording is consistent:

  • Target & nearby = the enemy selected & nearby enemies
  • Caster & nearby = your hero & nearby allies

Target has (and probably will) always refer (in E&P) to the enemy hero you selected with the targetting reticule.

5 Likes
#6

@Guvnor Gunvor,

so how you explain the battle items such has titanium shield says “The target and nearby heroes…” and the target are our own heroes?Target not always refer to enemys in E&P.

Once again SG makes a mistake. It’s becoming more and more frequent. The thirsty for money strikes again.

2 Likes
#7

Honestly didn’t cross my mind about target meaning or including ally, target would be an opponent. Select or caster would indicate an ally… thats how my mind interprets it

#8

Hmm; dont know about that one. Probably the same for all the battle items tbh. Never paid much attention to the wording there. I know what the items do so just use them.

1 Like
#9

@Guvnor if you haven’t already, check out the video. I show examples of the inconsistencies they use with the terms ‘target,’ ‘enemies,’ and ‘heroes.’ It wasn’t a big deal when there weren’t so many mechanics in the game, but they probably should shore up their use of the terms.

#10

Because, again, target has a different meaning for battle items.

It’s almost like context matters.

4 Likes
#11

However, battle items allow you to target allies so it is not exclusively used to refer to enemies.

When using the hurricane battle item, for example, target is the centre hero to receive 100% mana, likewise scroll of alteration copies target’s colour and does distinguish between allies or enemies (assumption is ally, but not explicitly stated).

#12

Which I’ve said twice now. Including in the post you replied to.

1 Like
#13

tar•get

n.
An object, such as a padded disk with a marked surface, 
that is shot at to test accuracy in rifle or archery practice.
n.
Something aimed or fired at.

In the game, Target is the particular hero you want the special or item to apply to (what you are aiming at). In the context of special the target is always an opponent’s hero. In the context of an item it is always one of your heroes. You wouldn’t want to use a healing potion on the opponent and you wouldn’t want to snipe your ally. Not confusing at all if you consider the context. Just as @Zathrus has been saying

Changing Lord Loki’s special to be able to target an ally would break that context.

4 Likes
#14

@nevarmaor, yes I agree they definitely shouldn’t change Loki to be able to copy an ally’s special, that would be insanely overpowered. But I do think they should change the wording on all the cards that say “target” to specify who can be targeted. For example, you just said that battle items target only your own heroes. But what about Valkyrie’s Bane? That says “target” but means “enemy.” So it’s not a consistent wording even among just the battle items.

And just think…it would open up the design team to some cool future hero specials that let you choose to target allies or enemies. Imagine a hero that could give a target +100% attack AND -35% defense. That would create some cool situations where you could target your own Killhare before she goes off for devastating damage. Or you could choose to target an enemy with that special for the defense down so a second hero can kill it. Or against the titan, you can choose to give your own hero an attack boost at the cost of defense down or give the titan defense down if you’re confident you can hold off the attack. How cool would this kind of thing be? I thought that’s what they were going for with Loki…but maybe in the future :grin:

#15

Interesting, I’d never used Valkyrie’s Bane or read what it does. And now that I think about it things like arrows target the opponents. Time to be Wishy Washy?

Maybe wording does need to change for items now that the “target” can be either team. Still, for each item it’s either/or, not both. Target for opponent and Beneficiary for ally?

1 Like
#17

image
image425×640 121 KB

The first time I read “each dodge gives mana to the target”… I had to double back to interpret it.

#18

@Guvnor clearly it isn’t consistent, as by the logic you showed above, Little John’s costume would give mana to which ever of the enemy heroes I have targeted; or if I don’t it would give mana to a random enemy hero rather than the owner of the minion.
It really needs tightening up, because if it’s not clear to long time players it’s not going to be clear to new players either, and if it’s not clear and then they mistakenly interpret this in the wrong way, and it causing them to lose a raid or similar, then they will be very quickly turned off that hero, or the game as a whole.

#19

This is one of the most asinine posts I’ve ever seen, and after watching your video, seems like a REALLY strange hill to take a stand on.

I hope this leads to a very SG like solution, and they make things like the invisibility potion be able to be casted on enemies, just so they can be like “nope our wording was right the whole time”.

#20

I don’t see a problem with any item really. Beneficial items targets you, items with a negative effects targets the enemy. Why would anyone want it to be different?

As for the scroll of Alteration. I really wouldn’t want to alter shields to my target’s color, that would make them unusable on titans. And that item was specifically designed to fight titans.

I’m even ok with little John, just need to check context. My heroes are the ones with dodge. For dodge to trigger they need to be targeted with something. An enemy trying to snipe my hero will in that scenario never be the target. They could have added ‘the dodging hero’ instead of target for higher clarity but frankly it’s shorter and they ran out of space. Making all the text a little bit smaller wouldn’t be better.

#21

LOL … and yet you took the time to watch a video someone took time and thought to make… And then you took the time to read through the posts, and then take the time to try and show an opinion that actually fits the definition of “asinine”.

image

Well done sir… on demonstrating the meaning of “asinine” in the most ironic way possible. I had a good laugh.

:rofl:

1 Like

Cookie Settings