Talk:Vayne/@comment-24500725-20171029140625/@comment-28977071-20171102153130

Indeed, treating multi-target as a synonym for chain sounds tempting even if it is in contradiction with common language:


 * Multi-target should by common sense be anything that affects multiple targets. However, affecting those targets symultaneously cannot be explained as a chain (their is no chain sequence), albeit describable as  in general.


 * should be by common sense anything that affects an area (a domain of non-zero size in square units). However, it does not.

Searching "multitarget" up truly yields only a single result, but looking for "multi-target" brings many more. However, in the summary table at the end of article, under 'Effect types', there are 'Area of Effect' and 'Multi-hit', both pointing to the very same article. Hence I guess that at some point the two terms were merged and my knowledge about distinguishing between them is outdated. As 'multi-hit' has nothing to do with area, it only makes me more convinced that the entire usage of 'area' in the definition is redundant.

Imo is now defined as anything that can affect multiple targets per single activation. No need for area I believe..