May 23, 2019, 06:51:39 PM

Author Topic: About Immunity  (Read 24055 times)

Borg

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
About Immunity
« on: October 17, 2015, 04:56:07 PM »
The codex has this on Extinguish

Quote
A hydro attack (or attack spell) which has the Extinguish trait, may target an object with the Hydro Immunity trait. If it does, the attack deals no damage or effects to the object, other than to remove all Burn conditions. This is an exception to the normal immunity rules. In this manner, a Hydro attack can be used to extinguish the fires of a burning plant object, even though the attack cannot actually damage or harm that plant.
End Quote

Instead of making "an exception to the normal immunity rules" why not simply allow spells to target objects that are immune to that spell ?

For example, why is it not allowed to target a Flaming Hellion who has Flame Immunity with a Fireball ? What would be the problem with that ?

If you define "Flame Immunity" something like :
"A Fire Attack deals no damage to this object", the object would still remain unaffected by Fire attacks but it would no longer be an illegal play and you would never end up in a situation where players have to start backtracking because of it.

( note that I'd prefer the Flaming Hellion to also have the Burnproof Trait so that Flame Immunity ( which then only affects Fire Damage ) does not overlap with Burnproof ( which affects Burn markers )

Following that same logic it would then be legal to target a Hydro Immune object with a Hydro spell, only it wouldn't take any damage from it but any other effects like Extinguish might still apply.

Just seems a cleaner rule to me.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 04:58:45 PM by Borg »
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

Kaarin

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2015, 05:17:53 PM »
Immunity isn't just about attack. It also prevents You from being target of other spells (like incantations). You can't cast Poisoned Blood on Necro, for example. Same goes for conditions. You can't put weak on Necro. That's the reason why Flaming Hellion can't burn. If burn wasn't condition of flame type then it would bypass flame immunity.
  • Favourite Mage: Bloodwave Warlord
OCTGN: Wstrzasniety (UTC+2)

Borg

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2015, 06:09:21 PM »
Immunity isn't just about attack. It also prevents You from being target of other spells (like incantations). You can't cast Poisoned Blood on Necro, for example. Same goes for conditions. You can't put weak on Necro. That's the reason why Flaming Hellion can't burn. If burn wasn't condition of flame type then it would bypass flame immunity.

OK, I understand that.
Let me make my Flame Immunity definition somewhat more complete.

"Fire Attacks deal no damage to this object, Fire Incantations have no effect, Fire Enchantments attached to this object are destroyed without effect when they are revealed, Conjurations attached to this object are destroyed without effect and Fire Equipment attached to this object is destroyed"

All in all the result would be that the Flame immunity object can be targeted by a Flame Attack/spell but Flame effects would be negated and non-flame effects could have their effect ( like Extinguish )

« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 06:10:57 PM by Borg »
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

Kaarin

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2015, 07:51:25 PM »
Your definition seems too specific to me. IMO it's better to have simple rule for broader concept (immunity) and have exceptions in special rule (attack trait) than to have specific rule for broader concept to avoid exceptions now. When newer concepts will appear they may still require exceptions or having the rule reworded again (extinguish-like incantation for example).

It may not be your intention, but You're bringing up interesting problem. With current rules You can't intercept an attack that You're immune to because You can't be targeted by it (same reason Togorah can't intercept Akiro's Hammer's attack on Mana Flower).
  • Favourite Mage: Bloodwave Warlord
OCTGN: Wstrzasniety (UTC+2)

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2496
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2015, 11:30:24 PM »
The problem is we want immunity to prevent the object from being affected by such spells, regardless of if they can be targeted, so any such spells, effects, or conditions that are meant to affect them will need an exception written. We don't just want attacks to deal no damage, we want them to have no effect at all. No burns,  corrodes, pushes, slams, weaks, etc. There's no way to write a rule that prevents these things but doesn't prevent other effects without specific exceptions written.

So, if we need to write exceptions anyways for them to have an effect, I don't think we need to change the rules to allow them to be targeted without an exception.

exid

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 862
  • Banana Stickers 4
  • The longer the better!
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2015, 12:30:46 AM »
It may not be your intention, but You're bringing up interesting problem. With current rules You can't intercept an attack that You're immune to because You can't be targeted by it (same reason Togorah can't intercept Akiro's Hammer's attack on Mana Flower).

that's right!
... and not good... (why would a fireimune-interceptor be unable to intercept a fireball?)
but i think there's no imune interceptor yet.

Borg

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2015, 04:23:42 AM »
Your definition seems too specific to me. IMO it's better to have simple rule for broader concept (immunity) and have exceptions in special rule (attack trait) than to have specific rule for broader concept to avoid exceptions now.
The problem is we want immunity to prevent the object from being affected by such spells, regardless of if they can be targeted, so any such spells, effects, or conditions that are meant to affect them will need an exception written. We don't just want attacks to deal no damage, we want them to have no effect at all. No burns,  corrodes, pushes, slams, weaks, etc. There's no way to write a rule that prevents these things but doesn't prevent other effects without specific exceptions written.

So, if we need to write exceptions anyways for them to have an effect, I don't think we need to change the rules to allow them to be targeted without an exception.

OK, good points, let's take it from there and see if we can come up with an Immunity definition that is simple enough to easily remember and which allows you to target an immune object.

So:

- You may target a "type" immune object with spells and attacks of that "type"

but :

- Attacks MAY be avoided ( during step two of the attack sequence, where "immunity" also beats "unavoidable" ) meaning no combat dice and condition dice are rolled ( = mission accomplished ) but additional non-dice rolling effects - written at the end of the attack bar - may still apply if possible 
ex. Extinguish, Defrost still have an effect
ex. +2 vs non-living or pierce+1 obviously have no effect anymore

- Spells MAY be countered during the counter spell step or upon being revealed.

By giving players the choice to either avoid attacks or not  and counter spells or not ( to which the object is immune of course ) you still get the same results as with the current official ruling but now you have the added ability to let the attack or spell pass if it is beneficial to you.

This way it would be possible to play a face down Poison Blood on a Necromancer - to check for a Nullify for instance - but it could be countered and destroyed upon revealing it. If not countered at that moment the spell would resolve and take effect.

It would also be possible to play a beneficial spell like Circle of Fire on your Flaming Hellion, decide to NOT counter it and let it work normally ( Thanks Jacksmack for the hint : see Jacksmack's post below ) which simply makes sense.

Other interesting note to point out :
Since an attack spell is a spell and also an attack you would have the possibility to counter that spell during the "counter spell step" of the Spell sequence but it would also be possible to let the spell resolve and then "avoid" the attack but benefit from any "non dice rolling effects".

ex. Your Vine Snapper has 3 Burn counters on him which you want to remove.
You Target the Snapper with Surging Wave
Since the Snapper is Immune to Hydro Spells you have the option of Countering your own spell during the "counter spell" step, which you obviously don't do.
The spell resolves and now the Snapper is attacked with a Hydro attack and since he's immune to those you now decide to "avoid" that attack during the "avoid" step of the battle sequence.
No dice and no condition dice is rolled but Extinguish still takes effect and the Burn counters are removed while your Snapper takes no damage at all.

Logical, short, not difficult to remember, mission accomplished so far imo.
What we're doing here is basically taking a situation where the game tells you that you can't do something while leaving the player no choice at all and turning it into a situation where the game tells you that you can do something and gives the players choices to make with that.
I think we will all agree that the latter situation is what gamers prefer most.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 10:19:01 AM by Borg »
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2015, 06:30:12 AM »
Flaming Hellion cannot be enchanted with Circle of Fire... But a vinesnapper can :)


Kaarin

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2015, 10:25:53 AM »
I like the idea of being able to play Plagued on Necro or Circle of Fire on demon with flame immunity. Currently I can't do that. Also casting any spell (inc or ench) to probe for nullify sounds reasonable.
Your definition still allows for attack to damage creature or put conditions on it (untyped attacks or special abilities). Attack with Extinguish doesn't just roll 0 dice and remove burns, it reduces number of dice by number of burns on target to minimum of 1.
If we allow to cast typed spells on targets with immunity to that type we also allow for special abilities to work for them (Adramelech Warlock giving fire+1 to Necro with Poisoned Blood on him).

It's just that we need to hire rules lawyer to have better definition. ;)

It may not be your intention, but You're bringing up interesting problem. With current rules You can't intercept an attack that You're immune to because You can't be targeted by it (same reason Togorah can't intercept Akiro's Hammer's attack on Mana Flower).

that's right!
... and not good... (why would a fireimune-interceptor be unable to intercept a fireball?)
but i think there's no imune interceptor yet.
Togorah, Forest Sentinel, besides it doesn't need to be interceptor. Adramelech, Lord of Fire can't guard from Flaming Hellion's melee attack. You can't protect from an attack You can't be target of.
  • Favourite Mage: Bloodwave Warlord
OCTGN: Wstrzasniety (UTC+2)

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2015, 11:12:55 AM »
OK.

How about this:

Everything is cluttered in 1 zone. The warlock wants to use his Lord of Fire to make a sweeping attack.

The enemy Single guarding creature -  the Flaming Hellion

What can the Lord of Fire do? Nothing at all?!?!?! Cant even sweeping attack?

Something is very wrong with immunity!

Halewijn

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1787
  • Banana Stickers 6
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2015, 11:16:10 AM »
I really don't get the raging..  ???

If something like this happens you just use common sense. You attack the flaming hellion, dealing 0 damage and afterwards the rest. I know it's not "by the rules" but it's pretty clear this was what they intended.
  • Favourite Mage: Bloodwave Warlord
When in doubt kill it with fire? I never doubt and crush them right away.

Kaarin

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2015, 11:22:51 AM »
OK.

How about this:

Everything is cluttered in 1 zone. The warlock wants to use his Lord of Fire to make a sweeping attack.

The enemy Single guarding creature -  the Flaming Hellion

What can the Lord of Fire do? Nothing at all?!?!?! Cant even sweeping attack?

Something is very wrong with immunity!
He can attack any other creature than Flaming Hellion. This is something I mentioned earlier: You can't guard from an attack that You're immune to.
  • Favourite Mage: Bloodwave Warlord
OCTGN: Wstrzasniety (UTC+2)

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2015, 02:14:16 PM »
I really don't get the raging..  ???

If something like this happens you just use common sense. You attack the flaming hellion, dealing 0 damage and afterwards the rest. I know it's not "by the rules" but it's pretty clear this was what they intended.

And if your opponent disagrees because of RaW?


He can attack any other creature than Flaming Hellion. This is something I mentioned earlier: You can't guard from an attack that You're immune to.

Where do you have this from? (we are not talking intercept here because its very different.)

If there is a guard you may not target another non-flying object in that zone that does not have a guard marker.
The exceptions to this is if the guard has pest or is restrained or if the attacker has elusive.
There are no exceptions (that im aware of) that allows you to target another creature just because the guard is immune to your attack.
Even if your right, then its just more riddicilous that a Flaming Hellion cannot protect its zone while another creautre that is vulnerable to a fire attack can protect it from LoF.



Kaarin

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #13 on: October 18, 2015, 02:37:47 PM »
When declaring an attack You have to choose a legal target. Immunity says that You can't target that object with an attack of that type. So You can't target a guard that's immune to your attack.
Quote
Then, announce what target you are attacking. You must choose a legal target for your attack
Quote
Immunity
This object is immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage. It cannot be targeted or affected by spells or attacks of the specified type.
But then there's this:
Quote
Protect the Zone: If there is an enemy guard (a creature with a guard marker) in a zone, then you cannot melee attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards. This condition is checked when the attack is declared
If I understand it right then You can't use melee attack at all if there's guard immune to all of your melee attacks.
Quotes are from latest uploaded rulebook. I haven't found nothing in rules supplement that would expand on this.
  • Favourite Mage: Bloodwave Warlord
OCTGN: Wstrzasniety (UTC+2)

Borg

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: About Immunity
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2015, 04:48:05 PM »
It makes absolutely no sense to me that a Lord of Fire cannot attack a guarding Flaming Hellion.
How does a creature's Flame Immunity actually stop the other creature from attacking him with a fire attack ?
Flame immunity should reduce the damage of attacks or effect of spells but not prevent you from targeting an object.

Also, putting a Flaming Hellion on Guard against a LoF is what I would call a great play defensively because you force a big threat to deal with your Hellion first if he wants to attack and the Hellion wouldn't get a scratch from it.
Why is that not possible ?

And like Jacksmack already noted, it doesn't make any sense that you can't put a Circle of Fire on a Hellion ( who is a fire creature per definition ) but you can put one on a creature who's vulnerable to fire. You simply should be able to put it on EVERY corporeal creature just like its target line says.

Bottomline : immunity doesn't work logically because it is tied to something that has nothing to do with it : targetability, instead of what it is really about : being resistant to some type of damage and spells.
That's why I make those suggestions in reply nr6.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 05:00:24 PM by Borg »
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster