Is a hero with ironskin immune to the pierce, burn, etc. on avatar attacks?

In Sea of Blood, Ironskin specifically does not affect avatar attacks. In the Road to Legend rules, there was no such caveat.

As far as I know, there's no official word as yet whether the miscellaneous changes in SoB are intended to be brought back into RtL or whether the various RtL errata are intended to be brought forward into SoB.

The FAQ says "Regardless of other effects, heroes are never immune to an Avatar's attack. ie. Zyla is never immune to the Beastman Lord's attack." The discussion we had was whether that meant you couldn't be immune to parts of their attack (i.e. pierce) or that you just couldn't be immune to the entire attack (i.e. ghost).

As in the other cases where FFG has issued a "ignore the rules when they break the game" statement, I don't think that there's even a small point in trying to follow that rigorously. That's a "get out of loophole free" card, not an actual mechanical rule.

Maybe you should get some rest or I should. That answer seemed to say a whole lot of nothing in a whole lot of words. Are you saying that you don't know? If so, to paraphrase you: if you don't know the answer, you can just refrain from asking. If you do know, please feel free to say it again a little plainer.

James McMurray said:

Being immune to some effect that is a (minor) part of an attack not the same thing as being immune to an attack. In reverse, just because a hero cannot be immune to an Avatar's attack does not mean that it cannot be immune to a (minor) part of that attack.
The FAQ reference does not give any indication that an avatar can ignore a hero's Ironskin.
I believe what Antistone was trying to say is that the FAQ reference is a 'quick fix' for a major problem ("get out of loophole free card"). As such, like other times they have done the same thing, the wording is not clear or definitive enough (nor likely made much effort or thought over) to realistically try and extrapolate further meaning from.

However, as Antistone earlier referenced, in SoB the Ironskin ability is specifically rewritten so that Avatars do 'ignore' hero's ironskin.
SoB pg40
Ironskin
A figure with Ironskin is immune to the effects of Aura, Bleed, Burn, Pierce, Poison, and Sorcery. In addition, all damage dealt to figures with Ironskin by attacks that affect more than one space (such as Blast, Burn, and Breath) is reduced to zero. This ability does not affect attacks made by an avatar.

Just to clarify...
To the original question;
In SoB yes, otherwise no (although that is a strict RAW reading IMO and is debatable).

Corbon said:

Pretty much. I'm saying that I do not think anyone in the universe , including the person who wrote that ruling, actually knows precisely what it should mean, because they were probably just thinking "solve this problem" instead of a specific mechanic or algorithm that does the solving. Hence, your question of whether it covers Ironskin probably does not even have an answer.

Cool, then please feel free to follow your own advice when it comes to not answering questions you don't know the answer to.

James McMurray said:

...I'm trying to figure out if this is deliberate flamebait or just a colossal failure of communication.

I gave you relevant information that you (apparently) didn't have before I posted, and it is, in my estimation, the best answer to your question that exists. That bears no resemblance to a situation in which I know a definitive answer exists, but I don't happen to know what it is, and so I tell you arbitrary stuff I made up on the spot.

It's obviously a failure in comjmunication, since you apparently have no idea what I'm talking about. Your answer was, basically, "I don't know, and I don't think you'll ever know." When others say they don't know the answer, you tell them to not bother answering. Hence my suggstion that you follow your own advice. It helps avoid the appearance of hypocrisy.

If you have any actual, useful information regarding my question, please feel free to share it. But since you obviously don't, please feel free to practice what you preach.

1) Either I answered you, or I didn't. If I answered you, and managed not to say anything objectively untrue, then clearly I knew the answer. If I didn't answer you, then I can't possibly be violating my advice about not answering. I never told anyone not to offer background, commentary, or other thoughts on a question if they didn't know the answer. Your criticism makes no sense.

2) "No answer exists" and "I don't know the answer" are completely different statements. Your inability to differentiate them is not doing anything to aid communication.

3) I'm reasonably confident that the information I offered would be considered useful in divining the intent of the rule by any reasonable person. If you'd like to suggest a criteria for usefulness I haven't considered, I'll see if I have any information for you matching that criteria.

4) You're coming across as someone who got a perfectly reasonable answer that he doesn't like, and is hoping that insulting the person who gave it to him will somehow make it untrue. If you don't have any interest in anything other than slander, I see no reason to take you seriously.

Antistone, if you'd like to continue to try to explain why an answer which did not include a yes or a no is somehow meaningful to a yes or no question, please feel free to PM me. It's obvious we don't get along, and the rest of the folks here don't need to see us shaking our nutsacks at each other. If, however, you have a real and usable answer, please feel free to offer it. Otherwise, please wander away from this thread so as to avoid further derailment.

Anyone actually know any useful information in regards to the opening question?

To recap: the question is "can a character be immune to parts of an avatar's attacks?"

Thanks.

Better rephrase that question, because the answer is "Yeah: immune to effect tokens. Duh."

Honestly, a hero's immunity to specific aspects of an avatar's attack has never really been in question: it's when the hero can ignore the attack outright that problems start happening. You've got two ways of handling the FAQ ruling: either

A) Ignore any abilities that would cause a hero to be immune to an avatar (i.e. Sea of Blood Style)
or
B) Ignore any hero's immunities that negate attacks. (Specifically immunities, specifically attack-negating immunities: Ghost, AoE damage = 0, etc.)

B favors the heroes, while A has precedent in SoB. Until it's specifically addressed in a faq, you get to choose.

Thundercles said:

Actually SoB only changes Ironskin and Ghost (wrt Avatar attacks). It does not change Unstoppable for example (which is identical to Ox Tattoo).

WRT to Avatar attacks we have the following information (assuming I haven't missed out anything).
1. FAQ states that heroes may not be immune to Avatar attacks.
2. Ghost and Ironskin have been changed in SoB to not affect Avatar attacks.

Firstly, you can be immune to part of an attack without being 'immune to the attack'. The two are different things entirely.
This is already the case with Ironskin, Unstoppable (Ox tattoo), and possibly other examples from well before either the FAQ Avatar ruling or the SoB rules. A figure with Ironskin is 'immune to Pierce' (part of the attack) but is not 'immune to attacks with Pierce'. Similarly, a figure with Unstoppable/Ox Tattoo is 'immune to Knockback', but not 'immune to Knockback attacks'.

Secondly, the mere fact that Ghost and Ironskin were changed in SoB would tend to indicate that there is a difference between being immune to part of an attack and being immune to an attack entirely. If there were no difference then (partial) non-immunity from Avatar attacks from Ghost/Ironskin would be unnecessary as non-immunity from Avatar attacks would already be entirely covered by the FAQ ruling.

So to summarise yes, a character can be immune to parts of an Avatars attack. There is a well established precedent for this.

Frankly, this answer was pretty much in my first post, which was ignored in favour of trying to start a flame-war.

Thanks Corbon. I didn't even see your first post. Clicking the "new" button (which is how I always use these forums) took me right past it. I'll point out SoB's method of incorporating the FAQ ruling and we'll vote on it.

James McMurray said:

Wait, you saw a post in which I quoted Corbon, and felt that you had read and understood it thoroughly enough to be justified in flaming someone who was ostensibly trying to help you, but you didn't even notice that Corbon had posted anything in this thread?

Thanks for removing any remaining doubt I might have had that our disagreement is due entirely to your utter lack of basic reading comprehension.

Antistone said:

Dude, leave it...

Corbon said:

+1