Ironskin give immunity to the effects of (among other things) sorcery. Does this mean that an attacker can not use the sorcery ability to generate the needed range to hit the target or just that the target with ironskin is immune to any damage added via sorcery?

For instance, say you have sorcery 2 and are 5 spaces away from a target with Ironskin. If you roll 3 range can you use the sorcery to add 2 and thus hit or do you come up short?

I would say that the figure is only immune to the damage of sorcery and that it could be used to get range. You attack the space and not the figure so you are really only getting range to the space you are targeting.

I'd say the figure gains the "minus sorcery" ability. I just would prohibit the use of it. I feel it nerfs the ironskin ability too much to let the attacker decide what it is applied to.

Remus West said:

RTL pg 30 Sorcery

After making an attack roll, a figure with Sorcery may add +1 to either its range or damage for each rank of Sorcery it has.

pg 29 Ironskin

A figure with Ironskin is immune to the effects of Aura, Bleed, Burn, Pierce, Poison, and Sorcery.

Range is not an affect applied to the target. Damage is an affect applied to the target. The figure with Ironskin is immune to Sorcery damage and immune to Sorcery range - however, Sorcery Range is not applied to it anyway, so its immunity is irrelevant.

Sorcerous range is applied to the Range of the attack, not to the target.

A character with Sorcery can use Sorcery to increase the range of its attack and this will not be affected by the targets Ironskin.

Yeah, no. Sorcery # is a discrete ability, not separated into Sorcery (Range) A and Sorcery (Damage ) (# - A) . Ironskin reduces an attack's Sorcery to 0, end of story.

I agree since the floor does not have the ironskin abbility.

Thundercles said:

Ironskin does not affect Sorcery - it most emphatically does not reduce sorcery down to 0. It affects the figure with Ironskin which becomes immune to the effects of Sorcery. Effects of Sorcery which do not affect the Ironskinned figure, are therefore not reduced/cancelled by Ironskin. Note that a figure with ironskin is not immune to sorcery, it is immune to the effects of sorcery.

Range of an attack is not an effect on the target (it is an affect on the attack), therefore it is not negated by something which ignores affects on the target.

Also, a figure with multiple ranks of sorcery may explicitly split its Sorcery between Range and Damage, so it effectively is split into Sorcery (Range) A and Sorcery (Damage) (# - A) - as desired by the wielding figure.

PS Apologies in any affects/effects are mixed up.

The Ironskin ignores the effects of Sorcery in all its forms. Sorcery # doesn't change the fact that it is tweaking the attack rolled, and just because you're adding range to an effect doesn't mean that it doesn't matter for the purposes of determining the outcome. The character with the option to burn a fatigue to apply excess range as damage would be performing an almost blatent loophole if it was otherwise.

For attacks the hit multiple units just count the range seperately for units ignoring sorcery, but it quite clearly ignore ALL the effects of the ability not just some of it.

This is the problem we have been discussing. Both sides of this seem to have a valid argument. Part of the issue is whether an attack targets a figure or the space.

Remus West said:

Attacks target spaces, not figures. Whatever figure(s) happen to be in that space take the damage. The rule that you target spaces is why you can technically hit two different monsters with the same melee Guard attack if you time it right. (No, not a house rule its something I remember from the old forum).

Thundercles said:

I am going with this one too. You have to look at sorcery as an ability, and since the monster is immun to the ability you can't be subject to it. However if you use blast, I might consider that the golem isn't the target and therefor just isn't subject to the attack, and can be damaged.

Well said.

However, there are many scenarios where if we treat sorcery in all its components, instead of as if it were a single ability, we'll see plenty of metagame loopholes.

For me, it's either you have the ability, or you don't. Sorcery grants the user +1 to a desired attribute. To say otherwise would mean Ironskin only decreases damage and has no other benefits against a sorcerous character.

If that were the case, why not just say: "a figure with the ironskin ability gains +1 armour against attacks using sorcery"?

I feel like there's no relevance in mentioning sorcery unless we're speaking about the ability, not its components.

Neostrider said:

Wrong.
Read the text. Ironskin makes the 'owning' figure immune to the effects of sorcery. Range is not an affect that is applied to the target figure, so the figures immunity does not cancel the range effect of Sorcery.

Arguments to the contrary that simply restate a position already textually demonstrated to be wrong (Ironskin specifically does not ignore the effects of sorcery in all its forms - it doesn't do any thing to sorcery, it makes the owning figure immune to the effects of sorcery - completely different) without any references or actual constructed arguments aren't helping the case.

Sorry if I sound blunt. Its late and its been a long trip home.

Corbon said:

And if you could clearify what you are supporting, then you would be most helpful.

Maruk the Nomad said:

Just a wild guess, but maybe he's arguing in favor of the position expressed in his previous post in this thread, and against the post that he quoted just before saying "Wrong."

I know, it's subtle.

Oh, and there was also the part where he explicitly stated his thesis. "Range is not an affect that is applied to the target figure, so the figures immunity does not cancel the range effect of Sorcery." So that was a clue, too.

From WoD rulebook:

"Ironskin
A figure with Ironskin is immune to Aura, Bleed,
Burn, Pierce, Poison, and Sorcery. In addition, all
damage dealt to the figure by Blast, Bolt, or Breath
attacks is reduced to 0."

Notice this does not say immune to "the effects of" sorcery, but merely sorcery. If you want to get all "how does this apply in the reality of a game based in anything but," one could look at it like this:

The ironskin of the golem allows him to be impervious to all types of magical (sorcery) powers, though not necessarily to the fire created by immolation. If someone uses immolation to attack said golem and does not have range with it, he uses his sorcerous powers (from the wild talent skill) to get that one extra range. However, the magic attack of fire is now carried by an extra bit of sorcerous power and when it reaches the golem it merely bounces off harmlessly as the magic is now carried by/lengthened by sorcery.

If it says he's immune to sorcery I think it's just that immune. If sorcery is doing damage or getting the attack to him, he's immune to that. Now, say a golem is moving through the space being occupied by say...a beastman and you need that range: the beastman takes it full in the chest while the ironskinned golem is unscathed...that my $.02.

Immune to me means immune. No sorcery can be used to aid in the successful attack of something with ironskin. If all damage done by sorcery were merely reduced to 0, I think it would have been included in the second half of the explanation of the ability.

Feanor said:

This actually makes sense to me. I started on the other side of this arguement but this may persuade me to swtich.

The description of the Ironskin ability in the Road to Legend rulebook says "immune to the effects of". The description in the WoD, AoD, and ToI books just says "immune to". It's possible that this was another completely arbitrary (but intentional) change just because RtL has to be confusing and different, but this is sufficiently subtle that I really doubt it.

Thematic-logic reasoning doesn't help because thematic descriptions can easily be formulated for either side.

The bottom line is, this rule is ambiguous. The steps involved in resolving an attack are not sufficiently detailed to determine exactly what "immune to Sorcery" would mean. It could mean that it merely ignores damage from sorcery; it could mean that the figure is immune to an attack where you have to spend sorcery on the range; it could mean that the entire attack fails if it has insufficient range before sorcery; or it could mean that the figure becomes immune to the attack if you spend sorcery on range even if you had sufficient range before spending the sorcery. All four of those options are theoretically different, but it rarely makes a difference, and it would not surprise me in the least if the people writing the rules never even thought about it.

I suggest this be added to the list of unanswered questions.

EDIT: bummer, got beat on the RtL difference.

It wouldn't be the ifrst instance of an ability acting different between vanilla and RtL. Look at Undying. Its quite possible it was intentional.

I think a creature or hero with ironskin will just say: "Nice for you that you have sorcery, but I don't care.. Can't touch this"

I think sorcery is negated totally, just like fear takes up 1 surge before counting range + damage, ironskin removes the sorcery part of the attack. But I must admit that the rules leave some opening for both interpretations..

*cough*

What is the effect of Sorcery? "After making an attack roll, a figure with Sorcery may add +1 to either its range or damage for each rank of Sorcery it has."

What does it mean when you are immune to the effects of Sorcery? Well, look back at that quote: you ignore everything that quote grants. End of story.

I'd say this has a definite answer, whether you're ignoring Sorcery or the "effects" of Sorcery.

Antistone said:

I agree, its definitely ambiguous and definitely FAQable.

My apologies to those arguing total immunity, I hadn't realised there was another rule description. My thanks to Feanor for actually posting the other rules text rather than just another baseless (meaning showing no base, rather than having no base) argument.

I maintain the position that immunity to an effect that doesn't target you (ie range of an attack) is the same as no immunity at all (to that particular effect).

So how will I know if this gets addressed in the FAQ?

Remus West said:

By downloading and reading the new FAQ when it is posted. It may not get covered.

As for knowing when the FAQ gets posted, that is pretty much just a case of regular checking. I'd imagine it will go on he news section of the main FFG site when it happens.

Corbon said:

Well, that's a good first step; you agree that the ranged bit is an effect of Sorcery. Now, say I target a Golem with Laurel of Bloodwood and one of the Sorcery-having treasures (Sourcerous Orb or Scythe of Reaping or the like). Furthermore, say she rolls enough range on the non-power dice to hit the Golem. Assuming Ironskin = damage-only immunity to Sorcery, any damage granted by Sorcery would be negated and any range granted by Sorcery would normally be superfluous (on anyone else). Since this is Laurel, she can circumvent "immunity to Sorcery" by turning all Sorcery to range and then all range to damage. So, would you still agree that the range effect from Sorcery doesn't target the Golem in this case?

Descent rules aren't usually so complicated that specific ability interactions change based on what characters form part of the interaction. In fact, they're not usually so complicated that immunity to a given ability X only negates parts of X's effects. I'm not convinced that the definition of immunity in this game is so nuanced that we can play with it in this case, or that it even merits asking.