OK, Thundercles, since you're so convinced that Corbon is wrong, perhaps you could clarify exactly which position you think is right. There have been a lot of posts in this thread, so forgive me if I'm asking you to re-state something you've already said, but I think all your claims so far are consistent with all of the following positions, so I'd like you to tell me which one you actually believe is true:

Example Attack:

Laurel of Bloodwood uses a Guard order to shoot a Scythe of Reaping (WoD silver treasure, blue-green-green, Sorcery 2) at a space containing both a Golem and a Beastman (one of them was moving through the other). She is 5 spaces away from the targeted space and rolls 4 range on her dice. Suppose Laurel wishes to spend both ranks of Sorcery on range and use her hero ability to convert excess range into damage, if possible (not optimal, but saves me the trouble of formulating multiple examples).

Option #1:

Because one figure in the space targeted by the attack is immune to Sorcery, Laurel cannot use the Sorcery ability on her attack. With only 4 range rolled and 5 required, the attack misses, and neither the Golem nor the Beastman is affected in any way.

Option #2:

The Golem is immune to Sorcery but the Beastman is not. The attack is treated as having 6 range against the Beastman but only 4 range against the Golem, and therefore the attack hits the Beastman but misses due to range against the Golem. The attack is considered to both hit and miss.

Option #3:

The Golem is immune to Sorcery, but determination of whether the attack is a miss or not is made for the attack as a whole, not per-target. The attack has 6 range and therefore hits, but the attack affects the Golem as if it had only rolled 4 range; therefore, the excess range (converted into damage) is considered to be 1 against the beastman but 0 against the Golem. The Golem is affected by the attack, but suffers no extra damage from Laurel's hero ability.

Option #4:

Same as option #3, except the "excess range" against the Golem is actually negative 1, so the use of Laurel's hero ability actually causes the attack to inflict less damage on the Golem.

I'd say that option 3 is the situation I was trying to describe earlier. I would read it as "For the purposes of determining the effects of the attack, the creature with immunity to sorcery treats the whole attack as if it didn't have sorcery and any other figures affected by the attack treats the attack as if it did have sorcery" In my example of a blast effect, for the purposes of hitting the golem, the character wouldn't have range to hit the square the blast was targeting, and thus didn't hit the golem. Other characters hit by the blast would be effected by it normally."

I will admit that my scenario is a rare instance where characters are effected by an attack seperately instead of as a whole (as blast attacks with dodge are treated) but dealing the attack to the golem and then to the other's is much more work, just adding the numbers up again without sorcery.

My leaning would be #3 as well. And part of it is based on my view of the "physics" of the two effects.

Sorcery allows you to do one of two things (or a combination there-of). It can cause a ranged attack to travel further than it otherwise might. E.g. "Make this arrow travel faster, fly straighter, encounter less resistance, leap through space, etc.". And it can make the received attack do more damage. E.g. "Be super-pointy, penetrate armor it encounters, burn with painful heat, explode on impact, send a charge of magical energy on impact, etc."

Stone-skin on the other hand sounds very much like a damage-preventative effect. It does NOT sound like a general anti-magic field effect. Because of that, I don't see any reason it should have an effect on range. (However, if sorcerous range is converted into damage, it would still be sorcerous damage, so you can't get around stone-skin resistance with Laurel's ability).

Neostrider said:

If you think the Golem wouldn't be affected by the attack at all, that's option #2, not option #3. Under option #3, the Golem is hit by the attack and takes any damage rolled, it just doesn't take extra damage from Laurel's hero ability (because there was no "excess range").

I assume there is an option #5 for those who don't agree that a hero with immunity to the effects of sorcery (ie RtL) can affect the range of an attack that could hit them?

#5 As Ironskin does not affect the range of an attack (it affects the figure with ironskin) it does not affect sorcery used as range*. Once Laurel converts the range to damage it is no longer a 'sorcery effect' (having been converted, it is now a 'Laurel effect') and is not affected by ironskin. The attack hits all parties in the target square equally.

FWIW I think there is a reasonably consistent precedent in all Descent that anything that affects an attack affects the entire attack. Examples would be dodging, Stealth or Fear by one character among several in a multiple attack. Less clear, but the same if you parse it carefully, is Andira Runehand's special. Nara the Fang's special is carefully worded differently so that this does not apply**. Bogran's ability of course, is an anomaly - since spaces (the target) don't see (or perhaps they do... oooh, interesting tanget...), but spaces aside, his would also follow this precedent. The attack is one attack until Step 6 Inflict Wounds, where it mechanically transfers from the one attack by the attacker into multiple results defined by defender.

Therefore, if Word should be given from On High, that the Holy Writ was mistranslated and Ironskin shalt trump the ability of another character to use Sorcery, then #1 would have to apply.

*the range of an attack is not an affect on a figure. It could possibly be argued to be an effect on a space, but the space does not have immunity, the figure does

**Her attack does not get a boost, the figures damaged by it may suffer extra damage - a subtle but important difference.

I have to agree with Thundercles and Feanor on this one, this is NOT ambiguous at all.

Reading into the intricasies of what "the effects of sorcery" are and how those interact w the space being attacked, the figure being attacked, and the attack in general is just silly rules overinterpretation, looking for a sneak move and claiming it's justified by some new math and technicalities.

Immune to the effects of sorcery is very simple. The effects of sorcery are that a player may add +1 to the range or the damage. The target is immune to that effect. Immune to that effect means he's not affected by it. How anyone could argue that he should only be immune to the effects if the hero chooses one effect, but if the hero chooses the other effect, he's not affected, is just silly.

If you need to use the bonuses from sorcery - either to add damage, or to add range, then the target is immune!

Otherwise:

Say you roll 3 black dice, and get two power enhancements. If the target is ONLY immune to the damage, then the hero would use the "sorcery" to get the range, and the power dice for damage. In other words, the target wasnt immune at all! Instead since he is immune, the hero must use the power dice as range just to hit the target, but then he does no damage.

If you allow the range to still take effect, then you completely negate immunity to sorcery altogether in cases where some power dice are rolled that can be applied per the hero's choice.

Come on this is VERY cut and dried. Immune to the effects of sorcery means you're immune to all the effects. It doesnt matter that one "effect" amounts to range to reach you, or the other "effect" amounts to damage to hurt you.

poobaloo said:

I don't think that it is ambiguous either. (What is ambiguous is that there are two different wordings on how Ironskin works). However the fact that there are two clear and different opinions on the meaning shows it to be ambiguous whether either of us thinks so or not.

Perhaps an analogy might help understanding.

X is immune to magic. Y magically lifts a large rock above X's head. Y stops the magic. The non-magic rock, acted on only by gravity, now drops towards the unsuspecting X.

Position 1. The rock bounces off X due to his magic immunity

Position 2. The rock crushes X because there is no magic involved at the time the immunity kicks in, so there is nothing to be 'immune to'.

Position 1 basically says the rock was lifted magically so the magic taints the rock and thus it is still a magical rock. This is an unworkable position unless you put some restraints upon it though. At some time in some place, those molecules of air X is breathing might* have been involved in a spell. So is X now dying of asphyxiation since the air was once magic and he is thus immune to it? An example of a more tenable position could be if you reduce it to say the rock's potential energy was added to magically and the taint is attached to this magically-added potential energy. So if the rock misses X it has thereafter lost that magically-added potential energy and if X stubbs his toe on the fallen rock he says ouch! However what if Y used a rope and pulley to lift the rock, magic to hold it in place (rope and pulley removed), then released the magic when X walked underneath? I have difficulty constructing a reasonable position 1 - but then I'm biased, this is one of the reasons why I take position 2!

Position 2 says there is no magic currently acting on the rock and the rock is not itself magical, therefore an immunity to magic has no affect on the rock. Squish.

I currently take position 2. An attack has two components, range and damage. Attacks targets a space, damage affects figures within that space (or spaces), if the space is successfully targeted. Range is used only for targeting and therefore is not an affect on a figure in that space. Immunity to something that does not affect you has no effect.

*Almost certainly have. According to the Caeser's Breathe theory at least.

Antistone said:

You're right, I put the wrong number down. I rewrote that response a couple of times and I guess I changed the number.

I disagree with the last post by point by pointing out this: The sorceror king is immune to spending surges. That ability HINGES on the fact that as soon as the sorceror king is declared a target his ability kicks in, before deciding range to him.

So there are more that just sorcery. Attacking a square would be a very lame tactic to avoid a lot of very important game elements. Sure it works for blast but saying that you're attacking a golem's square doesn't ignore the fact that he's the target and is immune to the effects of attacks.

I guess the next, big question to answer the current question would be when do special effects activate? Is the golem not immune until range has been decided, or does it activate once the attack on the square is declared? Am I spending sorcery before or after the dice are rolled?

I would argue that once the target is declared, the abilities of the target are immediately applied and thus sorcery would be ignored before dice are even rolled. For effects that hit multiple targets I'd say the attacks are TECHNICALLY resolved seperately, but keeping dice rolls, surge expenditure, and ability decisions the same so REALISTICALLY they are identical except for special abilities.

To clarify, I would say that option 1 is the answer most consistent with the rules. I don't know how someone could possibly hear "immune to the effects of Sorcery" and think "ah, but the range effect does not affect him to begin with, so he's not immune to it". I get the whole analogy of the magically tossed rock: it's like saying "immune to the effects of gunpowder, but not bullets". However, it leads to ridiculous situations like the one I described, where you have to make special-case rulings about what "immune to Sorcery" means, instead of using 1 simple metric: immune means all effects are negated. In the previous magic rock chucking example, the momentum on the rock is an effect of the magic, so anyone immune to the effect of the magic would negate that momentum. I'm pretty sure euclidian physics don't apply when dealing with magic immunities.

Thundercles said:

I agree with you that if not option 5 it has to be option 1.

He's still immune to the range effect, its just that his immunity makes no difference as the range effect is not applied to him.

In the rock case, the rock's momentum was not magically caused (not even indirectly if the rock was non-magically moved into position then held with magic). Arguably though, Sorcery increasing range is more analagous to giving the rock magical momentum, so your case then would be that the rock's momentum is stopped when it hits X, then restarts naturally - crushing him.

The intended point of the analogy was to show the difference between when an immunity helps and when it does not. The immunity is still there, it just doesn't help because what the immunity cancels is no longer in operation.

Its like saying I have a natural immunity to the movement of a cricket ball (baseball for americans) through the air. I do - movement of cricket balls through the air never has and never will hurt me. Its not the ball moving through the air that hurts me, its the ball making contact with my body!

If Ironskin operated on the 'attacker', then I agree, all affects would be negated. But it doesn't, it operates on the 'defender'. Therefore only effects which act on the defender are negated.

The Sorcerer King is an interesting possibility although without checking the card I suspect that it does not use the term immunity but rather says something along the lines of "heros may not spend surges when attacking the Sorcerer King".

Corbon said:

Probably a #6, #7, and #8, as well, but I was listing the options I saw that were all consistent with everything Thundercles had said, pointing out that he hadn't actually precisely defined what position he was arguing for.

Corbon said:

Incorrect. Stealth only benefits the unit that has it, regardless of the number of units without Stealth affected by the same attack.

"When a single attack roll would affect multiple figures (for example, an attack using Blast, Breath, or Sweep), and any of those figures have Stealth, a single stealth die is included in the attack roll, but the stealth die’s result is used only for the figures that currently have Stealth ." (ToI rules page 7, emphasis added)

Additionally, other effects of Ironskin seem to pretty clearly only affect the unit that has it. Ironskin makes Golems take zero damage from Blast attacks, for example, but I don't think anyone would argue that this means that the attack deals zero damage to all units in the affected area.

Thundercles said:

So it is your opinion that the fact that the Golem is immune to Sorcery should also mean that any other figures affected by the same attack also become immune to Sorcery, even if they would be completely vulnerable when targeted individually?

In that case, do you apply the same guidelines to other effects of Ironskin--for example, immunity to Pierce, and taking no damage from Blast attacks? If not, why do you say that Sorcery works one way and Pierce works another way?

Thundercles said:

That's obviously a misrepresentation of the contrary position. It would be better to say "range does not affect him to begin with, so it does not matter whether he's immune to it; the immunity has no effect."

And if you don't understand how anyone could possibly think that, then in addition to being extremely unimaginative, you have been paying no attention to the discussion in this thread.

Thundercles said:

Oh, so now you're in favor of the attack missing not because it is obviously and unambiguously following the letter of the rules, but just because it is simpler? That would seem to be quite a change from your previous position.

Look, going over this thread, I count 4 people on Corbon's side (including him), 3 on your side (including you), 5 people who disagree with both of you, and 2 additional people who haven't taken a side and say that the rule is ambiguous (including me). And several people seem to be confused about some of the possible options, or haven't stated clearly with one they favor. Even if you could definitively prove that only one option could possibly be consistent with a literal reading of the rules, I think there's enough confusion and uncertainty actually occurring to warrant FAQing this, don't you?

Antistone said:

Oops, yes on the Stealth thing, my bad. OTOH, that partially supports my point. Stealth has a specific exception.

The other effects of ironskin are all applied only to the Ironskinned figure by their very definition - they are all things that are applied after the attack has already changed from being one attack into being multiple receptions-of-attack (ignoring Aura since that is a movement effect rather than attack effect). The restriction on blast/breath/sweep attacks is the same - those attacks are not affected (ie they still hit everybody), but the Ironskinned figure is the one that has an effect operating upon it (it suffers no damage). Those things don't apply to the attack, just to how that attack is applied to that particular target - much like the wording on Nara.

It is the basis of my assertions that since Ironskin is applied to the 'defender' therefore all the immunities it gives, including sorcery, only make a difference ('kick in' if you like - they are still there at other times but not having an effect) when the attack is applied to the defender.

The specific Stealth dice exception aside though, things that apply to the attack apply to the entire attack is the default rule (eg dodge/aim/special rerolls, Fear, Elevation, Black Curse, Command/Blessing). Things that apply to the defender apply only to that defender and don't change the actual attack (eg immunities, shields, armour, shadowcloak).

I agree that it needs FAQing. Even a hamfisted zero-thought answer would be adequate as I don't think this is very major or far reaching. Interesting to discuss though...

Ai. I often wonder why I care so much about these kinds of things...and, yes, I am particularly unimaginative. I've tried reading what others said, all I can see is

Step 1: Sorcery can be turned into range
Step 2: Range doesn't "cause damage" and therefore doesn't affect target figures
(here's where I get lost)
Step 3: Immunity to effects does not work on effects that don't operate on a figure directly

I can't see it. Who cares what extra range does or does not do? Immunity can mean "ignores". "Effects of" means things caused by something. Ironskin ignores things caused by Sorcery....so....yeah. I guess I'm so far up my own ass I can't see anything but my own point of view.

And Antistone, you're right, there's been no indication that Ironskin functions like Dodge. I assumed that two figures in the same space should receive the same effects when that's obviously not true in the case of Stealth, so that was my mistake. However, I never argued for a more complicated solution, so that line about taking it the simplest way was not supposed to be a discarding of my arguments. I don't think saying that it's simpler to just straight up ignore Sorcery when attacking figures with Ironskin is somehow mutually exclusive to my previous points (except for whatever madness I seem to have communicated with my attempt to disprove Corbon's position by extrapolating it to hypothetical situations. I may need to review how I try to communicate those). I'm kind of confused what part of that quote made you think I was unknowingly ditching the rest of my argument for a rather weak and subjective position, but hey, maybe we just don't communicate the same way.

As for the FAQ questions, how about this:

A) Can Sorcery be used to augment the range of an attack targeting spaces containing only figures with the Ironskin ability?
B) If an attack affects multiple figures and one of them has Ironskin, can Sorcery be used to augment the damage or range of that attack?

I think I'm really biased about question A (I see it and all I can think is "what part of 'immunity' is unclear?"), so y'all feel free to ignore it and come up with your own: I'm just trying to get the ball rolling.

Thundercles said:

Step 2: Range doesn't affect target figures (it affects the attack and its ability to reach the target space)

B) (reword) Are the immunities given by Ironskin;

i) applied to an attack (which may hit multiple figures),

or

ii) applied to the Ironskinned figure's defence of that attack?

C) Is the wording change between RtL Ironskin and 'other' Ironskin intended?

I can just see a yes reply to your A and an ii) to my B - contradictory answers would be the most consistent style!

Corbon said:

hah, sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if we got two contradictory answers. I should clarify that I get lost on step 3, not 2. I'm perfectly fine with the concept that range is used only for reaching target spaces, but I don't see why anything that range does should be any part of the question of what immunity to sorcery means. Range could be a stat that the attacker uses to recover health, it still would fall under a part of the attack that gets negated by immunity (much like the surge immunity of the Sorcerer King).

....

Now that I think about it, the question of using Surges to make attacks reach the Sorcerer King hasn't been asked either, and it's very similar to this question. Should that go on as well?

Thundercles said:

No need. Now that I've checked the card, Soul Ward is very clear and not germaine to this discussion.

Soul Ward: All surges rolled in any attack targeting your Avatar are cancelled without effect

Nice and simple (other than the fact that attacks target spaces). All rolled surges (non-rolled ones are fine) are cancelled. This is similar to a dodge/aim, affecting the dice rolls directly.

Hi,

Corbon said:

Sorry to go on a tangent here, but regarding the "non-rolled ones are fine" bit there was a fellow sometimes ago that sent this question to FFG and got the following answer (original post is on the old forum here www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/list/7359.page#144672 ):

With the Sorcerer King and his avatar upgrade "Soul Ward"

(Surges rolled targeting your avatar are cancelled without affect)

With skills and weapons that grant free surges when you make an attack, are these surges cancelled as well?

Yes.

Enjoy the game!

~Dan Clark
Creative Content Developer
Fantasy Flight Games

It's not from Kevin Wilson, but still officially from FFG, so...

-Kylearan

For my ¢2, I agree with Thundercles: imunity to the effects of scorcery would include both range and damage effects. If a player attacked a beastman moving through a space with a golem then both would benifit from ironskin. This is consistent with the way dodge resolves against blast and breath attacks. When one person dodges sucsesfully everyone else who would be effected benefits as well.

ETA: I just reread Antistone's post. I don't have ToI so my opinion was not based on the rules for stealth. Re: ironskin and blast - as a house rule (based on the breath/blast - dodge logic above) I do allow it to negate damage to others in the blast area. Most people on these boards seem the think that golems suck. I think this interperatation gives them some needed utility.

Corbon said:

The problem with your example is that nobody's dropping rocks on a golems head. He's being shot by an arrow or magic fire or something. The fire isn't moved above him where it rains down. It is being pushed by something towards him from a distance where it then (as a result of that force) may do damage to him if it gets through his armor. If that something is a weapon or hero's sorcerous power-well, he's immune to that. You can think of range as not just "getting there." Realistically, if an arrow just barely makes it to its target before it falls on the ground, it's not gonna hurt that much. I think range has to do with being accurate within that much range so that a full forced attack can do it's damage. In a case where sorcery is needed to guide said attack, I think (once again) that the immunity to said sorcery prevents said guiding of said attack.

Seriously though, who's using golems enough for this to matter? I mean, other than the rumor from ToI that gives ironskin to a hero...is this really coming up that often?

Golems are awesome, especially in the beginning. They aren't that amazing damage dealers but I used one as cover for a leader for almost 20 turns as OL before the players managed to kill him. Then they finally turned on the golem and he still lasted almost 4 turns by himself against the whole party. The way I see it: both chaos beast and golem = huge and heavy, but the chaos beast is a damage dealer and the golem is a tank with it's huge list of immunities.

As for "why talk about this," who knows what might be included in future expansions, so we might as well nip this in the butt while we're here. An official ruling will be needed since it appears a lot of people are so dug into their trenches no one will be able to get them out without dropping the Kevin bomb.

The biggest reason it matters whether the sorcery can apply to range or not is in the case of the character who can convert range to damage, and that range fulfilled using sorcery frees up power enhancements to be used as damage in a legit way. It's clever banking, moving sorcery to cover the range requirements so that the damage simply comes from the power enhancements and not the sorcery.

For simplicity's sake, I think we could stop argueing about the area effect ruling because I guess until they do something really wrong it'll never come up. In the event of an area attack it just wouldn't affect the golem and deal the attack normally to the rest of the monsters covered.

I still think my choice of #2 is the best solution, because it applies immunities as a defense abilility like I'm sure it was intended to be and not a weird "My golem sucks up your breath template so my kobolds are safe" shielding ability. I see the precedent with dodge that one dice roll affects all the targets, but as far as effects go I'm pretty sure one monsters ability isn't another monsters defense.

An intersting reversal of the situation: If a monster had an ability where it says "damage from area attacks is doubled" would you say that the enemy figures standing beside him would also take double damage? I would imagine it'd be worded veyr similiar to the ironskin ability and it still hits that idea that "All abilities are applied to an attack" idea. With this example, I hope people can understand why dealing the attack seperately is required.

One final point: "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." (from RtL, can't find vanilla right now) So for the people who are argueing that the range and damage are seperate stages, in this reading of sorcery the difference between "The Effects of ... Sorcery" (from Ironskin) and simple range calculation is an 'or'

OK, let me see if I can clarify the issue. Let's start with some things that I think we can all agree on:

1. If you get a bunch of Sorcery and smack a Golem with it, the Golem doesn't get hurt.

Bonus damage from Sorcery has no effect on a Golem. If "immune to Sorcery" does anything at all, it clearly does this.

2. If you take a bunch of Sorcery and smack a Beastman with it, the Beastman DOES get hurt, even if there's a Golem in the next room.

"Immune to Sorcery" does not mean that all Sorcery is removed from the entire game. Sorcery can hurt figures that are not immune to it, even if figures that are immune to it exist.

3. Once Sorcery has affected the world, that can have indirect effects on the Golem.

For example, if you use Sorcery to kill a Beastman, you can then make a new attack that traces line-of-sight through the space where the Beastman was standing and hit a Golem. The Golem is immune to Sorcery, and you would never be able to trace valid line-of-sight if not for the effects of Sorcery, but that doesn't matter. The Golem doesn't get to act as if Sorcery never existed and ignore all the ways that it changes the rest of the game, "immunity" just means that the direct effects of Sorcery against the Golem are negated.

Similarly, the Golem could go and stand in the spot where the Beastman died, even though it couldn't do that while the Beastman was alive, and the Beastman would still be alive if not for Sorcery.

Figures with Ironskin ignore the DIRECT effects of Sorcery, but that's all.

So, when you spend Sorcery to add range to an attack and change it from a miss into a hit, that's going to affect the Golem--it's now getting hit by an attack that otherwise wouldn't hit it. But that's not the question. The question is whether boosting range is directly affecting the Golem, or whether the Sorcery is acting on something else and only affecting the Golem indirectly.

To try and determine that, we naturally turn to the rules for resolving attacks (JitD rulebook, pages 9-11). Some relevant excerpts:

Step 1: Declare Attack
Note that the attacking player designates a space to attack and not necessarily another figure.

Step 2: Confirm Line of Sight

Step 3: Count Range and Roll Attack
Next, the attacking player counts the number of spaces from the space occupied by the attacking figure to the targeted space. This is the range of the attack. After determining the range of the attack, the attacking player rolls the dice corresponding to the attacking weapon or monster.

Step 4: Determine Attack Success
If no miss results are showing, the attacker adds up all the range number results on the rolled dice. The attack hits if the total range of the rolled dice is equal to or greater than the attack's range. If the total rolled range is lower than the required range needed to hit the target, the attack fails and no damage is done unless the player can increase the range to the minimum required range in step 5.

Step 5: Power Enhancements, Power Surges, and Fatigue

Step 6: Inflict Wounds
If, after step 5 is resolved, the attack hits, the attacking player counts the total number of damage ("heart" icons) showing on the rolled dice and adds any bonus damage from power surges, power enhancements, or weapon abilities. This is the total damage dealt to the figure in the target space.

The reader will notice that determination of the attack's success (step 4) depends only on the properties of the attack and the space being targeted; the figure in the target space isn't even mentioned until step 6, while the last time range is referenced in any way is in step 5. A convincing argument can therefore be made that range does not directly affect the targeted figure in any way--it only interacts with the attack itself and the targets space. Therefore, even if the Golem is nominally immune to changes in the attack's range, that doesn't matter, because the Golem is "immune" to the attack's entire range in the first place--it only cares about the damage. Whether the attack has enough range will of course have an indirect effect on the Golem, because it changes whether it has to worry about the attack at all, but we've already determined that immunity does not help at all against indirect effects.

I presume that Corbon supports this line of reasoning.

There are, however, a couple of problems.

The first is that these rules are poorly written. You determine an attack's success in step 4, but it's based on the results of step 5? Attack-modifying effects don't reference these steps when describing when they take effect (Sorcery, for example, says it takes effect "after making an attack roll," rather than "between steps 3 and 4" or "during step 5" or some such), the wording seems to assume that no more than one figure is ever affected, etc., etc. So I'm not sure I'd trust a strict reading of these rules, and I certainly wouldn't blame anyone who didn't.

The second is that, if we're reading these rules strictly, Sorcery added to damage also technically affects the attack, not the target. The target suffers wounds based on the attack's damage in step 6, but Sorcery (by a strict reading) is applied back in step 3 ("after making an attack roll"--you're instructed to roll in step 3), so one can argue that this effect of Sorcery is also an indirect effect. This is weaker than the previous argument, because damage is actually "dealt to the figure in the targeted space," while range isn't even mentioned in the same section as the affected figure, but the argument can still be made. And we can't trust this argument, because we already established in point #1 that this is the one thing that "immune to Sorcery" absolutely has to do.

The rules for Sorcery and attack resolution are not written in such a way that "immune to Sorcery" has a clear meaning. If forced to pick an argument to back, I think Corbon's got the most plausible interpretation here, but the bottom line is that the Descent rules have not been written to tolerate this level of scrutiny, so any conclusion drawn based on these sorts of subtleties is suspect.

Now, allow me to comment on a few other arguments that have been made:

It is not logical to assume that Ironskin will cause all figures affected by the attack to be protected just because dodge and Fear work that way. Dodge and Fear both go to great lengths to explain that they affect the entire attack, so if anything, that implies that the default is the reverse: defenses normally only protect the figure that has them. Armor, shields, Stealth and Undying are all defensive effects that protect only a single figure, and I doubt anyone is going to argue that one hero wearing the Dragon Scale Mail ("you are immune to Bleed, Burn, and Poison") prevents all the other heroes caught in a Dragon's breath attack from receiving Burn tokens, or that the Cloak of Deception allows all heroes affected by the attack to roll to cancel wounds. Ironskin confers no benefit on anyone except the figure that has it until there is an official rule that says otherwise; this is consistent with both precedent and with a strict reading of the rules.

Saying that "immune to Sorcery" causes an attack to miss you if it has insufficient range before Sorcery is not simpler, IMO, than saying that you just ignore bonus damage from Sorcery. Even if it was simpler, that wouldn't even be worth considering until we determined that the rules were ambiguous--being simpler is no advantage if it contradicts the text.

Saying that "immune to Sorcery" removes all Sorcery from the attack and benefits all figures affected by the attack is simpler, but it's arbitrary. There is nothing in the rules that even hints that Ironskin would work this way--as noted, most defensive effects protect only the figure that has them (and the ones that protect other figures all specifically say so), and this is not consistent with the normal meaning of "immune" (which, as noted above, doesn't cause the complete disappearance of the things you're immune to from the rest of the world).

I cant believe you guys are still going on about this. :-) Altho that last post was a very well written analysis! One of the best I've read.

Still doesnt change the fact that Sorcery can be used to get range to hit a monster, or get damage to damage a monster. If the monster is immune, then he's immune.

The bit you said about "the rules were not written to be subject to these levels of scrutiny" is right on, as you are reading many technicalities into a phrase that is written in very plain and simple English, meant to be understood by an 8-year old or an adult. Thus each card or ability is not a legal document with fine print and appendices, it's a simple one-sentence ability. Reading all that above is such a stretch from the writing on the card it's ridiculous - to go into how adding to the range (by Sorcery) is somehow not subject to immunity cuz you're targeting a space (the space containing the immune monster, with intent to hit him).

You need Sorcery to hit a monster, either to get the range, or to breach the armor, but a monster with Ironskin is immune to it!

Spinning it that he's not really immune, cuz it's not really targeting "him" (it's targeting the space he's in, with intent to hit him) is a REALLY weak argument. I can see it Corbon, I do. I get your point, but it's really weak.

-mike

PS... imagine this: An ability, call it "Go The Distance": A Hero with "Go The Distance" gets +1 range on all attacks.

Then an other abiltiy, call it "Come Up Short": A player with "Come Up Short" is immune to the effects of "Go The Distance".

So now, would you argue that the monster with Come Up Short is not actuallly the subject of the attack calculation, the space is, therefore the Go The Distance still applies? After all, the player with Go The Distance is targeting the SPACE, not the MONSTER (with stay away). The space is not immune, and the Immunity effect doesnt "kick in" until the attack reaches the target?

That is so insane!

Look: if the rules aren't rigorous enough for you to be sure that they actually say what they mean, that means that they are ambiguous, not that they suddenly mean whatever poobaloo intuits them to mean. There is exactly one thing that the rules actually say, and that supports Corbon's position. I don't think the rules are written well enough for us to be confident that this was intended, but that doesn't mean that we can be confident that this was not intended, either.

To address your specific "Go the Distance"/"Come Up Short" example, poobaloo, it is clear that the intent would be for "Come Up Short" to do something rather than nothing . There would still be several possibilities for how it could work, and no matter which of them was intended, the writer is clearly a bad rules writer, because he didn't specify which one was intended, and because that's a poor way to describe any of them. But the only reason that I would conclude that it actually did something is that it would be stupid to have that ability at all if it was intended to do nothing--and since "immune to Sorcery" clearly does something even if it doesn't affect range, that reason is gone.

I disagree that the rules are "poorly" written. The rules are written to deliberately be simple and worded in plain English. That doesnt make them poor, that makes them inadequate to you, cuz you're expecting them to be thorough legaleez that clarify everything to the letter, and leave no room for any misinterpretation. That's not what a game was written for, as indicated by the age ranges on the box.

You can read into ANY basic statement with good legaleez. That's why there's lawyers. But in a game, unless that's your thing, you simply take the wording at face value, and dont do the indepth analysis of how an effect affects a player, but another ability that is specifically immune to sorcery is not really immune to it, cuz the attack is not really directed at the target, it's directed at the space.

Why not look at it this way - I could be so atrocious as to argue that Ironskin doesnt save one from even the damage of sorcery:

Sorcery's "effect" is that an attacker with sorcery may add +1 to range or +1 to damage. OK.

So the ATTACKER applies the sorcery to create his damage totals. He calculates the total damage, then applies that damage to the TARGET with ironskin.

Now the TARGET is immune to the effects of sorcery - but the effects of sorcery are that the attacker may add +1 to attack or +1 to damage. So if the TARGET was the one attacking someone else, then sure he's immune to the effects, those being he cannot add +1 to his dice.

However if the other player is attacking, then his attack is done, and all he does is apply the damage to the target. The attacker was not immune, and the ability's effects are applied to the attacker technically, in the addition to his damage dealt or range added.

It does not say the effects are that the TARGET takes one more damage, it says that the attacker adds +1 damage - so the effects affect the caster! Not the defender at all.

So based on a COMPLETELY thorough overanalysis of the wording, and who is the one immune, and the fact that the card really only affects the caster and not the defender, one could argue that ironskin is worthless altogether.

You can get as ridiculous as you want with rules that are written to be simple and clear, not all-encompassing legaleez.

poobaloo said:

Firstly the rules are badly written. Even you would have to admit that they are internally inconsistent. They do not consistently use the same terms and they contradict themselves repeatedly. In addition, every time something is added (through an expansion etc) it is simply patched on without acknowledgment of how it will interact with existing rules, creating new problems. Further, the rules are rife with errors that clearly belong to previous versions and have not been corrected when a change is made elsewhere. That is bad writing even if you discount the vagueness.

Clear and concise writing is a difficult skill. It does not require legalese. Simple, plain english can do the job well, as long as it is consistent and structured. As a minor example, take a look at the way Antistone can clarify other peoples arguments and discussions without using complex language. His writing isn't necessarily a great example (and may have other faults, grumpiness among them ) , but it is a large step up in clarity and conciseness from most others here (including mine).

It is possible to be completely clear with simple, concise language. Legalese usually just makes things worse. Legalese, and a low standard of writing, is why we have lawyers.

I'll give you two examples, both of which I am sure could be improved upon (I don't have great writing skills)
1. Titaniumskin: An attack that affects a figure with Titaniumskin loses any Bleed, Burn, Pierce, Poison, and Sorcery abilities. Figures with Titaniumskin also reduced all damage dealt to them by Aura, or by attacks that affect more than one space (such as Blast, Sweep and Breath), to zero. The damage dealt to other figures with these attacks is not reduced to zero.
or
2. Steelskin: All damage dealt to figures with Steelskin from Aura, Bleed, Burn, Sorcery, or attacks that affect more than one space (such as Blast, Breath and Sweep) is reduced to zero. Pierce and Poison have no effect on a figure with Steelskin.

Both of these are simpler and clearer than the original text(s!). They are also subtly different, both from each other and from the original(s).

With such complex (and wonderful) games as Descent, FFG really ought to use a professional technical writer to clean up their rules before they are released. Preferably a writer who plays the game thoroughly a few time with the creators before beginning his work too (I've seen some howlers caused by technical writers who didn't understand what they were writing). I guess it's too expensive. In general, a game creator should never write the final version of his rules (though he should definitely advise). He is too close and 'knows what he meant' too often.

Secondly, none of us (I believe) deliberately start out trying to overanalyse everything (wording wise at least, I'm not speaking about strategy or tactics here) or even anything. Analysis happens because the simple 'first-glance' interpretation creates problems. When problems arise, things get looked at closely.

In the Sorcery vs Ironskin case we run into the problem that Ironskin seemed to be providing a benefit to other figures, something odd given it is clearly an intensely individual thing. When looked at closely it is apparent that it should not do so (it clearly states that it is applied to the owning figure, and all the other effects of Ironskin are also clearly applied only to the individual). When looked at even more closely, breaking down the mechanics, it is apparent that, when followed step by step in a logical process, Ironskin turns out to be completely individual and provides no benefit for the non-ironskinned figures in the vicinity. The only problem with this is that the original wording becomes slightly misleading (not wrong) and one particular hero can abuse a loophole with her special ability.