Corbon said:

hehahahahahaha...fear not, I'm not going to try and hit you over the head with that hammer. I prefer mulling over points, if you don't mind. I'm going to need some time to formulate a response, given the rules-reference-heavy bit we've got going on now. I think you're onto something with the timing on when an attack "affects" a figure: I'll look it over and see if I still have a leg on which to stand.

Arrrrrg.... I grudgingly agree if Socery Range was still applicable it would have appeared in the second sentence. Allowing Sorcery Range satisfies my physical reasoning but it is doubtful that it is the intent of the rule.

Ok, so I read rules and I let them sit and I played other games and I reread them just in case. The rules are vague enough to allow for "different attack parameters" and a buch of other weird stuff, but I'm going to focus on something else: trigger time for Ironskin.

First of all, Corbon, you seem to be implying with your description of Fear that attacks don't affect spaces until they hit and merely declaring an attack is not enough to get it to affect a space. The Blast rules don't contest this interpretation, but the Breath rules do: all spaces under the template are affected by the attack, and damage is dealt as long as the attack hits, implying that the attack affects the spaces and figures before the hit is determined. Sweep is worded the similarly: the attack affects spaces, and the figures therein (referred to as the affected figures) receive damage on a hit. I'm not sure why Breath would be the only one to definitely imply that figures are affected by a Breath attack whether it misses or not, but I feel safe in arguing that all attacks affect the spaces they target before the attack is actually ruled a hit or miss. If attacks affect figures before the dice are even rolled, then Ironskin kicks in before range is tabulated and an attack is allowed to hit a space containing a Golem and one other figure and still miss the Golem because you can't use Sorcery for range since range is one of the two possible effects of Sorcery and would be part of the attack currently affecting that Golem.

Now, I don't think that argument is airtight, and a strict reading of attack rules and Blast rules shows that Blast can target new spaces after the roll is made, which would imply that, specifically for Blast, spaces can be affected after the attack is ruled a hit. Affected spaces determine affected figures, so my argument breaks down with regards to Blast. Also, the concept of affected figures prior to a miss or hit is only listed in the Sweep and Breath rules (Leap uses the same "if the attack is not a miss, all figures affected by the attack take full damage" line as Sweep and Breath, while Blast mentions dealing full damage to all affected figures), so both interterpretations of when a figure is affected by an attack are technically supported by the rules.

I believe it's generally agreed that Ironskin negates all Sorcery as soon as it triggers. I also believe that the timing of when Ironskin triggers is ill-defined enough to allow Sorcery effects to be added to attacks before said triggering, resulting in a loophole that lets Range from Sorcery be added to attacks under one of the two interpretations at which we've arrived (I'm referring to Corbon's interpretation here). Both my interpretation and Corbon's interpretation are supported by the rules and, somehow, neither is disproven by those same rules.

This means that this situation is another quintessential "Descent players get to choose how to rule" situation...unless I'm wrong about how Breath and Sweep rules state that A) figures are affected at the moment of declaration and that B) an attack affects a space before success is determined.

All told, I'm glad this discussion happened, since I believe we've pinned down another small but significant gap in the rules.

Is there anything I missed?

I need to digest this myself now...

Edit: due to stupid forum killing quote tags all parts quoted from Thundercles are underlined.
Edit2: or in fact in larger font, since that seems to be the effect of underlining!

1. First of all, Corbon, you seem to be implying with your description of Fear that attacks don't affect spaces until they hit and merely declaring an attack is not enough to get it to affect a space. The Blast rules don't contest this interpretation, but the Breath rules do: all spaces under the template are affected by the attack, and damage is dealt as long as the attack hits, implying that the attack affects the spaces and figures before the hit is determined. Sweep is worded the similarly: the attack affects spaces, and the figures therein (referred to as the affected figures) receive damage on a hit. I'm not sure why Breath would be the only one to definitely imply that figures are affected by a Breath attack whether it misses or not, but I feel safe in arguing that all attacks affect the spaces they target before the attack is actually ruled a hit or miss.

2. If attacks affect figures before the dice are even rolled, then Ironskin kicks in before range is tabulated and an attack is allowed to hit a space containing a Golem and one other figure and still miss the Golem because you can't use Sorcery for range since range is one of the two possible effects of Sorcery and would be part of the attack currently affecting that Golem.

Now, I don't think that argument is airtight, and a strict reading of attack rules and Blast rules shows that Blast can target new spaces after the roll is made, which would imply that, specifically for Blast, spaces can be affected after the attack is ruled a hit. Affected spaces determine affected figures, so my argument breaks down with regards to Blast. Also, the concept of affected figures prior to a miss or hit is only listed in the Sweep and Breath rules (Leap uses the same "if the attack is not a miss, all figures affected by the attack take full damage" line as Sweep and Breath, while Blast mentions dealing full damage to all affected figures), so both interterpretations of when a figure is affected by an attack are technically supported by the rules.

3. I believe it's generally agreed that Ironskin negates all Sorcery as soon as it triggers. I also believe that the timing of when Ironskin triggers is ill-defined enough to allow Sorcery effects to be added to attacks before said triggering, resulting in a loophole that lets Range from Sorcery be added to attacks under one of the two interpretations at which we've arrived (I'm referring to Corbon's interpretation here). Both my interpretation and Corbon's interpretation are supported by the rules and, somehow, neither is disproven by those same rules.

4. Is there anything I missed?

4. Yes, I think so.

1. I looked at it and I don't think that implication (that the attack affects figures before a miss is determined) holds strong under examination.
Blast, Breath and Sweep say the same thing in that respect. Blast is only differently put together because the area of affect is (may be) a variable of step 5 (spending surges) and so its full 'spaces affected by this attack' cannot be determined before the dice are rolled and surges spent. All three however say that "XXXX attacks... affect every space (description of AoE)... and affects all figures... (friendly or enemy, except sweep says only enemy).

What you seem to be saying by this implication is that figures within an AoE attack are affected by that attack before the attack is determined to have succeeded or failed. While that can be read into the strict wording of these attacks, that is simply due to poor writing (it could/should add "assuming the attack does not fail", but one can see why that would not be thought necessary...). IMO it is completely nonsensical and a variable area blast is just the first example of this. Under this ruling an attack that 'Fails' still affects those figures, which is contradictory to say the least!
Note: Failed attacks still affecting figures has direct implications with Burn and maybe some other skills or Special Abilities.

A Failed attack does not affect any figure IMO - though to be fair, we strictly speaking have no full definition on a failed attack (at least that I can find), although we know that attacks with an X and attacks with insufficient range to reach the target space all fail. In fact in one case (insufficient range) the attack fails and no damage is done, vaguely implying that damage is normally done by failed attacks - obviously ridiculous!

2. I can agree with this. I just don't agree that the 'attacks affect spaces before they are actually ruled a success or failure' rule can be reasonably implied by the way AoE attacks are written.

3. Well, I thought yours was previously disproven and I think its breaking things to conclude from a strict reading of the AoE attack rules that attacks can affect figures before (therefore even if) they hit or miss. So I still think yours is disproven.

Actually, as far as being "affected" by a missed attack goes, these would do 0 damage, and without damage, no offensive abilities actually trigger, so attacks that miss would do nothing to the affected figures and thus would not cause the implications you're referring to. As for the "bad writing" bit, well, if it weren't poor, we would be having this discussion, now would we? Seriously, though, we have to work with what it says, not what it should have said. What's reasonable is too subjective: I personally think it's not reasonable to allow Sorcery effects to add to attacks targeting creatures with Ironskin, but, well, 9 pages of discussion show that what my opinon on what is reasonable doesn't hold up. As unreasonable as "failed attacks affecting heroes" sounds, such an interpretation does not introduce new loopholes and is supported by a strict (if unimaginative) reading of the rules.

I'm actually rather surprised that the counterargument is "it's not reasonable." I thought we had dispensed with reason on these forums ages ago, in order to maintain a better hold on our sanities.

Thundercles said:

Firstly, thats a definition of fail that you've come up with that holds no more (and in fact less as I already demonstrated) basis in the rules than the position that 'failed' attacks do not affect figures at all (and would therefore not trigger ironskin).

Secondly, actually some offensive abilities do trigger without damage. Burn is one. Possibly some of the more complicated special abilities of Named monsters or Avatar upgrades as well, though I'm not sure of the wording. The sort of thing that says something like "If a Hero is affected by both of X's attacks then Y also (or instead) happens". So, as I already wrote, failed attacks affecting heroes does produce a loophole - heck, that was the whole point of my objection to it!

Thirdly I already demonstrated a reasonable (thematically) way for Sorcerous Range not to be affected by Ironskin. Just because its not the thematic interpretation you prefer does not make it unreasonable. This entire discussion has always been based upon what was both reasonable and legal. I have no problem with your thematic logic, nor most of your rules logic, its been the fact that your choice of interpretations causes breakdowns elsewhere that has prompted me to reject them. The same goes in this case.
OTOH, yes. Reason in general disappeared long ago - for me about the time when Soar was introduced.

Has anyone shed some light on my two questions that my opinion of how it works out are dealt with. I've read all the posts but still couldn't find anyone finding an official ruling on these questions:

Because there are variable area effects such as surges buying blast, squares aren't affected until the end of step 5. If this is the case, then defensive abilities would either A) be applied the moment their square has been added to the 'affect by' list or B) only after step 5. In the case of B) this would mean effects like sorcery would never work because sorcery would have already been applied. in the case of A) then abilities like soar or ghost would be applied to late to change the outcome.

If an attacked multiple figures would range be calculated seperately? There was a post that seemed to agree that they would, but by the end of it I wasn't sure where they stood on that idea. Nowhere I've found in the rules says anything about hitting mutiple figures with different ranges. This is a special circumstance that only arises out of two figures sharing a space during an interupt or blast vs special abilities like immunity (the idea that started these 9 pages) I can understand the FAQ missing this important step because it is so rare but the rules are only defined as if attacking a single square with a single range. Abilities like soar and immunity to sorcery change how range is calculated.

Neostrider said:

Sorry, I didn't realise that you still had unanswered questions. (In fact I thought I had already explained the answers to both of these questions, though probably not in a direct answer post.)

1. Lets set aside Thundercles' last theory about spaces being affected before an attack has been resolved as a success or failure. I think I already answered why that doesn't work.
Next, remember that various defensive affects apply at various times or stages (for the definition of defensive affect that is widest ranging). Not all defensive affects are equal. I think you still haven't got this point by the way you phrased your questions.
- some defensive effects apply to the attack or the enemy figure (attacker) directly eg Black Curse (enemy figures suffer -1 range and -1 damage) and Ghost (enemy figures cannot attack sometimes)
- some defensive effects don't affect either the attack itself or the defending figure, but affect the requirements for the attack to succeed eg Soar (attack needs 4 additional range or it fails (against the Soaring monster))
- some defensive effects affect the defender eg Ironskin, Ox Tattoo (giving the defender certain immunities)
Ironskin, as I think has been satisfactorily established by now, affects the defending figure, and therefore applies once the figure is affected by an attack - so yes, basically after stage 5, when we can tell all the particulars of an attack.
Now in the case or Sorcery/Ironskin, the Sorcery Immunity is applied to the defending figure. It does not affect the attack itself, which still has the Sorcery in it, it just causes the Sorcery parts of the attack to 'bounce off' the immune figure.
In the case of Sorcerous range, bouncing off is irrelevant because range never targets or affects the defending figure (it is merely a definer of whether the attack fails or not). Even if you insist that the range 'bounces off' and is lowered, that doesn't matter because range has already been resolved at this point - the attack has been confirmed a success and to be affecting the ironskinned figure and has no need of any range at all any more. If you make the range back date then you create an infinite loop where the attack affects, loses range, doesn't affect so regains the range, affects, loses the range... so we can be certain that range does not back date.
In the case of Sorcerous damage, that damage bounces off and this does change the Final Damage figure that is converted to wounds.

2. I believe, and can see no room in the rules for any other possibility, that each attack has one and only one range. Any affects which change range are either applied to the attack (or attacking figure) itself (like Black Curse) or come from the dice and step 5. At the end of step 5 you have a single final attack with X range (which may be greater than or equal to the range to the target space, call that W), Y (Total) damage, Z AoE and a set of additional effects (bleed, burn etc). That final attack is then applied to all the figures that are affected by it. If X<W the attack fails.
Abilities that give extra or less range (like Sorcery, Black Curse, Equipment/Skill Range bonuses) have already been applied at this stage.
Soar does not change X. Read it carefully. Soar merely changes whether the value X is enough to hit the Soaring monster. X must now be equal to W+4 if the attack is to affect the Soaring creature. So it is entirely possibly to hit a grounded figure while failing to hit a soaring figure in the same space. The attack still has the same range for both figures but that attack may have Range of say, X=W+2. The attack does not fail and the grounded figure is hit because X>=W. The Soaring figure is not affected by the attack because X<W+4.

These steps follow all rules precisely, with nothing added or subtracted. It just isn't quite so obvious because virtually all of us almost always use a paraphrased version of attacking that is simpler and quicker and give the correct result 99% of the time.

Corbon said:

I'm confused: the only versions of Burn I have say "If an attack by a monster or weapon with the Burn ability inflicts at least 1 damage", so from where are you getting your version, where damage is not necessary? Also, the card you're referring to is the "Deadly Claws" upgrade for the Great Wyrm: both attacks have to hit in order to cause the second effect "Y" (which is instant death). I can't find any offensive ability that triggers off of an attack "affecting" a figure, only hitting or causing damage, so I'm going to have to dispute your second assertion's validity - no loophole exists.

As for the breakdowns you mentioned, I'm assuming you mean the "infinite loop" problem and the "can't have different parameters" problem? If missed attacks still affect figures, then that infinite loop problem goes away: if we go by your interpretation (attacks have to hit to "affect" figures and spaces), then Fear goes into an infinite loop because fear only triggers when a space containing a figure with Fear is "affected" (attack hits, so space is affected, so attack misses, so space is not affected, so attack hits, ad infinitum). In the case of the "different parameters" problem, I like the way you avoided that issue by saying that Ironskin ignores Sorcery parameters, but they still factor into the attack as a whole. I have no problem wording my position to take advantage of that idea, with the caveat that if certain amounts of Range have to be ignored by a figure, that triggers another "Attack Success?" check against that figure. Since an attack is still allowed to miss even after it succeeds, there shouldn't be a problem with the idea of repeated (or constant) success checks.

I still think I'm onto something with this "attacks affect figures regardless of success" theory: it's supported by the rules, it makes sure that defensive abilities trigger and stay functioning even after the attack misses because of them, and it doesn't cause offensive abilities to trigger on miss results. Now, to explain it thematically or "reasonably"...

EDIT: Aw, you superceded me, even though your argument about why mine doesn't work, um, doesn't work

@ Corbon: How would you handle the following situation:

Laurel of Bloodwood attacks a Golem with the Magic Bow that grants Sorcery 1 (copper treasure, I think). Since the Golem is immune to Sorcery damage, Laurel elects the Sorcery to be used as Range (there was enough range to hit anyway). Now she uses her special abilitiy to convert excess range into damage for 1 fatigue. Is she allowed to convert the Sorcery range into damage as well, since the Golem is not immune to Sorcery range (according to your opinion)?

That´s one example where range based on Sorcery clearly affects an attacked figure (a fact that you simply denied some posts earlier).

By the way: Your elaborate definition of groups of defensive abilities may be thematically right, but in the rules there is no such thing as a defender or defensive abilities.

That may be my fault. I might have been the first to start calling them 'defensive abilities' in an effort of putting ironskin and soar and ect into 1 lump 'apply to attack resolution' step. Corbon says he applies them at three seperate times. I apply all of them at the time of targeting. Its one of the biggest ways Corbon and I seem to disagree.

@ Corbon

Your summary doesn't include any specific references or examples that show that the rules expect a single range comparison to affect everyone in an area attack. You say you don't see any other room in the rules but I've been playing it this way since I got the game and it had managed to play out well. In the rare instance of hitting multiple targes with different ranges I just compare if the range is enough to hit which ones, and then resolve as normal. The rules as written don't really clarify wether my version is right or wrong since Step 4 CLEARLY says step 5 can alter the range value to hit. Then there is no part in Step 6 that says 'recheck range' which means that TECHNICALLY it seems no matter what you do in Step 5 range won't get rechecked anyway if we're going to read literal versions of these rules. This means we're either UNDERSTANDING that in step 5 we retroactively are suceeding at step 4 or we've all been playing wrong.

I also apply the 'per figure' mentality to how the attacks are resolved. I'll clarify that statement: Fear on one figure doesn't force a miss on another. Once the player has finished step 5 he's already decided how surges will be spent and range and damage and other ect. He only does this once. Then PER FIGURE the attack is checked per figure. This means surges spent on fear for a demon wouldn't do anything to that beastman beside him, but if those surges had been spent on damage the beastman would have more damage but the demon would be unaffected. Its quite simple. Roll the dice and declare abilities as if attacking a single monster. This is the single attack. Then apply it seperately to all monsters affected. Not so hard, not so far fetched, and definantly within the Rules as Intended. All we need is come clarification on how the steps 1-6 are resolved in a multiple monster situation.

Luckily the situation is rare enough that we've all probably been able to sleep at night. For anyone upset to see this on page 1 of the descent thread again please be patient. This could all become VERY important once the new expansion comes out with lord knows what other crazy combinations.

Unless I am mistaken or I'm not understanding the point, I thought the way Fear was written that if you don't have enough surges to overcome the the Fear ranking, then the attack misses completely not just against that figure (in the case of AoE attacks)?

That's the question, really. Does the attack fail against everyone or just against that figure? At what point in the steps 1-6 do we apply the result of the attack on each individual figure. As written, you just apply the result of the attack to the single figure targeted. In the case of multiple figures being targeted we could either say the whole attack hits or misses, or say that the outcome of the attack is applied per figure. In my example with fear, the attack would fail in regards to affecting the demon but the beastman would still be affected.

Think of it like some fireball attack. Turns out the hero was too scared to hit the demon but still let the attack loose anyway and still hit the beastman. The demon still benefits from fear, without giving that benefit to other figures.

The way I see it is this;
Step 4 we're supposed to check range, but it says we can still change it in step 5.

So in step 5 or 6 we must still check range again.

When checking range, the attack will either hit or miss.

The rules don't specify how hit/missing an attack works with multiple figures. Soar seems to work as I'm describing (checking seperately) but Corbon states that this is a special case.

Defensive abilities can also affect whether the attack hits/misses.

Damage is obviously applied seperately to monsters, so we are already doing some 'per monster' attack resolution.

All that together and I feel like at the end of step 5, right before damage, we are still checking to see if the attack hit/missed. Since its right before damage is applied its not at all unlikely that range could be compared per figure right before damage and special abilities are applied per figure. The rules neither support or counter these assumptions. With Corbon's reading of the rules there are many situations that things like fear could protect figures without it. We just need an example of how the attack steps would be resolved in the event of multiple figures.

The following might be sloppy thinking on my part, so sorry in advance:

To me, Fear is a built in Dodge like ability. If you can't make X number of surges, the attack fails. So in the case of an AoE, Fear covers it all because in the cases of things like Sweep, Breathe templates, Bolt template. If someone dodges one of those and the attack rolls an X on the reroll, the attack is considered to have missed everyone doesn't it? To me that's always set the prededent that if something causes an attack to miss due to an effect or a Dodge causing a X to be rolled, it just misses everyone.

Could very well be wrong on that thinking.

It's not sloppy thinking: that's what the Fear ability says. Neostrider, you seem to have mistakenly assumed that Fear can't protect other creatures: I'm not really sure what to do with your point given that it's based on a false assumption.

Neostrider said:

Every single mention of how attacks and ranges and spending surges and using enhancement dice and all those steps until the end of step 5 use singular language. Every single one. Its always 'the attack', 'a attack', 'the range', 'a range', 'the range of the attack'. There is no exception anywhere that mentions 'ranges' of an attack, not one. Even your example in step 4 says "can increase the range". IMO if you want to claim an attack can have multiple ranges you are the one that needs to provide at least a smidgen of evidence. Evidence for a single attack having a single range is available in every single instance it is talked about.
As an aside, the rules does have really mixed up terminology (oh for a rewrite here!). According to the rules the actual range of an attack is the distance from attacker to target space (what I called W in my previous example). That, surely, is fixed and immutable! Yet the attack's final Range value (what I called X) is also called 'the range' and is what can be changed in step 5.
We are of course understanding that in step 5 we check the range, because we are specifically told in step 4 that if we can increase the range (singular) to the minimum required in step 5 then we can avoid the miss affect of having insufficient range (X<W).

Frankly, I think you do Fear wrong. Fear explicitly affects the attack, not the defending figure, and therefore affects the entire attack much the same as a dodge. "...the attack automatically misses..."
I think you've put an important step in the wrong place in your summary. It should read; Roll the dice, apply abilities that affect the attack (which include spending surges, Fear, Black Curse, Attackers abilities (most of them at least), Skills which increase range or damage, Enhancement usage and possibly something else I've forgotten). That's the end of step 5 and is the Final Attack. Range of teh attack should also be compared against the required range to affect each figure at this stage. Then go to step 6 and for each individual figure in the AoE apply the abilities which affect it, convert Total Damage to Final Damage and complete the resolution by removing wound tokens etc.

The problem with your methodology is that you ignore the specific structure of different skills and abilities and lump them in all together when they have clearly different affects. Here are few examples (again!)
i) Black Curse; "enemy figures within three spaces of a figure with the Black Curse ability suffer –1 range and –1 damage to all (their) attacks"
- it is quite clear that Black curse affects enemy figures, more specifically their attacks
ii) Fear; "...the attack automatically misses..."
- It is quite clear that Fear affects the attack
iii) Soar; "and the range both to and from it is increased by four spaces"
- it is quite clear that the required range (W) becomes W+4. It is the Range required that is affected, not the attack's range, or the attacker, or the defender.
iv) Unstoppable; "A figure with the Unstoppable ability is immune to..."
- it is quite clear that Unstoppable affects the figure with it

Frankly, the whole attack sequence is appallingly badly written. I would rewrite it in the following manner, which I believe follows more accurately than your abbreviated version above because I think you have neglected the specific wording of various skills and abilities. (Note: this is a first draft, so could probably be improved further).

Step 1: Declare Attack
Step 2: Confirm LOS to target space
Step 3: Roll Dice
Step 4: Check for X. If an X is rolled the attack fails and has no affect on anything other than to use up the attack action. Add up the attack's Base Range and Base Damage. These are purely from non trait Dice. (New term 'Base' for ease of reference in the future. It is the lack of such precise terminology that causes many of Descent's problems)
Step 5: Calculate the spending of Surges and Enhancements (don't actually spend them), the adding of additional Range of Damage or extras from Skills or abilities that affect the attack. (Lets face it, this is a real and unofficial step now
Step 6a: Play or confirm any rerolls, and reroll the chosen dice.
Step 7b: Choose to add any further dice and roll them.
Step 6b: If a reroll has not yet been played or used then it may be played or used now.
Step 7b: repeat step 7 if more dice can be added
Step 6/7: repeat until no more dice can be added and a reroll is has been used or is declined
Step 8: Spend surges/enhancements and add additional Range, Damage or extras from skills or abilities that affect the attack. Calculate Total Range, Total Damage and extras. (Total Damage is an existing term from the start of step 6 (effectively the end of step 5.))
Step 9: Check whether Total Range (X) is greater than or equal to the distance from attacker to target space (W). If it is the attack affects all figures in the target space and AoE unless those figures have been specifically exempted (such as friendly figures in a Sweep attack, Ghosted figures by an adjacent melee attack etc). Soaring figures are not affected unless the attack has X>=W+4, Blast or Breath. If X<W the attack fails and has no affect on anything other than to use up the attack action.
Step 10: Apply the Total Damage and extras to all figures affected by the attack, individually. Each figure may apply Abilities and Skills that affect itself to the Total Damage and extras, as well as armour. Calculate the Final Damage (= Total Damage less amour-not-cancelled-by-Pierce and less other affects that apply to the figure or damage it receives (eg Damage being reduced to 0)) for each figure affected by the attack individually. Final damage may vary between different figures for the same attack. If Total Damage is >0 and the figure does not have some affect which specifically reduces all damage to 0 (eg Ironskin on an AoE attack) then apply affects which require damage to work (eg Bleed, Burn, Stun, etc) (Final Samage is an exisiting term in step 6)
Step 11: Convert final Damage into Wounds and apply affects which reduce wounds (eg Shields, Corbin's special etc)
Step 12: Remove one wound token for each wound (hero) or add one wound token for each wound (monster), applying affects that are appropriate now (eg poison). If the last wound token is removed (hero) or the number of wound tokens = the figures wounds (monster) the figure is dead.

Neostrider said:

For all that thematic reasoning is not worth a (insert whatever you find worthless), I'd be interested in some thematic reasoning that could see an AoE attack hit a non-scary creature at the same time as failing to hit a scary creature in the same spot (ie partially fail due to 'fear/panic').

Thundercles said:

Umm, yes so am I. You are right, burn does work that way. I have no idea what I was reading when I found that - especially since it was a surprise to me so I went and double checked it. So double-wrong! Don't you hate it when that happens!
I was already unsure if any of the extra special's were affected by your method as I hadn't (and still haven't mostly) had an opportunity to check them. But I am willing to accept that none of them will cause a loophole.

Anyway...
Ok, I no longer have any good loophole reason to insist that attacks affects figures even if they miss/fail is broken. I have to fall back on basic common sense - and we all know what that means in Descent....
One of the problems we have is that we have attacks 'affecting', 'failing', 'missing' and 'hitting' without any actual definition of these terms. Common sense appears to have failed us (surprise, surprise) now that you are insisting that an attack that fails or misses can still affect figures. Frankly, that is still a step too far for me, despite it not causing any loopholes.

My interpretation does not cause an infinite loop for Fear. Fear specifically breaks the loop. Fear causes the attack to fail. That is the attack, all of it, completely. You could rewrite it so that if surges are not spent to counter the fear then one dice is changed to the X face and it would have exactly the same effect. Complete failure instantly breaks any loop.
Reducing the range does not cause the attack to fail. The range-reduced attack could still be a success, therefore the loop potential comes in.
I don't have a problem with constant success checks - more accurately I don't think a success or failure is relevant until the end of step 5. An initial X can be countered by a reroll, insufficient range countered by extra dice, affects, skills, abilities, surge expenditures. So there is no point confirming success or failure until step 5 is complete.
I don't follow you at all with the whole 'ignoring' thing, sorry.

I still don't like your "attacks affect figures even if they fail or miss" theory because it just so fundamentally FAILS basic concepts. But I do accept that it can be supported by a certain way of reading some very badly written rules, for certain types of attacks. I also note that you need it to work, in order to get around some other fundamental failures.
OTOH I don't need to fundamentally break basic concepts in order for my interpretation to work. The only thing that 'breaks' under my interpretation is a specific choice, one of several available options, for the thematic concept of immunity.

Parathion said:

When Laurel converts Range into Damage, it i not longer 'sorcery damage' , it is "Laurel special" damage (the source of the damage is Laurel's special ability, not Sorcery). The Range still does not affect the figure, the 'Laurel special damage' affects the figure.
I don't see any big deal with this anyway. Individual 'specials' are just that - special. They break all sorts of other rules and abilities uniquely. What is so terrible about this unique ability making Ironskin slightly less affective against it?

Firstly, its not a thematic definition. Its a rules definition from each individual skill. There are no thematics whatsoever involved in my grouping of these abilities and assigning them to 'act' at different times.
My 'elaborate definition' is only necessary because some people consistently ignore the actual wording of various 'defensive abilities'. Different abilities work differently. Each works how it is written. The writing is different. It can be useful to lump these into groups according to similarities which mean they operate in the same way. This means we don't need to continually copy the explicit text of each individual skill out every time we discuss them.
Secondly, so what? You need every concept used to explain rules to be included in the rules? (actually, apparently so, since now misses and failures can still affect figures!) Attacker is clearly used. Defender is a useful synonym for "the figure in the target (or affected in the case of blast and breath) space" which is pretty cumbersome to write out every time. Defensive abilities is a useful term for abilities which may change the result of an attack that could affect a friendly figure.

I'm sorry if the last (and this) paragraph sounds exasperated. For the first time in this long discussion, it is exasperated. That final paragraph of yours was IMO the most useless and most ridiculous thing I've seen written on this forum. In no way helpful.

Corbon said:

Yeah, honestly, I have to agree that Parathion did not help there. Here we were arguing semantics when he had to go and add ridiculous semantics. I mean, come on, I'm game for rules lawyering as much as the next nerd, but that is a step too far

Seriously, though, Parathion, your last 3 or 4 posts have pretty much failed to get across whatever point you were trying to make. Do you have anything objective to add that we haven't covered?

Corbon said:

hahaha, it happens, it happens. I'm somewhat infamous in my group for insisting I know all the rules then messing up 5 or 6 corner cases (they let me get away with it because no one can be arsed to read).

So anyways, yeah, I'd say we definitely have a problem with Affect, Fail, Miss, and Hit (by the way, I noticed that the reason Fear why breaks the loop is that it triggers when an attack affects a figure, not if). I believe that targeting a space is synonymous with affecting it, and you believe that hitting a space is synonymous with affecting it. I think you believe that my interpretation breaks the basic concept of common sense; meanwhile, I believe that your interpretation overcomplicates the situation by causing figures to switch back and forth from "affected" to "not affected" multiple times per attack, which could wreak havok on any abilities that trigger if a figure is affected. That kind of leaves us stuck in the realm of only having subjective opposition to each other's points of view.

For the record, the "fundamental failure" I'm avoiding using my interpretation is that defensive abilities cannot ignore certain amounts of range if they trigger if/when a figure is affected...which isn't a fundamental failure in my argument: it's a fundamental failure in how the rules are written. I like that my interpretation makes resovling Ironskin vs Sorcery easy (treat the attack as if it had no Sorcery for this figure), whereas yours makes it sound like there's a loophole where you can just put all your Sorcery into range and then use whatever else you have on hand for damage (surges, etc.).

As for the whole ignoring thing, there was a breakdown you pointed out earlier with attacks having differing parameters for different monsters: I figured that your concept of how to keep all attack parameters consistent across all creatures worked just fine for my purposes, with the difference being minor caveats to allow Ironskin to "negate" Sorcery Range.

So, Corbon, have we pretty much reached an impasse?

Thundercles said:

4. Didn't we do that way back?

1. A pretty good summary. I would prefer to see it written that I believe your interpretation breaks the basic concept that a fail or miss does not have any affect on any figures. That might actually be just common sense, but describing it as merely 'common sense' makes it seem pretty irrelevant (unfairly so IMO) to Descent...
I don't see the complication you see in my interpretation because I can see a clear and distinct timing for applying various abilities and there is no need for affected/not affected to switch back and forth. I think this relates to the detailed timing and resolution of attacks - see my earlier post with a 12(?) step explanation of the currently badly written 6 step process.

2. I don't consider that a fundamental failure. Its a minor oddity that only comes from a specific line of thematic reasoning. Thats several leagues away from a fundamental failure like attacks that fail still affecting figures.
Its funny really, but I see my way as making Ironskin simpler to resolve as it is applied once and easily. Your interpretation OTOH I see as making ironskin more complex to resolve, as it involves splitting an attack into multiple different resolutions earlier in the process than in mine, therefore making more calculations etc to process.
I also don't see that as a loophole. Its simply a different process which means that in certain circumstances Ironskin is not as effective as your process. I think you are still bound by your thematic view of immunity here - one which has no more, and no less, validity than mine (except that it binds you in certain other ways).

3. ahh, got it. The problem there though is that your minor caveat causes an immediate split of the attack into separate attacks with different values. Rather than one attack which affects all figures equally (note the consistant use of singular language for an attack and its range), it becomes several different attacks (even though nominally still the singular attack). Clearly an attack A which has Range 5 and Damage 7, AND Range 4 and damage 6 is in fact two attacks, A1 and A2. A1 gets applied to creature X, A2 gets applied to creature Y. My interpretation still has only attack A with Range 5 and Damage 7, which is applied equally to all creatures. However when it is applied, the creatures 'react' differently - just as they have different Armour values they also have different 'defensive' abilities.

4. (again) pretty much I think. I can't seem to assist you past a thematic bind and I haven't yet seen a single reasonable argument against my methodology (just alternative methodologies, which I find faults with).

So after reading your response to my post and then this last post, I'm still asking questions. I understand that RAW the attack works as a single attack that either entirely works or entirely doesn't. I have trouble feeling this leads to the best scenarios because there was no consideration to an attack effecting multiple figures besides a description of how the blast ability works.

That's my biggest question, "what is a detailed description of how multiple figures are effected by an attack?" and the problem I'm having is that we're dancing in RAI grey area with our own ideas.

So does a single attack deal damage multiple times (late stage 5 or 6 split)

or

does a single attack become multiple individual attacks against each monster? (probably stage 3,4, or 5 split)

We all agree that there should be one dice roll, and one decision on how surges and special abilities will be spent but how the attack is applied is the biggest issue. With a single attack ironskin, soar, and fear would affect the outcome of the whole attack, changing range and damage values. With seperate attacks a little bit of bookwork may have been added to the works.

Corbon, I don't understand your breakdown of the abilities. I undersand how they work, I don't understand how they help either case. Affecting the attack is quite obviously what they are doing. My question hinges on whether it applies to the attack on that figure, or the attack that figure happens to be in. The second case leading to many situations where the monster will be confering its ability to other figures.

I am becoming aware that I'm the only one that thinks a single monsters abilities should only benefit the monsters listed in that ability. This means for many abilities, they say that they affect the attack. This is also from a rulebook that did not clarify at all how and when attacks affecting multiple monsters handle special abilities such as those. I have not found in any rulebook or the FAQ anywhere where this has come up before. I'm assuming it was put there to help defend that monster, but squeeze a sorceror between two demons and a hero with only a rune with blast 1 on it and that sorceror is now benefiting from fear all the time. Thematically makes sense, but mechanicly seems an abuse of the rules.

Given the beastman w/ golem sharing a space situation it again seems an abuse to say that because the golem is affected by the attack the player cannot hurt the beastman.

And I'm still left without any evidence other the exclusion that this is the way it works. I suppose that's the closest thing to RAW we have right now. It just seems like everything was written assuming a single target attack, and they never clarified the order of operations on a multiple target attack. Its unreasonable to assume that they would include "attack or attacks." when it made up 5% of attack in JitD. So now I guess we're still at a standstill each argueing our own side of the 'rules interpretation.'

And to think, we could all be playing a nice board game right now. probably would only take a paragraph to explain how they intended it to all play out too..... unless this is what they wanted.... OMG.. we're stuck in their game.....AAAHHHH! They've made us their pawns! thats why they've stopped helping... we're ants in a farm..... tease us with a FAQ update and watch us DANCE! This is what they wanted all along. NOO! A little humor to easy any high stress readers.

I've stayed out of this mostly, but I'm still leaning on the side that Ironskin can prevent damage from Sorcery but not range. My entire basis is pretty much on the whole "you target a space, not a figure" aspects of attacks.

From most of the things I've seen in the rulebook, mainly for Dodge and Fear, is that an ability that says it causes an attack to miss covers all figures affected by that attack.

The big problem appears to be that Sorcery allows you to split the ability to affect two entirely different aspects of the attack, while Ironskin makes no distinction between those two aspects. It just says Sorcery, not damage from Sorcery. So I can completely understand the argument for saying it negates both the range and the damage, but that to me just seems in conflict with how attacks are actually made.

Are there any other monster abilities that can affect range gained from abilites/items where you could potentially have this problem?