Thundercles said:

Step 5 de facto does mention succeeding and failing - the tricky part is that due to bad writing its actually written in step 4 that you can change the success/fail result in step 5. But that is almost by the by anyway...

Fear, being an ability, is not directly referenced in steps 1-6, and is a different failure from the failures covered by step 4 (lack of range and Xs). As Fear-failure is determined by spending surges it can only be determined during step 5. It is not a valid logical conclusion that because Cause A and Cause B are determined at time X or Time Y, that Cause C may only be determined at time X/Y.

To clarify the whole effects thing, yes, I can see where you have gone wrong in following my position and it is my fault, sorry. I have used 'when' when I probably should have used 'until after' as that is clearer and more accurately saying what I intended.
Attacks affects spaces any time after they have been determined to not miss through lack of range or an X. This may probably be considered towards the end of step 5, but as step 5 is cyclical, does not preclude step 5 being continued with further effects/actions/expenditures.
Attacks affect figures early in step 6. At the start of step 6 the attack (which by the end of step 5 has not been found a failure to affect the space) 'splits' and is applied separately to each figure. There may be a failure at application, due for example to the range of the attack being sufficient to affect the space but not sufficient to 'reach' the (Soaring for example, or maybe elevated?) figure. If the attack does not fail at this point (application to the individual figure, note that it is now an individual failure rather than a total failure) then it affects that figure and that figure's individual defenses are applied.

Note that, as we have agreed earlier (I believe, apologies if I am wrong but I'm not going to search through 13 previous pages to check), Fear is an affect on the attack, not an affect on the defending figure. As such it has 'global' effects (can protect other figures) and 'activates' as soon as the space (as opposed to the figure) is (confirmed) affected. Fear does 'reach out' to affect the outside world, unlike Ironskin.

So to clarify your final questions:

1) Attacks affects spaces as soon as they have passed the step 4 tests (which includes step 5 due to poor writing)
2) Attacks affect figures only during step 6 after the attack has been (successfully, another check must be made) 'transfered' from affecting spaces to affecting individual figures.

I take 'affects' to mean 'acts on' (I think, thats the best definition I can think of off the top of my head). Specifically, with respect to Sorcery and Ironskin I consider Ironskin to be a personal, localised defense that does not 'act' (even though it is always 'active') until the Ironskinned figure has been specifically acted on by the attack (ie see my 2) just above).
At this stage Sorcerous range bonuses can be removed but are irrelevant as the attack has already affected the figure (and if we initiated another success check we'd create the loop). Sorcerous range bonuses can be removed and is not irrelevant.

I would like to retract the following two statements I made in earlier posts. 1) "Ironskin is not so much a process that occurs during the chain of action as it is a negation of a process from the chain." 2) "Perhaps, but my method of resolving ironskin (check ingimmunity imediatly after a process is activated but before the process is resolved) agrees with the "common sense" reading of the word immune and doesn't require any special knowledge of game timming to resolve. My method also is easily applied to all of the other processes listed in ironskin without creating any buggy results.".

I will attempt to restate my position then I will bow out of the thread.

In symbolic logic if: A causes B, and B causes C: then A causes C. This can be illustrated with the metaphor of toppling a string of dominos. By knocking over the first domino you effectively knocked over the last one (and every one in between). This can be restated using the word effect and still remain true. If the effect of A happening is that B happens, and the effect of B happening is that C happens: then the effect of A happening is that C happens. As I pointed out in post 191 adding range to an attack roll always has the effect of increasing the damage total. Plugging the terms from the game into this form we get: the effect of sorcery was to add range; the effect of adding range was an increase in the damage total: therefore the effect of adding sorcery to the attack was an increase in damage.

Going back to symbolic logic for a minute: If A cannot cause C, and B causes C: then A cannot cause B. You can restate using the term effect as above with out changing the truth of the statement. Assuming there is an agreement that: "sorcery can not be used to increase the damage of an attack", then plugging game terms into this form we get: "the effect of sorcery cannot be used to increase the damage of an attack; adding range to an attack has the effect of increasing the damage of an attack: therefore the effect of sorcery cannot be used to add range to an attack."

Is the preceding logic supportable with RAW? Yes, if you take a "common sense" reading of immune as being "ignores the effects of" rather than "does not happen". Sorcery can still be used to effect the range in step 5, or be used to effect damage in step 6, but during step 6 a figure with ironskin ignores range which was added to the total from sorcery, and ignores damage added to the total from sorcery. The seeming objection to this seems to be that if two figures are in the same space - that the range for the attack may be treated as N for one target but N+1 for another. I fail to see how this is any more objectionable than the way damage is treated - where one figure may receive N damage while another figure with armor receives N-1.

Caleban said:

Sorry, but this is flawed logic and has already been presented and dismissed.
Using this logic you have the situation where any immunity leads to complete immunity against everything - because everything is ultimately linked somehow, so everything can in some way show a 'cause' somewhere back in the chain of causes that is due to the immunity.
To give a relatively simple example:
A Beastman attacks Hero A with one life left. Hero B with a guard order (and some form of Sorcery) interrupts the attack and kills the beastman, just (without the sorcery it would have failed). The next turn Hero A attacks an Ironskinned monster. Is the Ironskinned monster immune to the attack? By your Symbolic logic yes, since the attack would not have been possible without Sorcery, thus Sorcery caused the attack.
Once you take this to greater extremes everything has a causal link somewhere. The Ironskinned creature cannot breath because every mouthful of air contains at least one molecule that at some time has been involved in Sorcery so he is immune to it.

The only practical answer to this is that causes must be immediate and 'active' in order to be prevented by immunities (basically, links don't count - you could arbitrarily limit the number of links but that would be both arbitrary and subjective. My limit of 386745 links would have as much RAW strength as your limit of 2 links or his limit of 5 links, or her limit of 0 links).

The objection relating to two figures in the same space affecting range is that an attack is a singular thing at all times up until it is applied to individual figures in step 6. To get to step 6 it has to have already been determined to have had enough range to affect the space the figures are in. Having done that, removing range is perfectly possible, but utterly meaningless - range has been resolved already.
If you choose to make range backdate in step 6, then you create the loop. The attack affects the figure, the attack loses some of its range due to affecting the figure, the attack no longer has the range to affect the figure, so the cause of the range dropping off is removed and the range returns and the attack affects the figure... It just doesn't work.

In summary, it would be possible to choose to use your interpretations of how to do things, but whichever way you operate you run into practical problems.

The only objection to 'my' way is a thematic one which is purely a choice of how you personally want immunity to work thematically. There are good thematic reasonings backing up my way (even if you don't like them, they are still thematically workable), RAW backs up my way as much if not more than yours, and my way does not create the insurmountable issues that your does. So why is the choice so hard?

Corbon said:

I don't think the range 'returns' after the figure is not a target anymore. Range dropped --> target space cannot be reaced --> failed attack!

Saying that the range returns is like saying: "oh, you dodge the attack and I now miss.. hmm.. but if I miss than dodging has no effect, so then I would hit again...".
I know that example is very exaggerate (and flawed/untrue), but I can't think of a better comparison. But my point is that once an effect has affected the attack, it should not be removed simply because the criteria for the effect are removed by said effect.

EDIT:

Ok, an attempt of a better example. Say a creature would have the ability 'cannot be hit by ranged attacks'.

In your philosophy a ranged attack can hit the space. Then the figure says you cannot hit me, which means the figure is not affected. This means that the figure will be attacked again, which affects the figure. Then the ability kicks in again so that the figure cannot be affected. etcetera... there is your loop again.

Siebeltje said:

No. See a). below, which is how such an attack would work.

There are two actual 'affects the figure' in play here, and they are subtly different. The first 'affects the figure' is whether the attack actually gets to be applied to the figure - whether it affects the figure (affect the verb). The second is what affect the attack has on the figure (affect the noun).

An immunity by most common (and workable) definitions of immunity, modifies, reduces or eliminates the affect (noun). It does not operate 'outside' the immune figure and change the affect(verb) of the attack because by definition the affect (noun) cannot exist if the affect (verb) has not already succeeded..

a) An ability such as 'cannot be hit by ranged attacks' changes the affect (verb) of an attack directly (into a failure). Thus there is no loop. We have affect(verb) = FAIL. End of process.
b) An ability that uses a change of affect (noun) to modify the affect (verb) capability does create the loop issue. If the affect (verb) SUCCEED, then, and only then, the affect (noun) activates. If we then use affect (noun) to modify affect (verb) and choose to go back and recheck attack (verb) then we find attack(verb) = insufficent to trigger affect (noun), so affect (noun) does not modify affect (verb) which means the affect (verb) = SUCCEEDs, then and only then activating affect (noun), ... and thus we have a loop.
We are never able to resolve the effect (noun) because it forces us to go back to effect (verb). When we go back to affect (verb) we find no reason for affect (verb) to fail as affect (noun) can not operate yet.

Simplified.
1. The attack affects(verb) the figure, the attack is resolved, the attack has no/modified affect (noun). This is how no/modified affect (noun) works.
2. The attack affects(verb) the figure, the attack parameters are back-datedly modified, the attack therefore no longer affects (verb) the figure, therefore the attack parameters have no reason to be modified, the attack parameters are returned as the figure is not being affected (verb), the attack affects (verb) the figure...

In 2. we never actually get to the resolution of the attack (affect(noun)). We are instead stuck in the loop.

In fact, this difference between affect (verb) and affect (noun) might be an easier way to describe the difference between general defences (Soar, Black Curse, Fear etc - which affect the attack) and personal defences (Ironskin, Unstoppable).
General defenses work on affect the verb - they operate in step 5 and change whether the attack can affect(verb) the target space (or in the case or Soar, figure). They may also change parameters of the attack which aren't really relevant until step 6.
Personal defenses work in step 6 on the affect (noun) and modify (reduce) it. By that stage it is too late to change the affect(verb) as it has been resolved already.

Corbone I doubt that anything short of a definitive answer from FFG would shake your conviction that you are correct so I won't bother argueing any furthor. Enjoy the game.

Caleban said:

Would would you expect?

I would be quite willing to change my mind if faced by a decent argument or explanation that didn't have major flaws or create significant issues. So far the only one that has come close relies on (or leads to) attacks that miss (Xs or insufficient range) still affecting (verb) spaces.

The other side however seems to rely entirely upon an unshakeable conviction that only one (of several possible) thematic explanations for 'Immune' is possible (regardless of how well it works within the rules structure).
No good 'dismissal arguments' against my position (method A is wrong because of this).
No unflawed (except the one with a very dodgy (IMO) starting premise) arguments for their own position (method B is right because of this).

It seems to me that it is those who argue against my reading of the RAW are the ones who are being dogmatic.

Corbon said:

4. Yeah, we're cool on this. Or, at least, you and I are cool on this.

1, "Bad Writing"? Really? When a line in the book agrees with your position, it's cool, but when technically causes your interpretation to fail it's bad writing? Then again, I'm really going out on a limb to find the ridiculous technicality that will break your position, so I shouldn't be talking.

Anyways, neither step 4 nor step 5 explicitly mention that success can happen during step 5. Step 6 explicitly mentions a success check: step 4 says that success will come after the range is increased in step 5. Since both entries are talking about the same success check, the explicit mention of the timing of that success check should take precedence over the part where no timing was mentioned. I mean, it's stated right there in plain english.

2. Again, I know I'm arguing a technicality here, but I'm pretty sure you have to dispute my causual relationships in order to disprove my conclusion. Stringing together causal relationships is how proofs work, and you don't provide any evidence for your assertion that...well, I actually don't know what you're trying to say with X/Y in that sentence, that made little sense. I get the feeling that you're trying to tell me I'm wrong, but I don't understand how you're disputing what I'm saying there. To simplify and repeat, the relationships I've got here are:

Rules:
i) Fear explicitly happens when "affects a space"
ii) Fear must happen during step 5 for it to function properly
iii) If step 4 results in Attack Miss, Attack Hit explicitly happens after Step 5 is resolved
Corbon:
iv)"affects a space" happens after Attack Hit (based on rolled range exceeding required range and no X's)

If I combine i, iii, and iv above, ii fails. You're absolutely right that Fear must happen during step 5, but the timing on Fear is not determined by its requirement to spend surges. Rather, that's the requirement that causes any interpretation that leads to Fear triggering after step 5 to fail. Essentially, in your 2. above, you're telling me something that I'm trying to establish as one of the reasons why you're wrong. 1., the reference to bad writing, is a stronger argument than 2.

3. You're restating that attacks affect spaces on success. Your condition, "after they have been determined to not miss through lack of range or an X," is exactly what I thought it was: I should try to be clearer. That success check you mention explicitly happens during step 6 if there's a miss during step 4, no matter how cyclical step 5 is. To be honest, everything in the rules works just fine until you add your condition, that attacks affect spaces after a hit. Thus, attacks affect spaces before a hit occurs, as I previously asserted.

Here's where something totally hilarious happens. At this point, me proving that your interpretation of "affects a space" timing is wrong does me no good, because it doesn't magically disprove your interpretation of "affects a figure" timing. I went through and tried to find something to tie the two together, and the best I could come up with was the RtL descriptions of Breath and Bolt. However, even I think that doesn't work, since it doesn't mention any timing per se, just that figures do get affected. So, try as I might, I can't disprove this lone statement:

"Attacks affect figures only during step 6 after the attack has been (successfully, another check must be made) 'transfered' from affecting spaces to affecting individual figures."

Of course, I think it's very complicated, and you're pretty much inventing stuff that isn't defined in the rules, but there's nothing defining when figures are affected besides the word "affected", and there's really nothing I can use to dispute your interpretation of what that word means. As far as I can tell, there are no attack abilities that affect figures directly when their spaces are affected: everything triggers off of damage. Thus, attacks primarily do damage to figures, and taking the time of damage-dealing as the point where attacks affect figures is basically indisputable due to the lack of definition in this area.

So, yeah, I'm stuck. We've finally hit the point where there's nothing further I can do to dispute your timing of Ironskin. I could try going off of the "check to see if attack successfully transfers from affecting spaces to affecting figures" idea and saying that, just as Elevation can subtract from rolled range to cause the attack to fail to apply to an Elevated figure, Ironskin can reduce range from sorcery to cause the attack to fail to apply to the Ironskinned figure, but having multiple interpretations of the same idea doesn't magically make one of them correct. Besides, Elevation is very explicitly -1 to Range, as opposed to Ironskin's method of defending from a specific component of Range, so we'd just get into another discussion about whether or not you can remove components after the fact, and I'd have to say that you allowed for Range to be removed earlier since it didn't matter only now it does and we might go on for another 4 or so pages.

I'm ready (again) to call it a day and brainstorm what question would need to be asked in order to figure out the timing on "affects a figure". While we're at it, might as well get the clarification on when "affects a space" happens, even though it has to happen when targeting a space or you break Fear as written.

EDIT:

Corbon said:

I would be quite willing to change my mind if faced by a decent argument or explanation that didn't have major flaws or create significant issues. So far the only one that has come close relies on (or leads to) attacks that miss (Xs or insufficient range) still affecting (verb) spaces.

The other side however seems to rely entirely upon an unshakeable conviction that only one (of several possible) thematic explanations for 'Immune' is possible (regardless of how well it works within the rules structure).
No good 'dismissal arguments' against my position (method A is wrong because of this).
No unflawed (except the one with a very dodgy (IMO) starting premise) arguments for their own position (method B is right because of this).

It seems to me that it is those who argue against my reading of the RAW are the ones who are being dogmatic.

</MANUAL QUOTE>

Ha, I guess I misrepresented your position often enough that I deserved that. Given that you're relying entirely upon the gray area of unwritten and undefined words, I'd stray from implying that your argument is morally superior for some reason. We're both lawyering the hell out of this one in the worst way. I've been trying to ignore the late comers that seem to have missed your arguments the first time around (and the last time someone tried it), lest I end up saying something, you know, silly. Like calling someone dogmatic. </PLAYFUL RIBBING>

Thundercles said:

4. Good. I'm not to worried about most of the others. It's hard work re-explaining things, but the case is pretty much concrete there.

1. from step 4 (my bold)
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 .
To me, that says that in step 5, the attack can be changed from a failure to a success by increasing the range. (Which is still of minor importance due to the point 2 which I don't appear to have explained well enough). Its bad writing because it says this in step 4, not in step 5. But it still says it. I don;t think it needs to be explicit, that' s just the vagaries of English. Aside from moving that part to step 5, that is pretty much the exact way I'd write (in casual language - in other words a quick paraphrase) that [if an attack fails due to lack of range in step 4, additional range can be added in step 5 through the use of surges, enhancements or other affects so that the attack succeeds].
As an aside, though step 6 does explicitly mention a success check, it does not explicitly tie that check to step 6 and in fact links it with step 5 - in a similar casual manner to step 4 covering step 5.
To be honest, I read the first sentence of step 6 as a conditional modifier required for step 6 to go ahead that actually references step 5 as being the step where attack success or failure (on the space) has already been determined.
If, after step 5 is resolved, the attack hits, ...
Insert a 'has' after 'attack' (and remove the s in hits) to get a better sense of how I read it, then remove the has because it is unnecessary and awkward in the style of language they use.
My step 6 success check is really at the moment only necessary for Soar - because the way Soar is written means that an attack can affect the space a Soaring figure is in but not be able to affect the soaring figure. Therefore, there must be, by the implication of Soar, a (previously not required) check for affecting the figure in a space affected.
I can see it also (now that you point it out) as being readable so that the success check is in step 6. But, as you say, that causes a clash with the way Fear as written, so though a valid exercise of English, cannot be the correct way to read the sentence in the context of the rules. Its another one of those situations where we can legitimately choose A or B. A causes issues, B does not, so B becomes the default 'correct' choice.
I didn't even see your way of reading that first sentence in step 6 until you pointed it out, so I have to admit that my argument against it is not actually the reason I chose my way of reading, but it is the justification for keeping my way ahead of yours.

2. What I tried to say in this is that I think you are making an unfounded logic leap here.
Step 4 covers two types, and only those two types, of failures.
- Failures due to rolling an X
- Failures due to insufficient range
There are other types of failures, that are not covered by step 4. Fear is one of them. Bash blanks are another. Shadowcloak vs non adjacency and Ghost vs Adjacent melee might be others (though slightly different in both style and substance).
As far as I can tell, your argument (here) is that Since we can explicitly fail in step 4 and we can explicitly fail in step 6 (setting aside for now our disagreement on step 6 detailed in my 1. just above) then we any other failure timing is definitively ruled out. You are asserting that failures (of types not actually covered by step 4 anyway) cannot happen in step 5 because we have explicit failure timings in steps 4 and 6.
I think that is wrong. I think that having explicit failure timings in step 4 and in step 6 merely tells us that both step 4 and step 6 are possible failure timings. It does not tell us that other steps are not possible failure timings. Indeed, when you add to that the utter indefinition throughout step 5, the implied indication in step 4 that step 5 can change a step 4 fail (to a succeed, since there are only two options), the fact that Fear can only work in step 5 and then throw on top my reading of step 6 indicating that step 5 is the arbiter of success/failure and the way that a Bash-blank failure is not mentioned in step 4 so must also be applied in step 5, you come to the conclusion that in fact step 5 has more importance in the success/failure resolution than either step 4 or step 6!

3. See my 1. for why we were mis-connecting.

10. I understand the 'inventing stuff' thought. I don't feel that I am just making it up though. Everything follows naturally through the process as described in the loosely written rules. I've tried to make the steps and processes loosely described in the RAW concrete (which is a sort of invention, because they are so vaguely described by the RAW) so that we can parse things out clearly and find where and why clashes might come up, however I have always tried to make those 'invented' steps follow all rules exactly as written. I only 'add' bits that are directly implied by some existing process or other.
The result is 12 or more steps instead of 6, and several of those have substeps as well. But everything follows the RAW and does not create any objective* rules clashes or logical flaws. Indeed, several logical flaws and objective rules clashes are resolved.
It is complex, but in fact it is just as simple and easily playable as the current vague rules, as most of the complexity is easily skimmed over and only really relevant when an issue crops up.
As far as the 'affecting figures in step 6, and only step 6' goes, you are right. It is not explicit in the rules that this is so. However, we need to know when figures are affected. Since we have no direct information, we could arguably place 'attacks affecting figures' at any point in the timing. However, where we place it will have no supportable foundation, except if we place it at step 6 where we know explicitly that figures are affected. there at least, we have some foundation.
I can see you already understand this, but I am reiterating this point in order to show what I described above about trying to have a solid foundation for my 'inventions' and following the RAW at all times.

11. *Elevation is my weakest link. I can't fully resolve it to my satisfaction, but I think it basically contradicts the RAW anyway and I am not sure it can be resolved without rewriting it. Elevation expressly states that " a non-elevated figure attacking an elevated figure ..." - yet the rules say figures attack spaces, not figures. DJitD pg 9 "...attacking player declares which space his figure is attacking."
If that part of Elevation is rewritten to say that a non elevated figure which attacks an elevated space receives -1R and -1D, then Elevation is no longer an issue.

Also*
I consider the base Sorcery/Ironskin objection to be subjective as it is entirely created by a subjective choice of what immunity means and how it works.

12. Heh. I am fully expecting (if it is answered at all) a FAQ answer which supports the original premise that since Ironskinned figures are immune to Sorcery then Sorcery cannot be used against them. That is because FFG's record in the last FAQ was so abysmal with answers that directly contradict each other, and the RAW - simply because the question was not considered deeply and the immediate superfical answer was given.
I am hoping to be proved wrong.

As for a decent question? There are multiple we could ask, though I think most of them are already answered by my 12step system (of course, I'm surely biased, even though I think I'm being objective here ).
I would think simple questions that are not necessarily directly related to the oriinal problem will be more useful - clarify fundamentals rather than minor issues at the perimeter.

Delete screwed up quote tags post

Thundercles said:

Well, lets be fair. I frequently didn't explain my position either clearly enough or accurately, so the misrepresentation should have some shared responsibility. My comments were also not really aimed at you (with the obvious exception of the IMO dubious 'attacks affect spaces even if they miss' theory <returns playful ribbing> ).

I didn't mean to imply moral superiority. I did mean to imply logical and/or "doesn't cause impossible situations" superiority. (That is, my argument, not me personally!)
But of course, I'm biased.

The thing about lawyering is that it's only required when writting is not clear. The world would be a far better place if all the law schools were replaced with "clear communications(writing)" schools.

<lawyer cap> Dogma: "a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle" (www.dictionary.com, def 4)
Since I don't consider mine settled - I'm willing to change it and adapt it as necessary when proved wrong (or unable to explain some point) , therefore I don't consider my stance dogmatic. I would consider you in the same light, since you are growing and modifying your understanding as the argument continues. People who try to re-argue a point already disproved, ignoring the disproof even when it is re-presented to them, clearly have a settled belief, otherwise known as dogma. </lawyer cap>

Okay, possibly I'm oversimplifying my take on this, and I gave up following the thread 8 pages ago, but here's how I see it:

Ironskin: Provides immunity to several damage effect types (Aura, Bleed, Burn, Pierce, Poison, and Sorcery)

Why? It's in the name of the ability...IRON SKIN. It acts as a barrier, not as an anti-magic field. It will resist the added 'punch' of Sorcery damage (just as it resists Poison, and correct me if I'm wrong, but does not resist the damage of the attack itself .) An attack with Burn against an Ironskinned target doesn't fail...the target just can't catch on fire. An attack with Pierce isn't ignored...just the Pierce itself.

I can see how there could be some confusion, in a strange world where common sense and semantics take a back seat to word-by-word analysis. I'm not saying my answer is correct...just that an ability called Ironskin probably makes its holder have iron-like skin.

A creature immune to fire damage still takes the'sword' part of the damage from a flaming sword...just not the 'flaming' part.

This question has also been officially answered in the latest FAQ. If you're going to restart long-dead discussions, Daemnor, please try to ensure that your information is up-to-date.

My apologies...I'm new to the forums and was just going through them, getting a feel for the types of discussions, and occasionally adding my view point.

True, this question is covered in the latest FAQ; however, in the spirit of the (incredibly long) debate, I was adding a plausible explanation. The fact that the FAQ confirms it is merely serendipity.