Yet another interpretation could be that a figure with ironskin is immune to attacks that have the sorcery attribute. At least it's simple to apply. Although if this was the intent, why not include it in the "damage reduced to 0" section...

</braindump>, carry on.

Sure, this last post is entirely valid, what's the point? A good writer is invalueable.

But even in your last post, using statements like "Like Burn, Blast, etc" fall short when a later expansion creates new effects which are no longer in the "like" statement. So you're going to rerelease all the cards every time? That's not an expansion, that's a rerelease of a new game, and it's not cost effective. We already got denied our Wendigo Spawn card due to reducing the # of cards in an expansion, I'd rather get new content than reissues of the old.

Remember, it's a game, and it's mass marketed to people less technical and overly analytical as us.

Yes I think everyone agrees Ironskin only benefits the monster with ironskin.

So if a hero shots 8 spaces away and rolls 6 range with 2 sorcery, and could hit a troll, he could not hit a golem. That hero's shot was only powerful enough to damage a creature 6 spaces away on its own, but w the added power from the sorcery, it can damage one further away. The golem is immune to that extra power from the sorcery.

If that same player Blasted a space equally far away such that the extra distance added by the sorcery makes it in range to hit the golem, then it is immune, but a troll would take damage.

I really dont see the problem of why someone immune to sorcery should be affected by range added by sorcery that hits the monster immune to sorcery. It's a really BAD overanalysis of the rules, given you accept they may be poorly written, that is no excuse to try to turn the game on end and make certain abilities defunct by your legal interpretations.

By the example I gave about rolling 2 power enhancements with your sorcery, hitting a monster that needs an extra 2 range, the immunity is completely worthless cuz the caster can use power dice to add the damage and the sorcery to add range then, STILL getting the benefit of sorcery against creatures that are immune to it.

And, I dont think it's necessarily ambiguous just cuz you see it another way. I have to believe that an "ambiguous" rule would be interpreted 2 ways by around 50% of the audience. In this case, I bet (unproveable) if you asked 100 random people to interpret what immune to sorcery meant in regards to the effects of sorcery, probly almost all of them would say it means they're immune to the whole effect, not just half. We cant prove that so no more needs be said, but we can think on it a bit.

Remember the internet is a haven for people to share thoughts like this, but this entire discussion is had by maybe 5-10 players, when there are thousands that play the game, and those discussing out here are specifically those interested in diligently analyzing the rules. Therefore we are collectively not an indicitive sample of the general descent community.

For example many of the "ambiguous" things that have come up here, were never even touched on by our group of players. Rules that seem broke and incompetent out here seem no-brainers in regular play, cuz it's only when you sit down and try to write out elaborate analyses of the rules and steps and specific words that you can come up w the loopholes.

poobaloo said:

Apologies to everyone else, I fought the battle to ignore this and lost. Numbers added to paragraphs to make answers more obviously relevant.

1. The point is that you specifically said that the rules were badly written. Theer is also a slim (minute even) hope that someone at FFG might read it and pay attention.

2. These things mostly don't come from cards. At the back of every rules set there is a list of what each ability does. Some of those abilities may need updating in each expansion. Thats adding or changing a few bits of text on one or two pages. A few cards may need changing, though most likely not very many (especially if they re well structured in the first place). This has already been done by FFG at least once.

3. Fine, but this means you have made a new change - Sorcery added to range makes the whole attack fail, Sorcery added to Damage merely makes that particular bonus Damage fail. Thats a less consistent and more complicated system than what you are already complaining about. Alternatively, the whole attack fails if Sorcery is used for Range or Damage - which then gives advantages to other figures, something you have already admitted is not correct.

4. Ok, next time there is a problem and we try to solve it we'll use sloppy analysis rather than careful analysis. Surely that will make all the problems disappear... Oh and you disagreeing with the results doesn't automatically make it BAD analysis. (Not that I am claiming its perfect - Antistone improves it everytime he summarises and clarifies)

5. No, the immunity is not completely useless. It is of reduced effect in particular circumstances (when extra range is needed) and of marginal-to-no effect in one particular circumstance (by a character with a unique special - newsflash, specials often break normal rules or provide unique benefits!)

6. Ambiguous just means it has more than one reasonable meaning. It does not mean reduced to the lowest common denominator.
You can fool all of the people some of the time. That doesn't mean they weren't fooled. Mass wrongness does not make rightness, despite todays media.
I myself started with the same thought-less (as in I hadn't given it any thought) interpretation as Thundercles (not saying he hasn't given it any thought). But it caused some problems, so I was forced to give it some thought in order to solve the problems the best way. The same thoughtless (haven't looked beyond the immediate surface) approach would probably see 99% of people answer the same way - and 1% answer different out of sheer pig-headedness rather than any detailed examination. That much is evident in some of the FAQ answers, which answer very shallowly and create more problems than they solve.

7. Nope, better not to comment here after all...

I appreciate all the posts giving reasonings behind their thinking. I'm hoping to play this weekend with my group so we will likely talk about it then.

Oh, so there was some discussion about how to phrase this question if you send it in. Naturally, we want to phrase it in a way that calls out the key issues, makes it difficult to respond without actually resolving the question, and preferably does not bias the answer. I would try something like this:

Q. If an attack would miss due to range before spending Sorcery to increase range, then can a figure that is "immune to Sorcery " (such as a Golem) still be affected by that attack? If it is not affected, does the entire attack miss, or can it still affect other figures that are not immune? If the figure is affected, then how does this interact with Laurel of Bloodwood's hero ability?

I'd also be slightly tempted to add something like "can you please rewrite the attack resolution rules, only better," but I suspect that would be counterproductive, and frankly there are a lot of other rules that need it much more. You could also add a note about the difference in wording for Road to Legend, but theoretically, if the answer is intentionally different in Road to Legend, they should know that without us pointing it out. Also, it's RtL, so personally, I don't care in the first place.

And yes, I've given up on poobaloo. The rest of you can continue trying to explain things to him if you want, but he's passed my threshold for patience.

Q. If an attack would miss due to range before spending Sorcery to increase range, then can a figure with Ironskin (such as a Golem) still be affected by that attack? If it is not affected, does the entire attack miss, or can it still affect other figures that are not immune? If the figure is affected, then how does this interact with Laurel of Bloodwood's hero ability?

Making the italicised change includes both versions of Ironskin.
It also would hopefully force anyone who looks at it with a view to answering to actually look at what Ironskin says and be reminded of the other effects of Ironskin. ...continues dreaming...

Corbon said:

**** that edit button disappearing!

1. The point is that you specifically said that the rules were not badly written.

Antistone said:

Big Remy took the pounding last time. My turn to step up unto the breach.

Corbon said:

The Spiritwalker thing? Yeeeeeeeeeah.

Here's another equally far fetched over-analysis of the rules.

Ironskin - Immune to the effects of Pierce.

Pierce 2 - The attacker negates 2 points of armor.

So. The attacker (a monster) rolls his attack. Say he scores 4 hearts. Ok great. Defender ( a hero) has 8 health, 2 armor. The armor is due to Chain mail. Ok. Step 1: Subtract the pierce from the armor. (note the pierce does not affect the defender with ironskin, it is only used in a calculation related to his armor, which is done first.)

since The armor does not have ironskin (technically, the player does, not his armor), we subtract the pierce from the armor. Now we apply the damage, to the target. The target has Ironskin, so he's immune to Pierce. Right, but we're not applying Pierce to the target, we already applied it to his armor in the previous step. We do not actually affect the hero or apply damage, until the armor calculation is done. So the target takes full damage.

By a completely literal interpretation, Ironskin is therefor worthless against pierce, since pierce reduces the armor rating, it does not actually affect the hero.

It is the same thing. Sorcery used for range is not really affecting someone with ironskin and therefore the ironskin does not make him immune to the effects of sorcery? Come on.

As Antistone said, the rules are not written to be disected word by word, and crossed with other rules, especially when those rules cross over expansions. Your analysis involves taking rules from various different writings, analyzing specific steps and intricasies of them, to come up with something completely tangential. You can spin ANYTHING that way if you so choose to do so.

The Ironskin rule is very clear! Immune to the effects of Pierce and Sorcery. So Pierce still affects, since sure you're affecting the armor calculation only, but it's the armor of the target! Sorcery might affect the ability to deliver a magic attack far enough to reach a target's space, but the point is you're attacking that monster / hero, with intent to hit the monster / hero. If you have to use Sorcery to do so, and the target is immune - there is just no ambiguity there.

The rules are NOT badly written, no more than a childrens book is badly written because it uses short sentences. The instruction book and cards are DELIBERATELY written in a non-technical / non-legaleez sense to appeal to the general public, which involves a wide spread of ages. It is not POOR writing just cuz you think it's missed some key things. You might think it's poorly written, but only cuz you're holding it to a personal standard and not the standard it was written for. The rule is very clear (to me, and anyone I've since showed it to). It is just this wacky rules lawyering that results in things like Ironskin being completely worthless cuz the range (from sorcery) and pierce dont technically affect the target, they affect some other aspect of the target's existence, like his distance from the attacker or armor he might be wearing.

Note guys I'm not "pounding" you. I would appreciate, like most would, if you wish to banter on, do so, but let's not make it personal, yeah? :-) I appreciate all your arguments and they are very well written and intelligent, I just disagree that the rule is in any way ambiguous, or that Ironskin should not negate the effects of Sorcery or Pierce.

-mike

poobaloo said:

Can you show me where it says that Pierce has to be applied first to an Armor Item instead of being applied to the Hero's base armor before we go any further with this example? Because you are about to potentially make a big assumption.

poobaloo said:

Firstly, you are right, it was a personal comment even as banter, and I apologise.

Again, since there are multiple things to address and the stupid forum system makes it difficult to mix up comments and quotes, I've added numbers to your paragraphs to help make sense of the replies.

1. Your analysis is horribly wrong because you make a fundamental error. The rules do not differentiate between 'natural' armour and 'equipment' armour in that step. A characters armour is the sum various parts. What you are doing is deliberately false. Your deliberately false analysis does not invalidate other analysis (analysii?) that do not include fundamental errors.
Further, introducing a deliberately wrong argument for your opponents side in a discussion and then shooting it down is called a 'straw man argument' and is very bad form! It does happen accidentally through misunderstanding, but I really don't think this was accidental.

2. Unlike your feeble (deliberately) attempt, I'm not 'spinning' anything, I started from the same position you are at now, found a flaw in that position and used a step by step method to try and work out why that flaw was happening. What I found was a minor mis-assumption I had made caused by misleading (not wrong) wording.

3. The way you write it there is no ambiguity, I agree. But what you write is incorrect in every part. Intent is irrelevant. Pierce is a straw man and does not need dignifying further. Range does not attack/affect figures, it attacks/effects spaces. This has already been clearly and repeatedly explained to you. You never address this point, neither to accept nor refute, but simply ignore it and state the same old thing that has already been clearly explained incorrect. Thats pounding. The same thing, again and again, ignoring any refutation or counter argument, just using the same faulty premise to come to the same faulty conclusion.

4. Ok, here you get called. This entire paragraph is utter rubbish (except for the part about the rules being clear to you).
What is the standard it was written for? To be rules of a game.
What is required of rules? That they be clear (FAIL) and defining (FAIL), non-contradictory (FAIL) and cover all situations within the game that they create (FAIL). That they be simple and easy to read is a bonus, not a requirement.
This is not a personal standard, IMO. This is a basic standard for any rules of any game.
Don't get me wrong, I love this game.
BTW, once again ignoring an opponents points and repeating the same thing. Pounding.

5. Pounding has been covered. An apology was warranted and has been delivered. The meaning of ambiguity has been explained and ignored. You are still free to disagree with the conclusions I made (and unless you address my points or come up with some actual new arguments I'll still think you are wrong) but claiming unambiguity is just ... pounding.

I challenge you. Go through my analysis step by step and show me the flaw. Not jump straight to the flaw, not wildly make this claim or that claim. Go through each of my steps and say yay or nay, then explain why not if nay.
I expect you will claim the flaw is in the step where I say range is not an affect on a figure. You will be wrong. Range of an attack is between the attacker and the target space. Any figures affected by the attack do not come into the range calculation and are not part of this step in any way.

Big Remy said:

I'm not about to do anything, I deliberately made big of assumptions about as ridiculous as the other rules derailments and overanalysis, like that you can take snippets or individual words out of various rules, and out of context, cross them, and come up with entirely meaningless rules as a result, like that Ironskin, which is specifically stated to ignore the effects of Sorcery, doesn't really ignore them, it only ignores half of them.

Meanwhile you ignore the simple writing on the card, which is that Ironskin ignores the effects of Sorcery! Not just those effects that specifically target the body with damage, but "the effects". One effect of Sorcery is to add +X to range. it's ignored by a target with Ironskin, even tho you technically target just the space. That's ridiculous to say that since you're targeting the space, and not the figure, that the Ironskin doesnt apply.

The attack is still ON THE FIGURE. The use of the space is a tool for calculating distance and line of sight, which is all part of the attack, which includes using sorcery to gain range to hit a creature that is immune to sorcery.

Corbon said:

This is such a bunk argument. Yes you're using range to get to a space. A space - with an enemy - that you're attacking - with an ability that he's immune to! You're not attacking "the space" you're attacking "the enemy" and the space is used to calculate the LOS and distance. So you calculate the range to the space, so that, for example, if a dragon is sitting there, you dont just measure the distance to the closest wingtip. Still you are calculating the distance to the space as part of the attack on the enemy, using range to reach the enemy (in the space) which that enemy is immune to.

Corbon said:

Read the ages on the box.

I've already explained that the flaw in your steps is that it breaks the rules down into disjointed individual words, which when joined together in fashions other than written on the card, you create other rules. Sure you can break down any sentence, mix them around with other sentences, from other expansions, and come up with anything you want.

You argue that you're targeting the space and not the figure, but you really ARE targeting the figure, you're not trying to shoot the floor under him (which you could reach, with Sorcery). You're trying to hit the enemy in the space, which is IMMUNE to your Sorcery. So when calculating the distance to that space (as a result of attacking him with an ability he's immune to) you do not use the immune ability.

This is such a silly discussion, I think I'm done with it. I dont intent to try to convince you Corbon, as I said I do see your reasoning. I think we should just agree to disagree here. I dont find you "wrong", or anything, just having a difference of opinion.

To each his own, enjoy your games where "Immunity to Sorcery" isnt really immune. I have no objection at all to you playing that way.

-mike

poobaloo said:

Bunk argument or not, its what the rules (or FAQ) says!
There may not be a figure in the space targeted. There may be a different (non-ironskinned) figure in the space targeted. If either of these is the case then your argument collapses.

Immunity to an ability does not prevent the attacker using that ability, as you claim above, it prevents that ability from affecting the immune figure.

You yourself have agreed that Ironskin does not give any other figure except the Ironskinned a benefit. Yet preventing Sorcerous range does benefit other figures, so your own position is self contradictory.

We can agree to disagree. Which means, BTW, we think the other is wrong but thats ok.

I'll keep playing immunity as providing immunity, you are perfectly free to play it as providing a benefit for all around it. Each to his own. However when people ask what the rules say, I'll present my case. I'm not trying to force them to play like that, just to explain what the rules say, as asked.

poobaloo said:

I realize that you were doing in it an effort to make big of assumptions but you just completely made up a rule out of thin air in this case for Pierce so it doesn't really help your argument.

I been trying to follow everyone's arguements for the most part, but everytime I think about it I keep coming back to the example concerning 2 monsters (one with Ironskin and one without) and Blast.

Can someone please explain to me again the argument of why you couldn't use Sorcery to gain the range needed to target the space you are attacking and why having solely one Ironskin figure there cause the Blast attack to miss? My only argument for it is that it operates similar to Fear, where is an area attack can miss if you don't roll enough surges vs Fear.

Corbon said:

Where do I claim that? Please dont put words in my mouth. I've never stated that Immunity does not prevent the attacker using that ability, all I've pointed out is that the monster with Ironskin would be immune to such effects. Either the addition of range or damage.

It doesnt collapse at all. Again, pls stop the ridiculous affirmations that I am wrong and you are right. We differ. There is a difference, and you seem to be intolerant of views other than your own crazy interpretation.

Ok, if there is no figure in the targeted space, then sure you can reach it via Sorcery.

If there is a figure that is not immune to the Sorcery attack, and you can reach that figure by Sorcery, then you can damage it.

If there is a figure immune to the Sorcery attack, then it is immune.

It does not prevent the attacker using the ability. He can use it. But if the enemy he's using Sorcery to hit is immune to Sorcery, then too bad.

And no I dont necessarily think you're wrong. We're talking about interpretations here, and your desire to break "Immunity to Sorcery" down into its base words and look at how the immunity doesnt technically apply since the attack isnt technically made unto the monster itself, when that's not right. I do not like that you repeatedly affirm that I'm wrong, when I repeatedly assure you that I do see your reasoning. I disagree with it, but do concede that the tangents you draw can indeed be drawn. I can come up with many such tangents, equally and even more far fetched.

How is it preventing a Sorcerer's range? If there are 2 monsters in one space and they are attacked simultaneously? If that's even possible, then if you attack them and one is immune but the other is not, then you simply hit the one that's immune, and dont hit the other. This is not rocket science. The immune one affords no protection to the non-immune. But the immune one is still immune!

Big Remy said:

Great example. Ok a group of a Golem and Skeleton next to each other, and you use Blast on the Skeleton, with Sorcery that makes up needed range... Does the:

...Golem (being immune) cause the whole attack to fail? Of course not. He is immune, but he doesnt affect the attack on the Skeleton.

...Golem protect the Skeleton? Of course not, the Skeleton was the target.

...Blast hurt the Golem? Well let's see. The attack reached the target (including the Golem) by Sorcery, an ability that the Golem is immune to. So NO, the Golem is not hurt. He's immune! The extra "punch" that carried the attack far enough to hit and damage the non-immune skeletonwas not powerful enough to breach the ironskin, cuz the ironskin is immune to the range-adding effects of Sorcery.

What if you target the Golem instead.

Does the:

... attack reach the Golem? Yes, it does, but the Golem is immune. Ok, fine Golem is safe, carry on, process the Blast to neighbors.

... Skeleton take damage? Sure. It was adjacent to a space that was Blasted, with Sorcery. He's not immune to either of those.

What other situational intricasies make this immunity so hard for others to accept?

The Golem is immune, the Skeleton is not. It is so simple it's ridiculous that has become such a long thread.

Off topic arguments keep bleeding in here....

That pierce thing was...heh...pretty silly. I liked the "Go the Distance" analogy better; Pierce is just so well defined that there's no comparison.

About the rules being well or poorly written...Soar. Leap. The discarding of the prop-by-prop trap/obstacle definition system for one that throws away old rules. Given the number of interactions in this game, the rules do a pretty good job at covering most of the bases, but there's still visible seams and grey areas where houserules, um, rule.

This particular case is an extension of the rules hole surrounding what happens when an attack uses an effect to target a creature with an immunity to that effect that only gets resolved after it gets targeted, not before (i.e. what if you use an aim reroll to extend the blast area to include a dodging monster?). The "range targets a space" argument is only possible because attacks were made to target spaces not figures, which is useful for blast but a giant headache for many other cases. It's been a fight-causer before, and it allows friendly fire that breaks a few scenarios (Twins rumor, for example). At this point, arguing that the rules are well-writen is going to require some kind of "what are well-written rules" definition. Saying that the rules were written to be intentionally simple is not an argument supporting the opinion that they are well-written.

I came across a similar situation to this one, regarding Elevated figures. Say an elevated figure uses blast to target spaces containing elevated and non-elevated figures. The dice come up 1 range short; by the rules, "An elevated figure attacking a non-elevated figure (i.e., attacking down) gains +1 range and +1 damage." So, assuming no other bonuses besides elevation, does the attack hit? The "range targets a space" concept would, by Corbon's reasoning, break the Elevation rules such that the extra range would only come into play after the attack hits. I say this because it seems like the Sorcery/Ironskin ambiguity relies on dealing with the attacked space until it's time to resolve damage to the affected figures; please correct me if I misrepresented Corbon's argumen.

EDIT: poobaloo, Blast attacks are a terrible example because Golems ignore the damage from them, so you can just ignore Golems entirely when making Blast attacks (unless they're dodging).

Thundercles said:

Excellent point. Some contradictory rules writing there, since you don't attack figures...

You are right, one of the foundations of the Sorcery Ironskin issue is that range targets spaces and so the 'immunity' has no effect until the damage dealing step.

Elevation, breaking as it does the attacking a space rule, break this down.

Naturally I advocate treating elevation as the elevation of the target space rather than indivudal figures. It works well because sweep is rare and it would be odd for blast or breath to suffer from elevation effects due to the nature of them (which is more or less a thematic support, but its only support for 'feeling' comfortable with a necessary RAW interpretation where the rules are contradictory.

Thundercles said:

HAHAHA! That was a dumbass move on my part too. I am not doing well lately.

Big Remy said:

You're keeping your good humor, right? Not doing so bad, I'd say.

Hey, if I can't make fun of myself then how am I supposed to make fun of others?

So everyone seems to agree that this argument has now boiled down to the one question:

"An attack targets a space, but does immunity to sorcery kick in before determining range or during deciding damage?"

I would point out Poobaloo's case sounds the soundest to me because of one other ability: Soar.

Soar is a special defensive ability just like Ironskin. If it doesn't kick in during the 'determining range' step then what's the point of it? That means that defensive abilities DO kick in before range to hit the target is compared. It makes sense then that immunity to sorcery would then also apply during this step since +1 range IS an effect of sorcery. The strongest argument against the ironskin vs range ruling was that the immunity didn't kick in UNTIL the range is sufficient to hit but I think I clearly showed an example where the target's abilities are taken into account before range is counted.

In the event a golem and beastman were in the same square and an attack was made on that square, I'd rule that the attack would hit the beastman and the golem would be immune since the extra sorcery needed to him the golem wouldn't be counted.

Neostrider said:

Soar is not a 'general defensive ability' the same as Ironskin. Its a specific ability which affects movement and the way things (tokens, figures, obstacles etc) interact on the board. It interacts in an utterly different way than Ironskin, Black Curse, Fear, Regeneration, Unstoppable and Undying - the other 'general defensive abilities' and is not really at all relevant in this discussion.

What you are effectively saying with your ruling, is that there are really two attacks - one that hits the square, and one that hits a slightly-closer-to-the-attacker square?(so what if there was a third monster in this square?!?) Thats wierder and more awkward than doing it the way I suggest the rules tell you too.

What then if the beastman/golem space is at the back of the golem but the hero is able to target the space (say with Crack Shot)? Then without sorcery the attack hits the front of the golem, with sorcery it hits the combined space. How do you deal with that? Two different attacks? Golems Ironskin trumps Sorcery, effectively making the Beastman immune?

KISS. Following the rules carefully as written provides the simplest and most reasonable way to handle all of the vagaries. There is only the issue of a needless hangup with the word 'immune' and its application. Unfortunately some people can't get past this.