I glad you agree with my points. I only disagreed with you in my last point because it sounded like you were applying figure defenses before step 5. If that had been the case then shadowcloak would have applied to all the figures being attacked.

The other big hangup, and the point I think Corbon and I are still disagreeing is that with my method it is possible for figures sharing a space to get hit/missed seperately, when it it one space being targeted. I have no problem with that, but the rational for why is very loose and burried deep in the grey area between realism and games mechanics. No one will dig it out, they'll just nudge it closer to one side or the other once the official answer comes down from above.

Ok, after a couple of days I'm back, and the discussion has moved on (and made some small progress it seems). Rather than go back to where it was and answer each point individually etc, I'll just carry on from where it is at now.

The main issue I have from the most recent posts seems to come down to this:
I can't see how, or accept that, an attack can have more than one (final) range .
Either it has the range to hit a space, or it does not. If it hits that space, then it affects the figures in and around that space as defined by those figures. Note that Soar is an exception as it specifically says that Range to the Soaring figure is increased by 4 spaces - so an attack can have the range to hit the space the Soaring creature is in and yet not have the range to affect the soaring figure. It still has one range, for all the figures affected, but that range may not be enough to reach one of the figures. Note also that the range of an attack is able to exceed the range required to hit the target space and yet still hit the target space, so it may be that the attack has the range to hit both the Soaring and non-soaring figures.

This is where sorcery-range being cancelled for one monster and not cancelled for another monster collapses for me. The range of an attack is a constant of the attack, once the attack is defined as a success or a failure. (So, incidentally, are the damage and side effects, although once they are applied to different figures they will have different results).

Big Remy's shadowcloak/blast was an excellent example. Shadowcloak affects only the owning figure - the same as ironskin. The shadowcloaked figure ignores the attack, but that doesn't affect the attack itself and it still hits the Beastman at full effect.

Another point that I don't think anyone has yet addressed is that I am not arguing that the Sorcery/Range/Immunity thing is not in effect at any particular time. Its always in effect (on the owning figure). The question is whether that effect actually does anything 'real'.

I maintain that the Ironskin effect, affecting only the owning figure as it does, does not actually have any effect on the attack until the owning figure has been affected by the attack. Sure, once the attack has reached the point where Total damage is being transferred individually to each affected figure, then Ironskin (Immunity to Sorcery) finally has an effect - it can even cancel Sorcerous Range if you want it to - the point is that cancelling that Sorcerous Range doesn't have any 'real' effect at this stage because we are already calculating damage. Range is no longer an issue. If Sorcerous range is backdatedly cancelled by Ironskin, then the attack itself either has two different ranges (not acceptable) or Ironskin helps the non-Ironskinned (not acceptable)

We also still have the endless loop (not addressed) if Sorcery can backdatedly affect the range of an attack.
1. Sorcerously Ranged attack hits target space (or figure if you want).
2. Figure is affected by attack.
3. Ironskin cancels Sorcerous range.
4. Range is not enough to hit target space/figure and attack fails
5. Attack does not affect Ironskinned figure
6. If figure is not affected, ironskin can not affect the attack
7. Sorcerous range does not get cancelled
1a. Sorcerously Ranged attack hits target space (or figure if you want).
2a. Figure is affected by attack.
3a. Ironskin cancels Sorcerous range.
4a. Range is not enough to hit target space/figure and attack fails
5a. Attack does not affect Ironskinned figure
6a. If figure is not affected, ironskin can not effect the attack
7a. Sorcerous range does not get cancelled
1b. ....

So it basically comes down to, and please correct me if I'm wrong, does Ironskin being Immune to Sorcery mean you can't use Sorcery to gain the range to hit X square occupied by figure with Ironskin?

With all due respect to everyone, I have to agree with Corbon (and I hope I'm getting you position right) that range added through Sorcery isn't affected by Ironskin.

I looked at it again and I can expand my example into Ironskin.

Take a Golem and a Beastman and place them one square apart, and have a mage with a Blast rune target the square between them. Mage rolls the attack, comes up 1 range short. He then uses part of his Sorcery 2 (from whatever source) to get 1 range to hit the target square. There is no way Ironskin can interfere with that since he was never targeting the space the Golem was in, as the RAW says you declare what space you are attacking. Agreed?

Now, he calculates damage and adds in the left over point from Sorcery to the damage. The Beastman takes the full damage. The Golem however isn't immune to Blast, he is immune to Sorcery according to the ability description. So the 1 point of damage from Sorcery is gone. Agreed?

The rest of the damage is then reduced to zero (not the same as immune) by Ironskin, so the Golem doesn't take any wounds from the attack while the same attack turns the Beastmen into hamburger.

The Ironskin remained an active ability, only hindered the Sorcery adding damage and not the range, and reduced the damage done to the Golem to zero. All things happened in this example completely follow the RAW as far as I can tell and it all works together.

So now take that targetted square and move it over 1 space so its under the Golem. Why would the rules suddenly change so that you are no longer targeting the space? Range added by Sorcery doesn't affect the figure with Ironskin (Golem), range is applied to determine if you hit the space.

Take a non-Blast attack made with Sorcery 2, doing 10 damage using 1 point of Sorcery for range and 1 for damage on a Golem. Hitting the space using a Sorcery range is completely different than hitting the figure isn't it? So you hit the space, but its a Golem so it negates the effects of Sorcery on itself right? It would still be taking 9 damage from the attack, since only 1 point of Sorcery was used for damage. It wouldn't negate the whole attack, just that 1 point of damage.

Just my take on it.

poobaloo said:

Part of the problem with your argument is that you are still using a method/system/interpretation discarded earlier in the discussion (or at least proved to have problems, and not readdressed since) and everyone else seems to have accepted that your method is not workable.

For your A), you are using 'Immunity to Sorcery translates as immunity to any attack using Sorcery'. That is not true. It is immunity to the sorcery part of the attack, not the whole attack. This is how Immunity to Pierce, Immunity to Burn, Immunity to Bleed etc etc works. An attack with Pierce 1 does not completely bounce of an Ironskinned figure, only the Pierce 1 part has no affect on the figure - the rest of the attack still does. An attack with Sorcery does not bounce off a figure immune to Sorcery, only the Sorcery part does. If the Sorcery was used for range, bouncing off makes no difference. The range of the attack has already been resolved - it must be resolved for the attack to even be affecting the figure so the Immunity can act. If the Sorcery was used for damage then the damage part has not yet been resolved, and when it is (when Total Damage is applied to the figure and is processed into Final Damage) then the Sorcerous Damage will bounce off - defeated by the immunity.
Under your B), the Beastman is being protected by the Golem. If the golem was not there, the attacker would use his Sorcery and increase the damage to the Beastman. It is the Ironskin of the Golem which stops this damage affecting the Beastman, nothing else. It does not matter that the process is a choice. The variable that changes the result on the Beastman is the Ironskin of the Golem. Therefore it is the Ironskin of the Golem that is protecting the Beastman.

It only agrees with the rules because you are imparting extra 'effects' to immunities (in other words, it agrees to Rules+, not the rules). You are using an immunity to a part of an attack as an immunity to the entirety of an attack - but, unless you do something unique with Pierce/Bleed/Burn imunities, you do not use this consistently. The immunity to Sorcery is identical to the immunties on Pierce, Burn, Bleed etc and works exactly the same way. It 'acts' at the same time (once an immune figure has been affected), and affects only a specific part of an attack. It does not invalidate an entire attack.

The major problem is that people have this thematic idea in their head of what an immunity should do. They can use (I wrote bend here, but changed it after because its not really a fair description) the rules, because they are loosely written, to work the immunity the way they want to thematically. However, this causes problems further down the track and with other interactions. The rules can also be applied (IMO should, if you look at things very closely) another way, which does not cause problems further down the track, or with other interactions. But because of the thematic fixation (possibly not even understood as a thematic fixation) they cannot accept this - even when provided with an alternative thematic example. I really don't understand what the problem is:
- Apply rules method A (creates problems, works with thematic explanation X)
- Apply rules method B (does not create any problems, works with thematic explanation Y)
I know what answer I get.

Big Remy said:

Yup. You got it!

And immediately post a clearer example than I ever could. Thanks. Sometimes you (me) are just too close to an argument to write it clearly.

For me this goes back to the dice debate though not the "if you are using a blast attack" example folks are falling back on.

Suppose you attack a Golem at range 6. You have sorcery 2. You roll a white, yellow, and 3 black dice. You get 4 range from the white and yellow and 3 power enchancements on the black dice. Allowing you to use sorcery to add to the range means that you do three damage with the power enhancments rather than being forced to use 2 of them for the required range. Thus you have exchanged a 2/2 sorcery to damage even though the target is immune to sorcery damage. If you can not use sorcery at all then you can still make the attack hit but you only gain 1 damage from the black dice rather than 3.

As for the blast example, you could use the sorcery to extend the range and still blow the beastman to pieces but you would do nothing to any other figure that happened to be immune to either sorcery or blast. If you had the range to reach the spot you would be able to add the sorcery to the damage but only the beastman would take that damage, even were the Golem vulnerable to blast since the sorcery would not touch him. Goes right back to how you assign your dice then.

Remus West said:

So what? The Sorcery is still adding range, not damage. That is independent of what you choose to do with the Black Dice. Immunity to Sorcery is not the same thing as CUSATAF (Cannot Use Sorcery on an Attack That Affects this Figure). In some circumstances, Immunity to Sorcery is not quite as good as CUSATAF. In others it is as good as CUSATAF. Why should it be the same? Immunity to Pierce is not the same as CUPATAF (and if your armour is zero for some reason is utterly useless all the time!). In this circumstance the owner is undoubtedly gaining a benefit from using Sorcery. There is nothing to state he should not gain a benefit from it, only to state that it should not affect the the immune figure, which it has not.

Sorry, I just don't see what the point is behind this argument.

The point he's trying to make is that the immunity to sorcery does NOTHING when it comes to power enhancements.

I have no problem with having one attack having more than one range, and I guess that's just where we're going to have to agree to disagree Corbon. In the blast example with the golem vulnerable to blast I'd still rule that the attack hit the beastman but missed the golem. I'd compare range seperately.

You understand the idea of how it works, because you said that you understand Soar. Step 5 CLEARLY can play with range values because of the last line in step 4. Because step 4 is when abilities and things are usually added to attacks I don't find this very confusing at all.

Again, by 2 points leading to this decision are: You don't hit a square, you hit the monsters in the square you targeted. AND different monsters have both range and damage compared seperately once the attack roll and abilities have been used.

Neostrider said:

Soar is different and carefully worded so. Soar requires an attack to have a higher range number in order to affect the Soaring figure. The actual range of the attack stays the same for all figures, but that may or may not be enough range to reach (affect) the Soaring figure. With Ironskin-cancelling-Sorcerous-range you have two different Range figures for the attack. That does not compute.

How do you resolve the endless loop that is created by your application?

Your decision foIlows reasonably from your 2 points, but I disagree with both your points.
1. You do hit a space. DJitD Pg 9 Note that the attacking player designates a space to attack and not necessarily another figure . DJitD pg 10 The attack hits if the total range of the rolled dice is equal to or greater than the attack’s range . Hits what? there may not even be a figure there. It can only be hits the targeted space.
Note also that until Step 6 in the attack resolution there is no mention of any 'defending' figure(s). Even in step 5 everything is about the attacker and what the attacker does with no mention of defender.* **
2. All figures hit affected by the attack have the same Range and Damage values and Attack Effects (like Pierce, Bleed etc) from the attack applied to them. Some parts of those damage or effects (or even range, which is now irrelevant) may then fall off individual figures due to individual figure abilities. In the special case of Soar, the entire attack may fail (but only for the Soarer) due to the range of the attack being enough to reach the space but not having the extra 4 range required to hit the Soarer. Soar is special because the way it is worded makes it operate very differently from abilities which affect the defender.

*Some 'defender abilities' do have an affect before step 6. They 'affect' the attacking figure or the attack itself rather than the defender. Examples include Black Curse ( all enemy figures...suffer...-1 range and -1 damage ...) and Fear (... the attack automatically misses (step 4) unless surges are spent).
**Soar works completely differently and is a real red herring here. Soar affects the required range to affect the soaring monster and is thus applied, for that monster only, to step 4, before or after step 5. It doesn't change the Range value of an attack, which is still the same for all figures potentially affected by that attack, just whether that particular attack can affect that particular figure.

Ok, fair enough, Soar and Elevation are not the same issue because they still deal with 1 range value. However, attacks succeed if and only if there are creatures to hit with the attack. This is why you cannot spend surges by attacking empty spaces, and the FAQ answers make it quite clear that an attack must hit monsters to "hit". Therefore, I'd say attacks hit monsters, not spaces.

So, essentially, this whole thread is now reduced to this one question:

If you attack a figure with Ironskin , at what point during the attack steps does "immune to the effects of Sorcery " take effect
A) During Attack Step 1, "Declare Attack," and Attack Step 5, "Power Enhancements, Power Surges, and Fatigue", when first targeting said figure.
B) During Attack Step 6, "Inflict Wounds"

Both options require that damage from Sorcery is retroactively negated: otherwise it's possible to circumvent Ironskin by applying Sorcery during step 4 (since the Blast example would target a Golem during step 5). If damage can be reotractively negated, then range must be subject to the same, since both are "effects" of Sorcery . However, negating range only matters for option A (and Laurel in option B). I think we can safely submit this question to FFG and consider the answer official. Anyone see something I missed?

I intentionally left out the question of the "two defined range results" concept because I believe it's going to happen no matter what. What I mean is that Range and Damage are both effects of Sorcery , and there's nothing that comes close to implying that they should be treated separately for the purposes of Ironskin ; if one is retroactively negated, then both are. The only question is whether the Sorcery negation affects the possibilities of success.

I don't think they expected to need special wording for sorcery because the effects of it are canceled. I'm quite alright at my table if one attack comes up with two different ranges for two different figures. That excatly how it works for Soar. You say Soar is special, but that's because Soar says it effects the range needed to hit. In the Sorcery scenario it nots the range required being changed its the range the attack generates being changed, which changes the outcome of the attack.

I don't understand this continue loop you're talking about.

1. Target Space

2. Calculate range

3. Roll dice

4. Add up dice

5. Determine special abilities of attacker, defender, and power enhancements and surges.

Step 5 covers everything. STEP 4 SAYS STEP 5 CAN CHANGE RANGE, AND THUS WHETHER OR NOT THE ATTACK HAS SUFFICIENT RANGE TO HIT. This tells me that at the end of Step 5 range and damage are both checked. Its at this stage, after the hero has assigned how all his special abilities work that you then check range: hit or miss and if its a hit apply the damage and other abilities.

There's no endless cycle in my order of operations. Your order goes back and forth between step 4 and 5 because you think range is thrown out the window once it goes past step 4 but it doesn't. Range still affects damage and other effects, and so can't be discarded.

Neostrider said:

If the attack doesn't affect (hit) the ironskinned figure then ironskin can't affect the attack .

Can we agree on this much?

If the attack rolled a miss maybe. I don't think having insufficient range is a basis for not having a defensive ability activate.

I don't consider an attack to officially miss until after step 5 is complete and we've decided all factors have been accounted for. Then all that's left is to see if there was sufficient range and apply damage and effects.

Things like immunities and such would take place after the attacker has resolved all his effects and the final 'attack' has been decided and then applied per monster. Once the attacker has finished his decisions, the players then see what figures are going to have this 'attack' applied to them, and then its applied on a per figure basis.

For example:

A square between a beastman and golem is targeted.

Range is 4.

Dice are rolled. 5 damage and 3 range.

didn't roll a miss, but range is insufficient. Maybe that'll change in the next step.

Use sorcery 2 to get 1 range, and 1 damage. Then spend surges to get blast 1. This accounts for all the attacker's abilities.

There are now 2 viable targets, the golem and beastman. Until step 5 neither of these would have been hit because they are not in the targeted square. So now per monster:

Beastman: Range was sufficient to hit the targeted square. Damage is applied minus armor.

Golem: Immunity to sorcery means the attack has insufficient range. The attack misses. (Note that ironskin wouldn't have converted damage to 0 anyway but in some cases hitting at all could have added effects ((such as if it was somehow vulnerable to burn or web)))

that's how I'd handle this attack.

Corbon, a question about your Soar example that I should maybe start another thread for but....

If you target the space a soaring figure is in with a blast attack do you need to generate blast 4 to hit the figure? If not then how do you account for the range to reach him? If you add 4 to the range of the attack then the blast is going off 4 spaces above ground. Does this mean you would need blast 4 to reach a figure on the gorund (5 to reach a figure on the ground and adjacent)?

Remus West said:

This is a FAQ answer: Blast and Breath attacks ignore/negate Soar .

Neostrider said:

Its a simple question, why are you ducking it? A yes/no answer is all that is required.

If an attack does not affect(hit) an Ironskinned figure, does Ironskin affect the attack?

Corbon said:

Ironskin does not affect "the attack" The attack is what it is. Ironskin determines what sorts of attacks the defender is immune to.

poobaloo said:

sigh... I was trying to take a step back and put it in plain and simple language without rulese.

If an attack does not affect an immune figure, can the immunity of the figure change the parameters of the attack?
Note: Removing Range, Damage, Pierce, Burn, etc of an attack is changing the parameters of an attack.

Second question:
Are we past the "I am immune to part of an attack therefore I am immune to all of the attack" thing yet? Does immunity to Pierce make an entire Pierceing attack fail, or just the Pierce part?

Corbon said:

You sound frustrated, tho I have to assume we're both interested in the discussion, or the non-interested party would drop it. If you find it so frustrating that I (and many others) don't agree with your point, perhaps you need to accept that people are different, especially where interpretation is involved. I may find your position completely ridiculous, but it is still interesting that you feel so strongly inclined to keep debating the rule, with some very well organized thoughts, that lead to "Immunity to Sorcery" being "Immunity to Sorcery if the hero chooses to use Sorcery to add damage, but not immunity to Sorcery if the hero instead uses the same Sorcery abiltiy to add range". As with most of your arguments, yes your chains are valid, but they take certain rules, break them apart, and attempt to apply things in broken bits and out of context, which leads to completely different rules.

Like the above poster said, if you allow Sorcery range, then when combined wth some power enhancements, the immunity is completely negated.

Corbon said:

No. I would say the attack is NOT changed. The attack, say, rolled range of 3, plus 2 range for Sorcery is what the attacker is choosing for how to use his attack dice and abilities. The "immunity" makes the monster immune (if the monster was 4 or 5 away), but does NOT change the attack. The attack is still a rolled range of 3, with the hero's choice to use his Sorcery ability to add range (which an immune monster is immune to) or damage (which an immune monster is immune to).

Corbon said:

Ok, so do not remove anything. If the hero wants to add range via Sorcery, so be it. BUT if he does so, he must be aware that certain figures will then be immune to the attack.

Corbon said:

Only the Pierce part.

Just like "Immune to Sorcery" would only negate the Sorcery part. i.e. with regard to being able to hit the immune creature, the range added via Sorcery (which he is immune to) is negated, cuz he's immune to the ability that is generating it. If the range comes up short, after negating ONLY the portion that he's immune to (the +2 sorcery range, not the rolled 3 range, or any power enhancements used to add range) then the attack has fallen ineffective on the immune creature. BUT it could have hit some other non-immune creature.

I see your point, Corbon, that the range is calculated WITH the Sorcery, but then you dont back up and say for this monster, we're going to back up and recalculate the range. But you have to, cuz the Hero is choosing to use an ability the monster is immune to, to get the range to it. This is an ability that adds range. The only place range is applied is in the measuring of the path to the monster.

I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong, and I hope you're not trying to do the same. I do see your line. It is just rules lawyering tho, to take technicalities out of rules precisely as written, and apply them in ways that make immunities completely not immune. You cannot do this cuz the rules were not written in technical precise ways. They are written in common English to be understood by many less technical than you, and so applying your technical word and step breakdowns to say immunity is not really immune, is not appropriate.

What you're taking out of context is the bits about measuring the range to the space vs the monster which yes you do, but that is not grounds to say "but the space is not immune to sorcery, the monster is... and the range / hit success is calculated first".

Sorry, but you simply cannot use an ability - that a monster is immune to - to add range - to reach a space - and hit the immune monster. It's immune to that abiltiy.

-mike

poobaloo said:

numbers added etc...

1. Yes, mildly frustrated. Not of the discussion, which I am still enjoying, especially when someone else takes my position and rewrites part of it in a clearer and better to understand way. In this case, I wanted to cut out all the complexities and determine some very simple base assumptions. I failed it seems.

2. Wrong before, wrong now. The immunity is not ever negated, it merely has a different effect which in some circumstances may mean its effect is small to none. Immunity to pierce is completely negated by lack of armour, but there are no complaints. Why shouldn't immunity to Sorcery be of limited effect under certain circumstances? No particular reason, except (if you will excuse my biased language, it is deliberately one sided for a moment) a dogmatic refusal to move from a preconceived thematic concept.

3.& 3a. Your answer is inconsistent. First the attack is not changed, then the attack is changed. If range is removed then the attack is changed. (If Damage is removed the attack is changed but immunity to Sorcerous Damage, or Pierce, or Burn etc doesn't remove those abilities from the attack, it just causes them to have no affect when they are applied to the immune target).
'The attack' is the sum of all the dice rolls, hero abilities (and things that affect them, like Black Curse) weapon abilities and spending of surges.
See also 4a. Range is not applied to a figure. Ever.

4. You are right, I don't back up and change the range. You can't, backing up causes the impossible endless loop!
A affects B with an attack.
An defensive affect on B changes the parameters (range) of the attack from A so it is unable to (reach) affect B.
Therefore B is not attacked at all.
If the attack does not affect B then B's defence does not change the parameters (range) of the attack.
Therefore B is affected by the attack.
An defensive affect on B changes the parameters (range) of the attack from A so it is unable to (reach) affect B.
Therefore B is not attacked at all.
If the attack does not affect B then B's defence does not change the parameters (range) of the attack.
Therefore B is affected by the attack.
...
4a. For the record, range is officially never applied to a figure. It is always applied to a space. There may not even be a figure in the space range is being applied to. This is clear in the rulebook and I have already quoted the specific passages to show it. It doesn't matter how much anyone wants the range to be applied to figures, it is not. End. Of. Story.

5. I'm not saying Immunity is not really Immune. I'm saying your understanding of immunity is only one of many, and does not fit with the way the rules work. There are other concepts of immunity that are different from yours, but no less correct, and at least one of them does fit with how the rules work.
As for rules lawyering, that is a perforative term usually taken to mean twisting the rules to change their meaning (usually for benefit). From where I sit, it is you who is twisting the rules (to fit with your preconceived thematic understanding of immunity). As far as advantage goes, I OL as much or more as I hero, so that is irrelevant too.

6. See 5. And 4. And all the other posts where I have explained what I think immunity does.

Corbon said:

yes. If an attack targets a space containing a figure, it's defensive abilities (such as ironskin) affect the attack's ability to affect that figure. You do not need to hit something with an attack for its defenses to kick in: many times, the defenses will kick in to avoid the hit alltogether.

Thundercles said:

Your answer is inconsistent. You say yes, but add additional criteria to 'explain' your choice - those criteria were not part of the question. There may be no figure at all in the space targeted by the attack.

If an attack does not affect an Ironskinned figure, does Ironskin affect the attack?

If an attack does not affect a Fear-ed figure, does Fear affect the attack?

Thundercles said:

Corbon said:

If an attack affects spaces containing any figure with Ironskin/Fear/Dodge/Stealth/etc., then Ironskin/Fear/Dodge/Stealth/etc.affects the attack.

There are several ways for attacks to not affect Ironskinned figures. If you want to talk about Fear, Fear is supposed to prevent attacks from affecting the figures that have that ability. Missed attacks don't affect figures, but attacks may miss due to the defensive abilities that those figures may have. I had to carefully word my answer because there are no yes or no answers to your questions: the answer to both of them is "it depends".

As far as I understand it, you cannot increase the blast area of an attack without rechecking the success of an attack: attack success is checked at the end of Attack Steps 4 and 5. If you target a single space with no figure in it, your attack is a failure until the blast area is increased to include other figures. The notion that defenses don't kick in until you score a hit on a figure doesn't make too much sense to me, because there are defenses (soar, elevation, fear) that are both figure-based and intended to make attacks miss.

I don't know why you're trying to say that attacks aren't affected by figures' abilities until those figures get affected (hit) by those attacks: am I misreading what you mean by "attack does not affect an [ability]-ed figure"?

Thundercles said:

Thank you for answering further.

The question was part of breaking down into base assumptions to confirm or deny underlying differences that explain why we cannot agree.

Our fundamental difference (or one of them) appears to be that you have lumped all defenses into "affecting the attack" and I have partition defenses into operating at the appropriate point for each defense individually.

Soar: Does not affect the attack itself, but affects the range value required by the attack (not the range value of the attack) to affect the soaring figure. In the case where the soaring figure is the only figure potentially being hit, it might change the status of an attack from a hit/success into a failure - by dint of the attack successfully reaching the target space but not affecting any figures - much the same as a blast without radius to include any figure. The attack either affects the soaring figure or does not, its parameters are never changed by Soar. Soar cannot affect (protect) any other figure.

Fear: Specifically and explicitly acts only after the attack has already (successfully) affected the target. It can then specifically and explictly change the result of that attack into a miss. The attack either affects the figure or does not, its parameters are not changed by fear, except explicitly into a miss. Fear can affect (protect) other figures.

Ironskin: Specifically and explicitly acts on the Ironskinned figure - therefore, it does not affect the attack, it affects the 'hit' figure.
I say: It does not affect the parameters of the attack. The attack affects the ironskinned figure, then ironskin causes some parts of the attack when applied to that figure, to fail. a) Range is no longer an issue as the attack has already 'gone off' affecting the figure (if range is an issue then we have the infinite loop) and b) neither pierce, burn sorcerous damage nor sorcerous range are removed, they just cease to have any affect on the immune figure . (Range not affecting the figure is irrelevant since Range does not affect figures anyway, it affects attack success or failure, but thats an aside).
You (appear to) say: Ironskin affects the attack parameters themselves*, changing them (which by very definition IMO (but not yours) changes them for all subjects of the attack).
- again, If Ironskin affects the attack parameters theselves (specifically range) then we have an infinite loop.
* Partially. Apparently you believe that an attack can have multiple parameters (different ranges, different damage values, different special abilities) at once. I disagree. It has the same parameters for all figures that it affects. Some parts of those parameters may fail to affect different figures.

I think this is a fundamental difference we have. I find your position unsupportable due to the wording of the abilities and what exactly they do, and due to the infinite loop problem. Not to mention the one attack with two ranges issue.
Other than not agreeing in general, what do you find unsupportable specifically in my position? Which part** of my position can you point to the rules and say "that does not follow what the rules say here".

**Do not friggen say "Immune to sorcery - you're not counting immune"! There are different styles and possibilities for the way immunities work. Just because mine and yours are not identical, does NOT mean that I am not counting immune.