About Immunity

[bigfatchef]

And what about Idol of Pestilence? During the Upkeep Phase each living creature receives 1 point of direct poison damage. Is that poisoning targeting all living creatures in the arena (not working on banished - I see the wording of banish is making that exception though) or just applying them directly? If it is targeting all living creatures (regardless of LoS for it is affecting the whole arena) it would never be playable as long as a necromancer is on the board. If immunity is making him an illegal target, the spell is illegal. Completely logical and intuitiv is that he is targeted and just ignores that damage because he is immune.

Sorry of I am totally wrong on how i think direct damage works.

Anyway I would also say ig there is a flame immune creature standing in front of you as a guard, thematically you are as safe a you can hide againt a melee fire attack. The guard is attacked because of guarding and lauges at it. Then he is normally allowed to hit back.
Let me compare it to a security guard with kevlar-vest standing in front of a superstar. As an attacker you cannot shoot that star. Sure you can shoot at his security agent. That will not affect him for he is immune (by his vest) against bullets. If he gets shot he is then definitely able to shoot back with his own weapon using the sand kind of bullets.
Playing that way as also Borg has mentioned is incredibly thematically perfect.

Please note that I don't want to shoot any superstar, neither should you do

[Kaarin]

And what about Idol of Pestilence? During the Upkeep Phase each living creature receives 1 point of direct poison damage. Is that poisoning targeting all living creatures in the arena (not working on banished - I see the wording of banish is making that exception though) or just applying them directly? If it is targeting all living creatures (regardless of LoS for it is affecting the whole arena) it would never be playable as long as a necromancer is on the board. If immunity is making him an illegal target, the spell is illegal. Completely logical and intuitiv is that he is targeted and just ignores that damage because he is immune.

Sorry of I am totally wrong on how i think direct damage works.

Anyway I would also say ig there is a flame immune creature standing in front of you as a guard, thematically you are as safe a you can hide againt a melee fire attack. The guard is attacked because of guarding and lauges at it. Then he is normally allowed to hit back.
Let me compare it to a security guard with kevlar-vest standing in front of a superstar. As an attacker you cannot shoot that star. Sure you can shoot at his security agent. That will not affect him for he is immune (by his vest) against bullets. If he gets shot he is then definitely able to shoot back with his own weapon using the sand kind of bullets.
Playing that way as also Borg has mentioned is incredibly thematically perfect.

Please note that I don't want to shoot any superstar, neither should you do

Idol of Pestilence doesn't targets Necromancer, so there's nothing that prevents it from casting it. Necro simply ignores damage from its ability thanks to immunity.
If I have weapon with rapid fire option I should be able to "target" agent first and then shoot other people (even if agent won't be wounded there's still some force applied to him and he can't react fast enough etc). Also if You have a gun that heals You every time You fire it then You should be able to fire at the agent. Current rules say that You can't fire at agent in bulletproof vest.

cause it changes something, can i use ghoul rot to target the necro, it just depends, I'd prefere targeting is possible in general but nothing delt, but that would be drastic change, though solve all the issues, be able to target but immune gets no dmg, no effects...

In current rules You can't target Necro with Ghoul Rot. Same goes for beneficial X-type effects on object with X immunity (circle of fire on some demons or plagued on Necro or zombie).

The extinguish trait allows water spells to target hydro immune thing.

Don't You have to burn first to benefit from Extinguish?

[Borg]

Is there any chance the rules makers will review the current immunity rules and make corrections ?

[Laddinfance]

We reviewed the immunity rules in depth when we were working on DVN. So, at the moment I would say it's unlikely that we're going to change it now. That being said, I do review these threads and we try to keep these things in mind.

Long story short, right now I'd say, unlikely, but in the future it could be quite possible.

[Sailor Vulcan]

We reviewed the immunity rules in depth when we were working on DVN. So, at the moment I would say it's unlikely that we're going to change it now. That being said, I do review these threads and we try to keep these things in mind.

Long story short, right now I'd say, unlikely, but in the future it could be quite possible.

Except if the rule doesn't change, doesn't that mean that a flame-type melee attack can ignore a flame-immune guard?

[ringkichard]

Pretty sure it's the other thing: flame type attacker can't attack in the presence of a flame immune guard.

[Kaarin]

Pretty sure it's the other thing: flame type attacker can't attack in the presence of a flame immune guard.

Now people will start bringing wand of Flame Strike with them.

[ringkichard]

Joke's on them when the guard gets restrained

[Wildhorn]

We reviewed the immunity rules in depth when we were working on DVN. So, at the moment I would say it's unlikely that we're going to change it now. That being said, I do review these threads and we try to keep these things in mind.

Long story short, right now I'd say, unlikely, but in the future it could be quite possible.

But, does an Immune guard prevent an attack (which I think is the logical thing) or as Zuberi seem to imply, the attacker just ignore it (which just sound stupid)?

[Laddinfance]

In the text for Immunity it says you cannot be targeted by an attack you're immune to. So, no you cannot attack a guard that is immune to your attack.

Also, this does not fall under the rules for mandatory actions as you are not forced to make an attack.

I hope this helps make things very clear.

[Sailor Vulcan]

In the text for Immunity it says you cannot be targeted by an attack you're immune to. So, no you cannot attack a guard that is immune to your attack.

Also, this does not fall under the rules for mandatory actions as you are not forced to make an attack.

I hope this helps make things very clear.

So then if a creature with flame immunity guards, flame melee attacks cannot be used against any creature in the zone? Unless the attacker has elusive or the guard has pest, anyway.

[Laddinfance]

Unless you have some way around that guard, you'd have to find something else to do with that creature's action.

[Wildhorn]

This is a much needed change because right now we get an exception for Extinguish, but soon we will need another one for Defrost and so on.

Current text:

Immunity
This object is immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage. It cannot be targeted or affected by spells or attacks of the specified type.

The first sentence is completely useless. Immune is not defined, so saying the object is immune is useless... We are into the immunity description. It is like if the dictionary was describing an apple by saying: "An apple is an apple".

What it need to be to keep the same effect, but to allow to target the object to prevent all this kind of non-sense is that:

Immunity
This object can't get damaged, can't gain condition and can't be affected by effects of the specified type.

If this would be written like this, this would solve 99% of the problems and non-sense situations. The remaining 1% are these spells:

Charm, Mind Control, Pacify, Rust, Dissolve and Explode.

Dissolve and Explode, for the moment are not problematic, but if they ever make a Mage Immune to Acid (holyshit it would be OP) or Flame (would be OP as hell too), this would cause problem. But on the other end, this would actually be a good thing, because I don't think a Mage Immunity should prevent its equipment to be affected by this kind of spell.

Charm, Mind Control, Pacify are problematic because they would require an errata stating they can't target psychic immune creatures.

Rust might or might not be a problem, it all depend if future Acid Immune creature would all be Resilient or not. If not, it would require an errata to specify that it can't target acid immune creature.

The other spell with a type that something can be Immune to are not problematic because they either deal damage or add condition markers, which the description already deal with.

What do you think about it?

I know Arcane Wonders are not fond of errata, but we are playing a competitive game and all competitive game have errata and rule updates (Magic, X-Wing, etc). It is a part of these kind of game. It is a game that evolve and players need to keep up with these kind of changes for the better of the game balance and consistency.

[Borg]

Immunity
This object can't get damaged, can't gain condition and can't be affected by effects of the specified type.

So, this way we would be able to
1- play a Circle of Fire on a Flaming Hellion
2- play Plagued on a Necromancer
3- play a FD Ghoul Rot on a Necromancer ( to check for Nullify ) - turning it face up would be useless and a mana waste
4- Attack a guarding creature with immunity to that type of attack

If all "yes" , I'm all for it

[Laddinfance]

You can add Plagued to your list of issues. That card is not meant to be attached to anything with poison immunity.