About Immunity

[Moonglow]

I think the targeting approach to immunity is trying to get to the imperviability - take a bowl half full of water, tip a glass of water in and see the impact - yes there could be splashage etc, but the water absorbs the water... actually a better example might be squirt a stream of water from a hose with a water pistol, or get a raging fire and wave a blow torch at it... its just not having any interaction, the types are so similar they just pass each other.  So a flame creature can't block a flame attack, it just splashes through it.  A water attack on a flame creature however neutralizes it (blocks) with a bit of pain to the creature...

making stuff up a little, but I think its defensible....

[Borg]

I think the targeting approach to immunity is trying to get to the imperviability - take a bowl half full of water, tip a glass of water in and see the impact

Yes, but the current rules say you cannot tip a glass of water into a water bowl - to use your analogy.

[wtcannonjr]

I think the targeting approach to immunity is trying to get to the imperviability - take a bowl half full of water, tip a glass of water in and see the impact

Yes, but the current rules say you cannot tip a glass of water into a water bowl - to use your analogy.

Correct. It is a design for effect rule rather than a design for mechanic rule. Since the effect has no impact on the game state we simply remove it from the players decision process and have them focus on other tactics.

[Borg]

I think the targeting approach to immunity is trying to get to the imperviability - take a bowl half full of water, tip a glass of water in and see the impact

Yes, but the current rules say you cannot tip a glass of water into a water bowl - to use your analogy.

Correct. It is a design for effect rule rather than a design for mechanic rule. Since the effect has no impact on the game state we simply remove it from the players decision process and have them focus on other tactics.

Yes, but this has unwanted and illogical side effects.
The game claims that one of its biggest strengths is that it is "intuitive" and that "things work as you would logically expect them to work" but that is certainly not the case here.

[Gogolski]

Iwasn't even aware that immunity didn't alow targetting. I thought it just ignored damage... (That way you can stack burn couters on a fire immune -but non burnproof- creature wthout it taking damage, while you still have to roll to see if they extinguish...) I supose I was using common sense here, but obviously I should read some of the rules better...

[Kaarin]

Iwasn't even aware that immunity didn't alow targetting. I thought it just ignored damage... (That way you can stack burn couters on a fire immune -but non burnproof- creature wthout it taking damage, while you still have to roll to see if they extinguish...) I supose I was using common sense here, but obviously I should read some of the rules better...

You couldn't do that, because burn is flame condition. Flame immunity prevents not only flame damage, but flame conditions and spells too.

[Kaarin]

Bottomline : immunity doesn't work logically because it is tied to something that has nothing to do with it : targetability, instead of what it is really about : being resistant to some type of damage and spells.
That's why I make those suggestions in reply nr6.

And I agree with that, but turning immunity into optional super-avoid/counterspell is not enough. As I mentioned earlier according to your suggested definition a burning Hydro immune creature would still get damaged by Hydro attack with extinguish trait.
I propose that instead of preventing targeting Immunity should allow objects to ignore things. For example:

Immunity:
Object with immunity ignores damage and conditions of a type it's immune to. It also may choose to ignore effects of attacks and spells of that type.

This way we allow for objects to be targeted by anyone and benefit from friendly spells. Unfortunately this still allows for enemy special abilities to benefit from spells You're immune to. This definition needs to be worked to precisely allow for benefiting from extinguish while ignoring other effects like push.

[Zuberi]

@Karin:
If an enemy guard is immune to your attack, then you are free to attack any other creature you wish. This would fall under the same thought as the mandatory action rules in the rules supplement. If you are unable to perform an action, then you can not be required to perform that action. If you can not select a specific target for an action, then you can not be required to select that specific target.

@Borg:
Now, regarding the idea of changing immunity into an optional ability to avoid attacks, counter spells, or counter enchantments, I kind of like it. It would also give us something other than [mwcard=FWE08]Mind Shield[/mwcard] to make use of the Counter Enchantment step. I didn't think of the simple solution of making immunity into an optional ability. I'm not sure how popular this idea would be with others, specifically the Arcane Wonders higher ups, but it sounds intriguing to me.

Also, if we did implement something like this, there's no reason for Hydro Immune objects to be damaged by spells with Extinguish. Currently Extinguish breaks the normal immunity rules. There's no reason it couldn't break the new immunity rules as well.

[jacksmack]

If an enemy guard is immune to your attack, then you are free to attack any other creature you wish. This would fall under the same thought as the mandatory action rules in the rules supplement. If you are unable to perform an action, then you can not be required to perform that action. If you can not select a specific target for an action, then you can not be required to select that specific target.

Can you please give the reason behind this ruling?
I think your mixing up forced actions such as bloodthirst / taunt with what guard does.

If your right then it makes even less sense:
Who would be the best to protect you from a creature with a firebased melee attack?? thats right... a fire immune guard.

[Kaarin]

@Karin:
If an enemy guard is immune to your attack, then you are free to attack any other creature you wish. This would fall under the same thought as the mandatory action rules in the rules supplement. If you are unable to perform an action, then you can not be required to perform that action. If you can not select a specific target for an action, then you can not be required to select that specific target.

That was my first thought too, but then I reread guarding rules. " then you cannot melee attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards" - this part was what made me doubt that thought (if guard is immune to your attack then You have to ignore it).

Who would be the best to protect you from a creature with a firebased melee attack?? thats right... a fire immune guard.

With current rules that's the worst guard against flame attacks. That's why targeting approach to immunity needs to be dropped. I proposed option to ignore things instead of avoiding/countering and would like to see which one is preferred.

[Zuberi]

You are correct that we aren't talking about mandatory actions, but it is a similar principle. It's just a general concept that if you can't do something, then you can't be required to do it. How could you be? If you can't do something then it isn't even an option. Thus, a guard can't restrict you to only attacking it if it's not even an option.

[ringkichard]

Would it be enough to insert a "may" clause in the Immunity trait rules?

[Kaarin]

Would it be enough to insert a "may" clause in the Immunity trait rules?

But where?

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.

It still won't allow for attack traits to be written without including immunity exceptions.

[Zuberi]

I really like Borgs attempt at redefining immunity and appreciate it's simplicity. It doesn't necessarily remove the desire to write exceptions into traits, as I'd still want an exception for Extinguish that says it doesn't deal any damage to a Hydro Immune target even if the target opts not to avoid the attack (avoiding the attack would negate the extinguish bit), but it does settle a lot of the other quirks of immunity and allows us some freedom to choose whether or not a trait should break the immunity rules in the future, without HAVING to break them to do anything at all.

The trick is indeed in the "may" part of it, giving the object a choice in the matter, and there may perhaps be a better way to write it. Borg's attempt does kind of leave out effects and conditions, but I think avoiding attacks and countering spells and enchantments has some potential.

[ringkichard]

But where?

Immunity
This object is optionally immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage. It may not be targeted or affected by spells or attacks of the specified type, unless its controller chooses otherwise.

This relies a little bit on the strange property of English that "may" and "may not" are very different linguistically but can be made to mean the same thing logically, much like "maybe" and "maybe not".