About Immunity

[Borg]

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.

Good suggestion but the problem I see in that definition is that it still revolves around "not being able to target" first and foremost, so the root of the problem is still there.

For example, with that definition, can I target your Necromancer with a face down Poison Blood ?

How does this work out with a guarding Hellion vs an attacking Lord of Fire ?
Does the Hellion controller have to state that he "may be targeted" so that the LoF must attack the Hellion first ?
At what point during the attack do you state that you can be attacked because the LoF may already have appointed another target to attack during step 1 of the battle sequence.

This "may not be targeted" part simply creates a lot of problems.

That's why I think the simplest and most logical solution is to switch this mechanic around and build Immunity around "being able to target" but with the option to "avoid" and "counter". That way you have no targeting problems and guarding works like normal in all situations.

[ringkichard]

For example, with that definition, can I target your Necromancer with a face down Poison Blood ?

No. The Necromancer cannot be targeted unless its controller chooses otherwise, and I haven't chosen to allow the Poison Blood. The fact that I couldn't know to choose--because the spell is face down--is irrelevant. The point of using "may" is that the exception to the current rules is opt-in. If I do nothing, the rules continue as they always have, changing as little as possible without my direct intervention.

How does this work out with a guarding Hellion vs an attacking Lord of Fire ?
Does the Hellion controller have to state that he "may be targeted" so that the LoF must attack the Hellion first ?
At what point during the attack do you state that you can be attacked because the LoF may already have appointed another target to attack during step 1 of the battle sequence.

I think it's important to solve problems at the source. The problem here isn't immunity, it's Guarding, which has been a troublesome rule before. There are lots of potential reasons you might not be able to target a guard: what do we do if Invisible Stalker loses Pest, for example? If the problem is with guard, fix guard.

Guard (fix in blue)
If there is an enemy Guard (a creature with a guard marker) in a zone, and you are able to attack at least one of those guards, then you cannot melee attack any object in that zone other than enemy Guards. This condition is checked when the attack is declared.

So the way that would be resolved with voluntary immunity would be that, when the attack is declared, the attacker asks, "can I target that guard?" and the guard's controller says yes or no. If yes, then the attacker must target a guard, and if no, then the attacker would be free to ignore that guard.

In your example, the guarding Hellion would still be immune to damage and conditions, though, unless the Hellion's controller waved the immunity.

That's why I think the simplest and most logical solution is to switch this mechanic around and build Immunity around "being able to target" but with the option to "avoid" and "counter". That way you have no targeting problems and guarding works like normal in all situations.

Mage Wars doesn't have a concept of "counter". It does have cancel, but that word needs to be used carefully, because it sometimes ends actions, but not immediately. Which would mean, for example, that Adremelech would be able to knock the guard marker off a Hellion but the Hellion wouldn't get a counterstrike. Avoid would be better, but you'd still have the problem of Adremelech triggering blocks and defenses.

[Sailor Vulcan]

What if we have a creature with an immunity and has intercept in the future? I think such a rule change is very much necessary.

Although I would say make immunity allow targeting, but cancel the attack, like forcefield tokens do, not avoid like block does.

I'm starting to wonder if there might be a lot of keywords that are worded in a certain way that are a remnant of traditional ccgs minis games and rpgs. The whole "golden rule" idea where card text overrides rules is really starting to seem completely unnecessary with clear, well-defined rules.

And perhaps there is a reason that Mage Wars even has a chance to develop such clear, well defined rules instead of piling on exceptions which confuse new players and are a pain to keep track of. As an LCG-kind of game, Mage Wars can't ban cards because that lowers the value of the sets those cards come in. This is unlike a CCG, where cards can be banned and replaced with another version of the card under a different name in a later set, and the value of those sets overall isn't an issue because they're sold in booster packs or individually rather than as sets.

So Mage Wars can't ban cards. And we want to avoid errata as much as we reasonably can. Where does that leave us?

Simply put, instead of constantly updating cards to become exceptions to the rules, the better option is to update the wording of the rules to address corner cases but without significantly changing overall gameplay.

That way less players get confused, we don't have to memorize a bunch of exceptions to the rules, and the game becomes more streamlined.

[wtcannonjr]

With so many options to get around guards I don't see a need to change the rules. If the immunity rule is preventing you from using a melee attack then why not use any of the typical tactics like push, elusive, or knockdown to bypass the guard.

I think the current immunity rule captures some of the essence of creatures that are beyond player control. For example, the Lord of Fire knows that a Flaming Hellion carries the same 'flame' essence as himself and therefore does not harm him in the battle. If we see ourselves as mages that manipulate rather than totally control the mana in this world then we accept that some things are beyond our control.

[Borg]

With so many options to get around guards I don't see a need to change the rules. If the immunity rule is preventing you from using a melee attack then why not use any of the typical tactics like push, elusive, or knockdown to bypass the guard.

I think you're misinterpreting here, wtcannonjr.
The issue is not about getting around a Guard, it's about the fact that immunity itself is already a way around a guard because you can ignore him. So, it's one more way around a guard, as if we needed any more.

To the contrary, you take someone's BEST defender ( in that situation ) out of the game because his Guard ability doesn't work against that creature.
In any other fantasy game, playing a defender that is immune to an attacker's attack's is considered the perfect counter play. In Mage Wars it's just the opposite. It doesn't make sense.

[Borg]

In your example, the guarding Hellion would still be immune to damage and conditions, though, unless the Hellion's controller waved the immunity.

I think that's where we go wrong again.
If the Hellion is no longer protected from Fire damage, the whole purpose is lost.

The idea is :
A- Immunity no longer prevents targeting
B- Thus, Guard works as normal
C- The Hellion takes no damage and no effects from a fire attack
D- The hellion may counterstrike ( and lose his guard marker ) but will in turn do no damage and no effects to the LoF

Mage Wars doesn't have a concept of "counter".

There is a "counter spell" step in the spell sequence and this card also mentions "counter"
[mwcard=FWE08] Mind Shield[/mwcard]

As a side note, maybe some of you are familiar with the PC game Age of Wonders 3.
A lot of creatures in there have a mix of different types of damage.
For Instance a creature may do partly fire damage and partly ice damage, or Poison+Death damage, ( you get my point )
If the target of that Fire/Cold attack has for instance 100% resistance to fire damage, the fire damage is simply reduced to 0 while the Cold damage goes through for the full 100%.
The fact that you can target an opponent that has a certain resistance to your attack makes perfect sense and everybody understands that intuitively.

[wtcannonjr]

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.

I think I would interpret this differently along the lines of where Kaarin was going.

If a guard cannot be targeted by a melee attack for whatever reason, then it protects the zone from other melee attacks by that creature due to the second part of the sentence. i.e. it has successfully achieved the purpose behind the guard action. Note - the wording on the rule is Protect the Zone which clarifies the intent in my mind. The guarding creature has given up its action to protect the rest of the zone. This results in a creature with a specific immunity being the best guard against a melee attack of that specific damage type. That makes sense to me. Isn't that a reasonable outcome for the RAW in this situation?

I guess I don't agree that the mandatory rule logic would apply here. The creature is free to take any other action it desires including conducting a melee attack in a zone where it can have an effect.

[Kaarin]

One more comment about avoid/counter immunity: it will be an exception to unavoidable attacks.

What if we have a creature with an immunity and has intercept in the future? I think such a rule change is very much necessary.

We already have such card: Togorah has both Hydro immunity and intercept.

If a guard cannot be targeted by a melee attack for whatever reason, then it protects the zone from other melee attacks by that creature due to the second part of the sentence. i.e. it has successfully achieved the purpose behind the guard action. Note - the wording on the rule is Protect the Zone which clarifies the intent in my mind. The guarding creature has given up its action to protect the rest of the zone. This results in a creature with a specific immunity being the best guard against a melee attack of that specific damage type. That makes sense to me. Isn't that a reasonable outcome for the RAW in this situation?

That would be okay if there weren't abilities allowing for more than one attack in single attack action for example (and in future there may be abilities benefiting from just attacking). Also You can't use a creature with typed attack to trigger Block on guard with immunity so your other creatures can attack it. Besides current immunity rule doesn't allow for intercepting too, so intercepting guard will no longer protect the zone against attacks he's immune to.

[Kaarin]

I think the current immunity rule captures some of the essence of creatures that are beyond player control. For example, the Lord of Fire knows that a Flaming Hellion carries the same 'flame' essence as himself and therefore does not harm him in the battle. If we see ourselves as mages that manipulate rather than totally control the mana in this world then we accept that some things are beyond our control.

If we follow this logic then shouldn't Lord of Fire just say "step away" or "perish" to puny demon? Besides if Adramelech had untyped attack he could freely attack Flaming Hellion (like Malacoda can do to other creatures with poison immunity; if You strip LoF of flying then You can close him with level 1 wall).
Don't forget that mages aren't summoning exact creatures, but only their copies and in case of such powerful beings like Adramelech only fraction of their essence. At least that's the explanation why one player can summon legendary creature, resurrect it and after it will be destroyed other player can still summon it.

[wtcannonjr]

One more comment about avoid/counter immunity: it will be an exception to unavoidable attacks.

What if we have a creature with an immunity and has intercept in the future? I think such a rule change is very much necessary.

We already have such card: Togorah has both Hydro immunity and intercept.

If a guard cannot be targeted by a melee attack for whatever reason, then it protects the zone from other melee attacks by that creature due to the second part of the sentence. i.e. it has successfully achieved the purpose behind the guard action. Note - the wording on the rule is Protect the Zone which clarifies the intent in my mind. The guarding creature has given up its action to protect the rest of the zone. This results in a creature with a specific immunity being the best guard against a melee attack of that specific damage type. That makes sense to me. Isn't that a reasonable outcome for the RAW in this situation?

That would be okay if there weren't abilities allowing for more than one attack in single attack action for example (and in future there may be abilities benefiting from just attacking). Also You can't use a creature with typed attack to trigger Block on guard with immunity so your other creatures can attack it. Besides current immunity rule doesn't allow for intercepting too, so intercepting guard will no longer protect the zone against attacks he's immune to.

This seems like more the problem than immunity and guard rules. At least if we want them to be more consistent. Perhaps intercept should include the special case that allows an immune creature to cancel that specific attack. This keeps the protect the zone principle intact.

[jacksmack]

I still do not understand why your allowed to pass the guard when he is immune to your attack.

I understand that with the current rules your not allowed to target him. But i need a friendly soul to 'cut it out in cardboard for me' (directly translated).

Protect the Zone: If there is an enemy guard (a creature
with a guard marker) in a zone, then you cannot melee
attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards.
This condition is checked when the attack is declared.

[ringkichard]

I still do not understand why your allowed to pass the guard when he is immune to your attack.

I understand that with the current rules your not allowed to target him. But i need a friendly soul to 'cut it out in cardboard for me' (directly translated).

Protect the Zone: If there is an enemy guard (a creature
with a guard marker) in a zone, then you cannot melee
attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards.
This condition is checked when the attack is declared.

I don't think there's an official ruling on this, actually. I haven't sat down with the 4th printing rules yet, or searched the rules forums, but this may be an unresolved corner case with unclear rules-as-intended.

[Zuberi]

I still do not understand why your allowed to pass the guard when he is immune to your attack.

I understand that with the current rules your not allowed to target him. But i need a friendly soul to 'cut it out in cardboard for me' (directly translated).

Protect the Zone: If there is an enemy guard (a creature
with a guard marker) in a zone, then you cannot melee
attack any object in that zone other than enemy guards.
This condition is checked when the attack is declared.

I don't think there's an official ruling on this, actually. I haven't sat down with the 4th printing rules yet, or searched the rules forums, but this may be an unresolved corner case with unclear rules-as-intended.

Agreed. I've looked over the rules and don't think it's completely clear and would like an official answer. My interpretation is that illegal actions can be ignored, as that is what seems to be the case throughout the rest of the rules, but I can't really find anything directly relating to guards.

[ringkichard]

It's tricky. If you're allowed to ignore guards you can't legally attack, then you can deliberately de-buff your own creatures targeting ability to ignore the guards. E.g. giving your Knight that Flame Strike promo incantation against a guarding fireproof demon so that you can ignore it. That doesn't seem right?

But if you rule it the other way, you risk creating perfect guards, like if Invisible Stalker lost Pest. You can't attack it, and you can't attack anything else, so you can't attack.

[ringkichard]

Agreed. I've looked over the rules and don't think it's completely clear and would like an official answer. My interpretation is that illegal actions can be ignored, as that is what seems to be the case throughout the rest of the rules, but I can't really find anything directly relating to guards.

I know the general precident is that if you *must* do something, and it's impossible, then it's not imperative anymore and you can instead do something else, e.g. Taunting from behind a guard, or Bloodthirsty attackers and uninjured guards.

But this seems more like a situation where you have one card that says, "you may not attack Flying creatures" and a second card that says, "you may not attack non-flying creatures." You don't get to ignore them both; you just don't get to attack a creature. But you could attack a conjuration, e.g.

We can word things a little more confusingly by saying, "you may only attack flying creatures" and "you may only attack non-flying creatures." The general effect is the same: you don't get to attack any creatures, but the exception is different: now instead of being able to attack conjurations, you can attack any creature that is both flying and non-flying.

If the cards instead said, "you must attack flying creatures," and, "you must attack non-flying creatures" you have your choice of competing imperatives, so you can chose which to obey, but you do have to obey one and attack a creature if possible.

If the cards said, "You must not attack flying creatures" and, "You must attack flying creatures," again, competing imperatives and your choice. I don't think Mage Wars has "must not," instead prefering "may not," and for good reason.

Legalism has a funny way of distorting natural language. All these rules are *very* similar in English, but as rules they produce dramatic differences.