About Immunity

[ringkichard]

But how tricky would that be as a conjuration? "All creatures must not attack, unless [bla bla bla]. Everyone else would have to pay the cost, but Bloodthirsty creatures could ignore it for free. Even "better", they could chose not to obey Bloodthirsty any time they wanted!

I think AW's policy of being super careful with "must" is a good one.

[Zuberi]

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.

The rules for guarding on page 29 definitely make it sound similar to this. However, the rules for declaring an attack on page 22 sounds more like "If you're declaring a melee attack and there is a guard, you must target the guard." In which case if you are unable to target a guard, based on rulings elsewhere, you should be free to target something else. These two sections of rules are a bit in conflict and do need an official answer.

[Borg]

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.

The rules for guarding on page 29 definitely make it sound similar to this. However, the rules for declaring an attack on page 22 sounds more like "If you're declaring a melee attack and there is a guard, you must target the guard." In which case if you are unable to target a guard, based on rulings elsewhere, you should be free to target something else. These two sections of rules are a bit in conflict and do need an official answer.

Thus :

Putting a creature on guard forces the opponent to target that guard first with a melee attack before they can target any other non-guarding objects.
This part is logical, intuitive and creates no problems imo.

The problems start however whenever a situation comes up that prevents you from targeting the object that you must target before anything else.
Solution : get rid of these rules that prevent you from targeting that guard as they are illogical and unintuitive and rework the mechanism.

[exid]

wow! how do so much rulles problem appear these days?
official rulling?

[jacksmack]

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.

The rules for guarding on page 29 definitely make it sound similar to this. However, the rules for declaring an attack on page 22 sounds more like "If you're declaring a melee attack and there is a guard, you must target the guard." In which case if you are unable to target a guard, based on rulings elsewhere, you should be free to target something else. These two sections of rules are a bit in conflict and do need an official answer.

I think you are breaking down 'attacking' the wrong way.

Its not like you are going into attack mode and then afterwards choosing what to attack. Oh im already attacking and since im not allowed to attack the Hellion then ill just go for something else.

Rather, you spend your action marker and then you select a legal action. I could be a legal action to guard or attack yourself or moving or whatever.... choosing to attack a non-guarding non-flying object is not allowed if the enemy has a guard in the zone no matter if the guard is immune to your attack or not.

If LoF has bloodthirsty and the enemy guarding hellion is damaged then the trigger from bloodthirsty would be obsolete because of the targetting rules for immunity. The result would be that (unless there is another NON-immune guard) the LoF could take a guard action, or move out but not skip the guard and go for another possibly wounded -or not -  target.

[Laddinfance]

wow! how do so much rulles problem appear these days?
official rulling?

I'm reviewing the situation. I'll post immediately when there is an answer.

[exid]

wow! how do so much rulles problem appear these days?
official rulling?

I'm reviewing the situation. I'll post immediately when there is an answer.

thank you!

but i still don't understand. Usuelly, when somebody posts a question here, a few hours later somebody els abswers: "it goes this way, read on page x", and then everybody adds "right! banana sticker for the guy!". We had recently the purify's casting cost problem (finally solved: the card is not well written), the reveal enchantement timing problem (not solved yet: what is an event?) and now the imunity problem (not solved yet: could the imune trait be sometimes a disadvantage, making the creature ignorable by an attack of the element it's protected form?).

[exid]

after reading the new rulles, that's my understanding... for what it's worth:

1) if a creature guards, another creature can't be attacked AND an imune creature isn't legal. so: no attack when an imune creature guards (including multi-strike).
my opinion: bad (imunity shouldn't be as powerfull).

2) an interceptor must be legal target AND an imune creature isn't legal. so: no intercept for an imune creature.
my opinion: bad (imunity shouldn't be a disadvantage)... but there's no imune interceptor yet.

[Borg]

but there's no imune interceptor yet.

[mwcard=DNC18] Togorah, Forest Sentinel[/mwcard]

Togorah can't intercept [mwcard=MWSTX1CKA01] Surging Wave[/mwcard] and [mwcard=MW1A08] Geyser[/mwcard].
Makes no sense, right ? He should be the ideal Interceptor vs Surging Wave.

[exid]

but there's no imune interceptor yet.

[mwcard=DNC18] Togorah, Forest Sentinel[/mwcard]

Togorah can't intercept [mwcard=MWSTX1CKA01] Surging Wave[/mwcard] and [mwcard=MW1A08] Geyser[/mwcard].
Makes no sense, right ? He should be the ideal Interceptor vs Surging Wave.

i forgot my old tree friend!
no sense.

[Laddinfance]

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

[exid]

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

but geiser doesn't have the trait!

[Halewijn]

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

haha

This is the exception fixing the problem.

Geysey does not have the traid because it did not exist yet when they made the card. Just as [mwcard=MW1I15]Knockdown[/mwcard] and the slam condition are clearly related.

[Borg]

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

haha
This is the exception fixing the problem.

That is indeed the funny thing.

They made an exception to the rules to allow something that should basically be allowed all the time.
And it can be fixed so easily *relatively speaking*
Why make it so difficult and complicated when it can be simple ....

[Mystery]

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...