I have to agree with Wildhorn here. I don't think this problem is urgent but still, maybe these rules should be on the list "fixing when we've got a calm week"
Oh sure, I've already put one interaction inspired by this thread up for potential inclusion on the someday list, and I'll probably do another (related to a card that got cut from its set) when I'm done with this comment.
1) Because if you use a sweeping attack and you roll zero damage on the creature, you are still allowed to attack the second one. You should be able to target the first creature (0 damage) and move on.
Sure, same thing as if you used a defense successfully. You can keep sweeping through Sir Corazin.
But Immunity represents being so unaffected by an attack that it's just stopped cold, unable to proceed.
Again, from a rules perspective, if you make your attack and roll 0 damage, you still remove guard, get Damage Barrier'd, get a counterstrike, etc.
Immunity prevents all that, and it's supposed to. Otherwise you could use Adremelech to remove two guard markers from two guarding Hellions.
But more importantly, this isn't a rules debate anymore; the rule is clear. We don't agree about how well the rule represents the effects of swinging a scythe of flame at a magically and intrinsically fireproof Demon, but that's because we have different mental images of what Immunity is. But the rule is still completely *playable*.
My mental image, is that if the Imp is immune to the attack, it shouldn't be hurt or affected in any way. It should be as if the attack never happened. In the case of sweeping, that means the Imp stood there like Superman and said, "Not Today Satan!" That Imp was so unmoved that the swinging Scythe wasn't even an attack. That Imp didn't shift from its guard posture, and Adremelech did not get to continue his strike because that would mean getting his scythe past this still guarding, still immune Imp. And that would be impossible.
We're dealing with something called Procedural Representation: the act of playing the game, rule by rule, movement by movement, to represent something. Checkers would procedurally represent frog combat very well, with all the jumping, for example.
And Sweeping is already a little iffy here. Why does the Sweeping attacker get to chose the second target? What if they're not lined up right? Why does Sweeping still work if the attack is absorbed by a Forcefield, or a Dwarf's Shield? For that matter, why do we use the same mechanic for blocking with a shield as we do for dodging out of the way or parrying with a sword? All of those could potentially interact with Sweeping differently.
If the complaint is that the rules interaction between Immunity and Sweeping isn't a perfect representation, well, you're right. Sweeping is like that. It's abstracted, just like every other rule in the game, but maybe Sweeping is a little more abstract than some others. (How large is a zone?) Sweeping could possibly include rules about the size of the creatures swept through, so that Adremelech could sweep through 6 Falcons but only 2 Knights of Westlock. And there could be positioning rules to determine which creatures are standing such that an arcing attack can hit them both. And maybe sweeping should interact with Piercing in some way. And there could be another rule about Immune Guards not losing their guard marker but not preventing the next attack, etc etc.
But this isn't a rules problem the same way that e.g. a literal reading of Hindering was. It used to be that Hindered was a condition that happened to you after you moved, and Hindered creatures could not move. But Zombies have Lumbering, which means they're always hindered. A literal reading of the rules meant that Zombies could never move. That's a rules problem!
This is just a difference of opinion on how two rules should interact, but neither option breaks the game. It's a *design* argument.
2) Better to fix the rules a bit than to make an exception for everything in the future.
Yep. If I had to guess, I'd say that all guard mechanics will eventually get a slight tweak. But figuring that out means sitting down with designers and playtesters and looking at known corner cases, unprinted cards, future plans, design concerns, unintended consiquences, etc. It's a process, and it isn't free.
3) no offence, but that's kinda a stupid argument... You should be able to cast a circle of fire around your flaming Hellion because I'd want my opponent to be afraid of attacking him. Circle of fire is also less sbp than Circle of lightning AND you can get extra burns out of it which the adramelech warlock loves.
I find that when I'm making an argument that starts with, "No offense but that's dumb," I'm better off just skipping the insult and going right to the part where I explain why that's dumb. People get less offended that way.
In this case, I totally get that you *want* to be able to do those things. But that's not a reason you can or should have that ability. I *want* Teleport to fail on Rooted creatures and Devouring Jelly's corrode damage against an unarmored creature to trigger the Jelly's reconstruction ability. Heck, putting a Circle of Fire on Adremelech would be pretty hot! But that isn't a reason for allowing it.
Right now, Immunity is a double edged sword. It would be more powerful and flexible if it didn't prevent buffs. So?
