Afflicted Demon & Rise Again

[mirel7c3]

In a recent game I enchanted an afflicted demon of my opponent with rise again then I killed and reanimated him.
When I understand the card texts and reanimate correctly he should get two weak tokens and a zombie marker at the same time. But these two are conflicting since he also gets poison immunity and therefore is immune to weak tokens.

Therefore my questions:
1. Are the weak tokens placed on the demon?
2. Are they removed when gets his zombie marker?
3. Or does he keep the tokens and he can transfer them but they do not affect him and he always attacks with 5 dice from the start?

[Halewijn]

Not sure what the difference is between 1 and 2, but he does not get the tokens. (So both 1 and 2?)

[Kelanen]

Interesting... my gut feel is that it shouldn't  matter whether you put Weak tokens on, then a Zombie token, or the reverse - when the stack resolves you'll just have a Zombie Token and no Weak..

However, I'm not sure the rules do work that way. Immunity says you can't be targeted by <foo>, and are unaffected by <foo> but not that you remove any existing <foo> conditions or enchantments - they would just not affect you.

So my take is that actually you could put Weak on first, then Zombie and now not be affected by the Weak, but could still inflict them... it feels wrong, but seems to be correct.

Extending this principle, if we had an enchantment or effect giving Immunity in future, it wouldn't affect any Enchantments already in place, since it's been clarified (Demonic Mask) that an Enchantment only targets whilst it's being cast, not constantly (like in say MtG).

[jacksmack]

DvsN Reanimate:
At the end of the round, the creature card is flipped face up and is Summoned into play.This creature reanimates upon death. If this creature is destroyed, it is moved from the discard pile to the zone it was just destroyed in, and placed face down in that zone, with a face-down action marker on it. This creature is considered temporarily out of play. At the end of the round, the creature card is flipped face up and is Summoned into play.

Rise again:
When this creature is destroyed, you may pay half its casting cost (rounded up) to Reanimate it. When the creature comes into play, place a Zombie condition marker on it, and place damage on it equal to its Level.         


I believe there is a timing conflict with: 'Summoning' and 'Comes into play' (which is the same accoridng to the blow codex entry) and therefor you get to choose the order. And if you choose weaks then its 3 due to the ruling where the warlock wearing a demon mask is able to enchantment transfuse an enchantment that targets demons only in the attack window where the warlock gets demon subtype AND gets to keep the enchantment on wards.

Complete Codex 2.0 says:
Summon (game term)
Summoning is the act of bringing a creature into play and placing it in the arena.


If you can decide its actually very interesting because there will be times when you want the 5 dice on him and other times you want more weak tokens on the enemy at the cost of him hitting for less.

[Laddinfance]

If you rise again afflicted demon it will not have any weak conditions.

[jacksmack]

Can i ask why?

[Kelanen]

Can i ask why?

Ditto.

That's what it feels the answer should be, but not the one the rules support, at least as i am reading them.

[Halewijn]

It has been specified a ton of times that "immunity" also means that it cannot gain a condition marker of that type by any means. This discussion has had HUGE treads already. If you are interested you can search for it. ("about immunity")

For the same reason, the adramelech warlock cannot transfer burn markers to Adramelech.

Edit: Here are 12 pages about it: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=16091.0
Have fun.

[Kelanen]

It has been specified a ton of times that "immunity" also means that it cannot gain a condition marker of that type by any means. This discussion has had HUGE treads already. If you are interested you can search for it. ("about immunity")

For the same reason, the adramelech warlock cannot transfer burn markers to Adramelech.

With respect, both of those statements are not relevant, and missing the point we are trying to make...

Immunity stops you getting conditions of that type - we all agree. This is also why the Warlock can't transfer them to Adramelech.

That is NOT the question being asked though... nowhere in the rules or FAQ does it talk about Immunity removing a condition that pre-exists it. It's not normally relevant because Immunity is generally an intrinsic Trait, but this is an edgecase of gaining after the Weak tokens are placed on it.

[Halewijn]

No, but immunity has more than 1 problem. It is not perfectly ruled at the moment.
I'd suggest using common sense here, I think it's very logical that something that would suddenly gain burnproof loses the burns it already has. Something that gains poison immunity loses all poison conditions and someone that gains psychic immunity would lose sleep, etc...

But if that's not enough for you, the best answer is: Because Laddinfance saids so. He's a co-designer of the game and can choose what the rules are.

Here are the official rules:
 

If you rise again afflicted demon it will not have any weak conditions.

[Laddinfance]

Sorry I didn't have time to say more earlier, I was about to have a webmeeting and I wanted to say something.

In the description for immunity it says you are immune to conditions, among other things. Now, I can see where that would be that you are immune to the effects of conditions. However, in this case it's saying you're immune to the whole condition. So, when looking at the Afflicted Demon, if it comes back as a zombie it's immune to poison and so those poison conditions should be removed.

As I said previous, I understand the alternative interpretation. It is an intelligent and fair one. However, when the rules only take you so far I know that Bryan wants a spell to work "like they think it should". So from that aspect as well it does not make sense for a nonliving creature to have a poison condition on him.

Sorry for the brief answer previously. I hope this one makes more sense. Also, there is no need to wield my words like a sledgehammer. We're all asking questions and working through the answers. Also, give me some time to respond  I'm not always on the forums that instant.

Have a great day everyone.

[mirel7c3]

Thank you all for the clarifications and the verdict

[rant]

I'm making the assumption that demonic link would work after the afflicted demon has been brought back. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. 

[Laddinfance]

I'm making the assumption that demonic link would work after the afflicted demon has been brought back. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

It doesn't lose any subtypes, so yes.

[Kelanen]

No, but immunity has more than 1 problem. It is not perfectly ruled at the moment.
I'd suggest using common sense here,

I'm afraid, I don't believe in playing by 'common sense' or what theme 'obviously' says the rule should be. I play by the what the rules actually say, and if it turns out they aren't what is intended, then get them errated.

But if that's not enough for you, the best answer is: Because Laddinfance saids so. He's a co-designer of the game and can choose what the rules are.

Yes - it's clear he made a ruling, now we are asking to justify why. I accept it IS the ruling, but knowing how it's got from the current text is important (more important than the actual ruling), and that was why we asked for clarification on why he was ruling that way.

Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but it's all that matters to me. And for reference, AW has ruled on a number of things that have completely deviated from what they have printed, thus many of us clamouring for those to be errata, which is slowly happening.

Sorry I didn't have time to say more earlier, I was about to have a webmeeting and I wanted to say something.

No problem - thanks for the explanation Aaron. I can see this interpretation in the first phrase of Immunity, I was hung up on the latter parts.