"Cannot receive Slow" and Burning Tokens

[Alviaran]

Burning Tokens cause a model to take 1 Wd or receive Slow, controller's choice.

If a model cannot be made Slow (Unstoppable Industry for example), can a model choose "receive Slow" for the Burning Tokens, be immune and thus suffer no effects?

[Lord Shaper]

Edit: shaper.

Your knowledge of blast placement in relation to immunity to blasts is wrong.

But isn't the relievent part not the placement but the immunity? So because of an immunity the effect be it spell, WP or blast does not go off on the figure?

That's how I've understood it of late when rereading the parts on blasts

[Ausplosions]

But isn't the relievent part not the placement but the immunity? So because of an immunity the effect be it spell, WP or blast does not go off on the figure?

That's how I've understood it of late when rereading the parts on blasts

No.

Not even slightly.

[Lord Shaper]

No.

Not even slightly.

How are you seeing it then so I can understand where your coming from and can be corrected.

[Ausplosions]

You place the blast but it does nothing to the model. That way other models under the template can still be effected.

You are not targetting the immune model with the blast you are placing it and the model just happens to be underneath it.

[Gruesome]

A model immune to or able to ignore X cannot be affected or modified by X when resolving the effect.

Until I hear otherwise from a rules marshall, the way I play it is that Mei Feng could be given the SLOW and then would not be affected by it. I am not adding anything extra to the quoted rule about targeting or "receiving" etc...

The rule for "Immune to Influence" has its own definition and clearly states that you cannot be targeted. The fact that I2I uses the word "immune" as part of its title seems to have confused things with "immune" in general.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Gruesome

[Adran]

I don't think any of the models are actually immune to Blasts. The Freekorps are immune to Damage caused by Blasts (I think exact text not to hand but they do take damage from the exploding tanks as that Blast generates a strike and the strike damage isn't blast damage). Bearskin armor allows you to ignore damage from blasts.

Hoffman can stop the blast marker being placed, but nothint else will stop the blast marker placement. Blasts do not target. This is most commonly seen with regards to models like Pandora who you need to win a dual to target, but blasts can easily hurt her without that dual.

[Evilbleachman]

Indeed. I would also say that Mei can choose to put out the flame or chocke in damage. Neither hinders her Action Points status.

Immunity to blasts just means you are unharmed/uneffected by them. Not that they poof in smoke. I did try to give a good example on how it works. D:

[Boshea]

Until I hear otherwise from a rules marshall, the way I play it is that Mei Feng could be given the SLOW and then would not be affected by it. I am not adding anything extra to the quoted rule about targeting or "receiving" etc...

The rule for "Immune to Influence" has its own definition and clearly states that you cannot be targeted. The fact that I2I uses the word "immune" as part of its title seems to have confused things with "immune" in general.

Second this. I feel that people are just over thinking this.

[Omenbringer]

Questions pertaining to Blasts should be posted in another thread so as not to confuse the original topic.

Hopefully a Rules Marshal will meander in and settle this one though. I can see both sides of the argument.

The big problem though is how the grammar plays out, affect and effect can have very different meanings based on whether they are used as a noun or a verb.

[Mako]

But using affect as a noun and effect as a verb in this situation would be nonsensical! A model can't have an affect (no personality or emotions), and to effect something would be a monstrously clunky use of the language as it implies causing something else (so the slow would have to be causing another event/thing).

I agree its the wording, but I'd say it's about the exact definition of 'affected by', and 'immune to', and the exact point they stop the process of slow resolving.

[Omenbringer]

I would agree that Immune and Ignore are two different things and need more clarity than they recieved in the rule book.

Websters defines Immunity as:

Not affected by a given influence

and Ignore as:

To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.

Immune would then mean that the model can not be affected by Slow (in this case, and a requirement to remove the Burning token), where as Ignore means that you could receive Slow but would just disregard its effect.

I am interested in how this one is ruled since I can definately see both sides of the argument.

[Kadeton]

Given that they didn't receive that clear distinction in the rules, and are used to all intents and purposes interchangeably on existing models, is there a reason you think they're supposed to be different?

I will also be interested to see how this one turns out.

[Omenbringer]

Given that they didn't receive that clear distinction in the rules, and are used to all intents and purposes interchangeably on existing models, is there a reason you think they're supposed to be different?

I will also be interested to see how this one turns out.

Mainly because they sort of did recieve a distinction in the cited rule and that both appear in different context on existing models.

I am interested to see how this turns out as well.

[Kadeton]

Hmm, I missed that distinction... which rule are we talking about here?

For there to be a genuine distinction, there would need to be a section of the rules in which there was a difference in outcome between an effect being ignored and a model being immune to that effect. I don't think such a distinction exists, but I would be happy to be shown otherwise.

[Omenbringer]

Page 22 of the 1.5 edition has both Immune and Ignore in bold and the qualifier or in the description of Effect. If they were intended to be treated as the same thing there wouldn't be a need to distinguish them in this way.

[Kadeton]

Ah okay, I don't have the 1.5 book. So both terms are mentioned, but treated exactly the same way?

[Omenbringer]

Page 19 of the old Mini Rules Manual has a similar distinction between the two. They are definately treated differently in both references however they aren't really clarified well in either.

[Kadeton]

Sorry, just to clarify what I mean:

A rule that says "If the target is immune to the effect, or ignores the effect, then {x}" does not make a distinction between the terms. Just because they're both mentioned does not mean they're different; they are two ways of referencing the same process, so they are both listed.

If every rule either treats both terms the same way, or uses one but also implies the other, then there is no distinction between the terms.

What we need to find is a situation where a rule states "If the target is immune, then {x}. If the target ignores the effect, then {y}." X and Y must be different outcomes for there to be a distinction between the terms.

[Omenbringer]

I get what your saying however they are treated as two seperate things. The sentence structure (though a bit muddy) definately distinguishes between the two as does the presence of individual index entries. Additionally, if they were meant to be the same thing then why the two different words (either could work)?

From the sentence structure, Immune is for being affected by an effect while Ignore is for being modified by an effect. These are very different things. A model that can Ignore Burning Tokens for example can still recieve them they just dont have an affect where as a model that is Immune to them doesn't even recieve them.

Hopefully though this has drawn some attention in the Developer back room and they are discussing an "official" clarification one way or the other. Like I said earlier though I can see both sides of the argument.

[Kadeton]

Ah yes, Burning Tokens are an excellent example. Cheers.

I really shouldn't get deeply into these sort of discussion without my books to hand, but aren't there interactions where one ability "cannot be ignored by any Talent," and the Talents that would come into play provide Immunity, not the ability to Ignore?

Anyway, I suspect they're like a lot of terms: loosely defined rather than strictly or exclusively defined. Let's hope, at the very least, that they clarify this one particular issue.

[CRC]

Several ruling were made the way they were to avoid changing cards. Maybe there are old cards that use both Immune and Ignore, and while they'd prefer to just update all the cards with a single wording, it's just not worth it.

[Omenbringer]

I really dont think that this is true

while they'd prefer to just update all the cards with a single wording, it's just not worth it.

There are several new models (from Storm of Shadows) that feature usages of both words.

For example Mei Feng (the model that started this discussion) has Unstoppable Industry which makes her Immune to Slow. She may also Ignore the Obscuring trait generated by auras and markers thanks to Shapes in the Steam.

The Rail Golem has Forged in Fire which makes him Immune to the Wounds and Slow inflicted by up to three Burning Tokens. He also has the Construct trait which makes him Immune to Morale Duels.

The Rail Crew have Replacement Limbs which provides an option to Ignore Armor. They also share Shapes in the Steam with Mei Feng.

The Beckoners Irresistible can not be Ignored by any talent.

Torakage can be Immune to Disengaging Strikes if they meet the requirements listed under their Agile Retreat ability.

Yamaziko has Inspiring Presence which makes her and other friendly models with in range Immune to Terrifying.

The Guild Pathfinder has Pointman which allows them to ignore a restriction on From the Shadows. Additionally, they also have the Pit Trap spell which creates severe terrain that can't be Ignored by any talent or spell except Flight or Float.

Though arguments could be made for some of the older abilities retaining the word usage so as not to have to reprint everything, the new models cited feature usages of both words. Additionally, Wyrd has a pretty good track record of clarifying abilities that commonly cause confusion (regardless of the effort).

[pgbsamurai]

Can we get a Rules Marshal ruling on this, or at least know if they are looking at it? This has come up a few times for me and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer yet.