pawsplay said:
Mirror images are figments, and hence, merely moving through space affected by them does not destroy them becaues it does not harm the figment of the caster.
But the figment that visually represents the caster takes up more volume than the caster does physically, and all that's required to pop a MI figment is to successfully attack it.
If I swing at the caster, I need to beat his plate armor to actually hurt him. But for a figment, the plate armor is not protection; it's a part of its 'substance', and a successful attack on the armor is the same as a successful attack on its face. It gets no armor bonus, because striking the armor
is striking the figment.
If the MI figment becomes blurry because it is visually representing the appearance of the blurred caster, then those blurred outlines are a part of the figment, just as the armor is a part of the figment, and a successful attack against the blurred outlines will pop the figment.
If, on the other hand, one uses the FAQ ruling, then the figment effectively becomes a secondary target of the Blur spell. The figment still looks like the unblurred caster, but its location is obscured by the magic of the Blur spell. Thus, striking the blurred outlines is not a successful attack, because the outlines are not a part of the MI figment.
However, I see no support for the FAQ answer in either spell. I agree that the MI figment would look blurry, but it's the same as the figment turning green when the caster pours paint on his head. The figment is not painted; it's just representing paint. The figment is not subject to Blur; it's just representing a person subject to Blur.
-Hyp.
