Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CovertOps" data-source="post: 5218528" data-attributes="member: 65152">You are correct in that you have not grasped my entire position.&nbsp; Starting from the assumption:Damage IS an &quot;effect&quot;This assumption is based on the &quot;Damage Type(s)&quot; listed on page 55.&nbsp; Damage by itself is not an effect unless it has a type as described in the rules (or it can be &quot;untyped&quot;).&nbsp; And to be clear I'm not trying to say that you have two separate effects (30 fire damage and 30 cold damage), but instead I have 30 damage of type fire and cold.&nbsp; So back to the argument...&nbsp; Because the 30 damage also has the &quot;Damage type&quot; &quot;Cold&quot;, then immunity fire does not protect me from it because &quot;...does not protect ... from other [damage types&quot;.&nbsp; Again referring to the base assumption &quot;Damage [types] IS an &quot;effect&quot;.&nbsp; If we can't agree that fire and cold are different types then you may as well say that any immunity makes you immune to ALL damage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CovertOps, post: 5218528, member: 65152"] You are correct in that you have not grasped my entire position. Starting from the assumption: Damage IS an "effect" This assumption is based on the "Damage Type(s)" listed on page 55. Damage by itself is not an effect unless it has a type as described in the rules (or it can be "untyped"). And to be clear I'm not trying to say that you have two separate effects (30 fire damage and 30 cold damage), but instead I have 30 damage of type fire and cold. So back to the argument... Because the 30 damage also has the "Damage type" "Cold", then immunity fire does not protect me from it because "...does not protect ... from other [damage [b]types[/b]". Again referring to the base assumption "Damage [types] IS an "effect". If we can't agree that fire and cold are different types then you may as well say that any immunity makes you immune to ALL damage. [/QUOTE]

Verification