NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5222102" data-attributes="member: 71571">Actually, pre-errata, even pre-errata to how multiple damage types work, again, immunity to fire made you immune to the entire power, because the entire power was a fire effect.I don't know how else to say it.  I understand how you have trouble getting the 'parts of a power share the traits of the entire power' and that 'a seperation should occur' but that doesn't happen and is expressly what it does not say in the rules.  Keywords cover the entire power's effect.  Every part of a power has those keywords.  And there are powers where keywords only apply to part of a power; those powers have and always have identified those parts and said 'This is a _____ effect.'If there was a seperation of effects, the PHB3 rule wouldn't be necessary.  Even without that, there are instances where the 'immunity to one part of the power does not render you immune to the other parts of the power.'  Case in point:  Immunity to Forced movement renders you immune to forced movement, but any other effect takes place.Regardless, you cannot start a 'This is how the rules are' argument and then go 'But what the rules say make no literal sense.'  You're not arguing rules as written at that point, you're choosing to ignore what the rules say and make up your own interpretation.As I said, there's Rules as Written, and there's Rules as You'd Like Them To Be.   Your interpretation works well at your table, and I find no fault in it, but it is NOT what the rules -say-.  And when your first act of interpretation is to ignore the entire rule, the ONLY existance of the pertinent rule in play, then you've already abandoned the idea of discussion what the 'Rules as Written' are.</blockquote>

Verification