Bachman's Immunization state's he's not affected by states that are imposed on him. For tactics and switches that require
Do you mean that if bachman has an state (that doesn't affect him, like Taunt), could he be the objetive of a tactic that require that state (like say it to my face, that requires a taunted objetive)? I understand it as: the state is imposed on him, he's just not affected by its effect. But he has it imposed.
If is the case stated by @JAGS I must differ... If the Tactic or Switch requires a "State Token", it can affect Bachmann, as it only requires the token. BUT, if the Taactic or Switch requires the "State" as such, only States that affect Bachmann count. For example, Say it to my face cannot be directed to Bachmann (unless Immunized is Silenced), as Bachmann is not Taunted (even if he has the Token imposed). Hope this helps! :3
Yeah. Don't know how that happened. It was referring to Tangana! Or Swim Move! I've always understood Bachmann to have been in the state but not to be affected by it. So, if Massacre Taunts Bachmann he can Tangana! and also gain the extra orange dice from Te Voy a Cascar! but Bachmann can declare Attacks against any valid target not just Massacre. Edit: to be clear, that's what I've understood and I was basically asking whether it was correct or not.
In fact, no. As Bachmann is Immunized, he isn't count as being Provoked, so no Tangana and no extra dice from Te voy a cascar That being said, if you use Es hora de armar el bonche, as it calls for a state token, you can use anyone imposed on Bachmann (even if he isn't suffering the state). :3
So, the State is one thing (the ruling which applies to a Character), the token is other (a physical counter which can mean or not an applied State) So, Bachmann can have tokens, but no having the State itself (he has the counter, but no rules are applied) So, as you can see, there are some game activites (as short of Actions/Attacks/Tactics/Effects/Switches) that calls for States (ruling applied), and others which calls for State tokens (the counter) As long as Bachmann has no State (rules), you cannot target him if the activity calls for the State Hope this helps! :3
You just restated your argument. The issue is that Immunized says "not affected by any state imposed" not "counts as not being in the state". It's just as easy, indeed I'd argue easier, to read "not affected by" as "has the state imposed but it has no effect on Bachmann". Edit: re-reading it, I think that it's clear Bachmann does have the Taunted state imposed on him. I don't see how that doesn't proc the extra dice of Massacre's attack?
The issue is that "not Being in the State" is not supported by any rule (as you are using the expression as parte of the ruleset). Immunized says (in common speech) "You have the token, but you don't have the State" Is he Taunted? No Thus, Bachmann hasn't the Taunted State imposed (even if he has the token) Is Bachmann Taunted? No Te voy a cascar proc calls for the target to be Taunted. No Taunt, no proc, no dice :3
No, Immunized says in plain English: Bachman has the State but Bachmann doesn't suffer any effects from it. He's an asymptomatic carrier of Taunted. I'm talking about a situation where Massacre benefits from effects which result for him from Bachmann having the state. Massacre gets additional bonuses vs people infected by Taunted. BUT I absolutely accept that your interpretation could be what's intended, I just don't know if anything supports that. Because RAW I think I'm correct.
Sure. Where does it say that it only applies to symptomatic carriers? Because neither Immunized nor Massacre's skills do.
Ok, from now on I'm calling @-V- because I've exposed what I have For a summary: State and State token are different things in the ruleset, if anything calls for the State, you have to be affected by it (preventing Bachmann for a number of things); but if anything calls for a State token, even Bachmann can be targeted (even if he is Immunized) :3
In general what might help: If I am not mistaken Damiel is one of the key game testers, so he should be very close to the source. I would consider his comments almost as official as the rulings from V.
Ah, okay that's context I'm missing. :) In any event, this would be useful being in a FAQ because it's not at all clear from just the cards whether a Taunted character is a character with the Taunted State token on them or whether they need to be affected by the Taunted State. Personally, I find the distinction between having the State token and having the State non-obvious. But *shrug*
