Damage Immunity

Looking through the links I don't really see the answer there. The first link only states that it is not succesfully inflicted, not that it is not inflicted at all. The second link says, that unpreventable damage against someone who is immune is still unpreventable, but will simply be ignored for the minion. The third talks about whether the unlock damage from Talbot's Chainsaw in fact comes from the chainsaw.

All these links do not state that damag is not inflicted at all, only that it is not succesfully inflicted. Which is not what is questioned here, as Weighted Walking Stick only cares about inflicted damage and not if it is succesfully inflicted. This might be nitpicking, but I'd like to have an explicit answer to this. If I've missed something, feel free to quote the answer directly

After reading said rulings, I agree with Yomyael !

The quote from the ruling is :

"Damage that is prevented, dodged, or immunized away is not successfully inflicted."

And the parallel done with prevented damage make it clear there IS a difference (at least for WWS)

I´m also with Timo and Yomyael on this.

[ LSJ 20010629] LSJ wrote:

The damage is unpreventable and is not
prevented. It is then ignored.

.
The above means the damage is inflicted and not prevented and is then ignored because of immunity to that damage, i.e. making the damage inflicted but not successfully inflicted...difference being that the latter results in damage needing to be handled as it is not ignored.

Furthermore the definition of the word "immunity" makes it clear that it is about how something is handled and doesn't prevent exposure/infliction. In this case i would apply nr 4 (the liability being the need to deal with the damage inflicted) exempting the need to deal with the damage inflicted.
.

dictonary.com says:

immunity [ ih-myoo-ni-tee ]noun, plural im·mu·ni·ties.

1. the state of being  immune  from or insusceptible to a particular disease or the like.
2. the condition that permits either natural or acquired resistance to disease.
3. the ability of a cell to react immunologically in the presence of an antigen.
4. exemption from any natural or usual liability.
5. exemption from obligation, service, duty, or liability to taxation, jurisdiction, etc.:The ambassador claimed diplomatic immunity when they arrested him for reckless driving.
6. Law. exemption from criminal prosecution or legal liability or punishment on certain conditions.
7. special privilege.

"The first link only states that it is not succesfully inflicted, not that it is not inflicted at all."

I think you are trying to wedge in a distinction here that does not exist within the language, and would create a dangerous misalignment between the dictionary definition and the game term, where anything can then be questioned, and run the risk of having a completely unintuitive rulings.

If I did not successfully open the door, it is not open through my actions. The distinction you reference can only exist with words like "attempt" that do not carry with them information about a particular result.

Obviously not a rules guru, but it’s very important to have linguistic integrity within a game that relies on words to communicate.

Facilier wrote:

"The first link only states that it is not succesfully inflicted, not that it is not inflicted at all."

I think you are trying to wedge in a distinction here that does not exist within the language, and would create a dangerous misalignment between the dictionary definition and the game term, where anything can then be questioned, and run the risk of having a completely unintuitive rulings.

If I did not successfully open the door, it is not open through my actions. The distinction you reference can only exist with words like "attempt" that do not carry with them information about a particular result.

Obviously not a rules guru, but it’s very important to have linguistic integrity within a game that relies on words to communicate.
 

But we know the distinction already exists in the game. Take for example Target vitals: "If any damage from this strike is succesfully inflicted" means: it is inflicted and not prevented. However, in the earlier quote from the text of WWS: "For each damage inflicted by this strike (even if prevented)" meaning damage can be inflicted unsuccesfully if it is prevented, but it is inflicted nonetheless.

lip wrote:

Check the Codex when you find an example with cards. i.e. on Miclantecuhtli

 

I understand the intent with this reply was to indicate that this rulings exist outside the official rulebook, and to simply point people in that direction. But there's still too many threads post-rulebook revision where someone quotes a 20-year-old ruling and is like "would you check the rulings before posting, you dumb player?" (again, likely not your intention with your reply, but it may come across that way to the people asking for clarification).

The rulebook was heavily revised recently, and immune and inflict weren't defined. There may be a reason for that, but this "rulesmonger has spoken/already spoken" approach to communicating rules historically prevalent on this forum the past decade and the newsgroup 1994-2010 is really not a good look in 2021, in my opinion. Especially with the rulebook being recently revised.