Didn't the Beyonder once tell Dr. Strange that there was no upper limit to the Hulk's strength for that reason?
Anyway...
If you need more proof that a spell needs to specify in order to exclude clauses inherent within the original description then look at how love's pain specifies that the secondary target doesn't get a save or SR, something which the spell allows in the description.
Actually, the spell description doesn't allow a saving throw to the "primary" target (just SR). The existence of a "primary" target or a "secondary" target would indicate a primary/secondary effect. Which, explicitly, there is none. There is only "subject" and "subject's dearest loved one" suffering for what you are doing to the subject, NOT, to him.
As to why they'd need to make such a note regarding the subject's "loved one"? I'd say to make sure you don't somehow misunderstand what's happening here.
Now might be an idea to find something else to use a basis for that argument.
NERD RAGE!!!
Um, woah.
I'm sorry. Excuse me.
But... where exactly did you read that all spell effects and descriptors explicitly carry over to secondary whatnot?
Cause the player's handbook sure doesn't have a line like that when it talks about spell descriptions. Just how they interact with other spells and abilities.
In fact the only time they talk about secondary effects is with poisons.
Rules Compendium has an extra line, in that mind-affecting effects only work on creatures with intelligence 1 or higher.
So is this hard and fast claim of yours actually supported by something?
Cause, I mean... it seems like you're making up a bunch of BS right now because you hate to see people talk about abusing broken stuff in D&D.
Sure it makes sense, but it also makes sense to me that Mind Blank blocks detection from the Mindsight feat. Why? Well because Telepathy is mind-affecting obviously (the whole ability is based on
detect thoughts). Lo and behold, in MM1, Telepathy in fact lacks the mind-affecting descriptor.
I mean shit, I still bitch when I see people say that a Hellbreaker is the only way to avoid Mindsight and ask how, and then argue that Mind Blank should work for exactly the same reason and get, "No it don't."
I mean if you want to argue it then, fine, go ahead, but at least cite some precedent (like other spells that offer a primary/secondary target in their descriptions that support your claim) other than "Duh!!! It's SOOO OBVIOUS!!!"
Like this:
If they bothered to take the time to spell out that this spell doesn't work if the loved one is an antimagic field, don't you think they would have taken the extra 9 or so character inches to mention "or immune to mind-affecting" also? If they are going to list conditions which are acceptable to stop the field wouldn't they bother to point out something
that obvious?
So it's easy enough to conclude that it doesn't matter if you are immune to mind-affecting or not. Just that your target, y'know the
subject of the spell, isn't.