(0) Defensive Stance?

[Rathnard]

Here's a question;

 

Defensive Stance is an (X) action, meaning you can spend any number of AP (assuming to have enough AP) to give your model Defensive +X. 

 

So is there anything stopping a model from taking a (0) Defensive Stance Action? 

 

For most models the net effect would be a wasted discard, but some models (well, the Oiran) gain certain benefits (well, Defensive +1) when taking a Defensive Stance action.

[PraetorDragoon]

Officially, According to the rules wording, you can take (0) Defensive stance to gain Defensive +0. 

 

Unoffically, I would smack you with the rulebook if you attempt to do so.

[Kadeton]

So the question becomes whether 0 is a valid number of AP, and/or a valid value for X?

(0) Actions are a bit weird in that regard. I don't really think of them as "costing 0 AP" - they're really more of a special class of Actions. On the other hand, there are some abilities that allow models to reduce the "AP cost" of Interacts by 1, from (1) to (0).

So... it feels unintended and a bit janky to me, but I guess it falls under "not strictly prohibited".

[zFiend]

Officially, According to the rules wording, you can take (0) Defensive stance to gain Defensive +0.

Unoffically, I would smack you with the rulebook if you attempt to do so.

This.

[lusciousmccabe]

I love how non-commital this thread is. It's like everyone know how horrible the semantics of the debate could be, and don't want to get involved for the sake of a Defensive +0.

 

[The Godlyness]

(#) Defensive Stance: The model may discard a card. If the model does so, it gains the following Condition until the start of its next Activation a number of times equal to the AP spent on this Action: "Defensive +1: This model gains + to all Df Duels.

 

Reading the Stone: The first time that this model takes the Defensive Stance action during its Activation it gains an additional Defensive +1 Condition.

 

well i see nothing wrong with taking a 0 for it...

 

but on semantics it says an additional DS+1 so you might need one in the first place. meh this is why shenlong is baller. my 0 action becomes a DS+2 Go go super oiran

[Jimbobovalsocks]

Fuuuuuudge it! I'll wade in with an opinion. The wording says that you can spend AP to gain DS+1 for every AP spent. It doesn't say that you can not spend AP to gain DS+0. You have to spend the AP so you can't gain DS 0. Also, whilst socklordchompiebitsing lacks the gravitas of sockjacking them, it gets the point accross and feels like an apropriate response if your oponent tries to do this

[MightyGodzilla]

He would be discarding a card to activate it....  Maybe Oirans are just defendy, not like uber +2 for 1 AP defendy, but rather, I'm always +1 defendy.  And if they were on Colette's crew they have to decide between defendy and (0) AP Interacts.

 

Admittedly that's not much.  The only solace I can take in all of this is that Malifaux is a skirmish game and I doubt I'd see more than 2 or 3 figures doing that....at that would cost my opponent 2 or 3 cards.

 

And to be honest Malifaux is a very defendy game.  To me there are just some models not worth attacking.  First time I fought Jacob Lynch and ran into a Depleted I was like "WTF?".  4 Stones for 8 wounds and Hard to Kill....  Don't waste your time.  Oirans, to me, seem just like that...albeit to a lesser degree.

[rythos42]

If The Godlyness has quoted the exact rule above, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to do it. You discard a card and use 0 AP and gain 0 x Defensive +1.

 

Some abilities say something like "Whenever you gain Defensive , gain an additional Defensive +1" and that wouldn't fly, obviously.

 

 

And then I will use Metal Gamin's (0) Defensive Action to not discard a card and not use any AP. I will use it every activation.

[Fenton Crack]

I imagine Df 0 with the discard would be potentially viable for a Tara crew looking to shed their hand for increased Df to Nothing Beast and friends, and it would skirt the increasing 0 by +1 issue, so even if the Orian cannot make use of it, semantics of the additional Df aside, is still a question worth answering.

[Ausplosions]

Do all models generate a (0) though?

Not sure they do.

[Paddywhack]

I tend to think of the (0) actions as their own thing and separate from AP actions. I want to look through the rules again for the definition of (0) Actions though. 

[HowNot2Wargame]

Considering its on oirian, its not exactly 'sick in mouth'/npe time is it?

Perhaps this is why they have been denigrated for so long? Perhaps even with play testing yadda yadda this was always intended, that they can get def stance for a card and no ap.... And its only just clicked. *takes tongue out of cheek*

Does any other model have the same wording? Most I recalled say when you spend one you get two and other similar sentiments.

[Bengt]

So the question becomes whether 0 is a valid number of AP, and/or a valid value for X?

(0) Actions are a bit weird in that regard. I don't really think of them as "costing 0 AP" - they're really more of a special class of Actions. On the other hand, there are some abilities that allow models to reduce the "AP cost" of Interacts by 1, from (1) to (0).

Are there any that say they actually reduce the cost though? Colette, Programmed Directive, Corn Husks all say they may take take (1) Interacts as (0) Actions, not that you perform any arithmetic on the cost.

[zFiend]

Hm. Not sure is it relevant at all but as Tara was ruled that even if she discards 0 cards it's still valid. Then again other rulings weren't supposed to be used as a reference.

[Math Mathonwy]

Considering its on oirian, its not exactly 'sick in mouth'/npe time is it?

They are pretty hot with the new upgrade, though.

[Adran]

Hm. Not sure is it relevant at all but as Tara was ruled that even if she discards 0 cards it's still valid. Then again other rulings weren't supposed to be used as a reference.

 

Thats entirely unrelated, as her rules state she discards 3 cards or her whole hand. The ruling says that discarding her whole hand of 0 cards is still discarding her whole hand.

 

I can't see anything in the book that lets one spend 0 AP, and the way they have worded all the special abilities that allow you to do a 1 action as a 0 action are phrased in a way that that doesn't say 1-1 =0.

[Myyrä]

Can I take defensive stance (-1) action? I would get more ap for oiran by discarding cards!

[Math Mathonwy]

I once took an (i)Defensive Stance action and the game crashed

[zFiend]

I once took an (i)Defensive Stance action and the game crashed

Game breaker!

I once took Seamus to turf war with similar results

[baskinders]

This came up a while back and the point is that models don't generate a (0) action each activation they can use, they generate 2 (and sometimes more) AP.

These are then spent on actions at the listed cost.

Then some models have access to actions which cost then 0 AP and these actions are specific to each model.

Models don't have access to a Defensive Stance action that costs 0 AP unless it's granted to them by a some rule. So unless they do, Defensive Stance is just a normal action you need to spend 1 or more of your AP to take.

This isn't a case of "it doesn't specifically say you can't so you can", it's a case of "it doesn't specifically say you can, so therefore you can't".

[Ausplosions]

This came up a while back and the point is that models don't generate a (0) action each activation they can use, they generate 2 (and sometimes more) AP.

These are then spent on actions at the listed cost.

Then some models have access to actions which cost then 0 AP and these actions are specific to each model.

Models don't have access to a Defensive Stance action that costs 0 AP unless it's granted to them by a some rule. So unless they do, Defensive Stance is just a normal action you need to spend 1 or more of your AP to take.

This isn't a case of "it doesn't specifically say you can't so you can", it's a case of "it doesn't specifically say you can, so therefore you can't".

This is 100% correct.

[The Godlyness]

Well my rebuttal if you want to call it that or rather poor man's argument is that every model has defensive stance. So every model could have a 0.

[Rathnard]

Okay so on (0) actions. Here's the specific rule;

 

Some models will have Actions with an AP cost of 0. A Model can only take one of these "free" actions per activation.

 

The way I read it, the rule first specifie that some actions cost (0) AP, and that models can only use one of these (0) actions per activation. I don't see anything classifying (0) actions as a special class of actions, simply that models can only use one action that costs 0 AP per activation. 

 

I also see nothing in the rules stating that only models with access to a (0) action have a (0) AP to spend. And as Godlyness stated, even if that was the case then every model has access to (0) Defensive Stance anyway, so it's a moot point.  

 

Onto Defensive Stance. At the moment there's nothing I can see to prevent a player spending (0) AP on Defensive stance. If you do, then by RAW you gain the "Defensive +1" condition a number of times equal to the AP you spent on the action. So if you spend (0) AP, you get the condition zero times.

 

So that leaves us with the question as to whether zero is a legitimate # of AP to spend on Defensive Stance. From what I can see, the rules support 0 as a legitimate number of AP (ie. there's rules and mention of it, unlike negative values, for instance). Furthermore the fact that you can spend (0) AP on an Interact (which is also listed under the general actions as a (#) Interact) supports the argument that you should be able to do the same for Defensive Stance. 

 

Now don't get me wrong here - I  doubt that this rules interaction is something the authors/playtesters whoever else anticipated, and I'd be very surprised if it was considered when the Oiran was being playtested. But that doesn't negate the fact that by RAW, it seems possible for any model to do a (0) Defensive Stance action. 

 

In any case, is it really that bad that the Oiran (a model most people think poorly of anyway) is the only model to get a bit of a boost from this?

[Ausplosions]

In your own rules quote it says "some models" will have actions with an AP cost of (0)

If all models could take a defensive stance as a (0),surely it would say "all models" have an action with an AP cost as (0).

As the rules don't say you can take defensive as (0), you can't. It is a permissive rule set. The rules need to explicitly say you CAN do something.

[Ausplosions]

By your argument, all models also have a (0) Interact.