(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.

[Math Mathonwy]

"Some models will have Actions with an AP cost of 0."

All models have access to Defensive Stance. If it was available at (0), then all models would have an Action with an AP cost of 0.

Also, do people really think poorly of Oirans with them having access to the new Upgrade?

[Seregon]

If you're not running Oiran as 10T, then yes, they are quite rubbish.

 

You could also argue that the "Some models will have Actions with an AP cost of 0." phrasing to mean that only if you have a (0) Action printed on your card are you allowed to use them. I wouldn't know how to rule this one personally.

[SpiralngCadavr]

The other way of benefitting would be if you wanted to effectively dump a card as a (0) action, though unless you benefit from a discard (IDK if there are any instances of this, late enough that I can't think of one) or there's the other corner case of wanting to dump one for a Void critter's DF and you didn't have something else to discard a card on, you could theoretically take advantage of a (0) discard action.

[Myyrä]

I would often like the chance to discard cards as (0) action when I have cards valued 7-8 in my hand, but they aren't quite good enough for me to want to keep them in my hand in my next draw phase. It would however be nice to have them in my deck instead of discard pile.

Another situation where it would be useful is when using Scales of Justice.

[Rathnard]

"Some models will have Actions with an AP cost of 0."

All models have access to Defensive Stance. If it was available at (0), then all models would have an Action with an AP cost of 0.

 

Like I said before, I think we can all agree that the author didn't anticipate that players would consider taking a (0) Defensive Stance. The "some models" reference makes that clear (ie. Read as Intended or RAI). 

 

But I'd argue that you couldn't use that to infer by RAW (Read as Written) that you can't take a (0) Defensive Stance. The evidence in support of taking a (0) Defensive Stance (ie. it's a # action and as supported by the Interact rules, it's well established that # can be 0), needs more than an indirect reference about "some models" having 0 actions to be refuted. 

 

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

 

They do indeed. But unlike Defensive Stance, an Interact action is only performed as part of another rule. So while any model can (0) Interact, it's only permitted if those additional rules allow them to (as outlined in the scheme marker rules, Burning rules and any relevant Schemes and Strategies). This is as opposed to Defensive Stance, which has the same rules regardless of the game being played or the model using it.

 

Actually here's another (unrelated) rules quirk - Defensive Stance states that the model "may" discard a card. If they do so they gain the condition. Both the rules text and the example they give pretty clearly indicate that a model doesn't need to discard a card when taking the Defensive Stance action. So going back to the Oiran, it means that regardless of whether she spends 1AP or 0, she can choose not to discard a card and still gain Defensive +1 from Reading the Stones. 

 

I'm not going to comment on how balanced that is, but by RAW it works. 

 

 

TL:DR - By RAI it's pretty clear that the author didn't expect players to be taking (let alone benefiting from) (0) Defensive Stance. But that doesn't alter the fact that by RAW, it can be done.

[Bengt]

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? 

This would in my opinion be a really poor reason to do something, slippery slopes and all that.

[HowNot2Wargame]

Reading it, the 'may' is because they cannot discard a card for anything else in the rules unless it states it. Hence think you still need to throw the card, but then not spend ap due to the whole # thing.

Probably needs a FAQ to be honest...

[necroon]

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.

Do you believe that this is how the rule actually works? That taking a 0 action for defensive stance to gain Defensive +0 triggers reading the stone?

I'm not sure how to read the tone of the post. I've seen you say that it works RAW (no comment here as to whether or not I agree at the moment) but don't see a clear opinion as to your interpretation of the RAI: just how you believe the author may have possibly thought people would use the Defensive action.

[Adran]

There isn't any concrete rules here that say either way, but the Oiran do say that after taking a defensive stance action they gain an additional defensive +1, which could well mean they need to actually gain defensive + something for their bonus.

Its bit lingustically hair splitting.

[vonevilstein]

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.

 

Or alternatively you could of course just walk away and resolve not to play that person again.....

[sharpobjects]

If all models have an access to (0) defensive stance action then Shenlog's Knowing the Wind and Stone ability would not give a friendly model anything special with reference to it allowing them to take a (1) defensive stance as a (0) action. This special ability Shenlong has is powerful because it negates the normal rule that models need to spend at least 1 AP to gain defensive stance +1.

 

I think we can reasonably infer that under normal circumstances where a special ability like Knowing the Wind and Stone is not in play that models need to spend at least 1 AP to gain the defensive stance condition. The reason there is a # sign before defensive stance in the rule book instead of (1) is because you could spend multiple AP to stack the conditions. For example a Master could spend all 3 of their AP to gain Defensive stance +3, etc. 

[rythos42]

Looking at Shenlongs ability, I don't think it changes the argument:

 

"Friendly models within 6 may take the Focus Action as a (0) Action and may take the (1) Defensive Action as a (0) Action".

 

This says to me that the model may take a (0) Defensive Action and treat it as though it were a (1) Defensive Action, which gives +1 Defensive. Whereas this conversation is about taking a (0) Defensive Action to get +0 Defensive.

[sharpobjects]

Your missing my point. Shenlongs ability allows a model to take the defensive action as a (0). Without that ability or a similar ability a model cannot take a (0) defensive action. Without a special ability present all defensive actions are taken by spending (1) AP or more. Defensive Action +0 is a rediculous proposition.  

[solkan]

If moving 0 inches doesn't count as moving for triggering stuff, then spending 0 AP probably doesn't count as spending AP for triggering stuff. 

[Rathnard]

If moving 0 inches doesn't count as moving for triggering stuff, then spending 0 AP probably doesn't count as spending AP for triggering stuff. 

 

...In which case all (0) actions should do nothing? I don't think that's an apt analogy. 

 

Your missing my point. Shenlongs ability allows a model to take the defensive action as a (0). Without that ability or a similar ability a model cannot take a (0) defensive action. Without a special ability present all defensive actions are taken by spending (1) AP or more. Defensive Action +0 is a rediculous proposition.  

 

From my reading of Shenlong's ability, he allows models to take a (1) Defensive Stance action (thus giving Defensive +1) as a (0) action. It actually specifies (1) Defensive stance, so it pretty clearly tells you that even though you're taking it as a (0) action, it's still resolved as if it was a (1) action. Whether Defensive Stance can or can't normally be used as a (0) action doesn't even come into it.

In fact, Shenlong's ability seems written with the implication that a standard (0) Defensive stance is possible. Mind you, indirect implications like this are no good for justifying a rule (it's effectively justification through RAI), which is why I've avoided using them to argue my point here. 

[rythos42]

What Rathnard said.

 

It doesn't say what other models can do with a (0) Defensive, it only says what Shenlong can do with a (0) Defensive. My belief is that the rules for the (#) Defensive Action already contain all the rules we need.

1. You cannot do things that aren't in the rules. You can do everything that is in the rules.
2. The Defensive rules say that you gain #*Defensive+1, for each # AP you spend. It doesn't say "spend 1+ AP".
3. Which makes the question -- Is '0' a valid value for '#'?

I believe the answer is yes, because 0 is a counting number, like 1 or 2 or 3 (or 4, if you're Bishop ). 

 

You may not like the idea, or you may think it's silly, or you may have spoken with the rules designer over beers and he told you that no way was that possible, but with just the rulebook, I think it is possible to do this.

[Bengt]

What Rathnard said.

 

It doesn't say what other models can do with a (0) Defensive, it only says what Shenlong can do with a (0) Defensive. My belief is that the rules for the (#) Defensive Action already contain all the rules we need.

1. You cannot do things that aren't in the rules. You can do everything that is in the rules.
2. The Defensive rules say that you gain #*Defensive+1, for each # AP you spend. It doesn't say "spend 1+ AP".
3. Which makes the question -- Is '0' a valid value for '#'?

I believe the answer is yes, because 0 is a counting number, like 1 or 2 or 3 (or 4, if you're Bishop ). 

 

You may not like the idea, or you may think it's silly, or you may have spoken with the rules designer over beers and he told you that no way was that possible, but with just the rulebook, I think it is possible to do this.

Your link actually define counting numbers as natural numbers and goes on to say that 0 is sometimes included. So I don't see how it reinforces your case.

[vonevilstein]

I don't think this is really a debate for Malifaux. All Rathnard is saying is that RAW you can do (0) Defensive because of (#) Defensive which is entirely correct.

 

But there is no need to argue the point (he's right anyway) because this is Malifaux and we don't play RAW we play RAI. That is to say common sense and sportsmanship are the corner stones of Malifaux. 

 

 

Edit: By that way Rathnard that is not to say you don't play RAI! You clearly stated you know it's RAI not to allow it...

[Math Mathonwy]

In fact, Shenlong's ability seems written with the implication that a standard (0) Defensive stance is possible.

That's a really bizarre train of thought.

[Snakeshit]

You just quoted out of context

[Math Mathonwy]

You just quoted out of context

I disagree. I'm not disputing his whole train of thought, just that one particular point. It doesn't invalidate the rest of his reasoning but I just find that particular point really bizarre.

[Ausplosions]

because this is Malifaux and we don't play RAW we play RAI.

Wait, what?

WE play as per the rules. You can't play a game using only RAI...

[vonevilstein]

Wait, what?

WE play as per the rules. You can't play a game using only RAI...

You've read my comment as written not as intended...

[solkan]

...In which case all (0) actions should do nothing? I don't think that's an apt analogy.

 

(0) actions are irrelevant.  If this is the relevant rule

 

(#) 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.

 

then If you spend 0 AP, you gain zero Defensive +1, in other words you gain no copies of Defensive +1.  You don't gain a Defensive +0, because there's no such mechanic to grant +0.

 

You took an action and spent no action points on it. 

[Paddywhack]

(0) actions are irrelevant.  If this is the relevant rule

 

then If you spend 0 AP, you gain zero Defensive +1, in other words you gain no copies of Defensive +1.  You don't gain a Defensive +0, because there's no such mechanic to grant +0.

 

You took an action and spent no action points on it. 

 

This is the best explanation of why this doesn't/shoudln't work.

 

"(#) 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." (bold mine)

 

The Condition gained for each AP spent is "Defensive +1" not "Defensive (#AP Spent)". As you spent 0 AP you gain zero Conditions.

 

Now, could you still take the Defensive Stance as (0) action, discard a card and gain no "Defensive+1" condition? Possibly. Does it still matter for the original question as the Onryo would not have the Condition "Defensive" of any kind?