(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.

[rythos42]

I actually took solkan's post to be the best explanation of why it should work! 

 

Oiran (rather than Onryo) does care, because the model says that when it takes the Defensive Action, it gains an additional +1 Defensive. This means it could (0) Defensive Action and just gain the additional +1 Defensive without spending any AP. It doesn't say that it has to gain +1 Defensive to gain an additional +1 Defensive (that wording would have been clear and very different).

 

Another reason why I'm stilling kicking around this thread -- I'd love to be able to take (0) Defensive Actions on everyone in my Tara crew. There is no mechanic to chuck cards for no reason, but if this was intended it would certainly fit the bill!

[Paddywhack]

I don't think they caught this particular little wording issue. As you say, if the Oiran's rule only indicates that she take the action regardless of outcome, then RAW would appear to fit. The whole Tara thing opens a huge can of worms though and would definitely seem to show RAI otherwise that whole mecahnic would never work. Maybe this should just be touched on in the FAQ or reword the Oiran ability (if that is the only one).

[Fenton Crack]

I'd love to be able to take (0) Defensive Actions on everyone in my Tara crew. There is no mechanic to chuck cards for no reason, but if this was intended it would certainly fit the bill!

 

I doubt this is what was intended, and was the chief worry I would have if the 0 Df stance proves to be possible.  It seems part of the Tara theme crew's whole game is how their Df swells as the turn wears on and the hand can shrink. I do not think they need an easier way to chuck cards, but I'm sure intelligent minds could differ.

[solkan]

So it turns out that I misunderstood what we were all arguing over.  I thought the argument was about whether the model would end up with that bizarre Defensive +0 condition if it does (0) Defensive Stance.  I didn't realize it was about whether the (0) Defensive Stance counted for the other abilities "The next time you perform a Defensive Stance action..." thing. 

 

As far as I can tell, yeah, if you do a (0) Defensive Stance (which is okay because you can do one 0 AP action), you would get an additional Defensive +1 condition applied due to that previous mentioned upgrade/ability/whatever.  But it's because you're getting nothing from the (0) Defensive Stance and then gain one additional Defensive +1, rather than because you're taking Defensive +0 and then gaining an additional Defensive +1.

 

Unless all of the (#) abilities are supposed to be only valid for x>0.  Does anyone have a convenient list to compare?  If there are a bunch that don't make any sense as (0) actions, then that would be the argument for saying "You're not supposed to take these as 0 AP actions."

 

Edit:  Are there any (0) Interact for the schemes and scenarios?

 

Edited to be better formatted.

[Adran]

The only (0) interact actions are granted by models, and they all allow them to count as a (1) interact (showgirls and Cherub and Hoffman).

[Oathius]

(ALL) Get a life.

hahaha

[rythos42]

Unfortunately, Defensive Stance is the only case (that I recall) where you can spend a variable amount of AP, so we don't have a lot to compare against.

 

I don't think (ALL) is used in this edition? You're a little behind Oathius.

[Oathius]

I don't think (ALL) is used in this edition? You're a little behind Oathius.

 

...yet! Haha. I'm an innovator

[Adran]

Just actually read the cards (always helpful) and I don't think there is a "(0): interact".

What there is is a "(0): Take a (1) interact".

 

Which when you are trying to agrue that (#) exists as a 0 can make a huge difference.

[Myyrä]

The real problem here is that #-sign is far from well defined with its meaning. For those of you arguing that it can be 0, you should also keep in mind that it can just as well be interpreted to be -1 or π.

[rythos42]

I don't believe it can be -1 or pi as easily, although I agree that the rulebook may not support where I'm going.

 

Pi, I think is easier to remove -- there is no way to spend 3.14~ AP, nor any support for what happens if you try. The rules don't say you can spend fractions of an AP, so you can't.

 

-1 is a little harder to deal with. If AP are a thing you can have, in the same way I might have a bag of carrots in front of me, one cannot have negative AP. Negative numbers are a trick of accounting and mathematics, rather than something that exists in the real world. Which is why I was trying to talk about counting/natural numbers earlier (and was shot down by 0 "sometimes" being in the set >.< stupid 0).

 

And this is also why 0 has an argument, because I can have 0 carrots and 0 AP, and I can eat 0 carrots and spend 0 AP.

 

And I'm with you - if that # was better defined, this argument would not exist.

 

Mmmm...humus....

[SpiralngCadavr]

I'd go beyond that, since a (0) action is both already defined in the game and already has a resource (i.e. being able to take a 0 action).

[solkan]

I spent a bit looking through the book, trying to find any (#) actions, and I couldn't.  I also couldn't find any (0) Interact examples in either of the 2nd edition books.

 

What I thought was really interesting was finding the various cards like Programmed Directive (Crossroads, 41)

 

Directive:  This model may take (1) Interact Actions as (0) Actions and (2) Interact Actions as (1) Actions.

instead of "This model may reduce the cost of Interact actions by 1."

 

I assume that's to avoid problems with "But you only spent N-1 action points to do the action, so you don't get N worth of effect" arguments over price reductions.

 

Similarly with Coollete Du Bois

 

Rehearsed:  Friendly Minion and Showgirl models within _8 may take (1) Interact Actions as (0) Actions.

Again, not "costs one less", but instead has a (0) action generate a (1) action for accounting purposes.

 

In comparison to that, "nothing plus an additional Defensive +1" to get (0) Defensive Stance smells bad, and doesn't pass the reasonable language test.

[Noxus]

Doesnt shenlong have some ability that allows defensive as a 0 action? or am i imagining things.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Yeah, there are things like take a (1) Defensive Stance as a 0, but that's to generate defensive +1, not to take a 0 action and a card to generate no defense, which is what the debate is about.

[sharpobjects]

/bump to keep it on the front burner.

 

 

 

I am hoping to see Justin officially way in on this with the next FAQ. 

[Alcibiades]

I have just stumbled across this thread and have read all the arguments and reviewed the MRB and have concluded, for what it's worth, that the answer, IMHO, is a definite "NO"; you cannot spend 0 AP to gain the "Defensive +0".

 

The starting point is in the "Generate AP" section of the rules, p. 34 in the SRB. It says:

 

"Each model now generates 2 general  AP (Masters generate 3), which can be used for most types of Actions the model is allowed to take.  The model may possess other Abilities or Conditions that increase or decrease the number of general AP it generates, or generate AP that can only be used in specific ways."

 

So, all models (excluding Masters) have 2 AP; some models may have/possess more or less either through an Ability or a Condition. There is no mention or suggestion that all models have a (0) Action. On the contrary, in the highlighted box on the same page entitled "Zero AP Actions" it specifically says:

 

"Some models will have Actions that have an AP cost of 0. A model may take only one of these 'free' Actions per Activation."

 

This of course, must be read with the first quoted paragraph in mind.  The "Some models" is a subset of "Each model". Unless the model possesses a specific Ability/Condition printed on it's card, it does not have a 0 Action. 

 

Also, it must be remembered that the Condition under discussion is "Defensive +1:  This model gains + to all Df duels."  It is not "Defensive +X "  where X = the number of AP spent.  Just like there is no Condition Poison + 0, there is no Condition Defensive +0. To gain the Condition, and any associated Triggers and Abilities,  you MUST spend 1 AP. The Oiran of the OP have the Ability "Reading the Stone" which grants the following:

 

"The first time that this model takes the Defensive Stance Action during its Activation it gains an additional Defensive +1 Condition."

 

The Condition the Oiran receives is an additional "Defensive +1". In order to be an additional Defensive +1 Condition, there must be a  pre-existing Defensive +1 Condition.

 

My 2 cents (slightly reduced due to exchange rates)...:-)

 

Kent

 

 

[rythos42]

I agree, it isn't Defensive +X. You don't gain Defensive +0, you gain 0 counts of Defensive +1. For the Oiran, you gain an additional Defensive +1 on top of gaining 0 of them initially. For Tara crew, you discard a card to gain 0xDefensive +1.

 

I think there are two "ok" arguments against being able to do this, but they aren't great arguments:

• It doesn't pass the silliness test. Which is why I'm not using it to discard cards with Tara's crew.
• "Some models", in English, is usually a subset of "each model". But strictly speaking, it could also be "every model". We don't like strictly speaking though.

 

Every other argument I've read in this thread has a counter.

[Dirial]

Why would Shenlong allow to take (0) Defensive Stance in an area around him if anyone could do it? (I know, they do get the Defensive condition which is new, but still...)

 

I think this is really cheesy, although I don't see a conclusive rule that disallows it.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Because it's not the same thing. He's reducing the cost of something (the same way some abilities allow a (2) charge as a (1) action), not allowing a thing that already exists.

 

I'm not sure if it's intended, but it's pretty corner-case, so I wouldn't be upset whether or not it's ultimately ruled as legal. I don't see the need for errata, unless the staff don't like it working that way.

[rythos42]

I think this is really cheesy, although I don't see a conclusive rule that disallows it.

 

I guess my problem is...that this could be a perfectly legitimate use of the rule, thought of and designed for by the design staff, that just hasn't been explained really well, and that we've been hampering ourselves so far. It's possible that we were meant to be discarding cards whenever we want with it, or that the Oiran interaction is really legitimate.

 

But we don't know, and we're scraping around for reasons why we can't do something that is within the rules as written because it feels cheesy. Maybe it's legitimate and we're fools. Maybe she just isn't that into you. Feelings are weird sometimes.

 

 

(I'm not arguing anyone actually use this rule this way. I'd rather not use something than have this discussion every time I do it. )

[Omenbringer]

/bump to keep it on the front burner.

 

 

 

I am hoping to see Justin officially way in on this with the next FAQ. 

Probably wont see Justin weigh in via the forums. Rules Marshals went the way of the Dodo with the edition change everything now goes thru the official FAQ updates.

[Hateful Darkblack]

It looks like only two people know the answer to this question right now: Your opponent and your TO. I can't imagine any answer coming from anyone else until the next FAQ at least.

[solkan]

The reward for reading to the end of this thread:

 

Settled by Nov 1 FAQ:

 

Q: Can a model take the Defensive Stance Action as a (0) Action?

A: No, unless it has a special ability explicitly stating otherwise. (11/1/14)

[Justin]