Duels against a - stat

[taozenrat]

whats the effect or how does one resolve a duel against a model without the specified stat?

Ex: Ototo uses Thunderstrike: Enemy models within :pulse3 must succeed in a Wk 12 Duel or Gain Slow.

in range of the is a say a Clockwork Trap or Ashen Core.

Ignoring for the moment this ability wouldn't affect those models as the Trap never activates and the Core is immune to conditions, both models have a no Wk stat.

do the still perform the duel?

[Astrella]

I would say since they don't have to stat, they can't pass the duel and ergo fail by default. Makes the most sense fluff-wise too. Can't dodge the boiling water when you can't move. 

[The Godlyness]

Page 22 of the small book. Step 2.

Why over think this? It's not an auto pass or fail you still flip. Unless for somereason the rulebooks rules are being ignored or modified in a way i don't see.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Page 22 of the small book. Step 2.

Why over think this? It's not an auto pass or fail you still flip. Unless for somereason the rulebooks rules are being ignored or modified in a way i don't see.

 

Because if it was Wk 0 it would say Wk 0, not Wk -.

[HalcyonSeraph]

I would say since they don't have to stat, they can't pass the duel and ergo fail by default. Makes the most sense fluff-wise too. Can't dodge the boiling water when you can't move. 

 

The problem is that Auto-pass, Auto-fail, and "Flip and add 0" are all perfectly logical answers that can be backed up by fluff to some degree, and so all are equally "common sensey" answers.

[The Godlyness]

Find me a 0 in any stat.

[The Godlyness]

Only reason why its a - not 0 is that 0 could be modified and - can not be. Again why over think.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Find me a 0 in any stat.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you implying the designers chose to use a dash to represent the number 0 for no reason?

[HalcyonSeraph]

Only reason why its a - not 0 is that 0 could be modified and - can not be. Again why over think.

 

I agree we shouldn't overthink. But you are not realizing that when FORCED to make a test against a - stat, none of the possible options are simple, trivially correct, or obvious. I can see logical arguments for Auto-pass, Auto-fail, and Add-0. Just because you think one of them is common sense doesn't mean everyone else agrees. 

[Dracomax]

From the call out box on Math:

"Models with a value of "—" in a Stat do not have the noted Stat, and it may not be modified."

 

 

Only reason why its a - not 0 is that 0 could be modified and - can not be. Again why over think.

Because the designers specifically noted that there is a difference between o and "—"

 

Since they made the distinction, it has to be treated as important. They did not say the model has a 0 in the stat, they said the model does not have the stat.

 

it is a clear indication that 0 is not equal to —.

[The Godlyness]

The only common sense we can do is apply the rules in the rule book. Autopass/fail are not things that happen in this case. The model flips adds the applicable stat and gets a duel total. Adding - to a number is adding no number. Which is 0.

Top of that everything has a - walk stat are immune to conditions. So when would this ever apply.

[The Godlyness]

Because the designers specifically noted that there is a difference between o and "—"

 

Since they made the distinction, it has to be treated as important. They did not say the model has a 0 in the stat, they said the model does not have the stat.

 

it is a clear indication that 0 is not equal to —.

Sure but if you add nothing to a number in math term you added 0

[HalcyonSeraph]

The only common sense we can do is apply the rules in the rule book. Autopass/fail are not things that happen in this case. The model flips adds the applicable stat and gets a duel total. Adding - to a number is adding no number. Which is 0.

 

 

You are correct, auto-pass and auto-fail aren't listed in the rulebook. But neither is flipping on a stat you explicitly do not have. You're making stuff up as much as we are, which is my entire point - we have no idea how this works. 

[Dracomax]

By your logic, 0/0 = 0.

 

"—" is specifically undefined. Mathematically, your argument is flawed.

[Dracomax]

The problem is not that you think it should just be 0+cards. I tend to think so too. The problem is that your argument is that that is the only way, using a common sense reading, that it can be interpretted, which it really, really isn't.

 

the problem is that each of the three readings is equally viable, and "common sense" is a terrible metric because everyone looks at things a little differently, and parses sense a little differently. THings that seem common sense to you may seem utterly insane to me, and vice versa. see all political arguments ever for proof.

[The Godlyness]

Again though when would this ever happen? Nothing is stopping the duel generated. The afflicted model would still flip. If you can poimt me where it says it does not i would appreciate it.

So rules say what to do for simple duels. We can argue amd say no stat no duel but then you are ignoring the rules. You can say no stat autopass no flip but again ignoring the rules.

So the only solution is to make a flip add the applicable stat and continue. If the applicable stat is - then you do not add anything.

[The Godlyness]

You are correct, auto-pass and auto-fail aren't listed in the rulebook. But neither is flipping on a stat you explicitly do not have. You're making stuff up as much as we are, which is my entire point - we have no idea how this works.

It is defined. Are you making a simple duel? Follow steps 1-x making a opposed duel follow steps 1-x. Clealry defined.

[Laocorne]

Top of that everything has a - walk stat are immune to conditions. So when would this ever apply.

 

Sidir uses Empty the Clip against Ashen Core, which has to take a Wk duel or take 2 damage.

[Dracomax]

I think, at this point, we really need to redefine the question.

 

Specifically, I think that the real question is "should we treat '—' as 0, or is it a special case? If it is a special case, how does that effect the results?"

 

Occam suggests that the least complicated answer is to treat it as a 0. that does not mean it is the right answer, just the one that requires the fewest assumptions.

[The Godlyness]

Sidir uses Empty the Clip against Ashen Core, which has to take a Wk duel or take 2 damage.

Makes a simple duel. Does the afflicted model exceed the duel total. If yes it passes if no it takes damage.

Yep seems solved.

[Laocorne]

Most here aren't calling that wrong; more that other solutions aren't any less right with the rules as presented. I'd be going with treating it as a zero as well, though if my opponent disagreed I wouldn't really have anything solid to argue the point for or against. 

[Thaarup]

From where I am standing there are only two options:

1. A "-" is the same as zero, meaning the model lacks any ability in that specific stat so is easily affected by duels that target that specific stat.

2. A "-" means the model lacks this stat because it can´t use it or are immune to effects that target this stat. Ei a trap can´t walk/charge so trying to make it walk or trip is an auto fail as it has no means of transporting itself. Same argument could be used for theoretic model without any Wd stat. Would it be considered auto killed or be impossible to wound?

 

So I guess it depends on what stat it is and what the "-" symbolises?

 

The problem is that both options could be the correct one in some instanses, but I think only one of the options could always be used (ei option 2)? 

[Tuttleboy]

I think I'll just advise my players to flip a card and add - to the stat. This will lead to a total that is equal to the card flipped, its suit, and -. The book tells us that - on a card means that the model doesn't have the associated stat, so I'll just go ahead and have them add 0 to the flip and call it done.

[Morgan Vening]

I think I'll just advise my players to flip a card and add - to the stat. This will lead to a total that is equal to the card flipped, its suit, and -. The book tells us that - on a card means that the model doesn't have the associated stat, so I'll just go ahead and have them add 0 to the flip and call it done.

It's probably an acceptable way to do it. But as others have said, it's not the only way to do it.

 

Others say '-' is evidence of zero value. And that makes your solution accurate. But it can also be no value. My mathematics are rusty, so I'm sure to be corrected if wrong. Infinity (and negative infinity) has no value. Adding a modifier to it doesn't change it's value, though the suit may (if the suit can only be applied to intergers, it can't)*. Which allows for the argument that the entire total has no value, and therefore it automatically fails.

 

* Which for the most part, doesn't matter, but may if there are certain triggers that become available.

 

The only reference I've seen in the books to '-' is Charge**, and it just says that the model is 'cannot perform a Charge'. Which brings up the final argument, that if you apply that same logic, a model without a stat can't perform a test, it can't fail that test, so can't take the consequences of that test, meaning the test is ignored (which typically means it automatically succeeds).

 

** Is there any other reference to a '-' stat?

 

As long as your group agrees, it's all gravy. And I'll be honest, I'd both prefer and expect it to work that way. But until it's ruled officially, it's still an issue that differing people are going to see in different ways.

[Thaarup]

...

** Is there any other reference to a '-' stat?

...

 

For one there is the Pathfinders Trap. 

[The Godlyness]

In the rules for simple duels we are told what to do. By following these steps we reach a consensus. Autopass and fail are NOT in the rules. Nor does the - stat at any point where it is found says it grants immunity to duels.

So if people stop making rules up and we follow them the only thing we can do is flip a card add the applicable stat and move on.

No matter what a duel is made. That is without question. That is an integral part of the base rules. Nothing in any of the scenarios changes that.