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?

[Bahoola]

@ Morgan Vening

+1

@ The Godlyness

-2

[Dracomax]

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.

Except that repeating yourself does nothing to stop the disagreement. the people who disagree with you already heard and rejected your argument. You have proved nothing, and are just arguing in a circular fashion at this point.

[Morgan Vening]

For one there is the Pathfinders Trap. 

Ahh, I should have been clearer. Any other reference to rules regarding '-' stats(other than the Charge references on pgs21 and 39), not stats with a '-'.

 

Sometimes I really wish there was a text-searchable PDF of the rules. Would make something like this cake.

[daemonkin]

Did anything ever get resolved on the traps receiving/removing conditions? I'm planning on using these at the weekend in a tournament.

 

D.

[Dracomax]

And now we have Sonnia's avatar... TN 11 Walk or 1 damage.

This needs an official answer.

[Mako]

Remember, official answers can only be provided by the FAQ. 

 

You may get lucky and get a 'play it like this' if it's felt to be utterly necessary, but official answers aren't for another two months. That's the next FAQ cycle.

[Dracomax]

Honestly, RIght now I'd be happy with "we're going to cover this in the next FAQ"

[daemonkin]

Regarding conditions on traps the traps are immune to conditions.

 

D.

[Snickch]

Hello guys,

 

new guy here (for posting, have been reading the forums quite a bit though and got kinda stuck in the rules-section ^^).

 

Now, the last post here is a few weeks old but my guess is, that this issue hasn't been resolved yet, so here is my take:

 

While I do see the "Treating '-' as '0' seems legit, but we don't actually know"-point of view, I don't think it's actually valid and the solution is in fact completly covered by the rules, so I am with Godlyness on this one and here's why:

 

First we look at the definition of '-' as a stat and we will see, that it is defined as "Model doesn't posess the stat" and thus "can't be modified". Cool. What does this actually imply though? A missing stat doesn't mean it equals "0". It also doesn't mean it equals "infinity" or "13" or "we don't know what it is". It means just what the book says: the stat isn't there. What are the consequences of a missing stat? There are obvious ones, like a missing "cg"-stat meaning the creature can't charge, missing "wk" meaning the creature can't walk and so on. Are there other consequences though? None that are covered by rules at this point at least so we'll go with that.

 

Now we are prompted to make a simple duel. But can we even take that simple duel with the corresponding stat missing? Sure we can, possessing a certain stat is no requirement here and there is nothing in the rules that prevents the duel from occuring. So again we look at the rules and follow the instructions given there. The important bit here is obviously the "flip a card and add stat"-part. So we do just that. We flip a card and add the stat. Our model has a value '-' which by definition means it doesn't posess it and thus can't add the stat to the value-total. Not adding a stat (because we can't due to our stat in question missing) is equivalent to adding "0". Note though, that it is not the "same" thing as having a value of '0', only that not adding anything is equivalent to adding '0', which is a fine differentiation sure, but one that keeps us within the current rules-set without making any assumptions like '-' = '0'.

 

I think with that, the course of action which already seemed like the most reasonable or prefered one to most people is actually the one that's indeed completly covered in the current rule-set.

 

 

Naturally I am not without flaws so if I missed something or my logic is flawed at some point be sure to call me out on that!

 

Regards,

 

Snickch