Does Weak affect conjurations?

[ACG]

Does Weak affect conjurations? I couldn't find anything in the rules supplement. The text for Weak reads:

This is a poison condition which weakens a creature.
For each Weak condition on it, the creature loses 1
attack die from all non-spell attacks it makes. Cannot
reduce an attack to zero dice. Has no effect on damage
barriers or attack spells. Weak has a removal cost
of 2.

On one hand, it specifically refers to creatures. On the other hand, all of the other conditions that do not affect conjurations very explicitly state that they have no effect on conjurations, which this does not do.

This is relevant for Corrosive Orchid and Nightshade Lotus, which are living conjurations with non-spell attacks.

[Boocheck]

non-living objects have poison immunity. Corrosive Orchid and Nightshade Lotus are also conjurations and not creatures as you stated

Lotus and Orchid is by me opinion immune to Weak.

[Bluebaron]

Living conjurations are not poison immune
Rulenook page 16
The poison immune trait is linked to nonliving. Lotus and orchid are living and therefore not immune

[Sailor Vulcan]

Living conjurations can't have weak condition? That is weird.

[Bluebaron]

They can. Read my post above.

[Laddinfance]

Weak only weakens a creature, not a conjuration.

[Bluebaron]

Can you please explain why living conjurations are not effected ? Thanks.

[Lord0fWinter]

'This is a poison condition which weakens a creature.
For each Weak condition on it, the creature loses 1
attack die from all non-spell attacks it makes.'

[ACG]

I think as it is worded, it is ambiguous, if only because other such conditions explicitly state that they may not affect conjurations. But it is good to get a ruling. Perhaps something to amend in the next rulebook?

[ringkichard]

Weak only effects a creature because it says "creature" in the rules text. Conjurations are not creatures. Weak also doesn't effect Dancing Scimitar because equipment are not creatures. And if AW ever makes an enchantment that can attack, weak won't effect that either.

In mage wars, all rules entities are the sum of their parts. If an ability's rules text doesn't say that it can effect conjurations, and none of its traits or properties are defined as affecting conjurations, then conjurations just never come into it.

[baronzaltor]

In general they still wouldnt effect living conjurations and would just be clutter.  adding -1 melee to mana flowers, tangle vines, and Mohktari would just be extra junk on the board.  It still has no effect.

Most conjurations do not have melee/ranged attacks.. only the two flowers introduced by the Druid (3 expansions after release of the core rules were made), and not sure if they are a big enough case to really warrant adjusting the rules either way.

[ACG]

I'm not proposing any major clarification - I just think a line should be added in future rulebooks in order to standardize the codex. For every other trait that does not affect conjurations, there is a line at the end of the codex entry that explicitly says "does not affect conjurations" (except slam, but that one is pretty obvious). If it were not for this trend, the fact that it refers to Creatures would make the rule obvious; since there is, and it goes against the trend, there may be some doubt for new players. There is no reason not to add such a line to weak, so that there is no question in future.

[Boocheck]

I agree with ACG. All of us probably know a guy in our neighberhood which will just state "What is not forbidden is allowed" and will start piling up Weak tokens on strangelvine...

[Zuberi]

I don't think there's much risk of confusion, however I agree with ACG on the merits of consistency within the document.