(1) Wrangle Critter and Pigcharge

[Phinn]

McTavish has 1 SS Upgrade called Cute Critters that gives him following Attack Action:

(1) Wrangle Critter (Ca 6 / TN: 12 / Rst: Wp / Rg: 8): Target non-Leader Pig or Swampfiend model performs a (1) Action controlled by this model which may not declare Triggers. The target gains to all duels for the duration of the Action.

 

McTavish uses (1) Wrangle Critter on a War Pig and makes it (1) Charge (via Pigcharge), thus generating two (1) Tusks Attack Actions (the only 1 AP Attack Action that War Pig has).

 

Originally I thought that this is another nice combo with Pigcharge Ability and just wanted to post it on the Pig Charge and Obey-like effects topic, but then I realised that I am not sure if that means that both these Attack Actions gain to the duels, because I recalled reading something about Charge and Focus in Malifaux 2E FAQ & Errata.

It says:

Q: If a model has the Focus +1 Condition, can it remove the Condition at the start of a Charge Action in order to gain the bonus to all Attacks generated by the Charge Action?
A: No. It would have to remove the Condition at the start of a single Attack which was generated by Charge and it would only gain the bonus for the duration of that Attack. Other Actions which generate Attack Actions (such as Flurry, Rapid Fire, etc) function in the same way in regards to Focus.

 

Just for completeness:

General Tactical Actions (Malifaux 2E Rules Manual, page 39):

(1) Focus: The model gains the following Condition until the end of the Turn: "Focused +1: This model may remove this Condition when declaring an Action to gain a number of  to the Action’s duel and damage flip equal to the value of the Focused Condition removed."

 

I would say that the "duration of the Action" that (1) Wrangle Critter mentions, in this case duration of the Charge Action (Pigcharge), comprises both Attack Actions generated by it, because according to Actions Causing Actions (Malifaux 2E Rules Manual, page 36): "The original Action is not considered resolved until the new Actions are also resolved."

But looking at the FAQ, I am not so sure anymore.

 

So... what do you think?

Do both (1) Tusks Attack Actions generated by (1) Charge Tactical Action (Pigcharge Ability) via McTavish's (1) Wrangle Critter Attack Action gain to the duels?

 

I am sorry if the answer is obvious, but I am really not sure.

[papa smurf]

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/107225-levi-and-channeling-charge-actions/

For consistency

[Phinn]

So if I understand it correctly, only Charge Tactical Action itself gains to all duels (e.g. Wp duel made in order to resist Terrifying Ability). Subsequent Attack Actions do not benefit from this bonus.

Is that correct?

[rgarbonzo]

You get to all duel for the duration of the Action. So you would get to all duels taken as a result of the Charge Action since the Charge Action is not over until you make both strikes.

[papa smurf]

Super cool. Levi can channel a charge. Now his attack flip has a built in plus. Wait there's more, he can then channel that attack action. So now Levi is on a :+fate to attack and damage. That's ok right? Only have severe of 8.

Thank you for making Levi even a better choice than other outcast masters.

Or we treat it like focus. Or we let it only work on horror/manipulative duels.

Choices Choices.

[Phinn]

To summarise it:

• In Levi and channeling charge actions topic Icemyn and in Leveticus channeling before charging topic Dirial says that only Charge Tactical Action itself gains
• In Leveticus channeling before charging topic zFiend says that only the the first subsequent Attack Action gains
• And here Rgarbonzo says that Charge Tactical Action and both subsequent Attack Actions gain

 

 

My opinion is that only Charge Tactical Action itself gains to all duels (e.g. Horror Duel).

 

The reason for that is FAQed Charge Tactical Action and Focused Condition interaction.

Model with Focused Condition may remove it when declaring an Action, which means that you can do one of the following:

• Remove it when declaring Charge Tactical Action and gain to duels like Horror Duel
• Remove it when declaring the first Attack Action and gain to the duel and damage flip
• Remove it when declaring the second Attack Action...

[rgarbonzo]

Q: If a model has the Focus +1 Condition, can it remove the Condition at the start of a Charge Action in order to gain the bonus to all Attacks generated by the Charge Action?

A: No. It would have to remove the Condition at the start of a single Attack which was generated by Charge and it would only gain the bonus for the duration of that Attack. Other Actions which generate Attack Actions (such as Flurry, Rapid Fire, etc) function in the same way in regards to Focus.

So the answer is that only the first attack action would gain positive.

[Kadeton]

I would come down on the side of "Only the Pigcharge action (and not the attacks generated by it) gain the benefit." This isn't the same as Focus, because it's not a Condition and is not expended. It's pretty much exactly like Levy's Channel, and nobody wants that to be any more effective than it already is.

[Bengt]

 

Q: If a model has the Focus +1 Condition, can it remove the Condition at the start of a Charge Action in order to gain the bonus to all Attacks generated by the Charge Action?

A: No. It would have to remove the Condition at the start of a single Attack which was generated by Charge and it would only gain the bonus for the duration of that Attack. Other Actions which generate Attack Actions (such as Flurry, Rapid Fire, etc) function in the same way in regards to Focus.

So the answer is that only the first attack action would gain positive.

 

This is not the same as channelling the charge. Notice how the answer says that to get a bonus you have to remove it "at the start of a single attack". If we were to map that question to Channelling (which we are not recommended to do) that answer would be "You have to Channel one (or more) of the attack actions separately".

[Math Mathonwy]

That would mean that Jackalope's Horns, for example, wouldn't do anything since damage is never the result of a Charge Action but rather the Attack Actions generated by it.

I'm utterly convinced that the idea is that the War Pig gets the positive twists to both attacks (and that Levi gets the positives to both attacks as well - that no one noticed this during the beta seems a bit weird but so it goes).

Edit: not an answer to Bengt but rather to Kadeton's post.

[Phinn]

That would mean that Jackalope's Horns, for example, wouldn't do anything since damage is never the result of a Charge Action but rather the Attack Actions generated by it.

Jackalope's (1) Horns (Ml 4 / Rst: Df / Rg: 1): Target suffers 1/1/2 damage. This Attack deals +2 damage if made as a result of a Charge Action.

[solkan]

That would mean that Jackalope's Horns, for example, wouldn't do anything since damage is never the result of a Charge Action but rather the Attack Actions generated by it.

 

How do you get that?

 

(1) Horns - This Attack deals +2 damage if made as a result of a Charge Action.

"This Attack" is referring to the Horns action being made as a result of the Charge action.  Are you making the attack as the result of a charge?  Yeah.

 

That's nothing to do with the argument that if you have something which gives a bonus to an action, that bonus applies to every action made as part of that action.

[Dirial]

This is a bit muddy, I admit, but I stand by my opinion on Levi's Channel, as it seems to be the intent. As the wording is similar, I stand by that in regard to Pigcharge.

[Kadeton]

I'm utterly convinced that the idea is that the War Pig gets the positive twists to both attacks (and that Levi gets the positives to both attacks as well - that no one noticed this during the beta seems a bit weird but so it goes).

 

Others have addressed the Jackalope - I think that one's a pretty clear non-issue.

 

Generally speaking, when a rule is presented ambiguously, I prefer to go with the option that's better for the game. Giving Levy (already one of the most dangerous Masters in the game) easy access to :+fate to attack and damage on his 1/3/8 melee attack is, in my opinion, a very bad idea.

 

Levy's beta process was flawed in that he was ground-up redesigned several times and didn't get as much testing as some other Masters as a result, but I believe the issue was raised. I can't say with any authority that the intention was or was not to pass the benefit of Channel to the attacks generated by charging (it was a long time ago) but I strongly suspect it was not. Another one for the FAQ, I guess.

 

(I mean, in a perfect world Channel would probably be limited to Attack Actions and sidestep the entire issue, but we don't live in that world.)

[Math Mathonwy]

My apologies - I even checked the Jackalope in the morning but my daughter did an Interact Action to accomplish her Distract Scheme on me at the moment so I must've read it wrong in my haste - I really thought it said damage flip as opposed to attack.

Mea culpa.

[Myyrä]

There are some defensive triggers and other stuff that start working quite weirdly if you take "during this action" to mean everything that's happening between the beginning and the end of the action, instead of just stuff directly belonging to that action.

[Dirial]

There are some defensive triggers and other stuff that start working quite weirdly if you take "during this action" to mean everything that's happening between the beginning and the end of the action, instead of just stuff directly belonging to that action.

 

I'm drawing a blank. Which ones?

[Math Mathonwy]

I'm drawing a blank. Which ones?

I'm guessing stuff like

Df (t) Grinding Halt: This model immediately gains an additional Armor +2 for the duration of the Action.

Now, this doesn't apply to Charges but to Onslaught type stuff where you could potentially get several Grinding Halts on top of one another. It's even more extreme with Riders' Triggers.

Df (t) Forged in Steel: Reduce damage suffered by this model during this Action by 1 for each t in its final duel total, to a minimum of 1.

[Kadeton]

The Actions Causing Actions rule causes so many problems in general. I'm not even sure what issue it was originally supposed to address, but it's certainly caused a host of others and has resulted in a bunch of 'clarifications' that seem to be unsupported by the actual words on the page.

[looka]

up this topic.

Levi is reworked, Tavish up is still in play

How do you think it should work now?

[Ludvig]

Congrats on the threadomancy oh great ressurectionist.

I think it's pretty clearly cut that you get the  to both charge attacks despite some people in this thread suggesting a change to the core ules to make it not so. The core rules weren't changed. Levi's channel was changed instead because the OP interpretation of stacked channels was the only one you could make according to the rules.

It's hardly a coincidence that McTavish combos well with pigs.