Somer's Encouragement upgrade when charging

[Clement]

 I was going back through Somer's upgrades today and landed on Encouragement.  It has the following:

Rock to the Head: When declaring an Action, other friendly gremlin models within 8 may suffer 1 damage to gain a  to any duels resulting from the Action.

If this gets used when declaring a charge, do both resulting attacks get the bonus?  Previously I would have assumed no, but in light of the Leveticus Channel ruling I'm thinking Yes now.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Clement

[zFiend]

Reading the Leveticus ruling I'd say yes.

[Ludvig]

40 minutes ago, lame0 said:

Quick question so.....this is a pretty big Necro but I just wanted to understand if encouragement works on the charge ( both attacks one damage?) or not. I don't really use encouragement much but I'm starting to toy with it again so I'd like the clarity. 

This didn't get Faq:ed for over two years. A new thread would have made it clearer it came up several times which is better for claiming it is a frequent question (although not very frequent it seems).  I think both actions are a result of the charge as they are described as part of taking the charge. I think there was an faq that if you took a trigger to do more attacks those would not gain the modifier (it was for some other ability).

[Dogmantra]

59 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

Doesn't say whose action declaring it affects, so by default that should be the model with the ability i.e. Somer.

Where is the precedent for this in the rules or the English language? There's actually the opposite precedent in that abilities say things like "This model" when referring to bonuses that they get, despite the fact that it's written on their upgrade or stat card, which implies there is no default.

And even if we do grant that it would default to Som'er if it didn't list who it affects, that doesn't matter, because it does list who it affects: other friendly gremlins. It's a pretty simple structure, condition then effect. Take the phrases "When doing construction work, builders should wear hard hats" and "Builders should wear hard hats when doing construction work". They mean the same thing because there is no reasonable way to interpret the former as "when a specific person (perhaps the speaker) is doing construction work, all builders ever should wear hard hats". In this case, whoever wrote the ability clearly decided to say when the ability works before what it does, which in my opinion is absolutely justifiable because it flags up the important part first and you don't have to read the whole ability to know whether it's relevant. Could it be written better? Absolutely. Is it anywhere near as ambiguous as you're claiming? Only if you ignore English As She Is Spoke.

[lame0]

I mean I'm quoting the rule book...I'm looking at similar interactions (obey)...honestly I'm not sure what else I can provide. The rule book literally says that the charge action doesn't resolve until the attacks resolve thus meaning any actions resulting from the charge would be impacted by encouragement. That + the fact that the attacks are generated by the charge action leaves little to discuss or clarify in terms of the attack actions resulting from the charge action. The term resulting is defined as the outcome of or the beneficial consequence of. The beneficial consequence or outcome of a charge is 1) movement to the target and 2) two attack actions.

Actions causing actions in malifaux require certain other actions to occur for them to resolve. Charge action = Charge-> move + attack 1 + attack 2 -> completed charge. Thus if a requirement for a charge is to complete 2 cc attacks then it is part of the total equation for a charge to resolve and thus the duels resulting from the attack actions are part of or at the very least are caused by the charge action. 

 Like I said the very definition of "resulting" makes all actions during & caused by the charge action subordinate actions to the charge. It should be noted that nowhere on the card does it say that encouragement only effect the first action taken in an action that causes actions & has no clause that limits it to only the current action/ flip. The only clause is that it affects all flips resulting from the action, which in an action causing actions could be a ton of flips. (Different than focus since focus makes the distinction of an actions "duel." While encouragement specifies all duels caused by the action. If they were supposed to do the same thing why would encouragement say all duels caused by an action.)

I feel like I've provided substantial evidence that the attack actions are a result of the charge and thus may benefit from encouragement. If there is no evidence provided that at least  makes a clear point as to how this can be interpreted a different way with some support then I think I will say there is nothing left to  discuss. 

Especially if the counter argument is like  @Myyrä since saying

" I see about as much evidence supporting this as there is against it, which is none." 

Because that provides nothing.

[Bengt]

Channel is worded quite differently though. It says all duels for the remainder of the action. This says duels resulting from the action. But I don't know.

[zFiend]

Well I think remainder of the action and resulting from the action are pretty much the same as it's the charge action that makes two attack actions. And remainder of the charge and resulting from the charge both come down with . 

[santaclaws01]

Well I think remainder of the action and resulting from the action are pretty much the same as it's the charge action that makes two attack actions. And remainder of the charge and resulting from the charge both come down with . 

The difference in wording could be things like horror duels and manipulative, as those aren't a part of the Charge action.

[Ludvig]

Well I think remainder of the action and resulting from the action are pretty much the same as it's the charge action that makes two attack actions. And remainder of the charge and resulting from the charge both come down with . 

The difference in wording could be things like horror duels and manipulative, as those aren't a part of the Charge action.

But those duels are also a result of the action so should gain a 

[solkan]

"resulting from the Action" is problematic because you've got a possible incredibly narrow interpretation--just those duels directly part of the action--opposed by the expansive interpretation--every duel that occurs for the rest of the game is a result of the action.

 

[Ludvig]

I don't agree  on the broad definition Solkan. A horror duel is a result of a declared action targeting a terrifying model (or walking into engagement). If you were to charge something that isn't terrifying and after that declare a walk action that ends in engagement with something terrifying you have clearly declared a new action and would need to suffer damage again when declaring the walk if you want a + to the horror duel that is a result of the walk. Even if you couldn't have walked there before the charge anything that happens after a new action is declared is very obviously not a result of the previous action but of the now declared one.

[Omenbringer]

Though I would tend to agree that it probably should affect all the Duels conducted during the Charge Action, the Drinking Contest faq entry sort of implies that the generated Attack Actions are entirely separate from the Charge Action, i.e. Charge allows the combination of a movement action and 2 separate Attack Actions with a single declaration, but is concluded once this sequence is begun. This is a bit subtle but it clearly differentiates the generated movement action and Attack Actions resulting from the Charge Action, this would keep the Encouragement bonus from traveling.

Hope I am wrong on this but...

Edited September 16, 2015 by Omenbringer

[Ludvig]

Though I would tend to agree that it probably should affect all the Duels conducted during the Charge Action, the Drinking Contest faq entry sort of implies that the generated Attack Actions are entirely separate from the Charge Action, i.e. Charge allows the combination of a movement action and 2 separate Attack Actions with a single declaration, but is concluded once this sequence is begun. This is a bit subtle but it clearly differentiates the generated movement action and Attack Actions resulting from the Charge Action, this would keep the Encouragement bonus from traveling.

Hope I am wrong on this but...

It's not a single declaration, it's three. You declare charge, move the model and then declare the two attacks. The attacks are however a result of and happen during the charge.

In my opinion the callout box on p38 "actions causing actions" would imply the effect goes away. It would all have been neater if both this one and channel had stipulated (1) actions or non-charge in their descriptions. 

Edited September 17, 2015 by Ludvig

[santaclaws01]

Though I would tend to agree that it probably should affect all the Duels conducted during the Charge Action, the Drinking Contest faq entry sort of implies that the generated Attack Actions are entirely separate from the Charge Action, i.e. Charge allows the combination of a movement action and 2 separate Attack Actions with a single declaration, but is concluded once this sequence is begun. This is a bit subtle but it clearly differentiates the generated movement action and Attack Actions resulting from the Charge Action, this would keep the Encouragement bonus from traveling.

Hope I am wrong on this but...

It's not a single declaration, it's three. You declare charge, move the model and then declare the two attacks. The attacks are however a result of and happen during the charge.

In my opinion the callout box on p38 "actions causing actions" would imply the effect goes away. It would all have been neater if both this one and channel had stipulated (1) actions or non-charge in their descriptions. 

How does the callout box imply the effect goes away? 

[Omenbringer]

It would all have been neater if both this one and channel had stipulated (1) actions or non-charge in their descriptions. 

It would have been neater if Channel would have been more consistent with what the Drinking Contest faq entry strongly implies. As is, it seems that Encouragement would function similarly to Channel.

[Ludvig]

Though I would tend to agree that it probably should affect all the Duels conducted during the Charge Action, the Drinking Contest faq entry sort of implies that the generated Attack Actions are entirely separate from the Charge Action, i.e. Charge allows the combination of a movement action and 2 separate Attack Actions with a single declaration, but is concluded once this sequence is begun. This is a bit subtle but it clearly differentiates the generated movement action and Attack Actions resulting from the Charge Action, this would keep the Encouragement bonus from traveling.

Hope I am wrong on this but...

It's not a single declaration, it's three. You declare charge, move the model and then declare the two attacks. The attacks are however a result of and happen during the charge.

In my opinion the callout box on p38 "actions causing actions" would imply the effect goes away. It would all have been neater if both this one and channel had stipulated (1) actions or non-charge in their descriptions. 

How does the callout box imply the effect goes away? 

From the callout box: "Some abilities may force models to do something when declaring an action (such as taking a duel for manipulative). For these abilities, each new action generated triggers the ability separately."  -  The ability is is timed on declaration so should follow this box in my mind.

I still think with FAQs considered that Somer should get the same boost as Leveticus. Just not happy with actions causing actions and consistency around those parts of the rules in general.

 

[santaclaws01]

Though I would tend to agree that it probably should affect all the Duels conducted during the Charge Action, the Drinking Contest faq entry sort of implies that the generated Attack Actions are entirely separate from the Charge Action, i.e. Charge allows the combination of a movement action and 2 separate Attack Actions with a single declaration, but is concluded once this sequence is begun. This is a bit subtle but it clearly differentiates the generated movement action and Attack Actions resulting from the Charge Action, this would keep the Encouragement bonus from traveling.

Hope I am wrong on this but...

It's not a single declaration, it's three. You declare charge, move the model and then declare the two attacks. The attacks are however a result of and happen during the charge.

In my opinion the callout box on p38 "actions causing actions" would imply the effect goes away. It would all have been neater if both this one and channel had stipulated (1) actions or non-charge in their descriptions. 

How does the callout box imply the effect goes away? 

From the callout box: "Some abilities may force models to do something when declaring an action (such as taking a duel for manipulative). For these abilities, each new action generated triggers the ability separately."  -  The ability is is timed on declaration so should follow this box in my mind.

I still think with FAQs considered that Somer should get the same boost as Leveticus. Just not happy with actions causing actions and consistency around those parts of the rules in general.

You have the option to use Channel and Rock on Head when you declare an action which then causes an effect that lasts the duration of the action. If you wanted to you could activate the action on each attack from charge as well as charge itself because you have to declare each one.

[Ludvig]

Though I would tend to agree that it probably should affect all the Duels conducted during the Charge Action, the Drinking Contest faq entry sort of implies that the generated Attack Actions are entirely separate from the Charge Action, i.e. Charge allows the combination of a movement action and 2 separate Attack Actions with a single declaration, but is concluded once this sequence is begun. This is a bit subtle but it clearly differentiates the generated movement action and Attack Actions resulting from the Charge Action, this would keep the Encouragement bonus from traveling.

Hope I am wrong on this but...

It's not a single declaration, it's three. You declare charge, move the model and then declare the two attacks. The attacks are however a result of and happen during the charge.

In my opinion the callout box on p38 "actions causing actions" would imply the effect goes away. It would all have been neater if both this one and channel had stipulated (1) actions or non-charge in their descriptions. 

How does the callout box imply the effect goes away? 

From the callout box: "Some abilities may force models to do something when declaring an action (such as taking a duel for manipulative). For these abilities, each new action generated triggers the ability separately."  -  The ability is is timed on declaration so should follow this box in my mind.

I still think with FAQs considered that Somer should get the same boost as Leveticus. Just not happy with actions causing actions and consistency around those parts of the rules in general.

You have the option to use Channel and Rock on Head when you declare an action which then causes an effect that lasts the duration of the action. If you wanted to you could activate the action on each attack from charge as well as charge itself because you have to declare each one.

I know you have that option and I think that is horribly wrong (but I know it is officially FAQed).

I think I meant that each new action triggers the ability separately so the + from the charge action needs to be triggered again during the first attack otherwise the ability would go away since it needs to be triggered separately as per the callout box. That was sort of my reasoning, which I know differs from the official ruling.

 

[lame0]

Quick question so.....this is a pretty big Necro but I just wanted to understand if encouragement works on the charge ( both attacks one damage?) or not. I don't really use encouragement much but I'm starting to toy with it again so I'd like the clarity. 

[wizuriel]

also curious 

[lame0]

According to the rule book it looks like it should affect the whole charge action but I don't know it seems I've been wrong before lul.

[Myyrä]

Charge action does not directly result in any duels. Channeling had significantly different wording, so that can't be applied here automatically.

[Ludvig]

 The two attacks that you take while resolving charge are a pretty direct result of the charge since you're not even allowed to not take them (unless you kill the target with the first attack because then you will technically take the second attack but it will fail due to not having a legal target).

I would also assume that a horror test taken after walking into the engagement of a terrifying model is a result of said walk ending there even if the direct cause of the duel is the other model's ability. 

[santaclaws01]

4 hours ago, lame0 said:

According to the rule book

If you're going to say that you should actually back it up with what you think the rulebook says that supports your interpretation. The phrase "resulting from" is incredibly ambiguous and doesn't have anything about it from the rules.

[Myyrä]

4 hours ago, Ludvig said:

 The two attacks that you take while resolving charge are a pretty direct result of the charge since you're not even allowed to not take them (unless you kill the target with the first attack because then you will technically take the second attack but it will fail due to not having a legal target).

I would also assume that a horror test taken after walking into the engagement of a terrifying model is a result of said walk ending there even if the direct cause of the duel is the other model's ability. 

My charge next turn is an indirect result of the walk action I took this turn. Where does one draw the line?

[Ludvig]

9 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

My charge next turn is an indirect result of the walk action I took this turn. Where does one draw the line?

When I declare a charge I taget a model and I must make two attacks against that target as part of the charge resolution. You can't opt to not resolve the attacks of a charge because the attacks are a part of the charge. I don't think there's a slippery slope between things that are literally described as part of an action and every following action of the game.