Consider it in comparison to the following: Q: The Melee Expert Ability states, “This model gains 1 additional AP which may only be used to take Ml Actions.” Can AP from Melee Expert be used to take Actions which aren’t Ml Actions, for example, Charge? A: No. To me, the main difference is where the question is answered. In the first case, that is literally a question people ask, and on the face of it, could be ruled either way (and has been ruled the other way in other games.) In the second case, the information is loaded into the question. I've heard the equivalent question many times, both online and in person, but never phrased anything like that. A more representative phrasing would be something like: Q: Do Actions that produce Ml Actions count as Ml Actions themselves? A: No. So, for example, you cannot use the bonus AP from Melee Expert to help pay the AP cost of the Charge Action. Or maybe: Q: Can I use the bonus AP from Melee Expert to help pay for a Charge action? A: No. While the Charge Action results in Ml Actions, it is not actually a Ml Action itself. Anyway, I don't think the Charge question needs to be changed in the Errata, but it seemed like a good example to use here.