locomotion and firing squad injustice

[Ampers&nd]

Hi, 

 

played a great game Tuesday against Jack Daw, and he dumped firing squad injustice on my Rail Golem, this raised a question- 

 

Firing squad injustice causes damage when the model 'declares an attack action', when I use Locomotion to make a melee attack, I declare a tactical action (locomotion) which then leads to a ML attack (rail bash), would people think this follows <A> or <B> below-

 

A>  declare a (0)tactical action (locomotion), lower burning condition, choose to make a free (1)ML attack (rail bash), bash montressor, potentially repeat as triggers get involved etc

 

or

 

B>  declare a (0)tactical action (locomotion), lower burning condition, choose to make a free (1) ML attack (rail bash), Declare the (1) Melee action (rail bash) take 2 damage from Firing squad Injustice, bash Montressor, potentially repeat as triggers get involved including any more damage caused by the injustice

 

After a discussion with the other players around it was decided to go with (a) as the rail golem is declaring a tactical action, which just happens to allow a ML attack, rather than declaring an Attack action, but I was interested in hearing others opinions (I hate feeling like I may have got something wrong, especially if it was in my favour, as then I keep thinking that maybe I cheated...)

[wadesauce]

that's a hard one to say. to me it feels like B. usually when I get in these situations I try to opt for the worst case simply because in malifaux "bad things happen."

this keeps the game thematic and consistent. 

[Ampers&nd]

thanks for the reply, Worst Case for who? I assure you the option we chose was definitely the worst case for montressor, bad things happened repeatedly there:) I would have accepted B myself, so I'm fairly open to that idea:) the discussion seemed to centre around the use of the word 'declare', do you 'declare' actions caused by actions (Lazarus mimic for example- does he declare mimic, then declare the mimicked ability?) and does that change the original action type? (from tactical-attack in this case) 

[Mister Shine]

I would go with B. Your attack types should be able to change during the course of your action. For example

 

If I declared some kind of mimic ability and copied a action, I wouldnt be able to use it if I was engaged in melee, it still follows the normal rules. Similarily I believe if youre mimicing an attack, its still an attack action, it requires an opposed duel.

[Patzer]

The "Actions Causing Actions" rule says: "Some Actions will force or allow a model to take Actions. If an Action calls for another Action to be taken (such as Charge or "MakeA New Entry") then the additional Action or Actions do not cost any AP. When an Action causes another Action to occur, the new Actions are considered part of the original Action. The original Action is not considered resolved until the new Actions are also resolved." This might suggest that A is right, but I would argue for that in the case of Rail Golem, you need to declare that you are using an attack action (over a walk), which would trigger "Firing Squad". So I will go with B.

[The Godlyness]

To make that 1 no action you care declaring an Attack action. So eat all the damage. Personally I would penance first then go locomotive crazy. That way I am not dying.

So case b

[Ampers&nd]

B seems to be a consensus, though I also think that RaW as Ezryder pointed out say it isn't considered a new action (the rail golem text says 'make' not 'declare', sometimes it's best to ignore RaW as suggested and go with what makes sense:) Ta!

[Dracomax]

I'd say case B. It has been ruled before(and I think implied or outright stated in the FAQ) that while the actions caused by an action which causes other actions...action are part of the action which caused them, they are still individual actions.

 

To wit, When focusing before a charge, focus only applies to the first attack. When randomizing on rapid shot, all shots must be randomized. Etc. As such, the most likely interpretation is that each attack from locomotion is a separate Ml attack that happens to also be considered p[art of the locomotion action, so case B seems appropriate.

[The Godlyness]

I point you to the actions causing actions call out box. You do declare that "free" action.