Set'er Off and Pig Charge Abilities

[Phinn]

Piglets and Warpigs have Set'er Off and Pig Charge Abilities.

 

 

Set'er Off: When this model has the opportunity to declare an Action, if it is not engaged or within 2" of a friendly Gremlin, it must take a Charge Action if there is a legal target available.

Pig Charge: This model may perform the (2) Charge Action as a (1) Action.

 

 

If I am forced to use 1. AP to Charge my model, can I use the 2. one to just walk away? This might be obvious, but I am new to Malifaux and just wanted to be sure.

 

 

Let's say, that I was engaged in a combat and killed enemy model with 1. AP and now I am unengaged and more than 2" away from friendly Gremlin, but within threat range (Is it called threat range? Charge + Engagement range.) of my model. I am forced to use 2. AP to Charge it.

Next Activation I Activate the said model. Is it considered engaged?

 

 

Thank you

[Brewmaster]

So, scenario 1: you kill an enemy, you have 1 AP floating, and the only legal target is a friendly. In that instance, you either pass if you control the model and don't want to attack your guy, or your opponent can use a 1 to charge if they control the action.

Scenario 2: You have 2 AP floating, and the closest target is yours. Your options are spend 1 AP to charge the target, then spend the remaining 1AP normally because the pig is now within range of a gremlin, Spend 2 AP to charge the target, or your opponent spends 1AP to charge if they control the action.

Keeping track of the "safe-zone" areas is important when using pigs. You might have to change your activation order because starting with a pig will kill a gremlins.

[Bengt]

Next Activation I Activate the said model. Is it considered engaged?

You are never engaged with friendly models.

So, scenario 1: you kill an enemy, you have 1 AP floating, and the only legal target is a friendly. In that instance, you either pass if you control the model and don't want to attack your guy, or your opponent can use a 1 to charge if they control the action.

Why would you be able to pass the action? Set'er off says "must".

[Brewmaster]

Correction to my previous statement, you choose to make charge cost 2. Pigcharge says "May".

[Phinn]

OK. Thank you

[Bengt]

Correction to my previous statement, you choose to make charge cost 2. Pigcharge says "May".

Are you saying that you can bypass Set'er off by not using Pigcharge? Because that seems to me like saying "I chose to charge in the opposite direction so I don't end up in engagement range - charge failed!". The way I read "must do X" is that if there is a course of actions that lets you do X, then you must chose that course.

[Math Mathonwy]

Are you saying that you can bypass Set'er off by not using Pigcharge? Because that seems to me like saying "I chose to charge in the opposite direction so I don't end up in engagement range - charge failed!".

OK, that's hilarious! :D

The way I read "must do X" is that if there is a course of actions that lets you do X, then you must chose that course.

Agreed!

[Phinn]

Set'er off says that you have to choose legal target for charge.

Charge: Target a model within LoS. Move this model up to its Cg in a straight line. This model must end the move with the target model within its engagement range or this Action may not be taken.

Thus charging in the opposite direction would be against rules.

 

But if you have only 1 AP left, you can choose not to use Pig Charge because it says 'may' and end your Activation.

[Math Mathonwy]

Set'er off says that you must charge if you can. With Pig Charge you can if you have a single AP. I dunno, I can kinda see the point with the 'may' but if this get FAQed I'm 99.99% sure that it will be ruled that you must charge if you have one AP left.

[wizuriel]

Rules as intended pretty sure you would be expected to use pig charge if you can

 

Rules as written though I agree you can choose not to use it making it impossible to charge 

 

 

once had a fun game with 2 piglets that I summoned with Lenny that killed some model and spent the rest of the game charging each other. 

[Phinn]

Originaly I didn't even think about that, I just wasn't sure about that engagement thing. Brewmaster's post raised more questions than it answered

 

As Mat Mathonwy said, if you can charge, you have to. And in this case you can, by using Pig Charge. It sounds logical. But you can also argue that, why does it say 'may' then? Isn't this the reason, why it is worded the way it is? Can someone come up with another example, where you would choose not to use it? The only one seems to be the one Brewmaster mentioned, when your opponent controls the Action via Obey and would like to burn 2 of your APs instead of 1.

[Adran]

If you are starting your activation and know your first action is a charge against an enemy which you think you will kill on the charge, you can do it asa 2 action so you don't have to then charge yourself as a 1 action (assuming there isn't a better target).

 

If the game tells you you must declare the charge if able, then I don't think you can choose an option which isn't possible if there exists an option which is possible.

[Phinn]

Conclusion: In this scenario you have to (1) Charge (via Pig Charge) your own model.

 

Thank you everyone

[Brewmaster]

I think we may have found a rules question thing just for clarity

Reading in the book, what I say results in a loop:

I have the option to declare an action

I must declare a charge given that there is a legal target.

I say the charge costs 2ap

I don't have enough ap to take the action, so no ap are spent and the action ends without effect.

So, based on the second paragraph of "declare action and spend ap" page 37:

If you have 1ap floating, and there's a legal target fora pigcharge, in order to avoid a loop, you must spend a 1 charge.

[Vidd]

I think this is silly and a bit cheesy. Surely the must overrides the "may".

 

The most interesting thing to come out of this conversation is Adran's point that you may choose to consume both AP instead. Even then, it's probably worth sacrificing a Gremlin instead of risking letting the enemy live!

[Hateful Darkblack]

I'm pretty sure you can use (2) Charge instead of (1) Pigcharge on the FIRST AP so that you won't have leftover AP afterward. But you have to decide that when you're declaring the first Charge.

 

But I don't think you can, if you have 1 AP left, declare you're using the (2) Charge and it fails. You can't even declare it. You don't have the AP to declare that action, so you must declare the (1) Pigcharge.

 

You can't just declare an invalid action so it'll fail.

 

Similarly, you couldn't sit there refusing to play your turn and stalling so you don't have to Charge.

 

You must Charge them. With that (1) action. That you're both allowed and required to do.

[Brewmaster]

I agree with you guys, I just had to run through pages 36 and 37 in my head till it made sense. Page 37 seems to say you CAN declare an action, if you don't have enough AP to pay for it, no AP is spent and the action stops without effect. So, you COULD declare a normal charge, not a pigcharge, but no AP is spent so you're still left with an activated pig with 1 AP.

[Ausplosions]

I'm pretty sure you can use (2) Charge instead of (1) Pigcharge on the FIRST AP so that you won't have leftover AP afterward. But you have to decide that when you're declaring the first Charge.

But I don't think you can, if you have 1 AP left, declare you're using the (2) Charge and it fails. You can't even declare it. You don't have the AP to declare that action, so you must declare the (1) Pigcharge.

You can't just declare an invalid action so it'll fail.

Similarly, you couldn't sit there refusing to play your turn and stalling so you don't have to Charge.

You must Charge them. With that (1) action. That you're both allowed and required to do.

This is the correct interpretation.

[Omenbringer]

I agree with Hateful Darkblack and Ausplosions. This is funny to me by the way.

[Ausplosions]

I agree with Hateful Darkblack and Ausplosions. This is funny to me by the way.

In The End, everyone one comes around....

[Omenbringer]

Oh not funny that I agree with you two, I've done that before (and on a few occasions over the years).

[Vorschlag]

It seems impossible to me that any player would allow their opponent to pull that bull**** it is so obviously an attempt to abuse the rules.

No offence to anyone but I don't personally know anyone that would let you get away with that.

[rgarbonzo]

As I see it (the Hateful Darkblack, Ausplosions, Omenbringer explanation aka the correct one)

 

If you have 1 AP left, you must charge. Since you have an ability that allows you to do so, you must do that. 

[Kharetore]

Further to the pigcharge say I'm with in 2" of a gremlin and I charge a enemy target.

 

Do I get two attacks like a normal charge but for the cost of 1AP?

 

During my charge I use the Gore ability and have to declare a trigger say I get a mask or feathers for my first attack the second attack against my original charge target I get a ram trigger. So I deal damage to target take a wound then charge a new target for 0AP as it is a trigger and get another potential 2 attacks at the target as it was a charge leaving me still with 1AP?

I can then charge again if my new target is dead or make another attack?

 

Is that correct or am I getting to much bang for my buck?

[Adran]

That sounds right