Actions causing actions

[gideonrav]

Model A  performs an action without triggers but controlled by model B (for example: collodi with "my bidding"). Model A can charge as (1) action, so model B choose to charge. Could attacks caused by charge declare triggers?

[enderwiggin]

I would say no, since the attacks are inherently a result of the action and it must be completed in the same total timing.

 

 

Could be wrong though, this is just off the top of my head.

[Ferossa]

My Bidding: After damaging target non-Leader, the target immediately performs a (1) Action chosen and controlled by this model's controller. This Action may not declare Triggers

This action references the 1 action. Charge generates 2 seprate actions. No stipulation that those actions can't declare triggers.

 

I'm 95% sure the wording means "no triggers" regardless of how they would be achieved.

 

Either way, Charging is a (2) action as per p. 39 of the rulebook. If the model has an ability that lets it charge for (1), then that action may not declare triggers, because it is then a (1) action and per the wording, (1) actions may not declare triggers.

 

That was tautological.

[Ferossa]

The pig charge or rooster charge ability lets the (2) charge tactical action be taken as a (1) action instead. When I declare my action the (1) action Charge I declared no triggers for that action. My first attack action is NOT the (1) action given to me by "my bidding". It is a action that is generated by the Charge Action. Therefore the no trigger stipulation does not affect the attack actions.

 

Using this logic, "My Bidding" only lets you charge, since that is the first part of the action.

 

It's pretty clear that "this action" refers to the entirety of the action, not the individual steps.

[The Zinc Lich]

The pig charge or rooster charge ability lets the (2) charge tactical action be taken as a (1) action instead. When I declare my action the (1) action Charge I declared no triggers for that action. My first attack action is NOT the (1) action given to me by "my bidding". It is a action that is generated by the Charge Action. Therefore the no trigger stipulation does not affect the attack actions.

 

I think it is important to note that a charge action does not create extra AP. The attacks that it generates are not new actions, they are made as a part of the Charge action. 

 

Not to mention the fact that My Bidding specifies no triggers specifically so that you don't declare triggers on attacks made as a result of using it. If they wanted you to be able to use triggers in certain circumstances, they would have specified it. Using spurious language to try and circumvent the intended design smacks of self interest and poor sportsmanship. There's no exploit here, move along.

[Gremlin guy]

RAW, I think Papa Smurf is correct. RAI, no one but the developers know. Unless they put in their 2 cents I'd go with RAW.

[Kadeton]

I think this might be the first case I've ever seen where the "Actions causing Actions" rule actually supports the intent (as I infer it) of a rule.

 

The intent in this case, I would assume, is that the Rooster Rider (or whatever is charging) cannot declare triggers on its Charge attacks.

 

(My reasoning is similar to Zinc Lich - My Bidding is clearly phrased to prevent the controlled model declaring triggers, and doesn't deal specifically with Charge attacks due to oversight or lack of space.)

[gideonrav]

With that logic if collodi uses my bidding on vasilisa and she obeys something, she cant declare triggers. I disagree.In that way, any effect in the first action affects to caused actions. For example,with scout the field rusty alyce can take rapid fire without Los.

[trikk]

IMO the Charge action is NOT complete until two attacks are done.

Charge action is (Cg move + 2 attacks) and you cannot declare triggers in both the attacks.

[trikk]

My Bidding: After damaging target non-Leader, the target immediately performs a (1) Action chosen and controlled by this model's controller. This Action may not declare Triggers.

 

The Charge Action declared no triggers. The 1 action chosen by Collodi (charge) has declared no triggers. The action generated by My Bidding has declared no triggers. So now we move on to resolving things. The rooster rider makes his first

 attack and there is NOTHING preventing his Beak Action from declaring triggers.

IMO you wrongfully assume that the charge action ends when you move the model.  It ends after the attacks. Charge  = (Move Cg + 2 MI Attacks)

[trikk]

Well, I belive this is a bit of an overinterpretation, but they could have swapped the words from "This Action may not declare Triggers." to "During this Action you may not declare Triggers". RAW I belive you are right after reading throught it all but I`d play it RAI (so the second version from my post)

[Gremlin guy]

How do you know that is the rai?

[Kadeton]

I am either really blind or have a misprinted book. How does:

My Bidding: After damaging target non-Leader, the target immediately performs a (1) Action chosen and controlled by this model's controller. This Action may not declare Triggers.

Really read:

My Bidding: After damaging target non-Leader, the target immediately performs a (1) Action chosen and controlled by this model's controller. This Action and ALL ACTIONS following may not declare Triggers for the duration of this action.

Cause it doesn't. That's why.

You're right, it doesn't. Nor does it have to - "this Action", if you're going by the letter of the rules, includes all the Actions which are part of that Action.

I'm not particularly opposed to your interpretation, mainly because it's consistent with every other "Actions causing Actions" ruling (ie. that the "Actions causing Actions" rule should never be applied to anything, and only ever produces results that are the opposite of the designer's intent). However, it definitely feels like taking advantage of a loophole - in every rule-interpretation dispute, the eventual ruling has always come down on the side that is less exploitative and cheesy.

Basically, you can argue semantics until you're blue in the face, but declaring triggers on attacks generated by an action that says you're not allowed to declare triggers will still feel like cheating to your opponent. "No triggers" is my prediction of what the FAQ will eventually say - in the mean time, you can obviously play it however you and your opponents decide, or check with your TO.

[trikk]

How do you know that is the rai?

 

Because I play a lot of games and this is how it`s suppose to work by me.

[gideonrav]

I must say that I dont want to cheat nobody, just play properly.I think effects are just for the main action. In the other way, Collodi use my will, vasilisa obeys with + , the enemy charge, first attack with +, second attack with + and then maybe a trigger that causes another charge with + too.

[Cunning]

If you want to claim that the attacks from a charge are not covered by the clause about no triggers then surely they're also not controlled by the caster? As the caster only controls the (1) action

You can't have it both ways.

[gideonrav]

Caused actions do not cost any Ap so charge + 2 attacks are like a single (1) action. The main question should be if effects in the main action afects to the following actions. For example, ignoring Los in a rapidd fire makes every sh attack can ignore Los? Or even von schill with his (3) action. My intention is bigger than just collodi and triggers.

[Adran]

I think that it is pretty clear that effects on an action do not carry over to actions caused by that  action.

 

but I also disagree with Cunningstunt.

You are controlling the charge, so you are controlling the actions that the charge creates. The Charge can not declare triggers, but any actions the charge creates will eb able to. (and the charge doesn't end untill all attacks from it have ended, so I'm still conterolling the model until the charge action is over)

 

This is my view for 2 reasons. 1 Its how it is written. 2 It follows the intent of the rules that is clarified in the FAQ regarding Focus (very first question in the FAQ) and actions generating actions.

[Fetid Strumpet]

You can't use a ruling on one rule to justify an interpretation on another. Frustrating as that is, that has been pointed out numerous times in the past. Therefore your bringing up the ruling on focus is immaterial to this discussion.

[rgarbonzo]

My Bidding: After damaging target non-Leader, the target immediately performs a (1) Action chosen and controlled by this model's controller.

This Action may not declare Triggers

A (1) Charge action causes two separate attacks that are still under the restrictions of My Bidding because of the Actions Causing Actions call out box on page 38 of the BRB. In the second sentence there it specifies Charge and Make a New Entry as examples and also goes on to say that the additional actions do not cost AP and the original Action (in this case My Bidding) is not considered resolved until the new Actions (actions resulting from Charge and Make a New Entry in this example) are also resolved. 

In this specific case if Collodi were to use My Bidding on a model that can charge for a (1) action, the attacks from the Charge action cannot use triggers.

Someone mentioned that Collodi, using My Bidding on Vasalisa,  causes an Obey, during the Obey not only could the Obey and thus Vasalisa, not declare any triggers but lets say that Vasalisa Obeys a Rooster Rider causing it to Charge. In this case Vasalisa and The Rooster Rider would not be able to declare any triggers due to being under My Bidding which specifically states that actions caused by My Bidding cannot declare triggers.

[gideonrav]

If a model obeys sidir or ototo, could the model makes him take a walk action ? As the enemy action dont makes him move, just take a walk action, I think they could but we are in the same problem.

[rgarbonzo]

No, the Obey is the cause of the action and as it is an enemy Action or ability Laugh Off kicks in and says that the model cannot be moved be enemy Actions or abilities.

[Adran]

No, the Obey is the cause of the action and as it is an enemy Action or ability Laugh Off kicks in and says that the model cannot be moved be enemy Actions or abilities.

But the model is not being moved by an enemy action or ability. The Model is being moved by a friendly action,  (1) walk.

So yes you can "obey" a 'laugh off' model; and move them. It is about the only way to move them because the movement is not the result of an enemy action or ability, its the result of a Friendly action (Which was caused by an enemy action)

[jonahmaul]

You don't change what is considered friendly/enemy even when you are being Obeyed (call out box, page 31 of big book) so even if you are controlling a model with Obey it would still count as an enemy action in my book so can't move them (key word here is controlled).  That would be my interpretation anyway.

[Adran]

The controller of the model changes. But it is the model making the action. The model is friendly to itself. Therefore it is a friendly action that is moving it

[rgarbonzo]

The Obey is causing another action, therefore the Obey is not resolved until the model that was targeted resolves the chosen (1) Action. Since it is nested inside the original enemy action, it is an enemy action that is trying to move it, thus it fails. Same reasoning as to why Collodi cannot have a Pigcharge declare triggers which I listed and reasoned earlier in the thread.