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?

[trikk]

I disagree on the whole "friendly actions" in your definition. There are friendly models and enemy models. I don`t think anything else can be considered "friendly" or "enemy".

 

I don`t know if someone shares your point of view though.

 

I think interpreting that as: 

Sidir cannot be moved if the enemy decides where and how far he goes. Plain and simple. Solves a lot of problems and is antiloopholish

[Adran]

The action that caused Sidir to take a walk is 'chosen and controlled by this model's controller'.  Therefore it's not a Walk action that is causing Sidir to walk, it's the Obey action.

 

Sorry, but obeying Sidir to make a walk action means that the walk action is what is making sidir walk.

The Obey action makes him declare a walk action, but nothing in the obey action itself means he has to move.

 

 

What about Heed my bidding, or Comply, which are "obeys" which state that the target considers the model that cast it friendly for the duration of the action?

Can you use those to make Sidir walk. As the model that cast them is now considered Friendly, but the Controller is still the enemy player.

And, Becasue I'm seeing how extreme I can take this.

 If I am Playing  Brewmaster crew with Sidir, and my opponent has Vasila in it, can I obey Vasila to cast obey on Sidir and make him walk?

 

 

 

 

 

There aren't friendly action and enemy actions. There are actions and abilites performed by friendly models and performed by enemy models.

[trikk]

Sorry, but obeying Sidir to make a walk action means that the walk action is what is making sidir walk.

The Obey action makes him declare a walk action, but nothing in the obey action itself means he has to move.

 

 

What about Heed my bidding, or Comply, which are "obeys" which state that the target considers the model that cast it friendly for the duration of the action?

Can you use those to make Sidir walk. As the model that cast them is now considered Friendly, but the Controller is still the enemy player.

And, Becasue I'm seeing how extreme I can take this.

 If I am Playing  Brewmaster crew with Sidir, and my opponent has Vasila in it, can I obey Vasila to cast obey on Sidir and make him walk?

 

 

 

 

 

There aren't friendly action and enemy actions. There are actions and abilites performed by friendly models and performed by enemy models.

If the target considers this model friendly then Laugh off doesn`t work.

 

In the Brewmaster example you can`t as Vasilisi is an enemy model for Sidir, even if Obeyed. You can Obey Vasilisi to Obey Sidir to shoot, but not walk

[Gremlin guy]

A lot has been posted since I went to sleep last night I've copied and pasted some the posts I wanted to respond to. I couldn't get them all though.

Ludvig posted: The problem with the fluff is that anyone can argue that Sidir just laughs it off and say "Sidir hears ya! Sidir don't care!" The other argument is very compelling though.

Response: Fortunately, my fluff also matches up with the rules Sidir does not have an ability that reads "This model cannot be compelled to make (1) walk actions by the actions or abilities of other models"

Trikk posted: Its not a friendly action as no friendly model decides where I go. The opponent does. Wouldn`t call that a friendly action.

Response: That's not how you determine friendly and enemy. Pg 23 callout box small rulebook "When a models Actions are controlled by the opponent (for instance with the Obey Action) the model does not change which models are considered friendly, its friends are still its friends."

Friendly models don't perform enemy actions. Tbh, I don't think there is such a thing as a friendly or enemy action.

Jonahmaul posted: I am also of the opinion that Sidir would hear the voice and say 'don't think so cowbag'. It's still an enemy action (Obey) that is causing them to take a (1) Wk action and so is attempting to move them.

Response: You are semi correct. An action performed by an enemy model caused them to take a (1) walk action. Then the friendly model (models are friendly to themselves) took the (1) walk action, causing it to move. Move is caused by an action performed by a friendly model.

Trikk posted: I totally disagree. Sidir would never call someone 'cowbag' :<

Response: I totally agree with you here. You win the thread.

Fetidstrumpet posted: Is it an enemy action affecting sidir? Yes Is the enemy action causing sidir to take a walk action? Yes Is the enemy player controlling the walk action? Yes

Response: You forgot a couple of questions: Is Sidir taking the walk action? Yes Is Sidir friendly to himself? Yes

Jonahmaul posted: The action that caused Sidir to take a walk is 'chosen and controlled by this model's controller'. Therefore it's not a Walk action that is causing Sidir to walk, it's the Obey action.

Response: Again, the text of obey does not cause any movement or a push. It causes a (1) action. The model who obey is cast on, is taking that action so it is a friendly action.

Trikk posted: Performed or controlled? If I Obey your model and shoot your other model its a friendly action by your standards.

Response: Semi correct. It's an action taken by a friendly model.

Trikk Posted: If controlled then we go to the point of: who decides where Sidir goes? The caster of the Obey. So am I being moved by a action controlled by a friendly model? Nope, the caster controls where and how far I go, so its a move controlled by an enemy model.

Response: incorrect. The friendly model takes the action. It is controlled by your opponent (who is hopefully friendly as a person).

Trikk posted: I think interpreting that as: Sidir cannot be moved if the enemy decides where and how far he goes. Plain and simple. Solves a lot of problems and is antiloopholish.

Response: You can play it that way if you want to, but that's not how it's written. Also, I don't see a loophole, I see a tactic and a weakness.

GG

[rgarbonzo]

Okay I will take one more opportunity to try and explain why Obey is an enemy action that cannot move Sidir. In order to do so we need to familiarize ourselves with three things
1. Sidir's Laugh Off ability which states that "This model may not be moved or pushed by enemy model’s Abilities or Actions."

2. Obey which states "Target non-Leader model immediately performs a (1) Action chosen and controlled by this model’s controller. A model which performed an Attack due to Obey may not be targeted by Obey again during the same Activation."

3. The Actions Causing Actions call out box on page 38 of the Large Rule Book which states "Some Actions will force or allow a model to take another Action. If an Action calls for another then the additional Action or Actions do not cost any AP. The original Action is not considered resolved until the new Actions are also resolved."

Let's see how these interact with the Actions Causing Actions clause on page 38 of the Large Rule Book

 

Some Actions (Obey) will force or allow a model to take another Action. If an Action (Obey) calls for another then the additional Action or Actions do not cost any AP. The original (Obey) Action is not considered resolved until the new Actions are also resolved. Here we see that the Obey is not considered to be resolved until the additional (1) AP Action that the target model takes is also resolved.

Obey is an Attack Action from an enemy model surely this counts as an "enemy model’s Abilities or Actions".

Since the Obey is not resolved until the 1 AP action is also resolved any move action that the enemy model would want to use on Sidir will not work, why? The original Action is not resolved until the (1) AP action is resolved therefore it is an enemy Action or Ability that is causing him to move.

Sidir taking the Walk Action actually has no bearing on the issue since the Obey is NOT resolved until Sidir does something, in this case Walk, which he cannot due because it is an Enemy Action (Obey) that is causing it to fail and a wasted Obey. Can you Obey Sidir to shoot something or beat up a buddy sure, but you cannot cause him to move. 

I cannot make it any plainer than what I have already, I'm sorry if you don't agree but this is how it interacts with the rules. Same thing for Collodi and Triggers which I already covered earlier in the thread. All these arguments about fluff and such are just filler, this is the meat of the problem and as we have seen since the ENEMY ACTION IS NOT RESOLVED UNTIL THE (1) AP ACTION IS ALSO RESOLVED   then it IS an enemy Action that is trying to cause Sidir to move. 

Heed My Voice and Comply are separate issues since they actually change the enemy model state to friendly for the duration of the Action, therefore they can move Sidir because they are considered Friendly for the duration of the Action. 


 

[Gremlin guy]

And none of the above makes the 1 walk action an action taken by an enemy model, which is what laugh off protects against. However, I will just agree to disagree with you on this.

[rgarbonzo]

The Walk action is considered to be part of the Obey since the  Obey has not resolved until the Walk action is resolved.

[Gremlin guy]

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/105661-obey-understudy-prompt-action/?p=786366

[Kadeton]

A fundamental problem here is that the Actions Causing Actions rule does not actually function, as has been shown across a number of clarifications. An action is not resolved until all the actions it causes are resolved, yes - but in most cases the caused actions are not "part of" the original action in any meaningful sense and are not affected by effects which affect the original action. (You can't Focus a Charge action to get the benefits on both Charge attacks, for example. You can't discard Scout the Field when using Stand and Shoot to ignore LoS on all your shooting attacks. Every Actions Causing Actions situation works like this.)

 

The question is whether allegiance (enemy or friendly) is conveyed to caused actions, when all other effects are not. There is no clear rule to reference for this - it will come down to a clarification. Either way has significant implications if the clarification is expressed in general terms.

 

For the record, I agree with Rgarbonzo's conclusion - I don't think Obey should be able to make Sidir move, on principle. However, I find arguments based on Actions Causing Actions unsupportable, since every single argument which relies on caused actions being "part of" the action that caused them has been proven wrong when the rule is eventually clarified.

 

I suspect what might happen here is that the FAQ will read:

 

Q: Does Sidir Alchibal's Laugh Off Ability prevent him from being made to take a Walk Action by an enemy model using Obey?

 

A: No, but Sidir will be unable to move, so it's probably a waste of time. Try shooting someone instead!

or

A: No.

 

And using the principle of not extrapolating from FAQs, this specific situation will be resolved without creating a general case ruling. Actions Causing Actions will continue to lurk in the murky depths of rules ambiguity, spreading its insidious poison to unsuspecting minds.

[rgarbonzo]

Off on a tangent, the reason Focus doe not apply to both attacks is because though they are part of the original action (Charge) they are separate attacks, so you can only use Focus on one or the other. Honestly I think it would be easier to clarify Focus as being used before a Duel (during your Activation) so you don't have the problem of people Focus Charging. My 2 cents anyway. I'm out, I have done all I can do, have fun peeps!

[Gremlin guy]

Kadeton,

I agree with much of what you say, especially about it coming down to a clarification. Clarification would show the intent of the rule, and that is something I can not presume to know.

However, this part of your post (see below) I think I've found an answer to:

Kadeton wrote "The question is whether allegiance (enemy or friendly) is conveyed to caused actions, when all other effects are not. There is no clear rule to reference for this - it will come down to a clarification. Either way has significant implications if the clarification is expressed in general terms."

Since I only have the small rulebook I'm using that, but I will quote it directly and completly, with exception to my own typos, as much as it pains me to do so using a tablet.

Pg 23, friendly and enemy call out box:

"Friendly and Enemy

Some rules reference friendly or enemy models. From a mechanical standpoint, friendly models are any models that are on the same Crew as the model the rule is affecting. Enemy models are any model that isn't on the same Crew.

If a rule does not specifically state that it only affects friendly or enemy models (for instance legal targets for an attack) then it can and does affect any model.

When a modle's Actions are controlled by the opponent (for instance with the Obey Action) the model does not change which models are considered friendly, its friends are still its friends."

Allegiance does not appear to regard actions at all, only models (although this thread has taught me that it's very hard not to describe an action that a friendly model takes as a friendly action)

As for the actions causing actions argument, it does not say that actions caused by actions are part of the original action. It states that the orriginal action isnt resolved until the new action is resolved. This specifically states that the new action is both a new action, and another action (another being not the same action).

I too will bow out now since all I could add would be to repeat that:

1) Obey causes a model to perform a (1) action, and does not move a model.

2) the action may be declared as a (1) Walk action

3) the model taking the (1) Walk action is friendly to itself.

Overall I have enjoyed this discussion, have learned a lot of rules interactions from this thread and while researching for this thread, and I appreciate the opposing views posted by you and Rgarbonzo.

Cheers,

GG

[rgarbonzo]

It appears that we are at an impasse. 

Edited June 10, 2015 by Rgarbonzo