Somer's Encouragement upgrade when charging

[Clement]

 I was going back through Somer's upgrades today and landed on Encouragement.  It has the following:

Rock to the Head: When declaring an Action, other friendly gremlin models within 8 may suffer 1 damage to gain a  to any duels resulting from the Action.

If this gets used when declaring a charge, do both resulting attacks get the bonus?  Previously I would have assumed no, but in light of the Leveticus Channel ruling I'm thinking Yes now.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Clement

[Myyrä]

1 minute ago, Ludvig said:

When I declare a charge I taget a model and I must make two attacks against that target as part of the charge resolution. You literally can't opt to not resolve the attacks of a charge because the attacks are a part of the charge. I don't think there's a slippery slope between things that are literally described as part of an action and every following action of the game. 

Making the attacks is not required for the charge action to succeed or to be legal (and it is very common that you won't resolve one of them). The attacks also aren't part of the charge action, merely generated by it.

[Ludvig]

6 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

Making the attacks is not required for the charge action to succeed or to be legal (and it is very common that you won't resolve one of them). The attacks also aren't part of the charge action, merely generated by it.

So why are you taking these actions again? Are they perhaps the result of taking a charge stating that you take them or did you spend your ap and generate them standalone? An action telling you to take two additional actions as part of the resolution of that action must be said to have generated those actions since you aren't paying ap for them and they would thus be illegal for you to take if the current action hadn't resulted in you taking them. A horror duel is directly generated by the terrifying ability of a model but it is generated as a result of targeting that model so this ability would give you a  to that too. It is not the action's flip but it is a flip resulting from you taking the action you are currently resolving. When you have stopped resolving the action you spent the wound when declaring we can safely assume that the rest of the game wasn't generated by that declaration so it's not like it will spiral out of control.

[Myyrä]

3 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

So why are you taking these actions again?

The problem with "why" questions is that you can keep asking them ad infinitum, as everyone who has ever met a 4-year-old knows.

3 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

Are they perhaps the result of taking a charge stating that you take them or did you spend your ap and generate them standalone? An action telling you to take two additional actions as part of the resolution of that action must be said to have generated those actions since you aren't paying ap for them and they would thus be illegal for you to take if the current action hadn't resulted in you taking them. A horror duel is directly generated by the terrifying ability of a model but it is generated as a result of targeting that model so this ability would give you a  to that too. It is not the action's flip but it is a flip resulting from you taking the action you are currently resolving. When you have stopped resolving the action you spent the wound when declaring we can safely assume that the rest of the game wasn't generated by that declaration so it's not like it will spiral out of control.

Now we know where you would draw the line. That doesn't mean that I agree, or that either of us could possibly prove that's the correct place to draw it.

[Ludvig]

@Myyrä Could you try to make your stance clearer then instead of just implying I'm four year old and seemingly trying to keep this unresolved instead of contributing?

A good example to see what happened as a result of me declaring an action would be to include all duels that resulted between me declaring my charge until we stop resolving.my charge. Now we have a look at what would happen if I had just said: my model would like to pass it's two ap ad not do anything. That actuqlly gives us a good overview of which duels were a result of taking the charge action instead of not taking it.

[Myyrä]

1 minute ago, Ludvig said:

@Myyrä Could you try to make your stance clearer then instead of just implying I'm four year old and seemingly trying to keep this unresolved instead of contributing?

I wasn't trying to imply that. I just meant that I could always just ask why did I take the charge action in the first place. Trying to find the original cause for anything is a question reserved for philosophists.

1 minute ago, Ludvig said:

A good example to see what happened as a result of me declaring an action would be to include all duels that resulted between me declaring my charge until we stop resolving.my charge. Now we have a look at what would happen if I had just said: my model would like to pass it's two ap ad not do anything. That actuqlly gives us a good overview of which duels were an immediate result of taking the charge action instead of not taking it.

I can just as easily argue that duels don't directly result from charge, because the action doesn't tell you to take any duels. Taking a charge action makes it possible or even mandatory to declare some actions that may or may not result in some duels. There's quite a few choices and other factors that affect whether any duel actually takes place after you declare a Charge action, so the Charge isn't the sole reason.

[Ludvig]

7 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

I wasn't trying to imply that. I just meant that I could always just ask why did I take the charge action in the first place. Trying to find the original cause for anything is a question reserved for philosophists.

Trying to find which action caused something to happen according to the rules isn't the same as questioning every decision in the players life leading up to it. Right now I can take or not take the charge, which duels are the result of me opting to charge instead of not charging. The ability doesn't tell us to question our motives.

7 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

I can just as easily argue that duels don't directly result from charge, because the action doesn't tell you to take any duels. Taking a charge action makes it possible or even mandatory to declare some actions that may or may not result in some duels. There's quite a few choices and other factors that affect whether any duel actually takes place after you declare a Charge action, so the Charge isn't the sole reason.

Sure, they don't directly result from it but they are a result of that action and Somer's ability doesn't tell us only duels directly resulting from it but "any duels resulting from the Action" gets a . The charge doesn't need to be the sole reason you took the duel, the duel just needs to be a result of taking the charge as opposed to not taking the charge.

[Dogmantra]

Question 77 from the FAQ implies that attacks made as part of a charge are considered to be causally linked to the charge. I know standard disclaimer about only applying to this specific situation, but I don't see how it's possible to suggest that the attacks made aren't a result of the charge.

  77) If a model is able to take Charges as a (1) Action and it is Obeyed to Charge, could it be targeted by Obey again during the same Activation if the Charge results in the model making Attacks? No. If any Attacks are made during the course of the model being Obeyed (including Actions generated by other Actions) then it may not be targeted by Obey again during the same Activation.

[Myyrä]

19 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

Trying to find which action caused something to happen according to the rules isn't the same as questioning every decision in the players life leading up to it. Right now I can take or not take the charge, which duels are the result of me opting to charge instead of not charging. The ability doesn't tell us to question our motives.

Sure, they don't directly result from it but they are a result of that action and Somer's ability doesn't tell us only duels directly resulting from it but "any duels resulting from the Action" gets a . The charge doesn't need to be the sole reason you took the duel, the duel just needs to be a result of taking the charge as opposed to not taking the charge.

So you only count the duels that directly result from the action but not only the duels that directly result from the action? Good. I got it. It's crystal clear. I'll shut up now.

[Ludvig]

19 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

So you only count the duels that directly result from the action but not only the duels that directly result from the action? Good. I got it. It's crystal clear. I'll shut up now.

I'm not asking you to shut up, just try to back your position with some arguments instead of simply making fun of everyone else's attempt to reach a conclusion. It seems to me that you are purposefully trying to make my arguments sillier than they are. When you stop resolving that charge seems like a pretty reasonable end to the bonuses to me. Also what @Dogmantra said seems to back that at the very least the two (1) ap actions clearly described in the very rules text of charge are considered part of that charge.

[Myyrä]

3 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

I'm not asking you to shut up, just try to back your position with some arguments instead of simply making fun of everyone else's attempt to reach a conclusion. It seems to me that you are purposefully trying to make my arguments sillier than they are. When you stop resolving that charge seems like a pretty reasonable end to the bonuses to me. Also what @Dogmantra said seems to back that at the very least the two (1) ap actions clearly described in the very rules text of charge are considered part of that charge.

I'm asking myself to shut up.

I think the ability does not work on actions generated by the original action, but I am also aware that there is nothing concrete supporting either interpretation, rendering this discussion more or less pointless.

The ability is so horribly worded that it can be read as:

Quote

When declaring an Action,

Doesn't say whose action declaring it affects, so by default that should be the model with the ability i.e. Somer.

Quote

other friendly Gremlin models within 8 may suffer 1 damage to gain a to any duels resulting from the Action.

Doesn't say any Gremlin model, so it affects all the models or none of them. So, when Somer declares an action, all or none of the Gremlin models may suffer damage to get for the duels generated by the said action. Would be a great combo with Pull My Finger if it affected Gremlins (or not).

[Ludvig]

@Myyrä Agreed, the wording leaves a lot to be desired and we will probably never see eye to eye on this.

Seems like a lot of the rules discussions end up like this lately. I seem to remember a time when the discussions ended up sometimes resolving the issue for the people involved, but I might be deluding myself.  

[Myyrä]

17 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

@Myyrä Agreed, the wording leaves a lot to be desired and we will probably never see eye to eye on this.

Seems like a lot of the rules discussions end up like this lately. I seem to remember a time when the discussions ended up sometimes resolving the issue for the people involved, but I might be deluding myself.  

I guess most of the easy ones have been handled already. I often don't bother myself with those anymore either.

[lame0]

Basically I think this works because the section actions causing actions says the charge is not resolved until the actions it causes are resolved. Pg 36 (it uses charge as an example). Thus representing that the action is ongoing and connected to the attacks actions.

[Myyrä]

1 hour ago, Dogmantra said:

Where is the precedent for this in the rules or the English language? There's actually the opposite precedent in that abilities say things like "This model" when referring to bonuses that they get, despite the fact that it's written on their upgrade or stat card, which implies there is no default.

They don't really do pronoun dropping in English? Huh, you always learn something new. Never really realized that was a rule.

1 hour ago, Dogmantra said:

And even if we do grant that it would default to Som'er if it didn't list who it affects, that doesn't matter, because it does list who it affects: other friendly gremlins. It's a pretty simple structure, condition then effect. Take the phrases "When doing construction work, builders should wear hard hats" and "Builders should wear hard hats when doing construction work". They mean the same thing because there is no reasonable way to interpret the former as "when a specific person (perhaps the speaker) is doing construction work, all builders ever should wear hard hats". In this case, whoever wrote the ability clearly decided to say when the ability works before what it does, which in my opinion is absolutely justifiable because it flags up the important part first and you don't have to read the whole ability to know whether it's relevant. Could it be written better? Absolutely. Is it anywhere near as ambiguous as you're claiming? Only if you ignore English As She Is Spoke.

No need to get mean.

[lame0]

Wait so guys does this mean we have an answer?! So encouragement works on the whole charge? Because to me I don't see any evidence stating otherwise. If there is I'd love a page which would supercede the clarity from the actions caused by actions section on page 36 shows .(if the charge generates two attacks and doesn't end until all attacks it generated are completed then obviously all the duels during the attack actions caused and during  the charge action are caused by it). 

Also if it doesn't work this way then who would control the attacks of charge during an obey on an enemy model. Because it says that it "may preform a (1) ap action chosen and controlled by this models controller." If the attacks are separate from the charge and not resulting from it....wouldn't that mean that the attacks would revert back to the models controller? 

[Myyrä]

2 hours ago, lame0 said:

Wait so guys does this mean we have an answer?! So encouragement works on the whole charge? Because to me I don't see any evidence stating otherwise.

I see about as much evidence supporting this as there is against it, which is none.

[lame0]

2 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

I see about as much evidence supporting this as there is against it, which is none.

So insightful. 

[Myyrä]

1 minute ago, lame0 said:

So insightful. 

Insightful or not, theories usually need some evidence supporting them, before they are declared proven facts.

[Myyrä]

 

6 hours ago, lame0 said:

I mean I'm quoting the rule book...I'm looking at similar interactions (obey)...honestly I'm not sure what else I can provide. The rule book literally says that the charge action doesn't resolve until the attacks resolve thus meaning any actions resulting from the charge would be impacted by encouragement. That + the fact that the attacks are generated by the charge action leaves little to discuss or clarify in terms of the attack actions resulting from the charge action. The term resulting is defined as the outcome of or the beneficial consequence of. The beneficial consequence or outcome of a charge is 1) movement to the target and 2) two attack actions.

Actions causing actions in malifaux require certain other actions to occur for them to resolve. Charge action = Charge-> move + attack 1 + attack 2 -> completed charge. Thus if a requirement for a charge is to complete 2 cc attacks then it is part of the total equation for a charge to resolve and thus the duels resulting from the attack actions are part of or at the very least are caused by the charge action. 

 Like I said the very definition of "resulting" makes all actions during & caused by the charge action subordinate actions to the charge. It should be noted that nowhere on the card does it say that encouragement only effect the first action taken in an action that causes actions & has no clause that limits it to only the current action/ flip. The only clause is that it affects all flips resulting from the action, which in an action causing actions could be a ton of flips. (Different than focus since focus makes the distinction of an actions "duel." While encouragement specifies all duels caused by the action. If they were supposed to do the same thing why would encouragement say all duels caused by an action.)

I feel like I've provided substantial evidence that the attack actions are a result of the charge and thus may benefit from encouragement. If there is no evidence provided that at least  makes a clear point as to how this can be interpreted a different way with some support then I think I will say there is nothing left to  discuss. 

Especially if the counter argument is like  @Myyrä since saying

" I see about as much evidence supporting this as there is against it, which is none." 

Because that provides nothing.

This post is basically just a list of examples of logical fallacies. It would be crass to list them all out, but if you are interested, you can take a look at the Wikipedia-article and see how many you can spot.

[Math Mathonwy]

14 hours ago, Myyrä said:

Insightful or not, theories usually need some evidence supporting them, before they are declared proven facts.

Isn't the FAQ entry on Obey sort of evidence? Charge is a Tactical Action yet for Obeying it counts as something that fulfills the clause on taking an Attack Action due to Obey. I realize that generalizing based on specific FAQ entries isn't very wise but since this is kinda the only evidence in either direction? "Resulting" and "due" seem quite synonymous in this context, after all.

[lame0]

How is the definition of the word resulting a fallacy......tell me how the attack actions are not a result of the charge action. They are the outcome of what a charge action is. At the very least you must admit that a charge action results in movement + two attack actions. To say otherwise is ignoring the definition of the word result and the text in the game term charge.

(2) 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. This model then takes two Range  Attack 
Actions against the target model. Each of these Actions must have an AP cost of 1. 
A model may not declare this Action if it is engaged (see Engagement, pg. 48) or if 
it has a Cg of “—”.

Result definition = outcome of.

Also logically if attacks are caused/generated by a charge action then they are an outcome of the charge.  I see no logical weakness in that point and if there is please clarify at least that for me. If attacks are an outcome of a charge then the duels caused by an attack are an outcome of a charge. ( IF B is dependant on A and C is dependant on B then C is dependant on and a result of A & B occurring since C could not happen without A). 

Like I said there is nothing in encouragement stating a limit on the number of actions that it can effect just that it effects all duels caused by it. So if the duels could not happen without the attack and the attack could not happen without the charge then by logic the attack is a result of and dependant on the charge. If the flip can't happen without the charge then it's caused by the charge and that has no logical weakness.

[Adran]

On 06/10/2017 at 5:09 PM, lame0 said:

How is the definition of the word resulting a fallacy......tell me how the attack actions are not a result of the charge action. They are the outcome of what a charge action is. At the very least you must admit that a charge action results in movement + two attack actions. To say otherwise is ignoring the definition of the word result and the text in the game term charge.

But it is entirely possible to have a legal charge action that does not result in movement or 2 attacks. 

Several models can charge whilst engaged, so they do not need to move to legally perform an attack. Some models are able to perform a single (2) attack action instead of 2 (1) actions as a result of the charge.  

So Taelor using welcome to malifaux may have a legal charge action that results in only 1 attack but no movement. So No I refuse to admit that a charge action always results in movement and 2 attack actions. I will agree that normally it will do so, but not always. 

 

The charge action is not complete until you have resolved all the attacks. 

But whilst I agree the attack actions are a result of the charge action, that does not necessary follow that the duels in that attack action count as a result of the charge. I'm going to quote the FAQ that shows that it doesn't always follow that you can follow that chain all the way back. It is a different case so it doesn't confirm either way, but it does show that your logic chain is not always the way rules work. 

141. If a Yokai Charges an enemy and Triggers to gain an extra Attack Action, does that Action benefit
from Frenized Charge?
No. (3/30/17)

 

Edit just to filli n the details

here is the original rules question causing that FAQ, and the arguement that it would benifit is basically the same logic chain of the charge causes the first attack, the first attack causes the second attack therefore the second attack is caused by the charge. Which, to me, echos the logic that the attack causes the duels, the charge caused the attack therefore the charge caused the duels

Quick question - yokai have Frenzied Charge:

Frenzied Charge: This model gains + to the Attack ips of any Attacks it generates due to the Charge Action. 

they also have vital strike:

Vital Strike: After succeeding, lower this model's Flicker Condition by 1. Then, if this model is still in play, take this Action again. 

 Do attacks resulting from the trigger  during the charge action also benefit from frenzied charge? 

[Ludvig]

Thanks @Adran for bringing arguments!

I would say "...generates due to..." and "...resulting from..." are similar enough to warrant the bonus. It seems pretty clear to me that Yokai do gain their bonus on the actual charge attacks so why not an encouraged model? This would support them not gaining it to actions generated by triggers off those actions though.

I'll admit it isn't synonymous beyond any doubt.

[Myyrä]

1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

Thanks @Adran for bringing arguments!

I would say "...generates due to..." and "...resulting from..." are similar enough to warrant the bonus. It seems pretty clear to me that Yokai do gain their bonus on the actual charge attacks so why not an encouraged model? This would support them not gaining it to actions generated by triggers off those actions though.

I'll admit it isn't synonymous beyond any doubt.

You are missing the fact that one gives to duels generated by the action and the other to attack flips of the attacks generated by the action. Pretty big difference there.

[Ludvig]

Fair point. Not very encouraging for Som'er.