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

[lame0]

On 10/9/2017 at 3:42 AM, Adran said:

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? 

So the issue is that it doesn't matter if 100% of the time it results in movement +2 attacks. In terms of encouragement it just says that what all duels resulting from the action get  flips. I mean for example I charge a terrifying model and fail the horror duel (where you get the flip) then technically all I got was movement. That doesn't change that the two attacks would have been a result of the charge. Similarly if I killed the target on the first attack it doesn't stop the charge from resolving. The only part of a charge that MUST happen is ending up in engagement range with the target because due to this games rule set parts of an action can fail as long as it fulfills the "required" portion for it to go off. To break it down the required portion of a charge action are:

1) choose a target in LOS

2) Move the model so that it is in engagement range with the target (this could be a move of 0 for models with certain abilities)

Every other part of the action can fail and still have the action resolve. The fact that the charge doesn't rely on the attacks or flips going off doesn't change that the attacks and flips rely on the charge happening to happen.

The FAQ you bring up is interesting but tbh I don't actually know what the reason for the ruling was in the FAQ (is it because its a trigger? or that they don't want it to effect a double layered action within actions or who knows what). So to try and connect these two relatively different situations (without knowing the game designers interpretation of the rules) is a pretty huge stretch since we don't know why it wasn't allowed. Based on what we currently know about encouragement and the charge it still works and there is no current FAQ that can be applied due to its rather "interesting" wording.

[Adran]

1 minute ago, lame0 said:

So the issue is that it doesn't matter if 100% of the time it results in movement +2 attacks. In terms of encouragement it just says that what all duels resulting from the action get  flips. I mean for example I charge a terrifying model and fail the horror duel (where you get the flip) then technically all I got was movement. That doesn't change that the two attacks would have been a result of the charge. Similarly if I killed the target on the first attack it doesn't stop the charge from resolving. The only part of a charge that MUST happen is ending up in engagement range with the target because due to this games rule set parts of an action can fail as long as it fulfills the "required" portion for it to go off. To break it down the required portion of a charge action are:

1) choose a target in LOS

2) Move the model so that it is in engagement range with the target (this could be a move of 0 for models with certain abilities)

Every other part of the action can fail and still have the action resolve. The fact that the charge doesn't rely on the attacks or flips going off doesn't change that the attacks and flips rely on the charge happening to happen.

The FAQ you bring up is interesting but tbh I don't actually know what the reason for the ruling was in the FAQ (is it because its a trigger? or that they don't want it to effect a double layered action within actions or who knows what). So to try and connect these two relatively different situations (without knowing the game designers interpretation of the rules) is a pretty huge stretch since we don't know why it wasn't allowed. Based on what we currently know about encouragement and the charge it still works and there is no current FAQ that can be applied due to its rather "interesting" wording.

Actually you charge a terrifying model and fail the horror duel you don't even get the movement. (Targetting the model with a charge is enough to set off the terror). But that doesn't really matter too much as you say. 

I can't tell you why the designers ruled the way they did. I just know that in the thread discussing it the argument as to why the vital strike triggered attacks ought to gain the frenzied charge bonus was that the charge generated the first attack, and the first attack generated the trigger so by the logic chain the Charge generated the trigger attack. 

You are using the same logic chain to say that duels generated by the attack actions of a charge count as duels resulting from by the charge action because the charge action generated the attack action. The wording is different one refers to attacks generated by the charge and the other to duels resulting from the action. 

[lame0]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Actually you charge a terrifying model and fail the horror duel you don't even get the movement. (Targetting the model with a charge is enough to set off the terror). But that doesn't really matter too much as you say. 

I can't tell you why the designers ruled the way they did. I just know that in the thread discussing it the argument as to why the vital strike triggered attacks ought to gain the frenzied charge bonus was that the charge generated the first attack, and the first attack generated the trigger so by the logic chain the Charge generated the trigger attack. 

You are using the same logic chain to say that duels generated by the attack actions of a charge count as duels resulting from by the charge action because the charge action generated the attack action. The wording is different one refers to attacks generated by the charge and the other to duels resulting from the action. 

Yeah tbh I think an FAQ is needed -_-. I find it weird that this topic is as old as it is and still there is no faq.

I'm not disagreeing that the same logic chain was used for the counter argument for the faq but since I dont actually know why they ruled one way or another its hard to make any kind of inference on somer's encouragement because there are other factors involved( triggers, two actions within actions etc.) that saying one ruling is equal to the other is pretty difficult given the 1 word answer. 

Again like almost every question I've responded to in these forums we need additional clarity to rule one way or the other... (I hope they answer this one finally).