Warriors Three, Hogun Leading the Charge: Charge. When Hogun uses it and hits an opposing character after resolutions each friendly character with the Asgardian keyword adjacent to him at the start of the action can use Charge as FREE this turn.

Warriors Three, Volstagg Leading the Charge: Charge, Plasticity. When Volstagg uses Charge and hits an opposing character, after resolutions each friendly character with the Asgardian keyword adjacent to him at the start of the action can't take more than 1 damage from an attack until your next turn.

Assume Hogun and Volstagg start adjacent to each other. Hogun Charges first, landing the necessary hit to trigger his "Warriors Three" ability.

How does this interact with Volstagg's "When Volstagg uses Charge and hits an opposing character. . ." ability of his own? Does he have to use Charge specifically from his own ability to trigger his effect, or can his effect trigger from the CHARGE granted him by Hogun?

Thank you in advance.

He has to make a choice. Either he uses the FREE Charge or he uses his own POWER Charge. If he uses the FREE version, it's just a regular Charge. If he uses the POWER version, his Warriors Three effect will activate.

EDIT: But, there's a silver lining here. He can use the FREE Charge granted by his friend and after that use his own Charge and activate his own version of Warriors Three.

I will look it up later or someone else can, but I believe it doesn't matter for Volstagg. I seem to recall the section of the rules had a sidebar that explained effects that name the triggering power don't care about source. Whereas Hogun's (because it says "it") has to be from him.

Might be in the supplement.

From page 30

This is the correct answer.

I think I would lean in this direction. For reference, the other relative sidebar :
Even though his power doesn't say "it", that's probably just because there is a list of powers, so the second effect is just identifying which of his powers it is triggering off of. But I do think it would be good to have a clarification on this

Right. Don't get caught up with the word "it". The only reason Volstagg's power doesn't say "it" is for the exact reason you stated. He can use multiple standard powers, so it has to specify which power he needs to use for the triggered bonus to apply to.

To put words in your mouth, it seems like you are stating there is an implied clause [this version of the power] attached to the power.

So with Volstagg, where it says "When Volstagg uses Charge and hits an opposing character..." we should take that to mean "When Volstagg uses [this version of] Charge and hits an opposing character..."

But WHY do we read into the text that implication when from the rules quote from Sassamo from pg 30 we don't read it as

"Regeneration. When this character heals [with this version of the power] increase the amount healed by 1."

And we don't read it that way because the rules instruct us not to. The implied clause is more [even if healing for a reason totally unrelated to the healing provided by Regeneration, the power just mentioned immediately preceding this statement] heck by the way this example provided in the rules sounds, the character could be using Steal Energy and heal +1.

So in the case of Volstagg, there could be an implied clause after Charge like stated above

1) [when using this specific version of Charge]

or

2) [when using any version of Charge]

You seem 100% certain the correct reading is number 1.

Given someone who read pg 30 and simply read Volstagg's card, why is interpretation 2) wrong. You seem to have additional information to make that call.

I'm not saying you're incorrect. But your conclusion isn't obvious or definitive to me, so what am I missing?

The difference is that "heals" does not equal "Regeneration". That example is showing a trigger that is generic, or indifferent to the source.

Looking briefly through the new Thor pieces, it sure looks like anytime there are multiple standard powers in a special power with a modification to one of them, it states the name of the standard power. Every time there is only one standard power it says "uses it." That gives some good strength to the argument that Volstagg's power is functionally the same as "uses it" as PredatorSmurf and Sassamo say.

My only heartburn is that Red Leader's special power (and I agree with PredatorSmurf about how that works) says "his Perplex." Why couldn't they have had Volstagg's power say, "When Volstagg uses his Charge and hits an opposing character..."? Of course, I didn't see them do this with any other powers, so that isn't proof that Volstagg's bonus should trigger off of a free charge given by Hogun. Just a gripe.

This guy gets it.

I don't. Why wouldn't it be short for "heals, when using this power" just as you're suggesting it means "Charge, when using this power" ?

In other words, since they didn't specify a particular Charge, why do we decide to add the text "only when using Charge as granted by this power ?

It doesn't specify. It just says when using Charge. You are adding the idea of "but only this particular use of Charge. Where do you get the authority to add that text/meaning.

In the other example, "it" being a broad pronoun, you refer to context to determine what "it" refers to.

I'm not advocating broader application of the Charge. That would have been my intial interpretation. It is actually the other application (eg the pg 30 -Regeneration. When healing add 1. - ). I only would've added one when the character uses that instance of Regeneration. It is their description of "oh no, do it for all sorts of healing, not just this one." which confuses me.

Sometimes they are using the powers particularly and other times broadly. I would initially have always used the particular, but am told explicitly in the rules this is incorrect.

In this case Volstagg and Hogun have similar but different text. Hogun's "it" provides an indication to a particular instance. Volstagg just saying "Charge" means "Charge." It just says Charge, so it means just Charge.

Is Volstagg using "Charge" ? Yes? Then the following applies...

And if you can say don't get hung up on the "it" , they were just phrasing for economy of words. In that spirit, I would say regarding the pg 30 example, don't get hung up upon the word "heals". Would you have prefered to say "Regeneration-ed?" Healing is what Regeneration does. Without their explicit statement "heals" could be read as "heals from using Regeneration, this particular instance of Regeneration" but they just wrote "heals" for brevity.

I don't get it. If you were just saying your interpretation was a guess, and you imagine that's how it will be ruled, then I'd say I hope you are right.

But it came off that you were 100% certain, and anyone who would read it any other way is missing the obvious. It really isn't obvious to me.

Maybe, in this case, Charge unspecified may simply mean Charge unspecified (in the exact way that "heals" unspecified means "heals" unspecified)

There are many ways to heal. Support, Regeneration, X-Men TA, etc. Any kind of healing will increase by +1 in the example provided in the rulebook.

This is exactly like the other example provided in the rulebook. The *only* difference is the word "Charge" is used instead of "it". And "Charge" had to be used, otherwise the argument we'd be having now is "Well, can I use this effect with Plasticity? What is 'it' referring to?"

This guy also gets it.

They could have used "it" and made it clear what "it" was referring to by putting, "Plasticity. Charge, and when Volstagg uses it ..."

Similar to the style of Hercules #3 from TMT:

Everybody knows that he can use sidestep many times but HSS only once per game.