dancater

OK. This is my interpretation, as plain as I can make it. First, don't think of it as a two way street (I understand why you have), the risk is that implies a bifurcation, which opens the situation to confusion. When Colette uses Routine Performance the targeted decoy/dove performs a General or Attack action as though it were this model (so as though it were Colette). This is the essence of the card wording. So the decoy/dove does not activate, in a traditional sense, strictly speaking all it does is become a conduit for Colette to take an action during her (Colette's) activation. Like an Ice Pillar does not activate when it is used to arc a Ice Mirror action. Now Colette has two game states. Colette as a model, regardless of location or table state. She is limited in her once per turn effect, she has ongoing effects such as both positive and negative conditions and she has her wounds (as part of her stat card). Colette as a game piece on the table, or off table if buried (but then she cannot activate and use this action so this is moot). Here Colette is located on the table and as a result is subject to table area of effects, including hazardous terrain, auras, engagement range and similar things. However, these are limited, they don't travel with Colette the model, if/when Colette moves she may enter new AOE's and leave others. She can walk out of an aura (no longer effected) into hazardous terrain (newly effected) while circling a enemy models 2"range (staying constantly within the range hence no change). [I'm sorry I am a graphics philistine I can't display this as a picture]. So when she uses Routine Performance a game temporal event happens. From the declaration of the Routine Performance till the completion of all the actions and reactions associated with it becomes a distinct in game temporal period. In this temporal period Colette (the primary model) stays completely static, she performs the Routine Performance and does nothing else in and of herself. She as a model stays in the table place she occupies. But......... The targeted decoy/dove takes a General/Attack action as though it were Colette. So think of it as a temporal moment where there is one active Colette (quasi) and a theoretical Colette (true) who is a anchor for the event. There is only a single active model in the game, the quasi-Colette. There is never two models per se. So in place of the targeted decoy/dove (it is treated as though it were Colette, not itself and Colette) is a quasi-Colette which exists only for the limited temporal moment of game time that is the duration of the General/Attack action initiated by Routine Performance. This quasi-Colette is, as the ability states, treated as the model Colette, it thus carries those ongoing effects and wounds which are attached to the true Colette, they are, for game purposes and in the temporal moment treated as the same model. However, the quasi-Colette is located in a different place on the game table [where the decoy/dove it subsumed was (before the action commenced) and (at the end of the action) will later be]. The table AOE's which impact quasi-Colette are solely those which are applicable to the location quasi-Colette occupies (in this she is not, in any way "linked" to true Colette, they are for a moment of game time two co-existing but separate identical models). Now true Colette's Routine Performance means that she becomes "silent" in game terms, for the duration of the action she now is not the relevant active model. Quasi-Colette is the active model during Routine Performance. She is the "Colette" performing the General/Attack action. So you resolve the quasi-Colette action accounting for what model related ongoing effects may apply (conditions) and for what AOE's may apply based on the location of the quasi-Colette model. So yes if true Colette was in hazardous terrain during her full activation she would be effected, and if the Routine Performance put a quasi-Colette into hazardous terrain [even the same terrain] then she would be effected as well - but only once quasi Colette is separate from the decoy/dove not co-existing. Now quasi-Colette may, under limited circumstances (from hazardous terrain, some auras, Df/Wp triggers etc), be impacted from model related ongoing effects such as conditions or wounds (such as Perdita's Quick Draw). This is the negative of Routine Performance, the quasi-Colette is treated as though it were this model (true Colette), so for the temporal moment of Routine Performance the conditions and wounds quasi-Colette is afflicted with are treated as conditions and wounds for the true Colette. So be careful. Then Routine Performance ends. Quasi-Colette ceases to be, the true Colette becomes a singular model (with all her conditions and wounds and located in her original position) and can continue with her activation (which may include another Routine Performance starting the whole chain again). And, as I see it, done. Powerful but not game breaking, initially confusing but broken down in my head the sequence and relevant rules are pretty clear.

Buried establishes there is a difference between the model itself and its position, or not, on the table. Damage and conditions are persistent effects which follow a model as it moves, a model has damage and/or conditions until the damage is healed or as long as the specific condition lasts until it is resolved or removed. This is true regardless of the models location on the table, even if the model is 'located' off the table due to buried. In contrast, again referencing buried, the model is impacted by auras and engagement area depending upon where it is on the table and what area of effects exist in relation to that location. So a buried model, while it can have conditions and can be damaged, cannot be engaged and is not subject to auras, pulses, blasts or other area effects. The two models are not the same. There is only one model, and a simulacrum of a model, the decoy marker which is treated "as though it were this model". Because it is treated as though it was the model it carries the purely model related effects, such as wounds and conditions. But because the model is in a different physical location on the table it is effected by only those location areas of effect, such as auras and engagement range, which would impact the relevant model at the relevant location. A huge aspect of this working is the very small (single action sequence) period of timing that the 'two' Colette's (real and simulacrum) exist. If something caused this to be extended the house of cards collapses, as you identify having an actual copy of Colette is a rules black hole chaos tempest nightmare. But I don't think this currently can happen (but ??? not certain on that), no effect should extend Routine Performance that I'm aware of. Because it is treated as the model if Colette has already used the Phantasmal Prism trigger to summon a dove then the decoy marker cannot perform an 'extra' dove summon. But Routine Performance could use Phantasmal Prism and include the trigger, providing this was the first (and only) use of that summon trigger in the turn. Not sure what this references. Hazardous can effect Doves, and can to a more limited degree effect destructible decoy markers, depending on the type of effect hazardous terrain has. Certainly if Colette used Routine Performance on a dove/decoy in hazardous terrain that dove/marker would be treated "as though it were this model" and being in the hazardous terrain would suffer the effects. At least on my current interpretation. As for doves/decoys affecting interacts. Well no, they are only treated as Colette for the duration of Routine Performance during her activation and the use of that Tactical Action and the subsequent resolution of the General or Attack Action which results. So with Don't Mind Me Smuggler Colette could Routine Performance a decoy/dove and interact, regardless of whether that dove/decoy is inside an engagement range, but that is about the limit. Generally I agree. I don't think my interpretation stretches the rules to breaking point but it does draw from sources not intended to be applied to this circumstance. I think it works here, but across all the models I am uncertain of the implications of doing the same thing with a slightly different model/rule/event and getting a wildly different and inappropriate outcome. I don't think that is the case, but I doubt I've seen even 5% of the possible this model + this model + this action + this outcome combinations available in Malifaux, so no idea. Better a formal Smuggler Colette limited ruling.

Yeah this is an interesting idea, I'm torn of whether it is even possible. The decoy marker would not be engaged at the start of the routine performance which allows the disengage, and being engaged would be the requisite reason to perform the disengage. But after the action commences then the marker is treated as Colette so could be engaged, thus allowing a disengage. Seems like a costly way to move a decoy marker, which is the best it could achieve. This seems reasonable.

Either way, check out the Smuggler Colette thread in the rules discussion forum. Current interpretation is such that Colette cannot repeatedly summon Doves using her Phantasmal Prism. She becomes the illusion during Routine Performance, it 'is' Colette, her once/turn remains applicable. She does carry conditions across with Routine Performance (they attach to her and she "becomes" the illusionary decoy for the duration of the action). She is not impacted by area effects (auras and engagement) on her model Colette position during Routine Performance, instead as stated, during Routine Performance the decoy marker 'becomes' Colette. So any engagement areas or auras which would effect Colette from the location of the decoy marker will immediately take effect and any consequences apply, also any consequences (damage, conditions etc) which impact Colette as a result of making the attack as an illusion effect Colette the model, so still apply when the Routine Performance action ends and Colette returns to her original non-illusory body (and location). It actually seems pretty simple when you wrap your mind around the difference between Colette the model (which teleports) and the space occupied by Colette the model (which is two distinct areas, the one she teleports from [and back to] and the one she teleports to [occupied by the decoy/dove, during Routine Performance]. Certain game effects are applied to Colette the model regardless of where that model is located in the game space (conditions for example travel 'with a buried model), and certain other game effects are applied to a model depending on the location that model occupies on the table (for example a buried model cannot be affected by an aura). The 3E rules (p33) actually pretty clearly differentiate between the model and the position of the model.

True this. I always flash back to earlier editions where Nimble simply provided +1 Walk AP.

Exactly, normally the marker obeys all the rules appropriate to markers. But for the nebulous temporal duration of the Routine Performance tactical action, performed by Smuggler Colette, the decoy marker (normally only a marker with the associated rules) is treated exactly as though it was Colette. See: So while the decoy marker is not normally engaged for the moment that it becomes Colette through Routine Performance, and for the duration of that entire action, it is Colette, so it can be engaged. In relation to conditions and other ongoing effects Colette "carries" them, the model Colette has the ongoing effect for its normal duration regardless of her location, whether she is in her "normal" location or the illusory Colette as a decoy marker during Routine Performance. The condition effects Colette the model regardless of location. In relation to temporary effects, which are measured at a moment in time based on table situation, such as engagement, auras and similar effects these constantly change and are determined depending on board state. So "normal" Colette may be engaged or within auras. Then the illusory Colette decoy marker is in a different table location and is impacted at that moment (during Routine Performance) by the table state (engagements and auras) of the location of the illusion, so the decoy marker. The auras and engagement ranges do not effect Colette per se they effect an area of the table top which Colette occupies (and for routine performance Colette occupies the location of the decoy marker).

Not if you play the rules as the difference between ongoing effects (which carry across) and temporal effects which can change moment to moment. Then the Colette can be in one place for the instant of Routine Performance and another for the remainder of her turn. As PiersonsMuppeteer states. This would resolve the paradox, or at least the worst of it.

This would also apply to auras. They are constantly checked. So in this interpretation, which I like and feels consistent. Colette would carry her conditions (and any negative results resulting from the routine performance attack) as these are turn/game persistent. But auras, engagement and similar moment to moment game state factors would be relevant only to either Colette before and after the routine performance and to the marker during the routine performance.

Exactly. This is my issue. Both option 2 & 3 work but creates their own issues. Option 2 allows for summon spam and so forth. Option 3 creates a which/where/when issue, so if Colette becomes the decoy marker can she be engaged as one, but not the other? Which auras would apply? If Colette has conditions do they count for the decoy? So while option 2 is potentially in its own way exploiting a rules hole, by treating the decoy as a separate illusory Colette it resolves the which (the illusion)/where (where the decoy marker is)/when (for only the routine performance) issue. Option 3 prevents the summon loophole (if it is one and not intended) but opens that huge question of the which/where/when issue, of whether Colette/decoy-Colette is impacted in one table situation (either Colette or decoy-Colette) or in both.

Yes, as much as I love the thought of illusions summoning Doves I think you're right, option 3 is best interpretation. But, note.. Colette also couldn't use her attack if SHE was engaged, even if the decoy was not, the decoy is treated as her with all conditions, auras and restrictions that would apply, including engagement. Likewise the table situation of the relevant decoy marker, whether it was engaged or within any auras would be ignored. It becomes problematic if both apply. And if one applies it has to be the table situation as it applies to Colette.

I felt that questions raised here needed to be moved to the rules forum. So I placed this post there: Two issues (so far) raised by the forthcoming Smuggler Colette.

Yep good point, will correct this in my long copied post in the Rules Question forum.

I think the thorniest (likely least directly to occur in a game but has the most implications) is question 2. The critical question, really in question 2 & 3, is how to interpret the words as though it were this model in Routine Performance. Is the Decoy Marker still a decoy marker but with Smuggler Colette's stats and relevant action? I think no. Does the Decoy Marker "become" a version of Smuggler Colette with her stats and the relevant action, but importantly is separate and distinct from the Smuggler Colette model herself? I think maybe. Does the Decoy Marker "become" Smuggler Colette for the duration of Routine Performance to perform the relevant action, for all intents the marker is the model for a limited time? I think this is the most likely and reliable reading.

Question 3 concerns: How Colette's Routine Performance Magical Flourish and Shell Game trigger operate. So my reading, Shell Game is a trigger on Colette's melee attack. You attack the ENEMY model, hit and get the trigger. Then you can place that model, as I read it, into base contact with any friendly decoy marker within 8" and LoS of Colette. If you use Routine Performance and make an attack through a friendly decoy marker then that marker is as though it were this model so the marker is, for all intents and purposes Colette for the duration of the melee attack, if "she" hit the trigger then the enemy model could be placed into base contact with a friendly decoy marker within 8" and LoS of "Colette" (that marker 'is' Colette). For the duration of the attack Colette is the decoy marker, the 8" and LoS would be measured from the location that the decoy marker occupied. An alternative, and I think highly problematic, reading is that the Decoy Marker remains a marker but temporarily subsumes Smuggler Colette's stats and the melee action. The result is if one hits the Shell game trigger the placement and LoS is drawn from the Colette model herself, not from the decoy marker subsumed by Routine Performance. This presents incredible scenarios for moving enemy models all over the place as Colette can attack from a decoy (or dove of course) anywhere on the table and then yank that enemy to a totally different marker (or dove) within 8" and LoS of where her model is (so potentially she could be in one corner with a decoy/dove 8" away, she could then attack an enemy through a decoy/dove in the opposite corner of the table, hit the trigger and move the model across the length of the table, this seems ridiculous and outside the rules as intended). This also needs to be clarified, mainly though in how it entangles with the larger question 2 above.

Question 2 concerns: How Routine Performance interacts with Phantasmal Prism and the Close-Up Magic (Once/turn) summon Dove trigger. The wording of Routine Performance is, the target decoy marker takes an action (here including the attack Phantasmal Prism) "as though it were this model". One way to read this is that as though it were the model means it is treated in all ways as that model, which would limit the action to once/turn. No issue, one dove summon/turn from Colette (and an additional possible from Cassandra, see below, as a different model entirely). This limits the Colette/Cassandra combo to either summon 2 decoy markers and a dove or 2 doves and a decoy marker. But it would also mean the targeted Decoy Marker would have all the auras and conditions that Colette has (it is the Colette model, if only temporarily), anything which happens to it would happen to Colette. Also Colette could not attack with a action while engaged and thus neither could illusory Colette, regardless of the decoy markers board status. Sadly I do think by strict language as written this is the correct interpretation. It makes sense in some ways and not in others. It is clearly less powerful in regards to Colette's options and flex. Alternatively; So another way to interpret this language is the decoy marker takes the action as if it was the model, it is not the actual model. The decoy becomes an quasi-Colette, as I stated earlier an illusory version of Smuggler Colette with her stats and the relevant general and attack action options, but the decoy is not the model. Thus, it does not have the the bonuses or negatives Colette herself has from conditions or auras (unless the decoy is within an aura, obviously it cannot have a condition at all). Interestingly this should also mean, because Routine Performance can apply from any decoy marker regardless of range or LoS (and is not a action), an engaged Colette can still use Routine Performance to generate a Phantasmal Prism attack from a illusory decoy even when Smuggler Colette is herself engaged. The 3E rules clearly state A model can only take an Action or Ability that is once per Turn once on any given Turn, and that multiple models with the same action can each use it. The decoy marker takes the action as though it was, it is a different model, Colette and the illusion exist simultaneously. So by this reading you could use Phantasmal Prism with Colette and through Routine Performance through temporary illusions through her decoy markers and once each time the trigger to summon a Dove would be live. And of course Doves count as decoy markers, so by my reading you could, assuming Smuggler Colette is by herself with no decoy markers or Doves on the table: activate Colette Bonus Action Smoke and Mirrors to drop a Decoy Marker, 1-AP Phantasmal Prism + trigger to summon a Dove, then 2nd AP Routine Performance (targeting either the decoy marker or dove) Phantasmal Prism + trigger to summon a Dove, then 3rd AP Routine Performance (targeting either the decoy marker or dove) Phantasmal Prism + trigger to summon a Dove. In one turn, by herself, summoning a Decoy Marker (needs 3 any suit), a Dove (needing a target within 8" and to hit with ), then Routine Performance another Dove (needing an unsuited 4 then a a target within 8" and to hit with ), then Routine Performance another Dove (needing an unsuited 4 then a a target within 8" and to hit with ). So you can summon a decoy marker and 3 doves needing, at a minimum, 6 cards, an unsuited 3+, two unsuited 4+ and three Attacks 6+ card (needing ) vs Wp attacks. Cassandra also can also use Upstage to burn 1-AP and her Bonus to summon a Decoy Marker. So on a table with no decoy markers or doves Colette and Cassandra could with the right table state and cards summon 2 Decoy Markers and 3 Mechanical Doves for the cost of 7 cards total, 3 of which must be (likely high) 's for the requisite trigger. Leaving Cassandra with her Nimble move AP and one other AP available. This interpretation is clearly more powerful. It also makes narrative/theme sense in some ways, but not in others, especially when you consider the Shell Game trigger on her I discussed earlier. I actually prefer how this one works in terms of what I think is actually happening, regarding the decoys being separate quasi-Colette's. We 110% will need this clarified, even outside the summoning trigger it has consequences regards engagement, conditions and auras.

Question 1 concerns: How Disengage operates around the Now You See Me.... ability. Disengage is an action to withdraw from combat which allows an opponent to make a attack to prevent such a move (or in limited cases do more). After that attack if Colette has a decoy marker within in 4" she can Now You See Me and place, removing the marker. So Colette is engaged in melee and the disengage is required, the attack and its consequences occur, then afterwards as the enemy attempts to land a blow it is revealed that this was an illusion all along, or Colette and she then switches with an illusion, as the case may be. The successful disengage may result in movement useful (for example getting Colette within 4" of a particular decoy marker) or mean no Now You See Me is necessary preserving the decoy marker. The unsuccessful disengage may cause all sorts of issues for the Colette player, including damage and effects if the opposing model has the (rare) Wicked trait. In essence Colette in engagement is both real and illusory, and that illusion is not revealed until some attempt at physical contact is made (the attack). Both Colette and the illusion will 'act' normally, attempting to preserve the mirage, hence the required disengage, feels consistent to me. Is this a valid and correct interpretation?

So Colette is my Arcanist darling. I'm most invested in her, OG or title versions, thus I've encountered discussions and rules quandary's concerning her interaction with her Decoy Markers and the Routine Performance tactical action she has on her card. For Reference:

So, interesting question here. Definitely needs an FAQ to clearly clarify. The wording of Routine Performance is, the target decoy marker takes an action (here including the attack Phantasmal Prism) "as though it were this model". One way to read this is that as though it were the model means it is treated in all ways as that model, which would limit the action to once/turn. No issue, one dove summon/turn from Colette (and an additional possible from Cassandra, see below, as a different model entirely). This limits the Colette/Cassandra combo to either summon 2 decoy markers and a dove or 2 doves and a decoy marker. But it would also mean the targeted Decoy Marker would have all the auras and conditions that Colette has (it is the Colette model, if only temporarily), anything which happens to it would happen to Colette. Also Colette could not attack with a action while engaged and thus neither could illusory Colette, regardless of the decoy markers board status. Sadly I do think by strict language as written this is the correct interpretation. It makes sense in some ways and not in others. It is clearly less powerful in regards to Colette's options and flex. Alternatively; So another way to interpret this language is the decoy marker takes the action as if it was the model, it is not the actual model. The decoy becomes an quasi-Colette, as I stated earlier an illusory version of Smuggler Colette with her stats and the relevant general and attack action options, but the decoy is not the model. Thus, it does not have the the bonuses or negatives Colette herself has from conditions or auras (unless the decoy is within an aura, obviously it cannot have a condition at all). Interestingly this should also mean, because Routine Performance can apply from any decoy marker regardless of range or LoS (and is not a action), an engaged Colette can still use Routine Performance to generate a Phantasmal Prism attack from a illusory decoy even when Smuggler Colette is herself engaged. The 3E rules clearly state A model can only take an Action or Ability that is once per Turn once on any given Turn, and that multiple models with the same action can each use it. The decoy marker takes the action as though it was, it is a different model, Colette and the illusion exist simultaneously. So by this reading you could use Phantasmal Prism with Colette and through Routine Performance through temporary illusions through her decoy markers and once each time the trigger to summon a Dove would be live. And of course Doves count as decoy markers, so by my reading you could, assuming Smuggler Colette is by herself with no decoy markers or Doves on the table: activate Colette Bonus Action Smoke and Mirrors to drop a Decoy Marker, 1-AP Phantasmal Prism + trigger to summon a Dove, then 2nd AP Routine Performance (targeting either the decoy marker or dove) Phantasmal Prism + trigger to summon a Dove, then 3rd AP Routine Performance (targeting either the decoy marker or dove) Phantasmal Prism + trigger to summon a Dove. In one turn, by herself, summoning a Decoy Marker (needs 3 any suit), a Dove (needing a target within 8" and to hit with ), then Routine Performance another Dove (needing an unsuited 4 then a a target within 8" and to hit with ), then Routine Performance another Dove (needing an unsuited 4 then a a target within 8" and to hit with ). So you can summon a decoy marker and 3 doves needing, at a minimum, 6 cards, an unsuited 3+, two unsuited 4+ and three Attacks 6+ card (needing ) vs Wp attacks. Cassandra also can also use Upstage to either burn 1-AP and her Bonus to summon a Decoy Marker or to use 1-AP to use Routine Performance then Phantasmal Prism + trigger to summon a Dove (max 3 on table). (corrected per Jordan). So on a table with no decoy markers or doves Colette and Cassandra could with the right table state and cards summon 2 Decoy Markers and 3 Mechanical Doves for the cost of 7 cards total, 3 of which must be (likely high) 's for the requisite trigger. Leaving Cassandra with her Nimble move AP and one other AP available. This interpretation is clearly more powerful. It also makes narrative/theme sense in some ways, but not in others, especially when you consider the Shell Game trigger on her I discussed earlier. I actually prefer how this one works in terms of what I think is actually happening, regarding the decoys being separate quasi-Colette's. We 110% will need this clarified, even outside the summoning trigger it has consequences regards engagement, conditions and auras.

OK, let's have a long post with a two way rant. Doom saying is pointless. Simply put Arcanists are not going to get the magic wand of wonderful winning, every faction seems to complain about missing something, or not having easier access to something. Let's not clamber on that band-wagon. I've found an answer to beat every master, from every faction, in every scheme pool with at least reasonable consistency, that I've faced so far (including Levi). Not a single time have a sat down and thought at 50SS each side I simply cannot realistically win this game, and I've played other games where that was the case (power creep is a thing, something we largely don't appear to be seeing in this huge release which reworks the games most powerful models, which is amazing). That's not to say I don't have trepidation or disappointments. I've already mentioned on a different post that Hoffman's pylon mechanic worries me, it does not seem OP, it is not inherently broken, but it does seem open to strong negative play experiences in the right terrain/objective/positioning circumstances. I suspect it stays because (hopefully) such circumstances will be rare and the rework would require a lot of effort to re-balance what is nuHoff's core mechanic. For nuKaeris, I don't think she is inherently bad, the rules seem fine in principle, powerful and also with flaws. I'm just not super inspired by the playstyle. I really like nuMei and nuToni both. Now nuMarcus is cool but I am disappointed that he does even less for his crew and certainly nothing seems to boost the substantial number of Chimera keyword that simply under performs currently, #save_our_Molemen. Which brings us to my absolute favourite Malifaux master, the Mistress of the Star Theatre, Colette. I've always adored her, strong or weak. This Colette's art is fine, makes sense to me. Her playstyle is, something I'll need to see on the table, but if I can keep Decoy markers and Doves out then it looks fine. I'm also fine that none of her crew (other than Cassandra kind of) play into the Decoy markers, that is really true for the unique introduced mechanics of most masters in this wave. It certainly doesn't reduce the effectiveness, and it makes thematic sense to me, the decoy's are illusory Colette's why would a Performer model react differently to them. My biggest disappointment is threaded through all the Arcanist releases thus far and particularly with Colette, Marcus, Kaeris and to a lesser extent Hoffman. The new master titles for Arcanists have, thus far, not hugely changed the in-faction and in-keyword power balance of our current models; the weak models remain weak the strong, strong. In most cases (except Mei) I think I'll play with basically the same core crews between the OG and title itineration's of the masters, which is disappointing (and has nothing to do with 'power' or absent mechanics). Many other factions have seen titles which shake the master up and also alter the crew selection significantly, we simply haven't. OG Colette was a tricksy, mobile schemer with a heavy emphasis on versatile crew inclusions and a distraction schtick. This nuColette introduces a new marker and is a little more attack based, a little less scheme, but otherwise I think is basically a highly mobile trickster, and her crew keyword synergy is even less, she certainly does nothing to boost the weaker Performer keyword models (Ice Dancer). Which is disappointing. I'm super curious to see Sandeep (our very powerful and flexible summoner) and if the Academic side get's any love. And Rasputina (I think our consensus weakest, or at least lower tier, master) and if they boost specific Frozen Heart models, will we see less Silent Ones and (again) Ice Dancer love (or for that matter love for a lot of the Frozen Heart models, the Gamin and Acolytes are not great, even the Golem is a schtick pick for me). Mechanics wise I'm not screamingly unhappy. There is nothing Arcanists need to be competitive (lots we could want, but who doesn't want everything). nuHoffman's Pylon mechanic is the biggest storm on the horizon I see and hopefully it's just some thunder and rain, not a typhoon. But I do wish we saw more innovation and in-keyword balancing from the current title reveals. There are a lot of titles I feel will play like a variation on the OG-master, not a radical new style and there are a lot of Arcanist models I simply can't (and thus don't) justify taking on the table. So far these titles have barely touched that, and in the case of nuColette seem to encourage me away from in-keyword theme and towards a versatile all-stars list, which I really dislike, especially seeing what happened with Youko and her use of distracted, I'd have loved to see a way to use distracted to boost Performer keyword damage and make nuColette and crew a more damage based selection (say is nuColette had a leader only ability that boosts Performer crew damage associated with the distracted condition, that would have been golden [hell even something with scheme markers instead like nuColette already has slightly baked into her melee attack]).

In some ways I get this, but I disagree. Disengage is an action to withdraw from combat which allows an opponent to make a attack to prevent such a move (or in limited cases do more). After that attack if Colette has a decoy marker within in 4" she can Now You See Me and place, removing the marker. So Colette is engaged in melee and the disengage is required, the attack and its consequences occur, then afterwards as the enemy attempts to land a blow it is revealed that this was an illusion all along, or Colette and she then switches with an illusion, as the case may be. The successful disengage may result in movement useful (for example getting Colette within 4" of a particular decoy marker) or mean no Now You See Me is necessary preserving the decoy marker. The unsuccessful disengage may cause all sorts of issues for the Colette player, including damage and effects if the opposing model has the (rare) Wicked trait. In essence Colette in engagement is both real and illusory, and that illusion is not revealed until some attempt at physical contact is made (the attack). Both Colette and the illusion will 'act' normally, attempting to preserve the mirage, hence the required disengage, feels consistent to me.

So my reading, Shell Game is a trigger on Colette's melee attack. You attack the ENEMY model, hit and get the trigger. Then you can place that model, as I read it, into base contact with any friendly decoy marker within 8" and LoS of Colette. If you use Routine Performance and make an attack through a friendly decoy marker then that marker is as though it were this model so the marker is, for all intents and purposes Colette for the duration of the melee attack, if "she" hit the trigger then the enemy model could be placed into base contact with a friendly decoy marker within 8" and LoS of "Colette" (that marker 'is' Colette). For the duration of the attack Colette is the decoy marker, the 8" and LoS would be measured from the location that the decoy marker occupied.

Yep Thatguy already self-corrected that misapprehension.

So lets see this then.

Agreed but still useful in an emergency. This and Carlos open an interesting avenue for Burning schtick. True. but Dorian clearly has a potential place, Cassandra is very useful, Carlos also could run some interesting Burning, Harata is plain cool and provides solid killing. The Coryphee (Duet) are still as useful and deadly as always. All these models I could see using anyway, especially, obviously, Cassandra. It is the Performers, Mannequins and Ice Dancers that I don't see having a firm niche. I feel like this Colette plays into more damage and offensive conditions, so the solid Arcanist versatile pool may be the resort. This is perhaps my primary disappointment. Looking at this, I fully understand the confusion. Me, until official clarification, I'll read it strictly as worded, so for all intents and purposes it will play as though Colette has temporarily projected to the exact spot of the decoy/dove and is attacking, keeping all the bonuses, negatives and auras of the actual Colette (or Cassandra as the case may be). The decoy/dove is "Colette" and whatever it has connected to it doesn't apply. The entire action occurs, with all triggers and effects, then finished. I'm not certain exactly how this plays to rules timings and such, but it feels like the rules intent and is the easiest for me to understand in my head.

I agreed initially but then thought of her less of a in the sewers, under the cover of night smuggler and more of a decoy and deception smuggler, "look I'm just a Lady about town, nothing dangerous or threatening about little old me" then if/when the shit hits the fan suddenly it's mechanical doves and illusionary Colette's all over the place, pick one fast before the real woman vanishes. So getting used to it and feeling the theme. Smugglers don't do big and flashy, they do understated and painfully mundane.