Mimic, Assimilate etc. stat question

[Ming]

Maybe it has already been clarified, but do Mimic and similar abilities copy built-in pluses and suits of the copied Action? They are part of the Stat column now, so it seems like the answer is "no".

[Adran]

Mimic and Assimilate both specifies what stat you use for the action is. So you would replace what ever the original action had with the values specified in the action.

So no it doesn't copy them across

[Regelridderen]

On 7/11/2019 at 10:19 AM, Adran said:

Mimic and Assimilate both specifies what stat you use for the action is. So you would replace what ever the original action had with the values specified in the action.

So no it doesn't copy them across

This in direct contradiction of the rulebook, it quite specifically separates suits and bonus flips to be something different from the "Stat", which is only the numeral.

The only thing indicating "Stat" to be more is the layout of the cards?

[Maniacal_cackle]

9 minutes ago, Regelridderen said:

This in direct contradiction of the rulebook, it quite specifically separates suits and bonus flips to be something different from the "Stat", which is only the numeral.

The only thing indicating "Stat" to be more is the layout of the cards?

I think the point is that mimic simply gives 'stat 7' to the ability it copies (it doesn't copy the stat).

EDIT: oh, unless you're saying it should copy suits because it copies everything except the stat?

[Angelshard]

As I read it the Stat is a number, that may also have a build in suit. The suit is still part of the Stat and not a separate factor. Also this is the exact same way it was written in m2e and there you removed the suit.

If you look at range I'd also say that or  is part of the range and not a separate thing. 

Also, and I know this isn't the best argument, it was written the same way in m2e and there the ruling was that suits didn't get carried over. 

[Ogid]

Last time it got discussed the consensus was it does copy the stat and suit modifier, check this thread:

But I knew there was a lot of room for discusion here...

[eddy]

This quote from page 22 clearly states stat, fate modifier and siut are separate things

[Angelshard]

It also clearly states that Range is both the number and the type 

"Range comes next, which may have an icon denoting its type (y is Melee, z is Projectile, p is Pulse, a is Aura) and the range in inches, which is the maximum distance the Action can affect." 

The description of TN also clearly states that number and suit are both the TN feature. 

As I read it you have the action feature Stat and the stat number, which are two different things. 

I will admit that when you read the Stat part it does seem like the only the number is the Stat. 

But if you compare it to the other features of an action, especially Range, then only Stat is three different things, number, modifier and suit, and not a single feature. 

[Ogid]

It deserves a FAQ, because having that column called Stat instead of SMS (Stat Modifier Suit) or something like that creates some room for this kind of questions; but the rules point towards it's only the stat because the Modifier and the suit aren't described as part of the stat, while in the rest the icons are described as a part of the Range/TN.

Another thing that point toward it is the wording of abilities like "Just like You" or "Upstage":

• Upstage: ...This model may take the selected action (the model take the action as it is, with any suits and modifiers)
• Just like you! ...This model may take the selected Action with a penalty of -2 to its stat (stat here is making reference to the number, the model lower the stat by 2, the modifier and the suit are unafected)
• Mimic: ... The stat for the action is considered to be equal to the stat for this action (as happens in the above case, it's modifying the stat value; but in this case changing the number for a fixed value instead of substracting, again it's not making reference to modifiers and suits so they should be unafected as happen in Just like you)

[Myyrä]

2 hours ago, Angelshard said:

But if you compare it to the other features of an action, especially Range, then only Stat is three different things, number, modifier and suit, and not a single feature. 

Just because some things include a suit doesn't mean all things have to include a suit. That's just faulty logic.

[Angelshard]

@Myyrä there's a difference between a feature having more than one component (Stat can have up to three, resist can only have one) and saying that three features include every part as a package but the fourth doesn't. I don't see why Stat should behave differently from Rg, Rst and TN.

 

[Myyrä]

1 minute ago, Angelshard said:

@Myyrä there's a difference between a feature having more than one component (Stat can have up to three, resist can only have one) and saying that three features include every part as a package but the fourth doesn't. I don't see why Stat should behave differently from Rg, Rst and TN.

It's not a matter of what should be but what is. That's a false analogy no matter how you look at it.

[Angelshard]

@Myyrä It isn't a false analogy as your definition of what is creates an inconsistency in the rules and takes a paragraph in isolation rather than in context. 

My problem with this your definition of Stat is that fate modifiers and built in suits aren't part of the action feature. They're simply something thats floating around. 

If Stat was written in the same way as Range there wouldn't be any doubt, and I believe this is the correct interpretation. 

"Any Action that requires a duel will have a Stat. It may have a Fate Modifier, which impacts the flip for that Action, and/or a suit, which is added to the models final duel total, and the number the model adds to the card it flips in the duel (in this case, 5)."

All I've done here is flip the description of Stat number  and fate modifier/suit and now the paragraph is consistent with the rest of the description of the makeup of an action. 

Reading the Stat paragraph in isolation doesn't make sense when it's inconsistent with the other paragraphs describing an action. 

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, Angelshard said:

"Any Action that requires a duel will have a Stat. It may have a Fate Modifier, which impacts the flip for that Action, and/or a suit, which is added to the models final duel total, and the number the model adds to the card it flips in the duel (in this case, 5)."

If that were the wording of the rule, then maybe the Mimic ability would read "...The stat for the action is considered to be equal to the stat for this action, adding any suit and fate modifier of the copied action."

It could be both. Right now I think it's more relevant how stat is defined in the rules (independent, not linked with Mofidiers and Suits) than how a column in the card is named; but this needs a FAQ to be 100% clear.

[eldritch]

50 minutes ago, Angelshard said:

@Myyrä It isn't a false analogy as your definition of what is creates an inconsistency in the rules and takes a paragraph in isolation rather than in context. 

My problem with this your definition of Stat is that fate modifiers and built in suits aren't part of the action feature. They're simply something thats floating around. 

If Stat was written in the same way as Range there wouldn't be any doubt, and I believe this is the correct interpretation. 

"Any Action that requires a duel will have a Stat. It may have a Fate Modifier, which impacts the flip for that Action, and/or a suit, which is added to the models final duel total, and the number the model adds to the card it flips in the duel (in this case, 5)."

All I've done here is flip the description of Stat number  and fate modifier/suit and now the paragraph is consistent with the rest of the description of the makeup of an action. 

Reading the Stat paragraph in isolation doesn't make sense when it's inconsistent with the other paragraphs describing an action. 

The very fact that you have to demonstrate a different wording indicates that the meaning of the current wording is clear and needs no speculation to ascertain its meaning. One can equally speculate that the very presence of different wording implies that the intention was to differentiate its behavior from other characteristics, and this speculation would be no less valid than your speculation that the current wording was unintentional.

Without further clarification, I would put forward that using the wording as it is written is the more reasonable path.