Jump to content
  • 0

Gunfighter vs Middle of the storm?


Erik1978

Question

Recommended Posts

  • 1
6 hours ago, Adran said:

You appear to be adding to the rules.

If model A attacks model b, at no time does model b check to see if model a has the attack on their card. So it makes no difference to the mimic action which is the correct answer. 

My view was you could not mimic a mimic'd action, although at the moment I'm away from my rules so I'm not sure if that was just assumption.

 

What Ogid is saying is that in the case of Mimic you have the mimic model going "I'm attacking you with X action, with Y stats, and Z effect". At no point does the other model actually look to see how that action is printed on the Mimic model's card. For Gunfighter the model is saying "I'm attacking you with X action, but with a :ToS-Melee: range", but Myrra is saying that the other model is looking at what's printed on the Gunfighter model's card to determine everything about the action.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 10/13/2019 at 11:55 AM, Ogid said:

From :melee1 range these are no longer a projectile attacks, so no damage reduction.

Last thread about it:

 

It's only Perdita treating it as :melee1 action, not every model in game. Snow storm will still treat it as a :ToS-Range: action and reduce damage accordingly.

  • Respectfully Disagree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
21 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

It's only Perdita treating it as :melee1 action, not every model in game. Snow storm will still treat it as a :ToS-Range: action and reduce damage accordingly.

It appears that you're claiming that it's simultaneously a :meleeand a :ranged.  Thus it cannot be used to make attacks while engaged.

Quote

Engaged models cannot take :ranged Actions.

If you're not claiming that it's simultaneously a :meleeand a :ranged, then Snow Storm doesn't affect it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
15 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

It's only Perdita treating it as :melee1 action, not every model in game. Snow storm will still treat it as a :ToS-Range: action and reduce damage accordingly.

An action can't be at the same time a :melee and a :ranged.

If it is used as a:meleeaction, it will follow all the rules for these actions. It's not affected by concealment/cover/eye of the storm and the such, but it's affected by anything that affect a :melee(like  "Cage Fighter" or "Good shot, my turn")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
6 minutes ago, solkan said:

It appears that you're claiming that it's simultaneously a :meleeand a :ranged.  Thus it cannot be used to make attacks while engaged.

If you're not claiming that it's simultaneously a :meleeand a :ranged, then Snow Storm doesn't affect it.

 

No, I'm claiming Perdita is treating the action as :melee and Snow Storm is treating it as :ranged. Thus abilities belonging to Snow Storm will also treat it as :ranged and reduce the damage perfectly fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
8 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

No, I'm claiming Perdita is treating the action as :melee and Snow Storm is treating it as :ranged. Thus abilities belonging to Snow Storm will also treat it as :ranged and reduce the damage perfectly fine.

The defending model can only treat the action as whatever the attacking model treats it as. Its a mele attack...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 minute ago, Mycellanious said:

The defending model can only treat the action as whatever the attacking model treats it as. Its a mele attack...

Where in the rules is that written exactly? As far as I know there doesn't even exist a rule that lets Snow Storm treat any action as anything other than what's printed on the card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Myyrä said:

Where in the rules is that written exactly? As far as I know there doesn't even exist a rule that lets Snow Storm treat any action as anything other than what's printed on the card.

It's in the pg 22 of the rulebook, there you can see the range is what determines what kind of attack it is. If she is using the range :melee1, the defender is being attacked by that; he doesn't care what is written in the card, he cares about the kind of attack that is targeting him. Treating an action at the same time as a :ranged and as a :melee may create a lot of inconsistencies within the rules. Also, it's impossible that every ability include clarifications about how it interacts with every other ability in the game.

Quote

Middle of the Storm: When a friendly model within :aura3 suffers damage from a :ranged Action, reduce that damage by 2 (including Gunfighter btw 👌).

I guess every model with the gunsmith ability could had a printed stat of :rangedX'' /:melee1'', but that's not how Malifaux does it; different model share the exact same action and then triggers and abilities modify it.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

"PG26 - While not common some models are able to take  projectile.png Actions while engaged. If a model does so it is not considered engaging or engaged by the target for the purposes of Friendly Fire."

Does anyone know an example of this other than gunfighter? Or does this rule exist purely for gun fighter?


"Gunfighter

This model may treat any of its projectile.png Actions as having a range of melee.png1"."

 

 

I don't think this stops the attack being a projectile.png Action. This doesnt say it changes the type of the action, just that the model can TREAT the range differently. That doesnt say other models have to treat it the same way.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 minute ago, diki said:

"PG26 - While not common some models are able to take  projectile.png Actions while engaged. If a model does so it is not considered engaging or engaged by the target for the purposes of Friendly Fire."

Does anyone know an example of this other than gunfighter? Or does this rule exist purely for gun fighter?


"Gunfighter

This model may treat any of its projectile.png Actions as having a range of melee.png1"."

I don't think this stops the attack being a projectile.png Action. This doesnt say it changes the type of the action, just that the model can TREAT the range differently. That doesnt say other models have to treat it the same way.

 

 

I don't think this rule appies to Gunfighter. Gunfighter does not say you can take a :ToS-Range: while engaged.

It does apply to things like the Quick shot trigger on the Sastar Guard, Santaigo, Vincent and Mad Dog. (I've not looked at all factions for this, but this trigger is the only thing I've seen this look  that allows you to make a :ToS-Range: while engaged)

 

I am sure that Gunfighter changes the attack range from :ToS-Range:x to :ToS-Melee:1 for the purpose of that action, so for anything that looks at that action it is a :ToS-Melee: action.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

 

6 minutes ago, Adran said:

I am sure that Gunfighter changes the attack range from :ToS-Range:x to :ToS-Melee:1 for the purpose of that action, so for anything that looks at that action it is a :ToS-Melee: action.

Where does that certainty come from? Definitely not from the wording of Gunfighter.

19 minutes ago, diki said:

Gunfighter

This model may treat any of its projectile.png Actions as having a range of melee.png1"."

 

6 minutes ago, Adran said:

I don't think this rule appies to Gunfighter. Gunfighter does not say you can take a :ToS-Range: while engaged.

It does apply to things like the Quick shot trigger on the Sastar Guard, Santaigo, Vincent and Mad Dog. (I've not looked at all factions for this, but this trigger is the only thing I've seen this look  that allows you to make a :ToS-Range: while engaged)

It doesn't say it directly, but it removes the obstacles of using :ranged actions while engaged, because it lets the model in question ignore the fact that they are :ranged actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

 

Where does that certainty come from? Definitely not from the wording of Gunfighter.

 

It doesn't say it directly, but it removes the obstacles of using :ranged actions while engaged, because it lets the model in question ignore the fact that they are :ranged actions.

Well as I see it you have 3 choices.

You can assume Gunfighter is a largely useless ability because a :ToS-Range::ToS-Melee: action can't be used in almost all cases.  (the only circumstance it is helpful that I can think of is charging a model with a 0" engagement range. There are probably a few other options out there)

You can assume that its a replacement effect so the action is no longer a :ToS-Range: action

You can add a bunch of other words to the rules that aren't there, and try and use that to say how it does its job. Pretending it says "this model may take :ToS-Range: actions whilst engaged but if it does so it reduces the range to 1". You can also do this to allow you to use it at the end of a charge action but only at 1 range" seems even more of a stretch.

 

Since option 2 is a valid reading of the exact words, and doesn't break the game, I'm very sure this is right.

Option 1 seems too niche and doesn't really explain how to use a :ToS-Melee:1":ToS-Range:12" action.

Option 3 is just adding rules to make it do what you think it does, without having any in rules justification.

 

 

19 hours ago, Myyrä said:

No, I'm claiming Perdita is treating the action as :melee and Snow Storm is treating it as :ranged. Thus abilities belonging to Snow Storm will also treat it as :ranged and reduce the damage perfectly fine.

I suppose this is an option 4 that I really hadn't considered at all. Can Snowstorm walk away if it is with 1" of Perdita? Would enemy Sonnia reduce its range if Perdita was on fire?

I 'm not sure where to go with this one. It doesn't feel right in the M3 rules (but that might just be because I no longer have to tell people that willpower duels are ones in which you use your willpower, and they might be a different type of duel for the other model) that the action is a :ToS-Range: for 1 participant and a :ToS-Melee: for the other. Concealing is also a bit funny here.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
16 minutes ago, Adran said:

 

20 hours ago, Myyrä said:

No, I'm claiming Perdita is treating the action as :melee and Snow Storm is treating it as :ranged. Thus abilities belonging to Snow Storm will also treat it as :ranged and reduce the damage perfectly fine.

I suppose this is an option 4 that I really hadn't considered at all. Can Snowstorm walk away if it is with 1" of Perdita? Would enemy Sonnia reduce its range if Perdita was on fire?

I 'm not sure where to go with this one. It doesn't feel right in the M3 rules (but that might just be because I no longer have to tell people that willpower duels are ones in which you use your willpower, and they might be a different type of duel for the other model) that the action is a :ToS-Range: for 1 participant and a :ToS-Melee: for the other. Concealing is also a bit funny here.

Snow Storm any any other model can walk away from Perdita, because from their perspective she doesn't have an engagement range. Only Perdita can treat the action as a :melee action.

Sonnia can reduce the range of the :ranged action, but it is Perdita doing the measuring when she's declaring the action and she can just measure that :melee1. Similarly it's Perdita making the flip, so she doesn't care about concelment. Cover would on the other hand work, because it gives bonuses to the model in cover.

Tara's defense trigger can cause the action to fail. Zoraida's defense trigger cannot end Perdita's activation.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Respectfully Disagree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think that's too complicated to be intended like that, and create weird cases like cover yes, but concealment no, and if we see this from this perspective this and if not that... do you really think the developers wanted to created that weird mixed :ranged:meleeattack and then let us figure out all the rules about it (and getting also exposed to lot of unintended interactions and readings). For example, some players could read that they have the engagement range when they want, so yes to engage enemies, but not to give adrenaline to Toni ironsides for example...

I think it's much more likely their intention were to treat the attack as a :melee attack, a kind of a attack with a solid rules and with clear interaction with other rules.

Also check for example the Mysterious Emissary. He drops underbrush markers instead of :blast; but any enemy or ally model hitted by those :blast are affected by them because they are treated as :blast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

 

Quote

 

Gunfighter:  This model may treat any of its :ToS-Range: Actions as having a range of :ToS-Melee:1"

Middle of the Storm:  When a friendly model within :ToS-Aura:3 suffers damage from a :ToS-Range: Action, reduce the damage by 2.

Through the Hole:  Immediately, the Attacking model's action is a :ToS-Range: Action, it fails.

Bullet Proof +1:  Reduce all damage suffered by this model from :ToS-Range: Actions by +1.

This is so close I wrote two versions of my opinion on this to see which convinced me more.   Could see a ruling on it going either way.

I settled on this one;

  1. Each of the rules above talks about "<projectile> Actions", including Gunfighter. 
  2. In order for the Gunfighter ability to take effect the action being taken must be a <projectile> action
  3. If it's not a <projectile> action then none of the rules, including Gunfighter should apply. 
  4. I don't see how we can say an action IS a <projectile> action for some abilities while NOT being a <projectile> action for other abilities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, Ogid said:

I think that's too complicated to be intended like that, and create weird cases like cover yes, but concealment no, and if we see this from this perspective this and if not that... do you really think the developers wanted to created that weird mixed :ranged:meleeattack and then let us figure out all the rules about it (and getting also exposed to lot of unintended interactions and readings). For example, some players could read that they have the engagement range when they want, so yes to engage enemies, but not to give adrenaline to Toni ironsides for example...

I think it's much more likely their intention were to treat the attack as a :melee attack, a kind of a attack with a solid rules and with clear interaction with other rules.

Also check for example the Mysterious Emissary. He drops underbrush markers instead of :blast; but any enemy or ally model hitted by those :blast are affected by them because they are treated as :blast.

Arguments based on intent are pretty much useless. The people writing the rules will clarify their intent with a FAQ if they feel it is necessary.

Mysterious Emissary uses totally different wording, so it's not relevant at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

Arguments based on intent are pretty much useless. The people writing the rules will clarify their intent with a FAQ if they feel it is necessary.

Well, when one reading requires the players to build a new set of rules out of the thin air for a new type of hybrid attack :melee+:ranged and the other is integrated smoothly in the rules I think it's a point worth to consider.

7 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

Mysterious Emissary uses totally different wording, so it's not relevant at all.

So... a terrain marker treated like :blast is ok but a :ranged action treated as a:melee is too wild?

Also you are doing 1 reading out of the different ones that phrase could lead:

Quote

Gunfighter:  This model may treat any of its :ToS-Range: Actions as having a range of :ToS-Melee:1"

  • As the range is what determines what kind of attack is, the action is considered a :melee for both players.
  • Only the Gunfighter treat the action as a :melee, the other model consider it as a :ranged .

One of the above may cause problems interacting with other rules, the other doesn't. I can see both readings, but the one that causes the less problems within the rules is the more likely to be intended.

And I think the second one isn't accurate because you are not treating the attack as a :melee if the other player is defending it like a :ranged. Your entire point is the Gunfighter say "this model", but as the action is used by that model, is how the model use it what counts for the other model, not what is printed on the card.

But anyway, if both readings were perfectly integrated in the rules, I'd have doubts and would be asking for a FAQ; but with the can of worms that hybrid action creates, I'm pretty sure what is the intent here. However with the amount of times this question have come out, it'll probably be in a the first FAQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Ogid said:

Well, when one reading requires the players to build a new set of rules out of the thin air for a new type of hybrid attack :melee+:ranged and the other is integrated smoothly in the rules I think it's a point worth to consider.

I didn't invent the hybrid action. It was someone else. You are trying to build some kind of strawman here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
22 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

I didn't invent the hybrid action. It was someone else. You are trying to build some kind of strawman here.

XD I'm not. Strawman is attacking a different argument to discredit the main topic, giving the impresion the attacked argument refutes the main one; but I'm arguin directly against the main topic. The fact that reading of Gunsfighter (an action treated at the same time as both kind of attacks) creates potential problems and it's not the cleanest way to solve it (imo).

But anyway, most people in this thread are against that reading; until the FAQ it's up, I guess it won't hurt to play it like it's just a :melee. We'll probably find it out in the first FAQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

 I think that the rule is easy to understand: 

 Gunfighter:

This model may treat any of its projectile.png Actions as having a range of melee.png1
 
  The rule allows Perdita to shoot while engaged (you can´t normally). 
  So Perdita treats his attack as a melee range, but middle of the storm
still reduces damage because is a projectile action. 
  • Agree 1
  • Respectfully Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
22 minutes ago, SebastianResser said:
 
  The rule allows Perdita to shoot while engaged (you can´t normally). 
  So Perdita treats his attack as a melee range, but middle of the storm
still reduces damage because is a projectile action. 

I don't think this is accurate... the Quick Shot trigger allow the model to perform a :ranged while engaged:

Quote

:mask Quick Shot: Take a :ranged Action, even if engaged.

If Gunfighter idea were that, it would be worded like that trigger. But it says it treat the reange as a :melee1'', and as it is stated in the pg 22 of the rulebook; it's the range what determine what kind of action is; so it transform the action into a :meleeone.

 

This isn't related with the rules. just to try to see it for from a fluff point of view: I think this rule try to represent the good old gun-fu (john wick for example); the model is a good shooter, but in close combat he can fight with his ranged weapons in his hands and use the openings he creates to shoot the other guy instead of physically hitting. And being in hand to hand combat, there are no :ranged rules; so no cover or concealment. This makes sense because he isn't aiming (so the steam around them or the other model trying to hide doesn't matter because he is fighting him in mele).

Something like this:

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Myyrä said:

I didn't invent the hybrid action. It was someone else.

We demand to give credit/blame where the credit/blame is due.  🤯

Because it opens up a huge set of implications.  Among other things...

What perspective are the Cover and Concealment rules written from?

Quote

Cover

When a model with Cover is the target of a :ranged Action, it gains +1 Df and imposes a :-flip on any damage flips against it.

Concealment

When a model with Concealment is targeted by a non-:meleeAttack Action, the Action’s duel gains a :-flip.

There are 15 models with Gunfighter.  A surprising number of those models also have things like Bullet Proof and Quick Draw.

Convict Gunslinger A is standing 1" away from Convict Gunslinger B.  A attacks B with Custom Firearm, invoking the Gunfighter ability.

Or, even better.  Gunfighter A attacks a Wokou Raider.  The Wokou Raider has two abilities

Quote

Bullet Proof +1:  Reduce all damage suffered by this model from :rangedActions by +1.

Combat Finesse:  When this model is targeted with a :meleeAction, the Attacking model's duel cannot be Cheated.

If Gunfighter A attacks a Wouko raider and invokes Gunfighter, what happens?

"Only the model with Gunfighter treats the action as a :melee" sounds great at first, but as far as I can tell it's impossible to defend it in practice.  It's just not plausible.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
58 minutes ago, solkan said:

"Only the model with Gunfighter treats the action as a :melee" sounds great at first, but as far as I can tell it's impossible to defend it in practice.  It's just not plausible.

I'm defending it just fine and plausibility isn't measurable. Could we stick to facts maybe?

58 minutes ago, solkan said:
Quote

Bullet Proof +1:  Reduce all damage suffered by this model from :rangedActions by +1.

Combat Finesse:  When this model is targeted with a :meleeAction, the Attacking model's duel cannot be Cheated.

 

If Gunfighter A attacks a Wouko raider and invokes Gunfighter, what happens?

 

If Wokou rider is attacked by a :ranged action, what happens? It reduces the damage by 1 and combat finesse does nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 hours ago, Myyrä said:
3 hours ago, solkan said:

"Only the model with Gunfighter treats the action as a :melee" sounds great at first, but as far as I can tell it's impossible to defend it in practice.  It's just not plausible.

I'm defending it just fine and plausibility isn't measurable. Could we stick to facts maybe?

I find it more plausible than the Hybrid theory... but let check facts:

The wording treat as is used by some abilities/triggers, some examples:

Quote

 

Raging Inerno: "...This Pyre Marker is treated as a :blast marker for this action"

Nimble: This model may treat the Walk Action as an :ToS-Fast: Action.

Elementalist: ...this model is treated as having the Elemental Keyword.

Beastmaster: ...Crews containing this model treat Beast in their declared Faction as though they were Versatile.

Gunfighter: This model may treat any of its :ranged Actions as having a range of :melee1.

 

The "treat as" let some model modify how they can use some game elements. Kaeris drops Pyres that works as blast for that attack, Nimble models can use a normal action as a bonus, Sandeep/Marcus increase their hiring pool and gunfighter treat his :ranged as having a range of  :melee1

What does "treat his :ranged as having a range of  :melee1" means?

If we go to the pg22 of the rulebook we have this text explaining what the range means for an ability:

Quote

Range comes next, which may have an icon denoting its type (:melee is Melee, :ranged is Projectile, :new-Pulse: is Pulse, :aura is
Aura) and the range in inches, which is the maximum distance the Action can affect. 

So, changing the range is changing the type of the attack, a :meleeability will be treated like that. The other model doesn't care what is printed in the card, they care about the action that is targeting them and in this case, that ability is a :melee.

For example, let's say a Chimera model gains a "Onslaught" trigger thanks to a mutation upgrade. That chimera model uses that attack and get that trigger, but then the other player says the trigger is not legal because it's not printed in the stat card and his model only cares about what is printed in the stat card, does that sound legit? This is the same case, the Gunfighter ability is modifying how the model's abilities are used, regardless of what is printed. A :ranged action used using Gunsmith is treated as having a :melee1'' range printed in the same way an attack that gains a trigger thanks to an upgrade is treated as having that trigger printed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information