Gunfighter vs Middle of the storm?

[Erik1978]

If Perdita (or similar) charges The Captain, does middle of the storm reduce damage, or will her attacks no longer count as  because of gunfighter?

[Maniacal_cackle]

As I understand it, some people are suggesting that Perdita's Gunfighter alters her ability so that she can ignore ranged restrictions, but doesn't actually make it a melee attack?

If this is the case, she cannot attack after charging. She only may take a melee attack action after a charge (not a ranged attack with melee range).

I think treating the attack as anything but a melee attack breaks the game a bit.

[Maniacal_cackle]

On 10/16/2019 at 4:19 AM, Myyrä said:

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

Oh right, the claim is slightly different.

Is there any other place in the game where a single attack has two different types depending on the model's perspective?

That would be a very strange thing to infer into the game when there is a simpler explanation (that the melee range makes it a melee attack action when she attacks).

Unless there is some rule illustrating why the simpler explanation doesn't work, the simpler explanation seems favourable to me.

[Ogid]

7 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

not a ranged attack with melee range

This whole discusion is based in that, which isn't a thing; there isn't a single point in the rules where it is suggested that an action can be played as having two different ranged icons at the same time.

The way this had been defended is suggesting that "This model treat this action as having a range..." implies that only the attacking player makes that change... which it is supposing that the defending player doesn't take in count how the attacker is modifying the attack, but only the printed attack (which it isn't stated anywhere and in fact is a weird way to see it considering things like upgrades adding triggers or marker treated as blasts).

7 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

That would be a very strange thing to infer into the game when there is a simpler explanation (that the melee range makes it a melee attack action when she attacks).

Unless there is some rule illustrating why the simpler explanation doesn't work, the simpler explanation seems favourable to me.

100% agree on this.

[diki]

GunFighter lets Perdita shoot someone in melee range without the normal restictions of using a   attack. It's still shooting bullets though.

[diki]

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

The attack is still an  action - I think you are still defending against bullets! (Smashing someone with the handle of a gun is not going to be as effective as bullets!)

 

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

This is horribly unclear, but the person who targetted you was treating their action as a melee attack when targtting so perhaps this should apply aswell.


Every model has an engagement range based on the range of its longest Action. Gun fighters can treat their   as so i think they can still engage people.

 

2 hours ago, Ogid said:

This whole discusion is based in that, which isn't a thing; there isn't a single point in the rules where it is suggested that an action can be played as having two different ranged icons at the same time.

Does it say anywhere in the rules that an action cant be considered both simultaneously?

[Ludvig]

10 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

As I understand it, some people are suggesting that Perdita's Gunfighter alters her ability so that she can ignore ranged restrictions, but doesn't actually make it a melee attack?

If this is the case, she cannot attack after charging. She only may take a melee attack action after a charge (not a ranged attack with melee range).

I think treating the attack as anything but a melee attack breaks the game a bit.

I think they are saying she is treating it as a claw for all intents and purposes but Tara for example would still treat it as a gun kind of how the attack is a Sh duel for Perdita but a Df duel for Tara.

[Ogid]

6 minutes ago, diki said:

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

The attack is still an  action - I think you are still defending against bullets! (Smashing someone with the handle of a gun is not going to be as effective as bullets!)

That logic doesn't apply... then I guess we shouldn't apply that damage reduction to Spirit Barrage or Arcane Storm because those aren't bullets, right?

That ability only cares about the type of action used, not the fluff behind it.

8 minutes ago, diki said:

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

This is horribly unclear, but the person who targetted you was treating their action as a melee attack when targtting so perhaps this should apply aswell.

This is the perfect example of the kind of mess that reading generates... if you treat the action as a  for both players it's very clear how to apply that.

10 minutes ago, diki said:

Every model has an engagement range based on the range of its longest Action. Gun fighters can treat their   as so i think they can still engage people.

Well... depending on how to read it... If you asume they gain the ability to use a then it's clear.

But if you consider the  actions are still  actions but with a range of 1'' only for the attacker, then it's not that clear because they don't have any , or does they? Again rules messed up for that reading.

13 minutes ago, diki said:

Does it say anywhere in the rules that an action cant be considered both simultaneously?

In the pg22 it says an action can have 1 icon that determines what kind of attack is. 

Also the problem with that "the rules doesn't say I can't" is the rules are writen to give permision, not to forbid something unless that thing being forbiden is being allowed previously; if something isn't stated, you can't do it. I can't declare a attack in the middle of a push because I'm in engagement range in that moment and the rules doesn't say I cannot declare an attack in the midle of a push for example.

So the right question is "Does it say anywhere in the rules that an action can be considered both simultaneously? and the answer is No.

[Myyrä]

4 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Also the problem with that "the rules doesn't say I can't" is the rules are writen to give permision, not to forbid something unless that thing being forbiden is being allowed previously; if something isn't stated, you can't do it. I can't declare a attack in the middle of a push because I'm in engagement range in that moment and the rules doesn't say I cannot declare an attack in the midle of a push for example.

So the right question is "Does it say anywhere in the rules that an action can be considered both simultaneously? and the answer is No.

Quote

Models in Malifaux have many unique rules that override the core rules. When a special rule explicitly contradicts the core rules, follow the special rule rather than the core rule.

Quote

Gunfighter: This model may treat any of its Actions as having a range of 1".

There's the special rule overriding the core rule. Could you maybe drop the empty rhetoric and focus on facts?

[Ogid]

10 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

There's the special rule overriding the core rule. Could you maybe drop the empty rhetoric and focus on facts?

Facts:

• That ability only say the  range icon is changed for the1'' range icon.
• It doesn't say the other player still treat the attack as a  (your reading)

The facts aren't with you.

[Myyrä]

1 minute ago, Ogid said:

Facts:

• That ability only say the  range icon is changed for the1'' range icon.
• It doesn't say the other player still treat the attack as a  (your reading)

The facts aren't with you.

It doesn't say that icon is changed to . It says that one model may treat the icon as .

[Ogid]

2 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

It doesn't say that icon is changed to . It says that one model may treat the icon as .

Yeah, the model with the ability... which is used to modify and action to attack the other player. If you read the pg22 of the rulebook you'll see that those icons are what determine the kind of attack. So if the attacker changes the range of his attack and is using a range instead of a range... it's now a  attack and the other player is defending versus a attack.

Gunsfighter doesn't say the other player still consider the action a  when he is attacked by it; so we asume the "default" behaviour of the defender considering the range of the attack that is targeting it, not what is printed in the other player stat card.

Why should the defender consider an attack with a 1'' range icon a  attack?

Abilities modify how the actions are played, and then those modified abilities are used; the other model only cares about the final (modified ability) targeting them, not the burocracy of the other player.

A related example:

The Ten Thunders Brother have a 1'' range; but it has a bonus action that may increase the range of his  by +1''. When that is active he has a 2'' engagement range. If your logic apply (the other player only care about what is printed on the card, not how the abilities modify it), he could argue that ability only apply to the other model, but for him the attack has a 1'' range so the other player cannot attack him from 2'' or that form his pow the other player only has a 1'' engagement range so he can walk away or charge him.

 

[Adran]

4 minutes ago, Ogid said:

A related example:

The Ten Thunders Brother have a 1'' range; but it has a bonus action that may increase the range of his  by +1''. When that is active he has a 2'' engagement range. If your logic apply (the other player only care about what is printed on the card, not how the abilities modify it), he could argue that ability only apply to the other model, but for him the attack has a 1'' range so the other player cannot attack him from 2'' or that form his pow the other player only has a 1'' engagement range so he can walk away or charge him.

 

That's not really a related example. The wording is different, so the reading suggested by Myrra wouldn't apply to that anyway. (You would need to find something that also stated that this model treats the A as B. The ten thunders don't do that they just increase the actions range)

I think its one of the things that has been made more complicated by making these things easier and removing Sh, Ml and Ca stats from the game. (Other things are clearer, but last edition this was entirely sorted by that)

[Myyrä]

Okay, I'll bite.

9 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Yeah, the model with the ability... which is used to modify and action to attack the other player. If you read the pg22 of the rulebook you'll see that those icons are what determine the kind of attack. So if the attacker changes the range of his attack and is using a range instead of a range... it's now a  attack and the other player is defending versus a attack.

Gunsfighter doesn't say the other player still consider the action a  when he is attacked by it; so we asume the "default" behaviour of the defender considering the range of the attack that is targeting it, not what is printed in the other player stat card.

Why should the defender consider an attack with a 1'' range icon a  attack?

Gunfighter doesn't change the attack action. It changes how one model treats the attack action, because that's what the ability says. I kind of feel like I'm repeating myself here.

9 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Abilities modify how the actions are played, and then those modified abilities are used; the other model only cares about the final (modified ability) targeting them, not the burocracy of the other player.

This is just stuff you made up, not something that is found in the rules.

9 minutes ago, Ogid said:

A related example:

The Ten Thunders Brother have a 1'' range; but it has a bonus action that may increase the range of his  by +1''. When that is active he has a 2'' engagement range. If your logic apply (the other player only care about what is printed on the card, not how the abilities modify it), he could argue that ability only apply to the other model, but for him the attack has a 1'' range so the other player cannot attack him from 2'' or that form his pow the other player only has a 1'' engagement range so he can walk away or charge him.

 

The example isn't related.

[Myyrä]

5 minutes ago, Adran said:

I think its one of the things that has been made more complicated by making these things easier and removing Sh, Ml and Ca stats from the game. (Other things are clearer, but last edition this was entirely sorted by that)

It is related, sure. It also has a lot to do with the fact that the designers chose to rewrite the rules for every model, so it was practically impossible to make sure that all the abilities and actions are as unambigious as possible.

I would like to point out, however, that it wouldn't be difficult to rewrite the Gunfighter ability to actually change the range of the attack for all intents and purposes.

[Ogid]

41 minutes ago, Adran said:

That's not really a related example. The wording is different, so the reading suggested by Myrra wouldn't apply to that anyway. (You would need to find something that also stated that this model treats the A as B. The ten thunders don't do that they just increase the actions range)

37 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

The example isn't related.

I don't think there are more examples like Gunsfighter... I'd check it later.

I used that example because that ability modify the range of his attacks, but it doesn't say the other player consider that attack range increased (in the same way Gunsfighter doesn't say the other player consider the icon change); so If the target of Gunsfighter consider the attack as a  attack, then the other player would consider the TTB attack as a 1'' attack (and then figure out if they can be attacked, the engagement range and so on).

That kind of logic break the game.

37 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

Gunfighter doesn't change the attack action. It changes how one model treats the attack action, because that's what the ability says. I kind of feel like I'm repeating myself here.

That's the problem, you are repeating yourself instead of considering other possible readings.

31 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

I would like to point out, however, that it wouldn't be difficult to rewrite the Gunfighter ability to actually change the range of the attack for all intents and purposes.

It depends on how to read it. I think Gunsfighter is fine as it is, the problem is the wording is unintuitive because the range is what determine the type of action so there is no other way to say that  become a  than saying that ability is treated as having a range. So a FAQ clarifying it would be nice to have, but only because it's unintuitive, not because it's not well worded.

Stating both player treat it as having a  range opens the question of why is this relevant here and forces every ability/action/trigger that modify an ability to include both players in the wording of it.

37 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

This is just stuff you made up, not something that is found in the rules.

That "stuff" doesn't break the game, it's all about this:

12 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Is there any other place in the game where a single attack has two different types depending on the model's perspective?

That would be a very strange thing to infer into the game when there is a simpler explanation (that the melee range makes it a melee attack action when she attacks).

Unless there is some rule illustrating why the simpler explanation doesn't work, the simpler explanation seems favourable to me.

 

[Adran]

2 hours ago, Ogid said:

I don't think there are more examples like Gunsfighter... I'd check it later.

I used that example because that ability modify the range of his attacks, but it doesn't say the other player consider that attack range increased (in the same way Gunsfighter doesn't say the other player consider the icon change); so If the target of Gunsfighter consider the attack as a  attack, then the other player would consider the TTB attack as a 1'' attack (and then figure out if they can be attacked, the engagement range and so on).

That kind of logic break the game.

That's the problem, you are repeating yourself instead of considering other possible readings.

That "stuff" doesn't break the game like your reading does, it's all about this:

 

I don't know of another thing like Gunfighter in the game off the top of my head, but trying to argue that something complelty different does something different doesn't help. Its a different effect, with different wording that means that it wouldn't have the alteration that Myrra is arguing and would work exactly the same way in either outcome.

I don't think the logic does break the game. I don't think it was what is intended, and there are probably some unexpected consequences to it, but if it was the official version it doesn't break anything (that I can see at the moment).  I think it would need more clarification to work that way, but it could.

 

EDIT - I've taken a quick look through Guild cards, and I don't think any of the Similar abilities would work differently on either interpretation. The Art of Undeath does specify that its a replacement, but its also universal (all models will treat it that way).

In Outcasts Buffering kind of forces both players to follow the Treat as a replace rather than just the , where as in Neverborn The hungry land almost sayd it counts as both.

Forever Doomed in Ressers is probably the ability that has the biggest problem with the reading. Followign Myrras reading (if I understand it) The Hanged would flip a Black joker but count it as a red joker. But its opponent wouldn't count it as a red joker and so could still cheat. The hanged is the one that determines its final total which is what matters for winnign the duel though.

 

[Ogid]

14 minutes ago, Adran said:

I don't know of another thing like Gunfighter in the game off the top of my head, but trying to argue that something complelty different does something different doesn't help. Its a different effect, with different wording that means that it wouldn't have the alteration that Myrra is arguing and would work exactly the same way in either outcome.

Different wording but same idea, both player treating an action as having a different range when something modifies the action without including the other player in the wording.

14 minutes ago, Adran said:

I don't think the logic does break the game. I don't think it was what is intended, and there are probably some unexpected consequences to it, but if it was the official version it doesn't break anything (that I can see at the moment).  I think it would need more clarification to work that way, but it could.

"there are unexpected consequences" sounds as breaking the game when there are a simpler and clean explanation. Let's remember the forum guidelines:

Quote

Constructively:  Where there are several ways to interpret the rules; the one that doesn't break the rest of the game will be right.

14 minutes ago, Adran said:

I only know Myrra from discussions here, but its highly likely that Myrra has no in game advantage to this rule outcome and the purpose of the discussion is to ensure that there is a consistent reading of the rules based on what is actually written in the rule book. There are probably as many down sides as there are upsides to that interpretation anyway.

And that's the problem, that rule can be interpreted in different ways that doesn't break the game. That pasionated defense of his reading it's a bit suspicious at least. However I had edited it out before you cited it because it doesn't add anything to this thread.

[Adran]

3 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Different wording but same idea, both player treating an action as having a different range when something modifies the action without including the other player in the wording.

"there are unexpected consequences" sounds as breaking the game when there are a simpler and clean explanation. Let's remember the forum guidelines:

And that's the problem, that rule can be interpreted in different ways that doesn't break the game. That pasionated defense of his reading it's a bit suspicious at least. However I had edited it out before you cited it because it doesn't add anything to this thread.

And its not even the same idea. The ten thunders brothers  action actually changes the range of the action, it doesn't treat it as a different range. You could look at the "sniper "ability that does do that, but I can't think of any time that there would be a difference in outcome in the use of sniper regardless of which way this went.

There are similar "unexpected consequences" on my (and your) reading of the rule, such as Bulletproof no longer working against it. (based on other people who have posted this question else where as well as in this thread) I don't think its game breaking either way.

Until Myrra posted this version I was completely sure of my reading. This reading does work and doesn't break the game. Its less intuitive to me, but that could be because I was sure it worked the other way.

 

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

And its not even the same idea. The ten thunders brothers  action actually changes the range of the action, it doesn't treat it as a different range. You could look at the "sniper "ability that does do that, but I can't think of any time that there would be a difference in outcome in the use of sniper regardless of which way this went.

Where is the difference between changing the range from 14'' to 24''  or treating it as 24'' ? Both are modified actions either way.

1 hour ago, Adran said:

There are similar "unexpected consequences" on my (and your) reading of the rule, such as Bulletproof no longer working against it. (based on other people who have posted this question else where as well as in this thread) I don't think its game breaking either way.

Maybe from a thematic point of view, but not mechanically, and from a thematic pow it can be reasoned. "Bullet proof" for example doesn't necesarily mean the model has balls of stell where the bullets bounce; it could mean he is good at dodging and know how to move to getting hit in less vulnerable areas or that the model is wearing baggy clothes that make harder to aim among other posible fluff explanations (which is probably the intention of the authors because the 3 models with that ability don't look very armored). So that ability could get disabled in mele when the other guy just put a gun right under their nose.

But mechanically it's just a defense versus a type of attack, if the type of attack changes, then some defenses stop/start working versus it. Which cause 0 unintended interactions.

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Until Myrra posted this version I was completely sure of my reading. This reading does work and doesn't break the game. Its less intuitive to me, but that could be because I was sure it worked the other way.

I considered his point of view, but I just saw it so badly integrated within the rules that I discarted it immediately... but maybe I was too vehement in this thread; I tend to harden my position when I meet an inflexible argument like this one...

[Ogid]

An ability that could add some light to this issue: "Mimic" (from Doppleganger or Agent 46)

Quote

...Until the End Phase, this model may treat the selected Action (and its Triggers) as though it were printed on its card...

How would the reading that gunfighter is only treated asby the attacker work into this? Mimic ability says that only "this model" (without naming the other model) treat the action as if it were in his card. According to the reading that the other model only cares about what is written in the other player stat card, we would have a problem because that ability isn't in that stat card.

Mimic is the perfect example than the defender only consider the modified ability, not what is printed in the other player stat card.

[Myyrä]

30 minutes ago, Ogid said:

An ability that could add some light to this issue: "Mimic" (from Doppleganger or Agent 46)

How would the reading that gunfighter is only treated asby the attacker work into this? Mimic ability says that only "this model" (without naming the other model) treat the action as if it were in his card. According to the reading that the other model only cares about what is written in the other player stat card, we would have a problem because that ability isn't in that stat card.

Mimic is the perfect example than the defender only consider the modified ability, not what is printed in the other player stat card.

The other model doesn't care about what is printed in the stat card. It cares about how the ability is written.

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, Myyrä said:

The other model doesn't care about what is printed in the stat card. It cares about how the ability is written.

The wording is the same:

• There is an ability making one model treat a  as a (Gunsfighter)
• There is an action making one model treat an ability which isn't in his stat card as if it would be in the stat card, even modifying its values (Mimic)

Could you elaborate on why the mimic ability make both player consider the modified ability, but not in the gunsfighter case?

[Adran]

1 hour ago, Ogid said:

The wording is the same:

• There is an ability making one model treat a  as a (Gunsfighter)
• There is an action making one model treat an ability who isn't in his stat card as if it would be in the stat card, even modifying its values (Mimic)

Could you elaborate on why the mimic ability make both player consider the modified ability, but not in the gunsfighter case?

I honestly can't work out your argument here. Doppelganger hanger treats herself as having the action so she takes it. The action happens and defenders will defend against the action.

Another model can't mimic the action off of the doppelganger, which actually provides more support for myyras rules. 

[Ogid]

Just now, Adran said:

I honestly can't work out your argument here. Doppelganger hanger treats herself as having the action so she takes it. The action happens and defenders will defend against the action.

I'll try again:

Doppleganger takes an action, modifies it and uses it, the wording of mimic says only the Doppleganger treat the action as it being in its card, but the defender must consider that modified action as one of the Doppleganger's actions and defend versus it, considering all the changes she makes on the action.

Then Gunsfighter, where the model modifies one of his own actions and uses it versus the other player, but in this case according to Myyra we have to consider that only the attacker changes the action but the defender doesn't consider it changed in any way.

Why in one case we consider all the changes made to the action and in the other case there are exceptions.

5 minutes ago, Adran said:

Another model can't mimic the action off of the doppelganger, which actually provides more support for myyras rules. 

How exactly that support his ruling?

[Adran]

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.