Smuggler Colette

[Maladroit]

5 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

There's also the weird issue of tracking damage on the marker.

If the marker is just a copy of colette (and not Colette herself), if it takes damage do you track it? Does it die if you use the same decoy three times and it takes lethal damage over the course of those three attacks?

Pretty sure only models can take damage, Markers and Models are separate in the rules (which is why the decoy marker has to act as though it was a model):

"When a model suffers damage, it loses Health equal to the amount of damage it suffered."

"A damage flip is a variable flip (pg. 😎 that determines how much damage a model suffers due to an effect."

So, as far as I read the rules, markers do not take damage and do not need to record any. Edit to add, so you would get a new damage track for each action . . . for the pseudomodel.

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Maladroit
Finish post

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just now, Maladroit said:

Pretty sure only models can take damage, Markers and Models are separate in the rules (which is why the decoy marker has to act as though it was a model):

"When a model suffers damage, it loses Health equal to the amount of damage it suffered."

"A damage flip is a variable flip (pg. 😎 that determines how much damage a model suffers due to an effect."

So, as far as I read the rules, markers do not take damage and do not need to record any.

But if you're going with the interpretation that the marker isn't being a proxy for Colette, but just becomes a copy with her stat card... Then it can take damage.

[Maladroit]

1 minute ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

But if you're going with the interpretation that the marker isn't being a proxy for Colette, but just becomes a copy with her stat card... Then it can take damage.

Not quite - my argument it is both the marker and a Colette model at the same time, the pseudoColette can take damage, the marker cannot.

[Maladroit]

Just now, Maladroit said:

Not quite - my argument it is both the marker and a Colette model at the same time, the pseudoColette can take damage, the marker cannot.

And as it is only a pseudomodel for the duration of the action, I don;t see why damage would accumulate over several actions.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just now, Maladroit said:

And as it is only a pseudomodel for the duration of the action, I don;t see why damage would accumulate over several actions.

 

I was originally replying to the person who said that the marker is only the marker and not colette.

However, why would damage fall off over time? Once damage is marked on a marker, nothing tells you to remove it. And as a pseudo-colette, it could take that damage.

[Maladroit]

5 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I was originally replying to the person who said that the marker is only the marker and not colette.

However, why would damage fall off over time? Once damage is marked on a marker, nothing tells you to remove it. And as a pseudo-colette, it could take that damage.

(Which was also me) Because you cannot apply damage to a marker, only a model. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

3 minutes ago, Maladroit said:

(Which was also me) Because you cannot apply damage to a marker, only a model. 

But the marker is acting as a model? So why can't you mark damage on it? Are you saying things that would push a model wouldn't work either?

[Maladroit]

1 minute ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

But the marker is acting as a model? So why can't you mark damage on it? Are you saying things that would push a model wouldn't work either?

My argument is  that the marker remains a marker and is also, for the duration of the action only, treated as a Colette model with Colette's stat card. The pseudomodel can take damage - only models can take damage and it's health is reduced. The marker itself does not take any damage. Once the action is over, the marker stops being treated as a model, has no health stat and has taken no damage.   

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Maladroit said:

My argument is  that the marker remains a marker and is also, for the duration of the action only, treated as a Colette model with Colette's stat card. The pseudomodel can take damage - only models can take damage and it's health is reduced. The marker itself does not take any damage. Once the action is over, the marker stops being treated as a model, has no health stat and has taken no damage.   

So what you're saying is that you read the words "treated as this model" to say that it's treated as a different Collette model.

 

[Maladroit]

15 minutes ago, solkan said:

So what you're saying is that you read the words "treated as this model" to say that it's treated as a different Collette model.

 

I didn't read the words "treated as this model" at all. That is not what the card says.  

 

Edit to add: Sorry that sounds a bit curt, I'm trying to pay attention to a seminar at the same time.

What I read was "as though it were this model" to mean that we treat it as a Colette model for the duration of the action. I could be wrong.

[Thatguy]

22 minutes ago, Maladroit said:

a Colette model

I think this is the core of the debate.

Whether it's treated as " a Colette model" or " the Colette model". 

[Maladroit]

2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

I think this is the core of the debate.

Whether it's treated as " a Colette model" or " the Colette model". 

I'd agree with that - I don't think we will get agreement until a FAQ/errate. My contribution was about whether it also remains a marker/dove during the action and then what are the consequences to that - which has now come back around to the original sticking point.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

1 hour ago, Maladroit said:

I'd agree with that - I don't think we will get agreement until a FAQ/errate. My contribution was about whether it also remains a marker/dove during the action and then what are the consequences to that - which has now come back around to the original sticking point.

The action is resolved using Colette’s stat card, and she doesn’t have Insignificant on her stat card. I don’t think there is any permission in the rules to permit a model using two stat cards simultaneously. If “using this model’s stat card” were omitted, I think there would be more argument for the Dove’s Insignificant stopping “Colette” from Interacting. 

[Maladroit]

1 hour ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

The action is resolved using Colette’s stat card, and she doesn’t have Insignificant on her stat card. I don’t think there is any permission in the rules to permit a model using two stat cards simultaneously. If “using this model’s stat card” were omitted, I think there would be more argument for the Dove’s Insignificant stopping “Colette” from Interacting. 

I realise my original post is now on the previous page, but I'm not sure how it has lead to this point. My point was that there are situations in Malifaux where an object is two things at once, just because it is currently being treated as one thing does not stop it being the original thing as well. I was hesitant to post anything because the discussion didn't seem to be going anywhere . . . but thought it was worth raising.

Having said that, I don't disagree on the interaction - a marker cannot take any action, so it seems weird to say that a Dove, which is being treated as a decoy marker, which takes an action as though it was Colette, cannot take an interact action.

[dancater]

5 hours ago, Maladroit said:

The more problematic issue (or maybe this is good) is that the Dove remains a Dove and is acting as pseudoColette at the same time. Implications - things like black-blood damages all models in LOS and range, pseudoColette and the Dove are both in LOS and range and both take damage, same with moving through hazardous resulting in damage/conditions, both pseudoColette and the Dove take damage, same for gaining conditions from hazardous aura's or terrain. That doesn't exactly clear up how defensive trigger damage will work, but I am leaning towards pseudoCollete taking the damage and reducing her health - I don't see what rule means that the Dove takes any damage - either during damage allocation or when the action ends. 

Now this is a truly interesting conundrum. 🤫🤔🤨😪 

This really does need an errata/FAQ. As you are correct, on reading the card the decoy marker- which critically in this case may be a Dove - is the "target" and the wording is"

Target may take a General or Attack Action, as though it were this model (and using this model's Stat Card). Note this wording means that Colette's stat card for Colette and Cassandra's stat card when she uses Upstage as I read it.  

This means the target (Dove) does not vanish, the target may take, so it does not disappear, it may still be effected by AOE damage, including from 1" Black Blood. A Decoy marker is safe, it can't take damage, it has no health/wounds pool, while it is destructible this is not a damage mechanic.

Which means a difficult situation emerges:

1. If the Decoy/Dove is still has a distinct existence during Routine Performance, which the card wording indicates is true, then it should take damage.
2. If the Decoy/Dove is not in existence it can't take any damage, if a Dove, but this needs to be clearly specified.
3. If the pseudo-Colette 'appears' (as I have previously stated is the interpretation I consider strongest) then she should take damage, which means is [1] is also true then damage is applied twice. Seems wrong, reads right.
4. If the action is that a true illusory Colette appears then it will not take damage, it is not actually there, the Decoy/Dove just 'gains' its stat card.

I think intent would seem to push for either [1] & [4] to happen, but this has issues for does is illusory Colette impacted by AOE effects from her original (the actual Collette's) position. So if actual Colette is engaged she cannot use her Phantasmal Prism even if the Decoy/Dove is totally in the open and likewise an engaged Decoy/Dove could use the  Phantasmal Prism as long as Colette was not engaged. Also the illusory Colette is not impacted by any Conditions gained as a 'result' of the action. It finally critically opens the whole Once/turn issue of the Close up Magic trigger, because the model performing the action is not, strictly Colette. Seems wrong.

Alternatively is [2] & [3] are true then this means the more intuitive circumstance exists where the pseudo-Colette is impacted by the AOE table situation which would apply to the decoy/dove, but, you could not Focus the Dove as it is not 'there' to Focus, the focus action would simply impact pseudo-Colette. Although I guess you could move Colette and then if she replaces back does the decoy/dove replace where she is (after moving) of where it was (when it 'vanished' temporarily?).

Neither of these is wholly satisfactory, although I think [2] & [3] likely represents the better rules as intended (but needing slight clarification) and [1] & [4] appears to better represent the strict card wording (but raises many more problems).

The other alternative are even more troublesome [1] & [3] as stated represents double damage jeopardy, which does not seem the intent, although is a likely rare (and avoidable) trap if this is the interpretation. 

While if [2] & [4] are true the ability is potentially hugely more powerful, with no AOE's (although this may include positive ones) which impact the decoy/dove applying, no conditions or damage results impacting the action at all and (again) a question over once/turn actions (although arguably here it is true that once/turn is limited because while the Colette model isn't strictly performing the action neither is any other model).

I really and truly cannot see any simple way out of this rules/language maze where some corner case issue does not arise. Certainly you could clarify it completely in an FAQ but with all the rules which can potentially crop up this may require pages of caveats.

It does need an FAQ to broadly clarify, as soon as possible ideally.

I will be house ruling (and clarifying before each game, advocating in support of) that my opponent and ! play the rules as [2] & [3], as this seems the least likely to be problematic and the most 'fair and balanced' compromise of rules as written and intended applying to corner cases. But yeah this seems to be a genuine rules interaction trap.  

But I am afraid my [2] & [3] compromise raises a whole host of other potential issues. Still the best solution I see until this is clarified is that you communicate clearly with your opponent how the rule should be played and hopefully the difficult interactions are so rare its never an issue anyway (hopefully).

And again, good to work these issues out here and now, because I'd hate to ruin a game by arguing at the table, hopefully this means a little quick communication, clarification and agreement at the start (based on this topic) can prevent that. At least until we gat an FAQ and can then debate the issues the solution raises in their own right.

  

[dancater]

So need to say this to focus my thinking. The critical issues when Routine Performance is used are (in all cases Colette may be Cassandra during the Upstage>Routine Performance action):

• "Where" is Colette on the table in relation to AOE effects such as   engagement ranges and hazardous terrain, is she in the position where she was when she commenced the Routine Performance OR is she in the position of the decoy/dove during the Routine Performance.
• "What" is the Colette model for game purposes which attach to a model (regardless of table location) such as damage and conditions. Does the decoy/dove assume the full characteristics of the Colette model (bringing the relevant conditions and damage with it) and thus be able to gain damage and conditions during Routine Performance OR is the decoy/dove always a distinct thing, separate from Colette but adopting "her" stat card, thus distinct from damage and conditions and where damage and conditions will not apply for the Routine Performance. This is further important for the Once per Turn rule on the trigger for Phantasmal Prism (only for Colette, Cassandra cannot do this action during Upstage) Close Up Magic, if it is the Colette model then the trigger is only ever available once, but if the decoy/dove is not the Colette model then by rule each different model can perform Once/Turn events (allowing the summons potentially to occur with each Routine Performance>Phantasmal Prism+Close Up Magic Trigger).
• "Where" is the decoy/dove in terms of table location (is it removed to a temporary 'null' space or does it remain on the table and subject to table effects - if it remains on table does it remain where it is [effects there apply] OR does it 'switch' temporarily to Colette's location [being effected by the table state in this new position])? 
• "What" is the decoy/dove in terms of marker (decoy) or model (dove) in relation to Colette, does the decoy/dove temporarily co-exist with Colette (so two models simultaneously exist either switching or in the same location) OR instead does Colette replace the decoy/dove (into a null space) for the Routine Performance duration OR does the decoy/dove assume a wholly illusory Colette Stat Card, so the decoy/dove subsumes the Colette stats but remains either a marker (decoy) or a model (dove). Wounds and conditions will only attach to a recognised "what".

For Routine Performance we need to answer where is Colette in terms of table state and location and what is Colette as a model, and we also need to establish the same where and what answers for the decoy/dove target of the Performance.    

[Maniacal_cackle]

7 hours ago, Maladroit said:

My argument is  that the marker remains a marker and is also, for the duration of the action only, treated as a Colette model with Colette's stat card. The pseudomodel can take damage - only models can take damage and it's health is reduced. The marker itself does not take any damage. Once the action is over, the marker stops being treated as a model, has no health stat and has taken no damage.   

I'm not sure what the rules basis is for the damage disappearing, though?

Also raises the issue of what if the marker starts carrying a lodestone for example.

2 hours ago, Maladroit said:

Having said that, I don't disagree on the interaction - a marker cannot take any action, so it seems weird to say that a Dove, which is being treated as a decoy marker, which takes an action as though it was Colette, cannot take an interact action.

The reason is a dove has insignificant. Same way that if you had an ability that said "target marker may take an interact action as though it was a model", the marker would not be able to take the interact action if it had insignificant (such as a Mindless Zombie).

[Caspergad]

@Jordon i think that "once per turn" is the "larger" version of "once per activation", and as the activation hasn't changed to another model, you're still in real colette's activation, hence "once per turn" here also blocks you from doing it more than once per activation, and IF you've already done it with real colette/another dove/decoy then you can't do it again...

 

@Maniacal_cackle I don't see the same problem as you... a marker cannot take damage, so while you say it takes lethal damage, it doesn't matter as it is reverts to being a marker once the action ends and a marker cannot die/sustain damage/have conditions etc. Furthermore why make a point of it being three attacks... it's three seperate actions and between each action you revert to the marker being a marker, so it's pointless to talk about one/two/three attacks, as it doesn't matter.

 

@Maladroit I agree, though I do not think the dove is a dove during the action, so it can sustain more than 2 damage, then when the action ends and pseudo colette as you call her (I like that choice of words) reverts to a dove, the dove sustains the damage then and dies if 2 or damage was given to it while being colette.

 

And I still hold to the argument, that the marker/dove is not a marker/dove during the action so it has mv 6, is significant, has don't mind me etc... how else could it take an action. I really think people are overcomplicating this... same way, how is cassandra a problem, once she takes the action routine performance it is she that is the model and reference for the action and hence she is "this model", so colette card is not in play during cassandras activation for any other part than copying "routine performance"...

[Adran]

41 minutes ago, Caspergad said:

@Jordon i think that "once per turn" is the "larger" version of "once per activation", and as the activation hasn't changed to another model, you're still in real colette's activation, hence "once per turn" here also blocks you from doing it more than once per activation, and IF you've already done it with real colette/another dove/decoy then you can't do it again...

 

Just to say that in general this is wrong based on your assumption that the decoy is not "the Colette" but instead "a Collete". A once per turn action is limited to once per turn per instance of the action. Likewise a once per activation action is limited to once per activation per instance of the action, so Model A can charge in an activation and then it can also obey Model B to charge in the same activation because they are different charge actions. 

 

I think I've summed up the issues in the thread on the rules forum, but to do so here as well

There are 2 readings - The Decoy becomes "the Colette" and the Decoy becomes "a Colette". ( ihope these two states are clear "the Colette is an extension of the model you already have, "a Colette" is a new model that just happens to have the same stat card)

 

If the Decoy becomes "the Colette" then

Damage done to the decoy will damage Colette.

The Decoy is engaged if either the decoy or Colette is engaged. 

The Decoy can use Focus already on Colette, and if it Concentrates it will add the focus to Colette (although I can't see a reason why you would do this)

The Decoy can't target Colette with attack actions. 

Once per turn/activation restrictions apply to actions done by either. 

Auras will affect it if either is in them 

 

if the Decoy becomes "a Colette"

The decoy is only engaged if it is engaged. 

The decoy can do once per turn/activation actions and so can Colette

Damaging the decoy doesn't hurt Colette

The decoy can attack Colette. 

The decoy is not affected by conditions on Colette. 

 

Question unrelated to either - If you use a dove as a decoy marker and make it take an action whilst in Hazardous terrain (or it takes damage/gains conditions in some other way) does that carry over onto the Dove? 

 

Personally I think its "a Colette" and using a dove as a decoy marker won't damage the dove, or allow the dove to gain conditions. 

[dancater]

37 minutes ago, Caspergad said:

i think that "once per turn" is the "larger" version of "once per activation", and as the activation hasn't changed to another model,

This is 100% true if the decoy/dove is treated as the Colette model during Routine Performance. But if in contrast if the decoy/dove is treated as a model with Stats as though it were this model (but crucially it is not the model) then the new model gets a new once/...... suite. I agree that it should be interpreted as that a pseudo-Colette is performing the action and this pseudo-Colette is treated in every way as the model of Colette, thus the once/turn is locked if it has already been used. But I can see an argument for a differing interpretation, that it is a separate and distinct model. An argument that needs to be resolved.

45 minutes ago, Caspergad said:

I still hold to the argument, that the marker/dove is not a marker/dove during the action so it has mv 6, is significant, has don't mind me etc... how else could it take an action. I really think people are overcomplicating this... same way, how is cassandra a problem, once she takes the action routine performance it is she that is the model and reference for the action and hence she is "this model", so colette card is not in play during cassandras activation for any other part than copying "routine performance"...

I agree.

45 minutes ago, Caspergad said:

I agree, though I do not think the dove is a dove during the action, so it can sustain more than 2 damage, then when the action ends and pseudo colette as you call her (I like that choice of words) reverts to a dove, the dove sustains the damage then and dies if 2 or damage was given to it while being colette.

But the question is why does the damage revert to the dove, if it is treated as Colette (the pseudo-Colette) then does not the damage sustained (which is like conditions attached to the model) travel "back" with Colette? Again this is the question I am wrestling with above. With Routine Performance what and where is Colette and what and where is the decoy/dove, almost any interpretation can be made to present a rules in play dissonance.

[dancater]

3 minutes ago, Adran said:

Personally I think its "a Colette" and using a dove as a decoy marker won't damage the dove, or allow the dove to gain conditions. 

The problem is exactly as Adran stated. The key difference being is I think the intention (no rational basis for thinking this, just opinion) is as the decoy/dove acts as the Colette.

But I do disagree with some parts,

6 minutes ago, Adran said:

If the Decoy becomes "the Colette" then

Damage done to the decoy will damage Colette.

The Decoy is engaged if either the decoy or Colette is engaged. 

No, the Colette only has one table location, she is not in two places at once, she is only engaged (or in AOE's or Auras) if the decoy/dove was in a position to be engaged.

7 minutes ago, Adran said:

if the Decoy becomes "a Colette"

The decoy is only engaged if it is engaged. 

Whereas if it is a Colette then there is effectively two Colette's one is 'the Colette' and the other is the a(lternative) Colette produced by Routine Performance and either, both or neither Colette's may be subject to table AOE's and engagements.

Otherwise I 100% agree.

I've explained it as those game effects which attach to the model (damage, conditions) which will always follow to distinct individual model which has that damage or those conditions.

Or

The game effects which are based upon table location, such as AOE's, Auras, Pulses, Hazardous Terrain and other table location effects, these impact whichever models which are within the effect as it exists on the table, it can impact multiple models and models can move into and out of these effects, they do not follow the model. 

So for example if a piece of hazardous terrain which inflicted the Burning +1 condition but also provided concealment. Any model (initially with no conditions) which enters the terrain gets Burning +1, the condition attaches to the model, if it leaves the terrain it is still subject to the condition, but it is not the concealment. While in the terrain it has Burning +1 and concealment. If its activation ends outside the terrain and it does not re-enter later in the game it will not accrue any additional Burning (nor benefit from concealment), if it re-enters the terrain then it the terrain effects occur again. If the model chooses to stay in the terrain and ends its activation inside the hazardous then it has Burning +1 and concealment, next turn (assuming it has not been moved out of the terrain by other effects), it will start its turn in the hazardous gaining another Burning +1 (so now potentially will be Burning +2 if nothing reduced its Burning from the previous round) and it will be concealed, if it moves out of the terrain it loses concealment and retains its Burning (+1 or +2), if it stays in the terrain it retains concealment and next round when it activates the sequence starts again. The difference between game effects which attach to the model and in-game AOE/Auras which are based upon table location. 

[Caspergad]

@Adran ok, thanks for your comments. I think my reading of her card comes closest to what you refer to "a colette"

[Adran]

4 minutes ago, dancater said:

But I do disagree with some parts,

No, the Colette only has one table location, she is not in two places at once, she is only engaged (or in AOE's or Auras) if the decoy/dove was in a position to be engaged.

Whereas if it is a Colette then there is effectively two Colette's one is 'the Colette' and the other is the a(lternative) Colette produced by Routine Performance and either, both or neither Colette's may be subject to table AOE's and engagements.

Otherwise I 100% agree.

I've explained it as those game effects which attach to the model (damage, conditions) which will always follow to distinct individual model which has that damage or those conditions.

 

 

So you feel that the Original colette model is sort of treated as "not there" for the routine performance action (Colette has "transfered" to the decoy marker in effect, and should not be treated as in her original location. I can sort of see it but it feels as a stretch to get there from the wording we have. 

Other than that, I have no problem with the game effects (except I think you use M2E rules for hazardous activating when a model activates but the point would still stand.)

[dancater]

47 minutes ago, Adran said:

So you feel that the Original colette model is sort of treated as "not there" for the routine performance action

I see your point. 

You treat the first situation as a "the Colette" where there are two models intrinsically linked so what effects one also effects the other. So it is, in effect, not the only Colette, but a linked projection of an image of Colette.

This is a two Colette's but only one model. Which frankly sucks.

In contrast my framing treated the decoy/dove as a projection of Colette, not linked to Colette but a temporary (for the duration of the Routine Performance) a pseudo-Colette, where the pseudo-Colette is in all ways Colette, with the original as an anchor the image will return to. 

In this there is one effective Colette, where the other is a temporary anchor for the projection. I think mechanics wise this is cleaner. But I do see your point, but this severely weakens Routine Performance, it is a strong interpretation but it drives the discussion into either severely limiting and complicating Routine Performance where there is only one Colette in two places, subject to all sorts of combing and stacking game effects, and thus I agree it seems a poor option.

But in contrast that leaves the alternative two Colette framing of the decoy/dove becomes "a Colette", separate and distinct from the true-Colette whose Routine Performance created it. This option seems exceptionally powerful, it would transfer across (nor carry back) no conditions, it would only be subject to limited table effects (notably you could toss a decoy into hazardous terrain and Routine Performance into that terrain with imperviousness) and it potentially allows you to summon three Doves/Colette turn, which seems not rules as intended. I mean I love Colette, I like the idea but it seems a bit broken.

In this case an interesting question arises, if Colette Routine Performances to a Dove, the a(lternative) Colette is not the true-Colette what happens to the wounds and conditions on that Dove at the time the Routine Performance commences? Any wounds and conditions suffered during the Routine Performance cannot effect the distinct Colette, so do they effect the Dove (which unlike the Decoy can be effected)? What if the Dove is stunned or staggered is this the case for the a(lternaitve) Colette then?

The fact that Colette can target Doves with Routine Performance is what really adds layers of complexity, it multiples the 'what if this or that' scenarios.

 

[Adran]

11 minutes ago, dancater said:

In this case an interesting question arises, if Colette Routine Performances to a Dove, the a(lternative) Colette is not the true-Colette what happens to the wounds and conditions on that Dove at the time the Routine Performance commences? Any wounds and conditions suffered during the Routine Performance cannot effect the distinct Colette, so do they effect the Dove (which unlike the Decoy can be effected)? What if the Dove is stunned or staggered is this the case for the a(lternaitve) Colette then?

Honestly, I feel this question need to be asked regardless of which version you go for (As you can see, I stated it as an unrelated question at the bottom, and also gave my answer).