Two issues (so far) raised by the forthcoming Smuggler Colette.

[dancater]

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

For Reference:

[dancater]

Question 1 concerns:

How Disengage operates around the Now You See Me.... ability.

Disengage is an action to withdraw from combat which allows an opponent to make a attack to prevent such a move (or in limited cases do more). After that attack if Colette has a decoy marker within in 4" she can Now You See Me and place, removing the marker.

So Colette is engaged in melee and the disengage is required, the attack and its consequences occur, then afterwards as the enemy attempts to land a blow it is revealed that this was an illusion all along, or Colette and she then switches with an illusion, as the case may be.

The successful disengage may result in movement useful (for example getting Colette within 4" of a particular decoy marker) or mean no Now You See Me is necessary preserving the decoy marker. 

The unsuccessful disengage may cause all sorts of issues for the Colette player, including damage and effects if the opposing model has the (rare) Wicked trait. 

In essence Colette in engagement is both real and illusory, and that illusion is not revealed until some attempt at physical contact is made (the attack). Both Colette and the illusion will 'act' normally, attempting to preserve the mirage, hence the required disengage, feels consistent to me.  

Is this a valid and correct interpretation?

[dancater]

Question 2 concerns:

How Routine Performance interacts with Phantasmal Prism and the Close-Up Magic (Once/turn) summon Dove trigger.

The wording of Routine Performance is, the target decoy marker takes an action (here including the attack Phantasmal Prism) "as though it were this model". 

One way to read this is that as though it were the model means it is treated in all ways as that model, which would limit the action to once/turn. No issue, one dove summon/turn from Colette (and an additional possible from Cassandra, see below, as a different model entirely). This limits the Colette/Cassandra combo to either summon 2 decoy markers and a dove or 2 doves and a decoy marker.

But it would also mean the targeted Decoy Marker would have all the auras and conditions that Colette has (it is the Colette model, if only temporarily), anything which happens to it would happen to Colette.

Also Colette could not attack with a  action while engaged and thus neither could illusory Colette, regardless of the decoy markers board status. 

Sadly I do think by strict language as written this is the correct interpretation. It makes sense in some ways and not in others. It is clearly less powerful in regards to Colette's options and flex.

Alternatively;

So another way to interpret this language is the decoy marker takes the action as if it was the model, it is not the actual model. The decoy becomes an quasi-Colette, as I stated earlier an illusory version of Smuggler Colette with her stats and the relevant general and attack action options, but the decoy is not the model. 

Thus, it does not have the the bonuses or negatives Colette herself has from conditions or auras (unless the decoy is within an aura, obviously it cannot have a condition at all). 

Interestingly this should also mean, because Routine Performance can apply from any decoy marker regardless of range or LoS (and is not a  action), an engaged Colette can still use Routine Performance to generate a Phantasmal Prism attack from a illusory decoy even when Smuggler Colette is herself engaged.

The 3E rules clearly state A model can only take an Action or Ability that is once per Turn once on any given Turn, and that multiple models with the same action can each use it. The decoy marker takes the action as though it was, it is a different model, Colette and the illusion exist simultaneously.

So by this reading you could use Phantasmal Prism with Colette and through Routine Performance through temporary illusions through her decoy markers and once each time the  trigger to summon a Dove would be live.

And of course Doves count as decoy markers, so by my reading you could, assuming Smuggler Colette is by herself with no decoy markers or Doves on the table: activate Colette Bonus Action Smoke and Mirrors to drop a Decoy Marker, 1-AP Phantasmal Prism +  trigger to summon a Dove, then 2nd AP Routine Performance (targeting either the decoy marker or dove) Phantasmal Prism +  trigger to summon a Dove, then 3rd AP Routine Performance (targeting either the decoy marker or dove) Phantasmal Prism +  trigger to summon a Dove. In one turn, by herself, summoning a Decoy Marker (needs 3 any suit), a Dove (needing a target within 8" and to hit with ), then Routine Performance another Dove (needing an unsuited 4 then a a target within 8" and to hit with ), then Routine Performance another Dove (needing an unsuited 4 then a a target within 8" and to hit with ). So you can summon a decoy marker and 3 doves needing, at a minimum, 6 cards, an unsuited 3+, two unsuited 4+ and three Attacks 6+ card (needing ) vs Wp attacks.

Cassandra also can also use Upstage to burn 1-AP and her Bonus to summon a Decoy Marker.

So on a table with no decoy markers or doves Colette and Cassandra could with the right table state and cards summon 2 Decoy Markers and 3 Mechanical Doves for the cost of 7 cards total, 3 of which must be (likely high) 's for the requisite trigger. Leaving Cassandra with her Nimble move AP and one other AP available.

This interpretation is clearly more powerful. It also makes narrative/theme sense in some ways, but not in others, especially when you consider the Shell Game trigger on her I discussed earlier. I actually prefer how this one works in terms of what I think is actually happening, regarding the decoys being separate quasi-Colette's.

We 110% will need this clarified, even outside the summoning trigger it has consequences regards engagement, conditions and auras.  

 

[dancater]

Question 3 concerns:

How Colette's Routine Performance Magical Flourish and Shell Game trigger operate.

So my reading, Shell Game is a trigger on Colette's melee attack.

You attack the ENEMY model, hit and get the  trigger. Then you can place that model, as I read it, into base contact with any friendly decoy marker within 8" and LoS of Colette.

If you use Routine Performance and make an attack through a friendly decoy marker then that marker is as though it were this model so the marker is, for all intents and purposes Colette for the duration of the melee attack, if "she" hit the  trigger then the enemy model could be placed into base contact with a friendly decoy marker within 8" and LoS of "Colette" (that marker 'is' Colette). For the duration of the attack Colette is the decoy marker, the 8" and LoS would be measured from the location that the decoy marker occupied. 

An alternative, and I think highly problematic, reading is that the Decoy Marker remains a marker but temporarily subsumes Smuggler Colette's stats and the melee action. The result is if one hits the Shell game trigger the placement and LoS is drawn from the Colette model herself, not from the decoy marker subsumed by Routine Performance. This presents incredible scenarios for moving enemy models all over the place as Colette can attack from a decoy (or dove of course) anywhere on the table and then yank that enemy to a totally different marker (or dove) within 8" and LoS of where her model is (so potentially she could be in one corner with a decoy/dove 8" away, she could then attack an enemy through a decoy/dove in the opposite corner of the table, hit the trigger and move the model across the length of the table, this seems ridiculous and outside the rules as intended).

This also needs to be clarified, mainly though in how it entangles with the larger question 2 above. 

 

[dancater]

I think the thorniest (likely least directly to occur in a game but has the most implications) is question 2. 

The critical question, really in question 2 & 3, is how to interpret the words as though it were this model  in Routine Performance. 

Is the Decoy Marker still a decoy marker but with Smuggler Colette's stats and relevant action? I think no.

Does the Decoy Marker "become" a version of Smuggler Colette with her stats and the relevant action, but importantly is separate and distinct from the Smuggler Colette model herself? I think maybe.

Does the Decoy Marker "become" Smuggler Colette for the duration of Routine Performance to perform the relevant action, for all intents the marker is the model for a limited time? I think this is the most likely and reliable reading. 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

“As though it were this model” should act as though Colette herself were located at the location of the marker for the  resolution of the action. Otherwise, the once per turn of Close-up Magic is easily ignored as each “Colette” would have the ability to use the trigger once per turn. 

Using the above interpretation, dove summoning isn’t broken, prevents her from doing 30”+ repositions, and she can use gun attacks as long as the marker isn’t engaged. So I agree with your third option: the marker “becomes” smuggler colette.

[Jordon]

23 minutes ago, dancater said:

Does the Decoy Marker "become" Smuggler Colette for the duration of Routine Performance to perform the relevant action, for all intents the marker is the model for a limited time? I think this is the most likely and reliable reading. 

If this was indeed the case, then what about the non-decoy Colette? I assume the "real" Colette exists at the exact same time as the decoy. So how do you resolve things if "this model"/Colette are in fact two models.

If your saying that "real" Colette is engaged, then how does that work if the decoy is not engaged? If both are in fact Colette, then it doesn't really make sense. You can't be both engaged and not engaged.

If you take the stance where you ignore the "real" Colette while resolving the action, then your sort of creating a unique Colette and getting away from this interpretation.

[dancater]

Yes, as much as I love the thought of illusions summoning Doves I think you're right, option 3 is best interpretation. But, note..

3 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

she can use gun attacks as long as the marker isn’t engaged.

Colette also couldn't use her  attack if SHE was engaged, even if the decoy was not, the decoy is treated as her with all conditions, auras and restrictions that would apply, including engagement.

Likewise the table situation of the relevant decoy marker, whether it was engaged or within any auras would be ignored. 

It becomes problematic if both apply. And if one applies it has to be the table situation as it applies to Colette.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

1 minute ago, dancater said:

Yes, as much as I love the thought of illusions summoning Doves I think you're right, option 3 is best interpretation. But, note..

Colette also couldn't use her  attack if SHE was engaged, even if the decoy was not, the decoy is treated as her with all conditions, auras and restrictions that would apply, including engagement.

Likewise the table situation of the relevant decoy marker, whether it was engaged or within any auras would be ignored. 

It becomes problematic if both apply. And if one applies it has to be the table situation as it applies to Colette.

The marker acting as Colette takes the gun action, it is not engaged. Engagement is not something permanent like a condition or ability, it is a constant check. If Colette is treated as existing at the marker’s location and is not engaged while existing at the marker’s location, she can make a gun attack.

[dancater]

3 minutes ago, Jordon said:

If your saying that "real" Colette is engaged, then how does that work if the decoy is not engaged? If both are in fact Colette, then it doesn't really make sense. You can't be both engaged and not engaged. If you take the stance where you ignore the "real" Colette while resolving the action, then your sort of creating a unique Colette and getting away from this interpretation.

Exactly.

This is my issue. Both option 2 & 3 work but creates their own issues. Option 2 allows for summon spam and so forth. Option 3 creates a which/where/when issue, so if Colette becomes the decoy marker can she be engaged as one, but not the other? Which auras would apply? If Colette has conditions do they count for the decoy?

So while option 2 is potentially in its own way exploiting a rules hole, by treating the decoy as a separate illusory Colette it resolves the which (the illusion)/where (where the decoy marker is)/when (for only the routine performance) issue.

Option 3 prevents the summon loophole (if it is one and not intended) but opens that huge question of the which/where/when issue, of whether Colette/decoy-Colette is impacted in one table situation (either Colette or decoy-Colette) or in both.

[dancater]

1 minute ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

The marker acting as Colette takes the gun action, it is not engaged. Engagement is not something permanent like a condition or ability, it is a constant check. If Colette is treated as existing at the marker’s location and is not engaged while existing at the marker’s location, she can make a gun attack.

This would also apply to auras. They are constantly checked. 

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

[Jordon]

If your treating the decoys as if they were an exact copy of Colette herself then it has to be a two way street.

The decoys are not engaged -> the decoys ARE Colette -> They are not considered engaged.

However the opposite still also applies.

Colette is engaged -> The decoys ARE Colette -> the decoys are considered engaged.

Its a paradox

[dancater]

1 minute ago, Jordon said:

If your treating the decoys as if they were an exact copy of Colette herself then it has to be a two way street.

The decoys are not engaged -> the decoys ARE Colette -> They are not considered engaged.

However the opposite still also applies.

The decoys ARE Colette -> Colette is engaged -> the decoys are considered engaged.

Its a paradox

Not if you play the rules as the difference between ongoing effects (which carry across) and temporal effects which can change moment to moment. Then the Colette can be in one place for the instant of Routine Performance and another for the remainder of her turn.

As PiersonsMuppeteer states. This would resolve the paradox, or at least the worst of it. 

[Jordon]

1 minute ago, dancater said:

Not if you play the rules as the difference between ongoing effects (which carry across) and temporal effects which can change moment to moment. Then the Colette can be in one place for the instant of Routine Performance and another for the remainder of her turn.

As PiersonsMuppeteer states. This would resolve the paradox, or at least the worst of it. 

I think I understand.

So in the example of Colette being engaged, but a decoy not being engaged. She could still use her Phantasmal Prism because she is not considered in that original location (and would be subject to any auras and board effects of this new location and not benefit/suffer from ones where the "real" Colette are unless they happen to also tag the decoy marker). Just for the duration of that action. 

Any conditions and status effects would carry over to the decoy because it is in a new location, not a new model. She cannot charge if she has already done so. She cannot declare an additional "once per activation/turn" triggers if she has already done so earlier in the activation.

Anything she gains while in her decoy (conditions or other effects) would be carried back to the "real" Colette after the decoy action resolves.

Is that basically it?

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

33 minutes ago, Jordon said:

I think I understand.

So in the example of Colette being engaged, but a decoy not being engaged. She could still use her Phantasmal Prism because she is not considered in that original location (and would be subject to any auras and board effects of this new location and not benefit/suffer from ones where the "real" Colette are unless they happen to also tag the decoy marker). Just for the duration of that action. 

Any conditions and status effects would carry over to the decoy because it is in a new location, not a new model. She cannot charge if she has already done so. She cannot declare an additional "once per activation/turn" triggers if she has already done so earlier in the activation.

Anything she gains while in her decoy (conditions or other effects) would be carried back to the "real" Colette after the decoy action resolves.

Is that basically it?

Yes. I think anything else would equate to either an Ice Mirror/Reva like effect, which Routine Performance’s wording is completely different from those, or break “Once per Turn” limitations affecting Colette.

[Plaag]

3 hours ago, Jordon said:

If your treating the decoys as if they were an exact copy of Colette herself then it has to be a two way street.

The decoys are not engaged -> the decoys ARE Colette -> They are not considered engaged.

However the opposite still also applies.

Colette is engaged -> The decoys ARE Colette -> the decoys are considered engaged.

Its a paradox

still even if MARKER is engeged-it still can shoot, because it is a marker; marker can walk,  because how enemy could atack marker?)

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

22 minutes ago, Plaag said:

still even if MARKER is engeged-it still can shoot, because it is a marker; marker can walk,  because how enemy could atack marker?)

Not during Routine Performance resolution. The maker is performing the action as a model, so the marker would still need to disengage to leave engagement range, can’t shoot if engaged, can’t interact if engaged, can’t charge if engaged, etc. The defense that it’s a marker so it can do irregular things during actions doesn’t work since markers can’t perform actions, hence why it has to act as if it were a model.

[dancater]

1 hour ago, Plaag said:

still even if MARKER is engeged-it still can shoot, because it is a marker; marker can walk,  because how enemy could atack marker?)

Exactly, normally the marker obeys all the rules appropriate to markers.

But for the nebulous temporal duration of the Routine Performance tactical action, performed by Smuggler Colette, the decoy marker (normally only a marker with the associated rules) is treated exactly as though it was Colette. See: 

4 hours ago, dancater said:

The wording of Routine Performance is, the target decoy marker takes an action (here including the attack Phantasmal Prism) "as though it were this model"

So while the decoy marker is not normally engaged for the moment that it becomes Colette through Routine Performance, and for the duration of that entire action, it is Colette, so it can be engaged. 

In relation to conditions and other ongoing effects Colette "carries" them, the model Colette has the ongoing effect for its normal duration regardless of her location, whether she is in her "normal" location or the illusory Colette as a decoy marker during Routine Performance. The condition effects Colette the model regardless of location.

In relation to temporary effects, which are measured at a moment in time based on table situation, such as engagement, auras and similar effects these constantly change and are determined depending on board state. So "normal" Colette may be engaged or within auras. Then the illusory Colette decoy marker is in a different table location and is impacted at that moment (during Routine Performance) by the table state (engagements and auras) of the location of the illusion, so the decoy marker. The auras and engagement ranges do not effect Colette per se they effect an area of the table top which Colette occupies (and for routine performance Colette occupies the location of the decoy marker).

   

[eddy]

Lets change her title to "Colette Schroedinger Cat" 🤣

[Adran]

8 hours ago, dancater said:

Question 1 concerns:

How Disengage operates around the Now You See Me.... ability.

Disengage is an action to withdraw from combat which allows an opponent to make a attack to prevent such a move (or in limited cases do more). After that attack if Colette has a decoy marker within in 4" she can Now You See Me and place, removing the marker.

So Colette is engaged in melee and the disengage is required, the attack and its consequences occur, then afterwards as the enemy attempts to land a blow it is revealed that this was an illusion all along, or Colette and she then switches with an illusion, as the case may be.

The successful disengage may result in movement useful (for example getting Colette within 4" of a particular decoy marker) or mean no Now You See Me is necessary preserving the decoy marker. 

The unsuccessful disengage may cause all sorts of issues for the Colette player, including damage and effects if the opposing model has the (rare) Wicked trait. 

In essence Colette in engagement is both real and illusory, and that illusion is not revealed until some attempt at physical contact is made (the attack). Both Colette and the illusion will 'act' normally, attempting to preserve the mirage, hence the required disengage, feels consistent to me.  

Is this a valid and correct interpretation?

I think you have confused the issue here talking about real and illusionary, which is the flavour of the action but not relevant to the rules. As far as the rules are concerned the Colette model is the real model. 

There are 2 options here (and this applies to disengage and butterfly jump, and disengage and wicked with triggers, so its not a new problem, its just rare that Disengage actually gets used in these circumstances, and I expect this one will be just as rare). 

You either resolve the disengage action completely and then can resolve the effects that occur after the attack, or you can resolve the after attack options (but not new actions) at the point you have resolved the attack, and then complete the disengage action. 

I can't see anything in the rules that supports one or the other. As long as you are consistent, I don't think there is a huge difference. (yes you will get different outcomes depending on which way you do it, but one is not automatically better than the other.) 

Just please don't try and take a disengage action with routine performance...

[dancater]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Just please don't try and take a disengage action with routine performance...

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

1 hour ago, Adran said:

You either resolve the disengage action completely and then can resolve the effects that occur after the attack, or you can resolve the after attack options (but not new actions) at the point you have resolved the attack, and then complete the disengage action. 

I can't see anything in the rules that supports one or the other. As long as you are consistent, I don't think there is a huge difference. (yes you will get different outcomes depending on which way you do it, but one is not automatically better than the other.) 

This seems reasonable. 

[Adran]

Question 2/3

There are several abilities that allow a model to draw range/LOS from a spot other than its model. None of them use this wording. 

How does this wording change the outcomes? 

Firstly - the marker is treated as "The Colette".  This allows the interact action to drop a marker in base contact with the decoy marker. The marker can move. The action will use resources from Colette, such as focus, and count toward her activation as once per activation actions. Bad effects that happen to the marker will happen to Colette. Engagement will occur if either Colette or the marker is engaged. 

Secondly - the marker is treated as "Also Colette". The interact actions will drop in base contact with the decoy marker. The Marker can move. The action can't use Colette's focus/distracted. Only the position of the marker will matter for engagement and auras. Bad things don't transition back to colette. 

 

So really the only differences between the two are (that I can see but feel free to correct me if I have missed something

Can you use the resources (Focus/distracted/aura effects) from the real Colette?

Is the model allowed to do a once per activation thing if Colette already has?

Do bad things that happen to the marker happen to Colette?

EDIT - Missed one. Two

Can the decoy marker attack Colette? sometimes you just want the 4" place from magical flourish right?

If a decoy marker uses the Close up magic trigger, can the same decoy marker use the close up magic trigger in the same turn? (Basically does it become the same Colette each time? this is obviously only a question if you are following the "also Colette idea)

 

I don't know the answer. 

 

I'd like to add a question 4 about using a Dove in a Routine Performance

Can this Colette make a Dove interact? (Regardless of the outcome to the above things).

And if the decoy dove does an action in hazardous terrain does the dove suffer the hazardous effects?

In effect does Colette "becoming" the marker entirely overwrite the doves card for the purpose of the action. 

[Thatguy]

7 hours ago, Adran said:

I'd like to add a question 4 about using a Dove in a Routine Performance

Can this Colette make a Dove interact? (Regardless of the outcome to the above things).

And if the decoy dove does an action in hazardous terrain does the dove suffer the hazardous effects?

In effect does Colette "becoming" the marker entirely overwrite the doves card for the purpose of the action. 

I think this is a pretty big question too. Does the Dove/Decoy stop being a Dove/Decoy during the action?

I think this is probably biggest for the Dove, as it could mean that the Dove would also take damage from things like Hazardous. But it also would inform whether Colette could use the Dove it targeted with RP as a soulstone for the action RP generates.

There might also be some Decoy maker corner cases. Like say Colette uses a Decoy to hit a Bayou Smuggler with Magical Flourish. Would it be able to use Drag Behind on the Decoy marker? And if the answer is yes, could it cause the Colette to take Hazardous damage?

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

12 hours ago, Adran said:

Question 2/3

There are several abilities that allow a model to draw range/LOS from a spot other than its model. None of them use this wording. 

How does this wording change the outcomes? 

Firstly - the marker is treated as "The Colette".  This allows the interact action to drop a marker in base contact with the decoy marker. The marker can move. The action will use resources from Colette, such as focus, and count toward her activation as once per activation actions. Bad effects that happen to the marker will happen to Colette. Engagement will occur if either Colette or the marker is engaged. 

Secondly - the marker is treated as "Also Colette". The interact actions will drop in base contact with the decoy marker. The Marker can move. The action can't use Colette's focus/distracted. Only the position of the marker will matter for engagement and auras. Bad things don't transition back to colette. 

 

So really the only differences between the two are (that I can see but feel free to correct me if I have missed something

Can you use the resources (Focus/distracted/aura effects) from the real Colette?

Is the model allowed to do a once per activation thing if Colette already has?

Do bad things that happen to the marker happen to Colette?

 

I don't know the answer. 

 

I'd like to add a question 4 about using a Dove in a Routine Performance

Can this Colette make a Dove interact? (Regardless of the outcome to the above things).

And if the decoy dove does an action in hazardous terrain does the dove suffer the hazardous effects?

In effect does Colette "becoming" the marker entirely overwrite the doves card for the purpose of the action. 

I think this might be the most clear of any of the multiple interactions of Routine Performance. Marker performs the action as if Colette using Colette’s stat card. Neither have insignificant, so the Decoy marker should be able to interact regardless if it is also a model with insignificant since it is not performing the action as a Dove. I think you would have to show how Colette’s stat card would gain insignificant when causing a Dove to interact to disallow the marker interacting, and I’m not sure you can with the current rules.

[Adran]

5 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

I think this might be the most clear of any of the multiple interactions of Routine Performance. Marker performs the action as if Colette using Colette’s stat card. Neither have insignificant, so the Decoy marker should be able to interact regardless if it is also a model with insignificant since it is not performing the action as a Dove. I think you would have to show how Colette’s stat card would gain insignificant when causing a Dove to interact to disallow the marker interacting, and I’m not sure you can with the current rules.

Whilst I agree that the dove used as a decoy marker should be able to interact, the onus is on proving the insignificant on the dove doesn't apply to allow that. It is at least an easier argument than the mindless zombie in a field of corpses counting to score points because I can argue that I am replacing everything on the dove card with the Colette card for the purpose of this 1 activation, so it no longer has insignificant. 

[Caballero]

I have got another question.

Would a decoy marker walking through a Routine Performance activate Mechanical assistant from a Mannequin?