Thanks. I want the rules to be as clear as possible, so when I notice something like this, I bring it up here.
There are plenty of times where I just want to be sure I understand something, but sometimes it’s more of a “This shouldn’t work, right?” situation.

I don’t see why anyone would be confused when the start of BCF says “when this character hits and would deal normal damage”. Mind Control says for one, “Instead of dealing normal damage” do this and for two, the character given the CLOSE action is not the character with BCF so it’s not activating. So there are two reasons against any trying to justify a loophole. This just doesn’t make sense to even be argued about. I am seeing a lot of confusion here though about simple basic game mechanics though.

It doesn't say the Blades character needs to be the one given the action though, hence this thread. The CLOSE action for Mind Control hasn't resolved yet, so if the Blades character hits and deals normal damage it should, as the rules are written, be able to use Blades/Claws/Fangs.

Since CLOSE in all caps is a game term now, it may be best to use something else for emphasis... like a close attack, for example.

I guess I can now see how the wording isn’t the greatest but I really can’t stand when players try to find stuff like this when it’s very obvious what the intent of the game mechanics are. Like Wolverazio said, if it’s a new white box power or trait or something of that nature that’s questionable, I get a discussion about it. This though, anyone who has been playing for a while who looks to justify something like this knowing that the intent is for the character given the CLOSE action to be the one to use the BCF, I just probably prefer to not sit down at a table with you.

I don’t want to use this loophole! I never had any intention of doing so.
I stumbled upon it by accident, and I decided to ask the question here to point out the loophole, so that it could be closed.

Isn’t it better to discuss this here and now, before a more competitive player discovers it on their own and tries to use it in a tournament?

I get that you don’t want to use this loophole however you did bring it to everyone’s attention(that includes loophole players)and you are arguing for it. I understand that you would just like the language cleared up it just seems in this case that nobody, including players always looking for loopholes, thinks that this is the way this would or should work. I will say that I have players at my venue that do bring these situations to the table often and sometimes I wonder if people can just play the game the way it’s intended to be played rather than trying to find ways to break it. I play competitive also so I also understand that exploiting combos and understanding exactly how things work is part of it all but this just seems really ridiculous.

What loophole Mind Control only provided a close attack or ranged attack not the CLOSE or RANGE one needs for B/C/F to trigger

This seems to still be confusing people...maybe I can help...

A uses Mind Control as a CLOSE on B. B then attacks C. Since the Mind Control has not resolved yet, B is making an attack during a CLOSE action (the Mind Control). The definition of Blades COULD be interpreted as being usable during that attack, because the attack happens during that CLOSE Mind Control action.

Oh boy.....

I don't Think anyone in this thread actually wants it to work this way or plan to exploit it. We are simply acknowledging that the current wording seems to allow this interaction. If it is not the intent (and it most likely is not), the wording should be adjusted.

Off the top of my head, a fix could be to adjust the Blades wording thusly:

BLADES/CLAWS/FANGS WhenIf this character hits and would deal normal damage duringwhen given a CLOSE action, you may roll a d6. If you do, deal damage equal to the result instead of normal damage. Minimum result is this character’s printed damage value -1.

I think the initial “when” needs to be there to make sure it works properly with Flurry. Maybe something like this:

“When this character hits and would deal normal damage during a CLOSE action it was given, you may...”

It’s not particularly smooth wording, but it should get the job done.

I mostly removed the first "when" to not have two of them in the same sentence. It's just aestethics really. But yeah, coming up with concise and accurate wording can be tough.

Yeah, I figured. I was playing around with a few wordings, but I couldn’t find anything better.

Oh, I see you're talking about the character DOING the mind control and not the character being Mind Controlled