I have no doubts that the silhouette on the far left is a charr with a gun. I have no doubts that he is an adventurer class. He is NOT a gunner. There is no gunner, there isn’t going to be a gunner. (I might have to eat crow on this but until then…)
The term ‘gunner’ implies a specialist in the use of guns. It’s a very restrictive term. Please allow me to teach by example.
The Ranger is not a Bowyer. He is not solely an expert in all things bows, he is much more well-rounded than that. He is also more than an expert in all things ranged. He is called ranger because he ranges far and wide, exploring the wild, understanding it, living with it. Communion with nature is the Ranger’s thing, not bows, not pew pew, not hurling axes at Ogre groins. (as awesome as that last one may be)
By the same token calling the class that uses guns a gunner is woefully short-sighted and restrictive. I give ArenaNet more credit than that.
As for this:
She’s got a scope on that rifle and is wearing leather armor (It could even be cloth!). That doesn’t mean anything. Who’s to say she’s not an assassin?
Assassin does not equal daggers. Assassin equals assassinations. Daggers in the back, yes, but also poison in your soup, sabotaged vehicles, concealed explosives, and shootings from the grassy knoll.
A gun with a scope speaks more strongly towards an Assassin than it does to any gun-toting lunatic whose only claim to uniqueness is running off half-cocked. (That’s the image that comes to my mind when I see the title ‘Gunner’)
For the record, I’m excited about the addition of guns to Tyria, but there’s little that gets under my skin as much as this insistence that there will be a class devoted to them. Whenever I talk about Assassins I make sure to predicate it with a description. For some people Assassin=WoW Rogue with stun-lock, for some it’s a shadow-formed unstoppable crit-machine, for me it’s a fast mid-to-close range physical damage dealer, possible poisons specialist, and possible sniper.
Using such a restrictive term as ‘gunner’ isn’t fair to Arenanet and it isn’t fair to whatever that ‘class that uses guns but will obviously have some special, unique, and awesome mechanic BEYOND GUNS’ ends up being. ‘Gunner’ to me sounds like nothing more than a gimmick. It’s a “Hey, we have guns now, look at this class it shows you we have guns!”
Please. The Warrior can use a rifle, I get it, there’s guns.
To be perfectly fair, I’m not sold on calling the second soldier a Cleric either. Cleric implies strong buffing and healing. That’s BORING. Magic-weilding Melee is much more broad and interesting.
For the sake of expedience, in the sense that a ranger, as opposed to being all about ranged, is a lover of nature, I’m willing to split the difference with you gunner folks and say the third Adventurer could be a type of engineer, in the sense that he is concerned with all things technological. That opens up the door for steampunk industry and even asura-esque magic-technological mayhem. There’s that predicated description again though. Seems I can’t quite help myself.
I’m also a fan of ‘Swashbuckler’ or ‘Buckaneer’.
So that I don’t end this on a completely sour note, frothing at the poor commenter who inadvertently set off this firestorm (you’re awesome Remedy, don’t let me tell you you’re not, I’m glad you’re here!), what should we call the asuran aesthetic?
The charr we can safely call steampunk, and even further narrow it down by calling it industrial-punk. I’m tempted to label the asura with cyber-punk, but they’re not dealing with circuit boards. What about arcane-punk? Magic-punk sounds too hokey to me.