Avatars - a step too far?

[graeme27uk]

Reading about some Avatars, it seems that manifesting them is a bad idea.

Surely, the idea of avatars was/is that they should be better than the Master from which they came. Even if it involves changing how the master plays, they should be better so that going through the trouble of manifesting is actually worth it.

Or have I got that wrong?

[Ratty]

Slightly, having an Avatar that vastly changes the Masters playstyle can be just as valuable as an Avatar that is slightly better than their Master.

For example look at Rasputina, A master that is great at range, but you hardly want the enemy up in your face. If you attach an Avatar, You don't actively try to get Manifest Requirements as early as possible, it fairly easy to pick up one of them just in your natural play style. Then if things get dicey you can change to a version which is much more able to survive up close to the enemy.

In other words some of the Avatars are worth the 2ss to have options in play. Just having one attached means that the enemy has much more issues predicting what you are able of doing.

[graeme27uk]

So would you say that avatars are worth their 2SS cost? I read that Pandora's avatar is considered a down-grade, so why would you want to take that?

I can see the point if an avatar changes the play-style of a master, but if its less effective in that play-style then is it worth the cost? Rasputina is good at casting ranged damage, and her avatar is a melee character. I get that, but I've read that her avatar, whilst better than non-avatar Rasputina in melee, is not really that great compared to melee non-avatars elsewhere.

Avatar models are great, it would be a shame if their rules didn't match so they see little table-top presence.

[nilus]

So would you say that avatars are worth their 2SS cost? I read that Pandora's avatar is considered a down-grade, so why would you want to take that?

Don't trust everything you read on the internet. Take a look at the models stats and see what you think they are good for. Avatars were never meant to be upgrades, just play style changes. They general have a boost in power but at the expensive of another ability.

[JackRussel]

I like them, some are just for fun and others help bring some masters up to par in my opinion. Plus the models look awesome so I don't get what's not to like.

[Ratty]

Pandora Avatar Rocks... I can remember one game where I was in deep trouble... I had to hold the center of the board, Hordes of Zombies all over me, Avatar Nicodem firing Decay onto me via the Zombies. I was in deep trouble..

Manifested Pandora, all the zombies routed and ran for the hills. Sweet as.

[cerealkiller195]

wyrd has said repeatedly that avatars are a power step side ways, they aren't meant to be "epic" as in other games as far as power. They aren't over the top just give you options in game.

Maybe i'm biased but i loved playing ramos before, now that his avatar is out it changes him from a mediocre caster to an better summoner/melee fighter with a few tricks.

[tadaka]

Second on APandora being good just look at it this way it turns her in to a master with 4 general action points 2 casting expert points and 2 0 actions. People just look at half of it being stuck in one spot as no good. Play her well and she proves to be very solid.

[rancor709]

Oh the Avatars. They are 2 stones for options, some of them have niche uses, some of them like Ramos/sonnia make them stronger more versatile pieces. Others provides them some options they don't normally have but could help situation-ally. Bottom line your not behind the 8 ball if you dont' have them unless you play Ramos or Sonnia Cridd.

[Cadfan]

So would you say that avatars are worth their 2SS cost? I read that Pandora's avatar is considered a down-grade, so why would you want to take that?

I can see the point if an avatar changes the play-style of a master, but if its less effective in that play-style then is it worth the cost? Rasputina is good at casting ranged damage, and her avatar is a melee character. I get that, but I've read that her avatar, whilst better than non-avatar Rasputina in melee, is not really that great compared to melee non-avatars elsewhere.

Avatar models are great, it would be a shame if their rules didn't match so they see little table-top presence.

You need to take a step back and consider the game in its entirety.

First: An avatar that changes a master's play style halfway through the game is automatically a power upgrade, even if the avatar form is flat out weaker than the original master. This is because it gives you the option of playing one way early game when that way is best, and then customizing yourself to a new situation part way through the game. Rasputina is a good example: her avatar form is basically a giant insurance policy against melee attackers that only costs two soulstones. Or consider Colette: Her avatar is an insurance policy against the death of the Coryphee and Cassandra. Very few avatars are actually designed to be manifested as rapidly as possible. Most are intended to be manifested at the perfect moment.

Second: In Malifaux you create your list after you see your strategy, and after you see the board. For avatars that are better in certain situations rather than others, you can just take it when its needed, and not take it when it isn't. So Pandora's avatar roots you in place... ask yourself: Is this a game where that's actually useful? Or harmful? Then take it or not, based on the situation.

Third: Avatars only cost two points. They aren't supposed to be more useful than having two soulstones in your cache.

[dgraz]

And then there was AMarcus.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

[Hatchethead]

I'm not a super fan of manifestation requirements. The process should be simple and consistent. If I had my way, manifestation would occur as follows (for all Avatars):

Turn 1: Not permitted to Manifest.

Turn 2: (all) Manifest

Turn 3: (2) Manifest

Turn 4: (1) Manifest

Turn 5: (0) Manifest

Turn 6: Manifest is an optional, free action.

I realize that some Avatars are balanced by how difficult they are to manifest, but I really don't care for that. I dig what they bring to the table, I like the notion of a situational "sidegrade", but I don't like manifestation requirements stealing focus from what Malifaux is all about: Strategies and Schemes.

Just my two bits.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Hatchethead

[nix]

There was mention somewhere that the Avatars were also supposed to add an "advanced" factor to the game. Adding in one or two additional manifest objectives adds to that "advanced" nature.

[Sybaris]

The fact that Avatars haven't become auto-include into lists makes me believe that Wyrd was successful in creating a system variation without too much change in the balance of the game.

It would have been easy for them to really push the sale of the expensive models by making them super cost-efficient and/or powerful in comparison to normal masters. But instead they have made avatars a tactical choice with pros and cons.

[SpiralngCadavr]

I'm not a super fan of manifestation requirements. The process should be simple and consistent. If I had my way, manifestation would occur as follows (for all Avatars):

Turn 1: Not permitted to Manifest.

Turn 2: (all) Manifest

Turn 3: (2) Manifest

Turn 4: (1) Manifest

Turn 5: (0) Manifest

Turn 6: Manifest is an optional, free action.

I realize that some Avatars are balanced by how difficult they are to manifest, but I really don't care for that. I dig what they bring to the table, I like the notion of a situational "sidegrade", but I don't like manifestation requirements stealing focus from what Malifaux is all about: Strategies and Schemes.

Just my two bits.

I agree that I'd prefer something more straightforward (partially because I'm a relatively new player, so am wary of adding yet more rules to my games), but, I think that, far from changing focus, the objective-driven manifestation requirements feel entirely in line with the semi-narrative, objective-based system I've been playing.

[notmikehill]

I'm just gonne piggyback on everybody and say it's a playshift from the normal style of a master. Take Levi for example: That master is super slow and lacks mobility. Once he manifests, he has gained mobility through the manifest.

Same story with Pandora, she's a highly mobile model but once she manifests, she is literally grounded, making her perfect for holding objectives.

[graeme27uk]

Take Levi... his avatar benefits from having the riders around. So if people are wanting to take his avatar then they are going to want to take riders. But having riders (more than 1) is not going to do non-avatar Levi any favours...

[magicpockets]

Take Hamelin. Without his avatar he can kill everything, with his avatar he can - oh, wait....

[Fetid Strumpet]

AHHHH, but you see he kills everyone in a different way! *wink*

[Sandwich]

Yeah, non Avatar he has to do it one at a time.

With Avatar he does it all at once.

;D

I kid I kid I kid

[ooshawn]

I do like the idea of doing away with manifesting requirements. It seems like it would balance a few things out. Taking it a step further i think the healing flip needs to be free and not cost a ss.

[Mike3838]

I think manifest requirements fit well as mini objectives, but some need rethinking. I'm talking about those that basically just say "You must waste 1AP in turn 1/2 on a useless action, and then you can manifest". There's no tactics involved, just AP sacrifice and possibly a cheated card.

Im talking things like Seamus having to cast Face of Death twice when there's no enemies nearby, and similar.

Mike

[nix]

To be fair, he does not have to cast it on turns 1 and 2. You could wait until it made sense to cast the spell instead of wasting the activations.....

Just making a point, not that I actually play that way. With aSonnia, I actually build part of my crew around getting a benefit from doing my manifest requirements early.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Taking it a step further i think the healing flip needs to be free and not cost a ss.

Dunno about doing away with requirements, but I like this. That rule seems sort of odd, as it stands.

I'm talking about those that basically just say "You must waste 1AP in turn 1/2 on a useless action, and then you can manifest". There's no tactics involved, just AP sacrifice and possibly a cheated card.

Yeah, I feel like 1 moderately difficult and interesting objective is better than 1 of them maybe feeling tacked on.

[Requirement]

Yeah, I feel like 1 moderately difficult and interesting objective is better than 1 of them maybe feeling tacked on.

You can already manifest with only one requirement done. It uses AP as well, but then, sometimes it just makes sense to manifest. There are very few instances where I would say "Man, I would never actually do that in a game" while looking at the manifest requirements.

I like the idea of making the healing flip not cost a soulstone... but as it stands I also look at it as an AP free healing flip... so there is already some benefit involved.