Avatars - a step too far?

[dunce002917]

It's not so much the dying that bothers me, it's the fact that they seem to get purchased for the express purpose of being killed by your own crew! But that's not going to stop me using a desperate merc in my Kirai crew for exactly this end...

Well, bad things happen in Malifaux... so let's do our best to NOT be a desperate mercenary....

At least for my Sonnia crew, they become Witchling Stalkers... I dunno if that's a fate worse than death..

[eudaimon]

The biggest thing for me is the 2 ss cost to attach the avatar.

As has been said by many people, at best the avatars are a side grade for most masters, and in other situations they are incredibly situational. For many masters, you directly sacrifice their core competancies, and that means you lose lots of the synergies you have with your crew.

In my local gaming group, no one ever plays with an avatar, despite us all having avatar models for our masters. We all tried them, but really can't justify the 2 ss cost to attach something which may well be detrimental to your play, will mostly be something that doesn't have that much of an impact, and only rarely will be a benefit (yes yes yes, I know that some avatars, most noticably aRamos are awesome, I am talking about avatars as a WHOLE).

If an errata was released that removed the 2ss cost, I think you would see many more manifestations, the game would be much more colourful and fluffy, and Wyrd would sell more models!

[Forar]

The obvious problem with eliminating the 2ss cost is that it would make those Avatars that are generally considered to be awesome to be auto-includes at likely zero penalty.

Yes, I'm sure there'd still end up being situations where being forced to transform would be detrimental to a given game, but for those select Avatars that are already awesome, this could well cause a balance issue, especially when they do work in one player's favour, meaning they've now gained an edge over their opponent for 0ss, who is in turn paying 0ss to take something that *might* be good at some point.

Basically what I'm saying is that such a move might simply exacerbate the issue.

[Tiny]

In my local gaming group, no one ever plays with an avatar, despite us all having avatar models for our masters. We all tried them, but really can't justify the 2 ss cost to attach something which may well be detrimental to your play,

Roy doesnt use avatar mcmourning? amateur!

[i_was_like_you]

If you're worried about the 2ss cost, maybe offset that by taking one less Scheme.

Sometimes it's far easier to deny an opponent their VP from their Strategy and / or (announced) Schemes than it is to try to take that second Scheme (or third in a Brawl).

Considering some of the manifest requirements are practically schemes in their own right (while others, like Ramos' make a spider and an electrical creation, are practically gimmes), it makes sense to focus on either manifest requirements or your Schemes, and then use your manifested avatar to finish up your Strategy.

[This would be part of where avatars make the game more advanced, just by trying to track your master's manifest requirements and your Schemes and your strategy, all while trying to deny your opponent all of the above.]

Hiring your master's avatar does paint a target on its head, and there isn't much that is more disappointing in a game than to have your master die without manifesting, especially if you were relying on the avi for completing your Strats and Schemes.