Spartan31337

oh. i'll shut up now.

After playing catch-up, and reading everyone’s posts since I’ve been here last, I guess my opinion is this: Since the avatar, no matter which Vik is replaced, can make a healing flip, it means that when it is manifested the avatar is activated (since it is the one making the flip), thus if it replaces the Vik that made the (all) action it is done after the flip (which I think we all agree on). If it replaces the unactivated Vik, then it doesn’t get any general AP (as the unactiveted Vik never generated any, and the Avatar is already activated), but I think that it would get the 0 and the +2 Melee Master AP. This was suggested by someone above, don’t remember who (and don’t feel like looking it up), but I think that this is the best compromise between RAI and RAW. As far as the “wording on card is that 1 is replaced and 1 is removed” vs “both are replaced and thus both subject to replace rule”, the only thing that gives me pause as to Omen’s argument is that the wording on the card is different than the wording in the rule such that you can replace the unactivated model, where as I think with the replace rule it is working on the assumption that an activated model is being replaced (the activated model is replacing itself with something, which is possibly not happening in this case). Coming from Warmahordes, and the rules system that is used, if one effect is supposed to have the same effect as another, then the same name is used; for instance the spells Chain Lightning and Ashes to Ashes – these two spells are very similar in nature (both generate d6 attacks, both require attach role for the initial hit) but the way they work is subtly different; if it was intended that they work the same they both would have been called Chain Lightning (or ashes to ashes). In this case, I think that if “replace both Viks and subject them to the replace rule” was meant, then that’s what the card would say (replace both Viks). But since the card says “replace 1 vik and remove the other”, it’s rather muddy. I guess my point is that if the card was supposed to mean “replace both” then that’s what it should say, given other cards out there state that when that is what the card means. Or, on the manifest steps, it should say something like “this model may immediately make a healing flip, then its activation ends.”. But I could be completely wrong. as such, i think i'll take omen's example, and play how i stated above until either a) my opponent strenuously disagrees or there is a ruling (finally) on it. you'd think that after almost a year of debate that this issue could be resolved; there aren't any new points being brought up and all that has to happen is a decision that "this is how it is going to be played: blah". i'd settle for a coin flip at this point.

in your above example, following the same arguments, you wouldn't even need the companion chain. in fact, i would think that once the 2nd vik (the one that is being replaced) is removed, the companion chain would be broken, and your opponent would get to activate before the avatar, no? as in your steps, at step 7, the avatar being a brand new model that was not nominated in the original "activation" step (step 1). right? it seems that the issue is in two camps right now: camp one (as argued by Omen) is that the intent (RAI) is to use the Replace rule on both Viks, so that the (all) action to manifest the avatar carries to the avatar so avatar cannot activate the turn it comes out. camp two (as argued by FearLord and lately Tograth) is that the Replace rule never really comes into play as the Rules on the card (RAW) state that you are only replacing one model, which is the one that is not using (and thus, as the argument goes, unaffected by) the (all) action, and the avatar is, in fact, a brand new model that has every chance to activate on its own. personally, i can see both sides. i can see that since the replace rule requires the replacing model (the avatar) to continue the activation of the replaced model (Vik2), that the avatar would not get general AP (because Vik2 never received any). course, that leaves the question of does it get the melee master/zero actions. i don't think that you could companion the avatar as explained above (it was never nominated in Tograth's step 1). i can also see that since the avatar would be a brand new model, replacing a model that never had the chance to activate, you could activate it normally. it seems that in this scenario, the replace action is almost acting more like a summon (if i'm understanding the summon rules right) in the sense that it could activate like a newly summoned model (albeit without the slow penalty). i think a Marshall needs to chime in as these are two really different arguments; it's not really an interpretation thing as much as which rule would apply (i think). out of curiosity, since the previous thread went unanswered, is there a flare we can throw up or something to catch their attention? i personally don't have a vested interest in which answer is correct, as i am just starting the game (i would though like an answer for when i play). i will say that i am enjoying seeing both sides of the argument present their cases, and that actual rules and such are being quoted. i don't know enough about the game rules to side with one or the other, so thank you to everyone who has contributed so far.

given the fact that all other parties that have participated and/or posted in this thread have understood what it was about (no one has asked "what are you talking about man??"), seems to me there's something wrong with your comprehension skills : ) let's not get insulting here. i was actually thinking the same thing. it really wouldn't limit the tactical decisions by a whole lot, and would be much clearer. alternatively, if it said "choose one Vik's location to place Avatar, replace both Viks with avatar" or something along those lines.

taking the stance that the avatar comes in with 0 action points (which i think is correct), and leaving the (all) penalty off the table for now (which i'm still hung up on for the reasons listed above, namely the wording on the card regarding manifesting; however i think it is how it should be played anyway) for the sake of argument, would it still get the +2 from melee master/ 0 actions?

now that you put the errata out there, i would agree with the "avatar with 2nd vik". i think that they could have worded the card better, rather than having to dig through multiple rulebooks/errata, but at least it has been explained so that i understand. the argument that the main opponent made in the original thread was either flawed or not well stated, i think. as far as the "replacing" argument goes, i'm still a bit hazy on that one, as per the card you aren't "replacing" both viks, just the unactivated one (you are "removing from play" the activated one that spent the (all) action) so i don't see why the penalty from the activated one should transfer to the unactivated one (as the activated one is removed and the other unactivated one is replaced). but i get the companion argument since the unactivated one never gets its ap in the first place, so there's nothing for the avatar to use (same instance if you didn't companion, the unactivated one never gets its ap)..... Thanks Omenbringer for helping!

that was rather my take on it. i don't think the comparison between aViks and the coryphee is valid, since the cards say different things. i guess the main thing is when does a model gain its AP; when it "activates" (so with companion, all models in the companion chain would have all their AP when the companion chain is declared, since all models "activate" simultaneously) or when you actually start doing stuff with the models (moving down the companion chain). in the first case, aViks would hit the table will full 2 AP (plus the 2 ap from melee expert); in the latter case, it would hit the table with 0 ap (as the model that it is replacing - the unused Vik - hasn't "gone" yet, so didn't receive the AP yet). i guess i'll just play it that it can activate (and recieve AP) as i think the first case is correct (due to the wording in companion) until an infernal (or whatever they are called by Wyrd rules guys) gives a ruling on it, since that seems to be the RAW.

as a new Viks player who recently purchased the avatar, i was reading this rules discussion here: http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?26694-Manifesting-the-Viktorias-Avatars-of-Slaughter/page7&highlight=aviks looks like it became inactive in april (which is why the new thread, i don't want to necro), and since the outcome seems relevant to what i am starting, i wanted to know if any official ruling was released? the gist of the arguments is that the viks can use (all) action after companioning, replacing the vik that didn't use the (all) action with the avatar so the avatar can activate will all its AP, while the counter arguments states that, well, they can't.

i'm just getting into Malifaux, and am enjoying it so far. i am trying to figure out what models to get next. so far i have: Lady Justice Box Sonnia Criid box Pertida Box Guild Austringer Witchling Handler Enslaved Nephilim What should i look into picking up next? i am thinking guild dogs, possibly Lucius (to help with certain strategies, but not sure how necessary), and in the future Criid's avatar. Scales of Justice? what would you experienced types suggest?