Atherzon Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 I noticed that the new rulebook says "Players must announce what Masters in their Crews have attached Avatars, but not specifically which Avatars, when announcing their Crew compositions." The phrase "not specifically which Avatars" implies that Masters will have multiple choices for Avatars in the future. This is an interesting implication, and I'm excited to see what they do with this. It gives Wyrd the option to expand the game without adding Masters. Besides just adding minions, they can add Masters, they can add Henchmen, and they can add Avatars for the existing Masters. I've been concerned about how they keep the game evolving without making old Masters obsolete while keeping things fresh, and I think that having new Avatar choices for existing Masters will help. I foresee a future when I can play Lady Justice and choose between attaching the Avatar of Balance, the Avatar of Stoicism, and the Avatar of Corsets. Then again, I could just reading too much into the wording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireTrollJake Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 This was discussed already and I think it was said that it was more worded to intend that only one Avatar could be brought in a brawl. But that could be the beer remembering things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jty3 Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 Darn, I had the same thought! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireTrollJake Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 Yeh...I really hope that the majority of the character drive of the game is in minions...I hated the endless expanse of warcasters and warlocks in Hordes....every year releasing new ones...ugh made it too much of a clusterfudge in the end. Multiple avatar options for the existing ones to go to would be hot tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atherzon Posted August 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 This was discussed already and I think it was said that it was more worded to intend that only one Avatar could be brought in a brawl. But that could be the beer remembering things... Where does it say that only one Avatar can be hired for a Brawl. The rules appear to allow you to attach an Avatar to each Master if you bring to Masters to a Brawl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 Yeah I noticed this too and was intrigued as to why it was worded that way.. all I can say is I guess we just need to wait and see, Wyrd clearly have a plan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nilus Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 No, each master may have an avatar in a brawl The wording is intended to allow the possibility that masters may have more then one Avatar to choose from in future expansions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stern Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 I noticed this while glazing over the manifest rules, I just joked about playing an opponent and saying lady J has an avatar... but which one! my money is on future avatars in expansions for whatever they have planned sounds feasible enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollum528 Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 If I remember correctly, the wording also lends itself for variations off of the same master. So, you could have a Sonnia with different spells that turns into the avatar of conflagaration (I think that's what it's called) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T3tsuya Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 It's probably in there to allow further Avatar options in the future. But remember the Ronin's statcard. "This minion may not be upgraded to a henchman" Just because it's in there doesnt mean it'll be implemented. Unless the next book will allow me to take a Hoarcat as a henchman. In which case, I welcome our new Hoarcat overlords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ispep Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 My first guess would be a "just in case clause". My second guess is "red herring". Eric is probably in his office right now, burried under a pile of GenCon profits cackling about the conspiracy theories this thread will create. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.