Viktoria: Avatar of Slaughter - Yay, Nay?

[Cunning]

You cant make a melee attack if nothing is in your melee range. You can charge if something is out of charge range but in LoS though.

[Cadfan]

Personally, I like their avatar. I don't play Viktorias, but if I did, it would be to play the avatar.

Drop her right in the middle of your enemy's forces. Let her kill absolute everything she can reach. Don't worry about the future. The game usually ends on turn six, and if she's standing on an objective burning 2 hp a round, your enemy isn't taking it.

[Cunning]

I take her in pretty much every list. She takes some thinking about but is lots of fun. One of the more mental avatars.

[Kadeton]

It does beg the question on the wording of "must" (and implied "must") in rules. Is a rule that states "you must do this, or else..." saying that you have no choice in doing that thing, or is it saying that you can choose to suffer the consequences?

Similar situation: Killjoy. You must discard a card when he activates, or else the opponent gets to discard one and activate him instead. Do you have a choice in whether to discard or not if you have cards in hand? I've always played it that you do - perhaps others interpret it differently.

The reason I've played aViks as having the choice is because the ability says they suffer the wounds if they don't take one of the listed actions, rather than if they can't. I'm interested to see a Marshal weigh in on this!

[Cunning]

To me it's because the 2 parts are separate sentences. The 1st says you must do A or B. The 2nd says if you dont do A or B then do C. If it said you must do A or B or C then it would imply a choice.

Hence the example with Killjoy is legitimate.

That's how I was taught logic anyway.

[Kadeton]

Killjoy's wording is very similar:

"Discard 1 Control Card when activating this model. If you do not discard a card, an opposing player may discard 1 Control Card and controls its activation."

By your logic, that would mean the player has no choice in discarding a card if they have one. Is that how it's generally played?

To me, "Do this, or this, or else this happens" is perfectly logical, even if it's constructed as two or more sentences: "Do this, or this. If you don't, this happens." Regardless, appealing to "logic" is a daft way to interpret rules - English is not a programming language.

[Guardian]

Killjoy's wording is very similar:

"Discard 1 Control Card when activating this model. If you do not discard a card, an opposing player may discard 1 Control Card and controls its activation."

By your logic, that would mean the player has no choice in discarding a card if they have one. Is that how it's generally played?

To me, "Do this, or this, or else this happens" is perfectly logical, even if it's constructed as two or more sentences: "Do this, or this. If you don't, this happens." Regardless, appealing to "logic" is a daft way to interpret rules - English is not a programming language.

How is that the same? There is no word "must"...only "may". There is a pretty obvious difference, i think.

[Cadfan]

Killjoy's wording is very similar:

"Discard 1 Control Card when activating this model. If you do not discard a card, an opposing player may discard 1 Control Card and controls its activation."

By your logic, that would mean the player has no choice in discarding a card if they have one. Is that how it's generally played?

To me, "Do this, or this, or else this happens" is perfectly logical, even if it's constructed as two or more sentences: "Do this, or this. If you don't, this happens." Regardless, appealing to "logic" is a daft way to interpret rules - English is not a programming language.

The thing is, if your interpretation is correct, the first phrase is unnecessary.

"Joe must do X at the start of his turn. If Joe does not do X at the start of his turn, then Y."

If that quote means that Joe has the option of doing X or else choosing to let Y happen, then the first sentence can be entirely omitted without doing any damage to the meaning of the quote. While it isn't unheard of for people to write inefficiently, generally, if an interpretation renders a portion of technical text completely redundant, that interpretation should be disfavored.

[Kadeton]

How is that the same? There is no word "must"...only "may". There is a pretty obvious difference, i think.

"Discard 1 card" is an instruction equivalent to "You must discard 1 card".

The thing is, if your interpretation is correct, the first phrase is unnecessary.

"Joe must do X at the start of his turn. If Joe does not do X at the start of his turn, then Y."

If that quote means that Joe has the option of doing X or else choosing to let Y happen, then the first sentence can be entirely omitted without doing any damage to the meaning of the quote. While it isn't unheard of for people to write inefficiently, generally, if an interpretation renders a portion of technical text completely redundant, that interpretation should be disfavored.

Then why use "does not" instead of "can not", which would be totally unambiguous? Using "does not" implies that the case is applied if the model "does" something else, from which it follows that the model is able to do so.

In this case, the first sentence clearly outlines a list of things that, if not done, will have consequences. The second sentence outlines the consequences. Because the required actions are complex to explain (they include subconditions, like you can only charge a model if there are no models already in your melee range), it's simpler to do it in two sentences.

[Serigala]

Both points of view are legitimate, and arguing further won't serve any purpose.

Can I suggest you do indeed take it to the rules forum to get a ruling from a Marshall?

[Cunning]

Okay this had actually previously been ruled. A ruling I even posted on :-/

Here it is http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?25343-Bloodlust-of-the-Masamune

So I was correct you only take 2 wds if you cannot attack or charge. So we're back to aViks being easy to kite and force them to waste their activation.

The moral of the story is keep a low card on you and one of your own models in aViks melee range just in case.

[CrazyCarl]

We're you to have to charge your own model could you not just bash it?

[Kadeton]

The ruling sort of kills aViks for me, to be honest. Still, I never particularly saw the point of them anyway - they kill stuff, but so do the regular Viks. Oh well.

[Cunning]

Really? I think they're still great. Sure you've got to think a lot about placement but their raw power is amazing. Especially in a strategy like Claim Jump.

Try and get near the Claim with that beast sitting next to it.

[DireTrollJake]

I didn't ever see any question in the ruling and read it as explained...I guess I never try to exploit things and have a mind for playing as intended...

[Kadeton]

Really? I think they're still great. Sure you've got to think a lot about placement but their raw power is amazing. Especially in a strategy like Claim Jump.

Try and get near the Claim with that beast sitting next to it.

How is it worse than having both the Viks on the Claim?

[BlueStar86]

Frankly, I'd be more worried about having both Viks there than their Avatar, they've got more wounds, more actions, and they aren't killing themselves by standing there. Sure their weapon does less damage.... until you cast Sisters in Battle: Fury.

There is one exception to this: when you are dealing with large numbers of melee-based opponents, like when Nicodem starts a zombie apocalypse, their (0) action that lets them stb anyone moving toward them makes such problems less of one.

Edited March 28, 2013 by BlueStar86