aViks issue resolved or no?

[Spartan31337]

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.

[pixelante]

After navigating this thread I have come to a solution that does not break or twist any of the rules as they stand at this time.

When you activate Viktoria #1 and use ALL to manifest the avatar you have a choice to manifest the avatar by replacing Vik #1 or Vik #2. If you opt to manifest at Vik #1 then the avatar performs the healing flip and ends its activation in accordance with the rules for an ALL activation. If you replace Vik #2 with the avatar then you can use the 0 AP and Melee Master 2+, but Vik #2 had not generated any general AP so the avatar will not have any general AP to use. This is in accordance with the rules for replacement.

Companion does not enter into the equation as Omenbringer was quite correct in pointing out that a model does not generate AP until it is selected in the companion chain which Vik #2 would not be as she is being replaced with the avatar.

Unless a rules marshal says otherwise this seems like the best solution.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I agree with Omenbringer on this point, but the inelegance of the wording I agree does make this a grey issue. I would personally rule it in the more restrictive way in any events that I run until a RM issues the definitive ruling.

[Kadeton]

Fair enough, but the majority of people between the two threads disagree with you, so it obviously isn't very clear to most people...

My impression was that basically everyone is in support of Omenbringer's suggestion of how the manifestation should work, regardless of whether or not they agree that it's supported by the cards. At that point, the only argument is whether that clear intention is enough to convince people to ignore their own conflicting interpretations of the rules as they are written.

[pixelante]

Omenbringer's stance is that the Avatar of Slaughter cannot use any AP general or otherwise on the turn a Viktoria uses an ALL action to manifest the avatar.

The opposite stance was that the Avatar is a summoned model and generates its own AP which is in clear contravention of the rules for replacement and is thus invalid, because the rule clearly states that the replaced model continues the activation without interruption.

Another stance was that you could use companion chain to give the Avatar two general AP, but this is also a clear violation of the companion rule. This is because the either the Vik not using the AP is passing and thus loosing the AP generated or is replaced/removed before she can generate the AP.

The last stance, as far as I can tell, is that it if the Vik that used the ALL is the model being replaced then the Avatar ends its activation with the healing flip, but if that Vik is the one removed then the Avatar can use the 0 ability and 2+ melee mater. I don't see anything wrong with this stance, but I'll accept the ruling if it goes Omenbringers way.

[Adran]

so, to follow through the steps:

1) declare the viks are companioning

2) check for effects that mention on activation. Skip this step as the viks have nothing.

3) viks 1 activates and gains all of its AP. It is not paralysed, so it goes on to step . At this point, viks 1 has 1 melee expert AP, 2 general and 1 0 AP. Viks 2 has no AP at all.

4) viks 1 takes the [all] manifest.

5) avatar viks is placed in base contact with viks 2, and replaces it. Viks 1 is removed from the game, and the viks 2 model is also removed.

6) at this point, viks 2 would activate. As avatar viks, as an entirely new model replaced viks 2, it slots into the companion chain here

7) avatar viks checks to see if it has activated yet. Its a brand new model, ergo, no.

8) avatar viks checks to see if it has any on activation effects, and then proceeds to take its activation.

the wording on the manifest action is quite specific in that one viks is replaced and the other is removed. As there is very definitely no restriction on which one this must be, the above trick is plausible. This is because despite the viks activating together and acting as a pair of models in general, they are still individual models. They each generate their own AP, and each can exist without the other being on the table.

Your problem is you have step 6 wrong

The rules currently have it as

step 6

The Avatar as the replacing model, continues the current activation. It is not an entirley new model, it is replacing a current model. It does not start its activation, so it does not generate AP.

I agree that I think the intent is if a Vik makes an all action to manifest, it shouldn't be able to activate, but they aren't the current rules we have. The current rules though do prevent it from having AP if you do choose to do that.

With regards to Pandora and CAndy, I will confess to not havign looked at those rules in any detail, but my gut feelign would be that you should continue the activation using Avatar Pandora, and then actiavte Petulant Candy with 0 AP (she can only perform 0 actions if the original candy hadn't already used them).

Finally, just to muddy the water a little as I'm not sure they are relevent rules, but they cover a similar situation.

From the new buried rules

Models that were activated through a simultaneous activation (Companion, for example) but have not yet spent their AP are considered to have started their activations, and therefore their activations end immediately when buried.

These are the only rules I found the relate to affecting something that has started a simultaneous activation but not yet generated AP. I believe it confirms that Vik 2 has started her activation when she gets replaced. At least when doen in a companion chain.

[FearLord]

Your problem is you have step 6 wrong

The rules currently have it as

step 6

The Avatar as the replacing model, continues the current activation. It is not an entirley new model, it is replacing a current model. It does not start its activation, so it does not generate AP.

I agree that I think the intent is if a Vik makes an all action to manifest, it shouldn't be able to activate, but they aren't the current rules we have. The current rules though do prevent it from having AP if you do choose to do that.

With regards to Pandora and CAndy, I will confess to not havign looked at those rules in any detail, but my gut feelign would be that you should continue the activation using Avatar Pandora, and then actiavte Petulant Candy with 0 AP (she can only perform 0 actions if the original candy hadn't already used them).

Finally, just to muddy the water a little as I'm not sure they are relevent rules, but they cover a similar situation.

From the new buried rules

Models that were activated through a simultaneous activation (Companion, for example) but have not yet spent their AP are considered to have started their activations, and therefore their activations end immediately when buried.

These are the only rules I found the relate to affecting something that has started a simultaneous activation but not yet generated AP. I believe it confirms that Vik 2 has started her activation when she gets replaced. At least when doen in a companion chain.

Yours is the most compelling argument Adran - mostly because it is difficult to prove whether or not a model is supposed to complete the current activation once it has been replaced without getting into an argument about intent, so I'd like to see this ruled on personally...

My view is that the wording around completing the activation only applies where the active model is being replaced (as the replacing model has "taken the place" of the replaced model and would therefore complete its activation). I think this wording should be ignored when an inactive model is replaced, as it is unable to complete the activation of a model it hasn't placed (as for something to be completed, it must have begun in the first place) - but as I say, this is difficult to prove without information from the designers and is more of a "Gut feeling".

It isn't helped by the fact that very few models can be replaced outside of their own activation - Candy, the Petulant Youth and Avatar Viktoria being the only ones I can think of off the top of my head - I get where you are coming from with Candy, but it just seems messy and not really supported by the rules. I would certainly argue that the opponent should get to activate between Pandora Manifesting and Candy's activation - and I suspect people will have been playing it that Candy gets to activate normally if she hasn't activated before she is replaced, and she doesn't get to activate again if she had activated prior to being replaced... That would certainly make the most "sense" for Candy and if the same logic is applied to the Viks then it should work the same way...

The Buried rules are interesting, and I could see the same logic being applied here if the Viks companioned (in which case the replaced Vik could be consider 'the active model'), but obviously has no relevance when they don't companion. As mentioned earlier, I would really not be comfortable saying that the Avatar could take the second Vik's place in a companion chain anyway, as I wasn't sure that could carry over, so I have mostly been looking at this from the perspective of the Avatar being able to activate later in the turn with its normal AP...

It would be good to get a ruling on this though, as there are obviously multiple questions here that still need to be resolved...

[pixelante]

That is a very good point about replacing an inactive model, but it is still a replaced and not a summoned model. This is something that needs to be addressed by the rules marshals as this is a new twist that hasn't been covered in the rules.

In the case of Candy I would like to say that she would activate as normal if she had not already done so. But then why wouldn't this apply to the second Vik manifesting as the avatar?

I think you both deserve a thanks for finding the crux of the issue.

[DarcXON]

And yet we have no badges on this. I fear that this is a lot more intense than it should be.

[Omenbringer]

As I hinted at in my last post, this is something that was first mentioned over a year ago. Hopefully the "Fix" will be released with the promised Hamelin ones.

[Spartan31337]

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.

[FearLord]

A model doesn't have to be activated to make a healing flip...

[MudgeBlack]

A model doesn't have to be activated to make a healing flip...

When Manifesting

[Spartan31337]

oh. i'll shut up now.

[FearLord]

When Manifesting

Or at other times - see abilities like Yamaziko's 'Invigorate' or Candy's 'Sweets'...

[Keltheos]

Badge time.

The rules for Manifesting apply to the model performing the Manifest Action in every case. Therefore, when Vik 1 (whatever) Manifests, SHE is the model performing the Manifest and then the Avatar continues from where Vik 1 left off with AP. In the case of Vik 1 performing an (all) Manifest the Avatar would have no AP remaining. The other Viktoria is removed from the game and is not considered in the resolution of what APs remain.

As for the wounds application, the wording is such because of the simultaneous nature of things. You can't apply wounds to a model not yet in play, but you need to remove both models to have the Avatar appear, therefore the wounding sequence should (for those who need it spelled out) read more along the lines of:

1. Total wounds suffered by both Viktorias.

2. Replace the Viktoria performing the Manifest Action with the Avatar.

3. Remove the other Viktoria from play.

4. Apply the wounds total from 1 to the Avatar.

5. Avatar performs a Healing Flip.

6. Avatar continues its activation with whatever AP it had remaining from the Viktoria performing the Manifest Action.

[nerdelemental]

LOL! Keltheos badge ninja'd me!

[Omenbringer]

Thankyou for the resolution for this particular interaction.

[FearLord]

Badge time.

The rules for Manifesting apply to the model performing the Manifest Action in every case. Therefore, when Vik 1 (whatever) Manifests, SHE is the model performing the Manifest and then the Avatar continues from where Vik 1 left off with AP. In the case of Vik 1 performing an (all) Manifest the Avatar would have no AP remaining. The other Viktoria is removed from the game and is not considered in the resolution of what APs remain.

As for the wounds application, the wording is such because of the simultaneous nature of things. You can't apply wounds to a model not yet in play, but you need to remove both models to have the Avatar appear, therefore the wounding sequence should (for those who need it spelled out) read more along the lines of:

1. Total wounds suffered by both Viktorias.

2. Replace the Viktoria performing the Manifest Action with the Avatar.

3. Remove the other Viktoria from play.

4. Apply the wounds total from 1 to the Avatar.

5. Avatar performs a Healing Flip.

6. Avatar continues its activation with whatever AP it had remaining from the Viktoria performing the Manifest Action.

Thanks for clearing things up - just to be completely clear though, are you saying that the active Vik is always the one replaced when you perform the Manifest action (i.e. the Avatar will always be placed in contact with the one that performs the manifest action)?

EDIT - Also, what happens with Candy when Pandora Manifests?

Edited December 2, 2012 by FearLord

[Keltheos]

Correct. The aViktoria peforming the Manifest Action is always the one replaced.

I'll get back with the Candy Q this evening. What specifically is the question there?

[FearLord]

Correct. The aViktoria peforming the Manifest Action is always the one replaced.

I'll get back with the Candy Q this evening. What specifically is the question there?

Re: Viks - thanks for the clarification - will that make it into the next errata update?

Re: Candy - If Pandora Manifests while Candy is in play, Pandora is replaced by Pandora, Avatar of Insanity and Candy is replaced by Candy the Petulant Youth. The Replace rules specify that the model replaced continues the activation.

a) Assuming Candy had not already activated, when does Candy the Petulant Youth activate?

Assuming Candy had already activated, does Candy the Petulant Youth get to activate, and if so, when does she activate?

c) Does the AP used by Pandora when Manifesting impact on Candy in any way?

[Guy in Suit]

I can go buy aVikkies now! Yay!

[Korrosion]

Re: Viks - thanks for the clarification - will that make it into the next errata update?

Re: Candy - If Pandora Manifests while Candy is in play, Pandora is replaced by Pandora, Avatar of Insanity and Candy is replaced by Candy the Petulant Youth. The Replace rules specify that the model replaced continues the activation.

a) Assuming Candy had not already activated, when does Candy the Petulant Youth activate?

Assuming Candy had already activated, does Candy the Petulant Youth get to activate, and if so, when does she activate?

c) Does the AP used by Pandora when Manifesting impact on Candy in any way?

These Candy questions are relevant to my interests.

[Sheijtan]

Correct. The aViktoria peforming the Manifest Action is always the one replaced.

Thanks for the answer, but I think that takes quite some opportunities here. I would have liked at least to replace the second one, even if I did not have all my actions with her then, only the Melee Master attacks.

I think that would have been a better trade-off.

[Adran]

Its probably bad form to quote yourself, but it stands very strongly in context.

The moral of the story is avatar with the second Viktoria.

That way you get 3 Viktoria actions and still a Manifest (all) action.

The first Viktoria can even complete a manifest requirement.

Its a shame about not getting the placement choice that the writing implied, but with the arguements the wording seemed to cause, the ease of this is probably worth it.

[FearLord]

Yeah, I have no problem with it for the sake of a simple life, so long as it is Errataed / Clarified so the wording doesn't cause confusion.

Regarding the Candy question, the answer will also effect Simiculum 29 if a Flesh Construct was in play when McMourning manifested - I think these 2 are the only occurrences of a model being replaced by another model while not active...