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.

[Clement]

Actually, if the card just reads "this Viktoria is replaced" we'd also be free and clear, assuming I'm following the argument correctly.

[Kadeton]

You can not replace both models with a single model so this doesn't really solve the issue.

When taken in a vacum (i.e. only reading the card) it is a bit muddy (as I stated earlier) however when you look at it thru the context of the rules for Replacing, Simultaneous Activations and the Action Point rules for (All) actions it is much clearer.

Could the lanuguage be a bit clearer on the manifestation steps on the card yes, but would it be worth adding a few lines to the card just to clarify a very unique circumstance (that could be resolved by reviewing the referenced rules).

You absolutely can replace multiple models with a single model - the Replace rules are set up to allow any number of models to replace any number of models. Steampunk Arachnids swarming together are explicitly all replaced by a single Swarm, for example (though they're also sacrificed, which is a weird throwback to earlier rules revisions).

Again, I absolutely agree with you on the way it should be played. The card, for no good reason, gives instructions that are both absolutely clear and completely contrary to that intent, and should be changed. All it needs to say is that both models are replaced - this is not a "very unique circumstance", because multiple replacement happens all the time, and is covered perfectly well in the existing rules.

Clement's suggestion (this model) would also work just fine, though it would ever so slightly limit the tactical options of the manifestation - easily overcome in actual play.

[Spartan31337]

Its taken me three pages to work out what this thread is about which tells me there is something fundamentally wrong with your communication skills.

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.

Actually, if the card just reads "this Viktoria is replaced" we'd also be free and clear, assuming I'm following the argument correctly.

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.

[FearLord]

Worrying about what the rules could have said and what the design intent was is really neither here nor there at this point - in the absence of an Errata or a clarification of how it is supposed to work, you have to play by the rules. The rules allow one Victoria to perform the manifest action and replace the unactivated Victoria while removing the model performing the action from play. This essentially replaces one unactivated model with another unactivated model.

That the Avatar can activate with all of its AP is clear - the only question to my mind is whether it can activate immediately if the Victoria's had companioned or whether this no longer effects the Avatar...

[Kadeton]

Worrying about what the rules could have said and what the design intent was is really neither here nor there at this point - in the absence of an Errata or a clarification of how it is supposed to work, you have to play by the rules. The rules allow one Victoria to perform the manifest action and replace the unactivated Victoria while removing the model performing the action from play. This essentially replaces one unactivated model with another unactivated model.

That the Avatar can activate with all of its AP is clear - the only question to my mind is whether it can activate immediately if the Victoria's had companioned or whether this no longer effects the Avatar...

I completely disagree. Taking RAW as "the way it should be played" is a deeply flawed approach, because there is never a single interpretation of what the rules actually state (as this thread and many others have demonstrated). Arguing semantics is no more objective than arguing intention.

If you play by whichever interpretation of the rules makes the most sense (particularly in terms of balance) then your games will be more enjoyable. Yeah, you could play that the Avatars of Slaughter can activate immediately with full AP, and you'd probably destroy your opponents in the first few games, but your victory would be neutered by the fact that you were exploiting poorly-written rules to gain an unfair advantage.

[FearLord]

Very big of you to decide what is and isn't fair for everyone...

In your own group, feel free to house rule whatever you want but the purpose of having rules and a rules forum to interpret the rules is so that everyone can play it the correct way.

It has nothing to do with semantics - despite the replace rules allowing for the replacement of both models with one, the wording was specifically written in the way that it was. Is it overpowered? Maybe - I don't know - I have never played with or against the Avatar. Wyrd are fully capable of changing it if they are of the opinion it is overpowered though, so in the absence of that, we have to work with the rules we are given - it is the only fair way for people all over the world to play the same way.

Indeed, if it does need an errata, the first step is accepting the way it works so the potential problem is identified.

[Adran]

That the Avatar can activate with all of its AP is clear - the only question to my mind is whether it can activate immediately if the Victoria's had companioned or whether this no longer effects the Avatar...

See I would say the exact opposite.

That the Avatar doesn't have full AP is clear, but does it still have 0 and melee master is the question.

It comes into play already activated so must finish its activation its just what it can do to finish.

[FearLord]

But it hasn't activated yet - Vik 1 activates and performs an action. That action causes 2 separate things to happen - 1) Vik 1 is removed from play. 2) Vik 2 is replaced by the Avatar. Neither Vik 2 or the Avatar have activated yet this turn, and can therefore activate normally (and indeed have to activate at some point during the turn). Nothing Vik 1 did negatively impacts the Avatar, as Vik 2 is the only model replaced by the Avatar.

The only question to my mind is whether the Avatar would be able to activate in Vik 2's place in a companion chain or whether it would have to wait for normal activation order.

[Adran]

But it hasn't activated yet - Vik 1 activates and performs an action. That action causes 2 separate things to happen - 1) Vik 1 is removed from play. 2) Vik 2 is replaced by the Avatar. Neither Vik 2 or the Avatar have activated yet this turn, and can therefore activate normally (and indeed have to activate at some point during the turn). Nothing Vik 1 did negatively impacts the Avatar, as Vik 2 is the only model replaced by the Avatar.

The Rules for replacing models says that the model continues the activation. As such the Avatar will come in play as an already activated model.

The Replacing model(s) continue the activation using any general AP the replaced model(s) had remaining. If there are not enough general AP to evenly divides them as evenly as possible and decides which model recieves any remainder. The Replacing model(s) can use their specific AP during this activation if any of the replaced models had not already used the same talent or spell. When multiple models replace a single model, they complete their activation using the simultaneous activation rules.

In this case the Avatar Viktoria continues the activation using the 0 general action points the Replaced Unactivated Viktoria had left.

[FearLord]

That can only possibly happen if the active model is replaced - in this case the active model is removed from play, replacing a separate unique model. There is no activation to continue as Vik 1 hasn't become the Avatar - it is removed from play during it's own activation the only relationship between Vik 1 and the Avatar are the points specified in the Manifest steps - the replace rules have nothing to do with Vik 1.

[Adran]

Sorry, those are the only rules I can find for replacing models.

And they refer to the model coming into play continueing the activation, which is unrelated to what models they replace.

You can argue that this should be a special case as it is the only time that you can do a replace action not on the currently active model, but there is nothing in the book or on the cards to say this should be treated differently.

There is an activation to complete, -its not the one of the replaced model, but that isn't refered to in the rules anywhere so I don't see why it shouldn't continue the current activation using the general action points of replaced model.

Edit - As an amendum this has serious consequences for later turn activations as well with regards to number of AP.

I've not read the card to see if it is different to the book, hope to pick up my avatar on tuesday.

Personal view is that it was intended to replace both models, you just picked from the two spots which became the avatar, but thats not what the rules say currently.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Adran

[FearLord]

I'm away from my book so I can't confirm, but I believe the other Vik is removed from play prior to the other model being replaced - if so, Vik 1's activation would end before the replacement.

[Adran]

From Viktorias Avatar of slaughter card 1

(I'm going on the wording of the other thread at the moment and trusting it is right)

"Replace one Viktoria with Viktorias Avatar of slaughter. Remove the other Viktoria from the game..."

"Replace the Viktorias stat cards for the remainder of the Encoounter. Then continue the Viktorias Avatar of slaughter activation as normal using the Replaced model rules."

[Omenbringer]

I am wondering if some of you have actually read this thread in its entirety.

The cited Rules are very clear, a Replaced model has to divide general AP between replaced models (whether one model replaces several or several replace one). A model using an (All) action can do nothing else (it can't use 0 actions or specific AP), it is all it can do for that activation.

As soon as a Viktoria uses an (All) action to manifest the Avatar Vik's activation is essentially done (the only thing it can do is a Healing flip if it so chooses to use a Soulstone for it) since it used an (All) action to manifest. The only way around this is to perform the (All) action manifest with the second Viktoria.

It would seem though that "wishfull" thinking requires that a Rules Marshal weighs in on this one (hopefully they will answer before closing the thread, which also seems enevitable giving the tone).

[Tograth]

ok, as much as I would like to think otherwise, the companion errata is pretty clear on what happens in this case, taken from the rules clarification page on the malifaux website:

1. Nominate models selected to be Simultaneously Activated.

2. All Models selected count as having Activated at this point. (Abilities like 'On the Trail' check now as it says 'if it activates within')

3. Select each model in the Simultaneous Activation to perform its individual Activation. Repeat a-e below until all of those models have activated

a) If the model is Paralyzed it forfeits its Activation. (Skip to next model)

The model's individual Activation Begins/Starts (Poison, Terrifying, Regenerate, and other effects that say 'Begin their activation' happen now)

c) The model's AP is generated.

d) The model spends AP.

e) The model's individual Activation Ends.

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.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Tograth

[Spartan31337]

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.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Spartan31337

[Kadeton]

Seems like a decent summary of the cases presented, Spartan.

(I don't think there's really a question of whether the Avatar might be able to use a (0) action or Melee Master, personally, as I think it comes down to a question of RAW - that the Avatar can activate normally with full AP - versus RAI - that the Avatar is replacing both models and has therefore taken an (all) action.)

Sadly there's nothing in particular that we can do to hurry the Marshals - I'm sure the thread has come to their attention, but they tend to take the time to discuss it thoroughly among themselves before making any comments (this can sometimes take months because of other priorities).

[Omenbringer]

The issue with that synopsis is that Avatar Vik isn't a "brand new model" it is a replaced model. This makes all the difference.

Referencing the rules for Replaced in the 1.5 edition Malifaux Book page 36.

The Replacing model(s) continues the activation using any general AP the replaced model(s) had remaining. If there are not enough general AP to evenly divide between the Replacing models, thier controller divides them as evenly as possible and decides which model receives any remainder. The Replacing model(s) can use their specific AP during this activation if any of the replaced models had not already used the same talent or spell.

and the rules for (All) Actions from page 32 of the same book

If a model performs an (All) action, it is the only Action that model may take during its activation, including (0) Actions. A model can not take an (all) and a (0) Action during a single activation.

Notice the plurality of the wording for the Replaced rules (it is a recursive statement, whether replacing one with multiples or replacing multiples with one, it works the same way). Regardless of which Vik is removed both of their AP are considered once they are replaced with A Vik. If an (All) action was utilized (on the first Vik) to manifest then, it is all the replaced model (A Vik) can do for the activation which is continued after Manifest (You can't use (0) actions or Specific AP as the activation ends as soon as the (All) action has resolved).

The only "loop hole" around this is to manifest via the (All) action with the second Viktoria vice the first. The result though will be the same, as soon as the manifest has resolved (replacing the 2 Viks with the 1 A Vik) the activation ends (and once again you wont be able to use a (0) action or any specific AP from Melee Master). The only advantage is that you will have been able to complete the first Viks Activation and use any AP she had prior to the Manifest.

[FearLord]

Omenbringer what you still seem to be ignoring is that only one of the Victoria's is replaced (owning player's choice) according to their manifest rules. It doesn't matter that the replace rules allow for multiple models to be replaced by a single model and contain wording that covers what happens to their AP in that situation - multiple models are not being replaced here - 1 is replaced and 1 is removed from the game...

[Omenbringer]

And what you are ignoring is the rest of that manifest step (and the others),

Replace one Viktoria with Viktorias, Avatars of Slaughter. Remove the other Viktoria from the Game. Apply all Wd suffered by both Viktorias to Viktorias, Avatars of Slaughter.

How can you apply the Wd suffered by a model that has already been removed from the game? Or even better why would you need to remove all tokens and effects from both models (in step 2) or replace the Viktoria stat cards with the Viktorias, Avatars of Slaughter card (step 5) if the one were removed from the game?

When viewed in a vacum (just the Manifest rules on the card) then it might be a bit muddy, however after a review of the relevant rules from the main book (that I have already cited) it is very clear how it is played (arguing otherwise is wishful thinking). Also consider that even the Coryphee's and Steampunk Arachnid's are "removed from play" when they are replaced by the relevant models (Sacrifice being a removed from play effect that doesn't generate counters).

Also consider that their are other Avatars that this will apply to as well, such as Pandora Avatar of Insanity (specifically in regards to Candy, the Petulant Youth) and the Dreamer, Avatar of Imagination.

I may not have the Rules Marshal badge but I am resonably sure how they are going to weigh in on this one (just hoping they do soon so it can be done with).

[Kadeton]

I may not have the Rules Marshal badge but I am resonably sure how they are going to weigh in on this one (just hoping they do soon so it can be done with).

I agree, RAI here is very clear. All I want is for the RAW to unambiguously support the RAI. Would be nice to have this one out of the way - I don't think there's anything to be said for either case that hasn't already been gone over multiple times.

[FearLord]

And what you are ignoring is the rest of that manifest step (and the others),

How can you apply the Wd suffered by a model that has already been removed from the game? Or even better why would you need to remove all tokens and effects from both models (in step 2) or replace the Viktoria stat cards with the Viktorias, Avatars of Slaughter card (step 5) if the one were removed from the game?

I really don't understand the point you are making - you do that because the rules tell you to do it. You remove the model from the game, then you deal with wounds and other house keeping and the final step is to remove the cards (where you were tracking the wounds)...

Its worth noting that the Replace rules are written in the same way - place the new model base to base, remove the model(s) from play and then share their wounds (and effects).

Here's a counter point for you - why would the manifest step need to say anything about sharing wounds - the replacement rules for multiple models would cover this? It would just need the last line about coming in with 2Wds if it would come in with less.

What the rules do not say at any point is that both Viks are replaced. They specifically say that 1 is replaced.

When viewed in a vacum (just the Manifest rules on the card) then it might be a bit muddy, however after a review of the relevant rules from the main book (that I have already cited) it is very clear how it is played (arguing otherwise is wishful thinking). Also consider that even the Coryphee's and Steampunk Arachnid's are "removed from play" when they are replaced by the relevant models (Sacrifice being a removed from play effect that doesn't generate counters).

I disagree - you only need to read the relevant wording in the replace rules. That means you can ignore all of the plurals (as only one model is being replaced), you ignore all the wording about effects and wounds (as there are no effects and the manifest step tells you what to do about wounds), you ignore the wording about continuing the activation (as the replaced model isn't currently activated) and you ignore the last line about multiple models replacing a single model (as it doesn't apply). Which leaves you with a rule that says:

"Some placement effects require a model to Replace another. When a model Replaces another, place that model in base contact with the model in base contact with the model it is replacing, then remove the replaced model from play. There must be room for the model to fit."

Nothing else in that rule applies in the circumstances.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make about the Coryphee and the Steampunk Arachnids - being removed from play is not the issue here, it is simply what happens to the other Vik rather than being replaced. Dance together Sacrifices both Coryphee and replaces the active one - it then has specific additional wording that covers the wounds and effects of the other Coryphee. It does not replace both Coryphee.

Also consider that their are other Avatars that this will apply to as well, such as Pandora Avatar of Insanity (specifically in regards to Candy, the Petulant Youth) and the Dreamer, Avatar of Imagination.

It has no implications for Pandora at all - if Candy is in play, you replace Pandora with her avatar and then later in the sequence you replace Candy with Candy, the Petulant Youth - two separate instances of one model replacing another. (Although, as Candy the Petulant Youth is not the active model, this is a good reason that it doesn't work as Adran was suggesting earlier, as it would be impossible for her to "complete the activation" as per the replace rules...)

It has no implications for the Dreamer and Lord Chompy bits - you replace the model taking the manifest action and remove the other model from play.

Avatar Viks are the only model that can have one model manifest and the other replaced.

I may not have the Rules Marshal badge but I am resonably sure how they are going to weigh in on this one (just hoping they do soon so it can be done with).

Agreed. Once again, I'm not arguing intent or whether it is over powered or not (I have nothing to base that on having never played with or against the Viks and their avatar). It could well be that the way it is supposed to be played is the way you are suggesting. If that is the case, it can be clarified / Errataed and everyone will be able to play it that way. I am only going by what the rules say - the rules say you replace one of the Viks, so that is what you have to do in the absence of any information to the contrary.

[pixelante]

I think it depends on which Viktoria is being replaced as the replace effect clearly states that the replacement model, when it appears does not generate its own AP but instead uses the leftover AP from the model it replaced. So if the Avatar is replacing the Vik that used the ALL action then it would not activate, but if it replaces the Vik that hasn't activated that turn then it would get the AP from that Vik.

[Omenbringer]

I really don't understand the point you are making - you do that because the rules tell you to do it. You remove the model from the game, then you deal with wounds and other house keeping and the final step is to remove the cards (where you were tracking the wounds)...

Its worth noting that the Replace rules are written in the same way - place the new model base to base, remove the model(s) from play and then share their wounds (and effects).

This is exactly my point, the Replace rules as written cover exactly how this interaction is to be resolved. The Avatar Viktorias manifest steps are in line with the Replace rules although somewhat abridged (due to space limitations). Whether replacing the Viks with the Avatar or replacing Steampunk Arachnids with a swarm the steps for resolution are the same. The models will be removed from play (Sacrifice being a removed from play status) and replaced by another model (or models).

Here's a counter point for you - why would the manifest step need to say anything about sharing wounds - the replacement rules for multiple models would cover this? It would just need the last line about coming in with 2Wds if it would come in with less.

They didn't need to say anything about the Replacement process either, it could have just said Replace the Viktoria's with the Viktoria's, Avatar of Slaughter. They didn't need to mention that the other one was removed from play as it is covered in the Replace rules already. This was included in an attempt to provide a quick reference and a standardization of the manifest steps for Avatars.

What the rules do not say at any point is that both Viks are replaced. They specifically say that 1 is replaced.

You cant replace multiple models with only one, this is why the Coryphess and the Steampunk Arachnids are Sacrificed (again a Removed from Play status). The Replace rules have to specify that the other models are removed from play (which it does) when multiple models are replaced by one.

At any rate I am tired after 5 days of argument/defense (it is very clear how it is supposed to be played, Rules Lawyering aside) so will step out until a Rules Marshal comes in and stamps this one done (which will hopefully be soonish since it has been lingering in one thread or another for a year now).

Edited November 11, 2012 by Omenbringer

[FearLord]

This is exactly my point, the Replace rules as written cover exactly how this interaction is to be resolved. The Avatar Viktorias manifest steps are in line with the Replace rules although somewhat abridged (due to space limitations). Whether replacing the Viks with the Avatar or replacing Steampunk Arachnids with a swarm the steps for resolution are the same. The models will be removed from play (Sacrifice being a removed from play status) and replaced by another model (or models).

I agree the rules are in line, but they vastly alter the standard replace rules in the ways that they specify. Otherwise Manifesting would simply say "Replace Master x with Avatar x" and have done with it...

The difference between Steampunk Arachnids and Manifesting Avatar Vik is that all 3 sacrificed Arachnids are replaced as per their V.2 card - only the chosen Vik is replaced.

They didn't need to say anything about the Replacement process either, it could have just said Replace the Viktoria's with the Viktoria's, Avatar of Slaughter. They didn't need to mention that the other one was removed from play as it is covered in the Replace rules already. This was included in an attempt to provide a quick reference and a standardization of the manifest steps for Avatars.

But they did need to mention it - the rule requires you to replace one of the Viks, not both, so the other one wouldn't be removed from play without the specific requirement to do that. If it said "Replace both Victorias with..." then, yes it would be fine - it doesn't, so it isn't...

You cant replace multiple models with only one, this is why the Coryphess and the Steampunk Arachnids are Sacrificed (again a Removed from Play status). The Replace rules have to specify that the other models are removed from play (which it does) when multiple models are replaced by one.

As I have already pointed out, the Arachnids are all replaced as well as sacrificed. The replaced rules are also written to allow multiple models to be replaced by one model, so if the intention was for them both to be replaced, it should say so. There is no requirement for it to say anything about what happens to the multiple models - it just has to say that they are replaced and they would be removed from the game under the Replace rules...

At any rate I am tired after 5 days of argument/defense (it is very clear how it is supposed to be played, Rules Lawyering aside) so will step out until a Rules Marshal comes in and stamps this one done (which will hopefully be soonish since it has been lingering in one thread or another for a year now).

Fair enough, but the majority of people between the two threads disagree with you, so it obviously isn't very clear to most people... It has nothing to do with rules lawyering and everything to do with reading the rules - a simple reading of the rules shows you that one, inactive model is replaced and can still activate this turn, and one activated model is removed from play. No amount of reading can change those simple facts - there is no basis for insisting that both models are replaced (and subject to those rules) because it just isn't backed up in the text...

How do you play Avatar Pandora and Candy the Petulant Youth? Candy is replaced outside of her activation (like Vik 2 when Vik 1 performs the manifest action and chooses to replace her) - if Candy didn't activate yet this turn, does she get to activate? I would say yes...