why didn't wyrd make avatars more interesting

[Forar]

The simple response to that is that if you didn't want to manifest then why attach the Avatar at all (or even work toward achieving the requirements). In the games I have played with Avatars I can only think of one where I wanted to put off the manifest for a turn (and that was because of some amazing low probability flips by my opponent). There really is a good amount of control in manifesting Avatars (for the most part all have 1 easy one and 1 involved one) and by the time it becomes automatic the game is usually well in hand any way.

My point is about the more situational Avatars, the ones that are more likely to be good if you're in a desperate position and the Avatar changes a caster into more of a melee monster, or a support master into a better combatant, etc, the ones where you change how the figure plays heavily in a way that *might* be good in some situations, but could prove detrimental in others. Or the ones that reduce mobility, which could prove heavily detrimental for any number of reasons later in the game.

The answer shouldn't be "just don't take them", but more that the risk/reward ratio might need further tweaking to either reduce the risk or heighten the reward. As it stands, there are a number of Avatars where I can look at them and say "Yeah, I could see myself maybe wanting to do that in some circumstances... but I'm not willing to pay $30+ and 2ss to have that option".

[ooshawn]

I think once Nathan caroland posted that the forum users were a very small minority of those who purchased malifaux models. i can say that of the 20-30 people I know that own malifaux, maybe 3 use the forums including me. Also this post will probably hit over 100 replies and it sure isn't all people talking about how great avatars are. What i was trying to say is , wyrd should shoot for 100%, not the crap they gave us who don't play sonnia,ramos, zoraida. I play zoraida and can afford to buy her and its still not worth it to me. Plus her model bores me, but thats personal.

[Nyarlanthotep]

The thing is I don't think Wyrd is aiming for 100%, and by that I mean every player takes Avatars everytime. You take a company like Games Workshop. Their business model is to release something big and expensive. Make the big and expensive thing really good. Players have to buy the big and expensive thing to be competitive.

Wyrd Business model is to make the price of entry into the game low, and to release cool models. So it is not in their best interests to have a really expensive model that is essential to be competitive.

[Note you already have a situation where not every model is used every game, most people have multiple crews, models they use for specific strategies and matchups. I know that every game I play over 90% of my Malifaux models will remain in the case.]

So I believe going in Wyrd was going for the idea that the Avatars would be display pieces which people would really like to paint. That they would not be compulsory to be competitive, but would add interesting challenges to experienced players. That they would not just increase the standard game size. And they would not replace the original Masters.

You look at the Epic Casters, they are close enough to the original Casters that what you really end up with is either them being better than the original Caster in which case they are always taken, or worse so they are never taken.

So what it really comes down to is a cultural difference. You are always going to get some members of the community that don't like something, or want it to be more like another game they play. Overall from what I've read on the forum, seen locally and on Vassal. Avatars are used because people like the model, because people want the challenge, or because they fill a gap so they allow a Master to deal with a situation better. Which is exactly what Wyrd were going for.

The only real issue I see is like anything in the gaming some models will be a bit better than intended and some will be a bit worse. So a few Avatars could do with a tiny bit of a tweak.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Ratty

[Omenbringer]

The answer shouldn't be "just don't take them", but more that the risk/reward ratio might need further tweaking to either reduce the risk or heighten the reward. As it stands, there are a number of Avatars where I can look at them and say "Yeah, I could see myself maybe wanting to do that in some circumstances... but I'm not willing to pay $30+ and 2ss to have that option".

The same could be said about plenty of models in the game that you may want in certain circumtances but are wholly unsuitable in others and not worth their cost (monetary or hiring). Avatars are tools just like every other model in the game. They were not designed to be every time guarantied options. Having played with and against a large amount of the Avatars, I have yet to find one that I really felt was underwhelming or not worth the cost or hassel.

What i was trying to say is , wyrd should shoot for 100%, not the crap they gave us who don't play sonnia,ramos, zoraida. I play zoraida and can afford to buy her and its still not worth it to me. Plus her model bores me, but thats personal.

I am sure Wyrd is shooting for 100%. Sonnia, Ramos and Zoraida are definately not the only masters that benefit from manifesting avatars, there are plenty of others that are equally spectacular (and are often thought of as auto includes).

[DeleteAccount]

I'm pretty sure that for every game that was lost because of an automanifest, a few others didn't really change and another bunch were outright saved because of them. Avatar Kirai, McMourning and Seamus have served me well and I expect to keep using them regularly unless I really have a list that wants those 2 soulstones for something else.

Also ooshawn, that the number of posters are a very small minority and that at the end in this thread there are like 10-12 different guys posting would make the whole thread even less relevant, don't you think? That 6 guys say nay is no statement, what I'm sure does make a statement is the sales figures of the avatars and I'm pretty sure Wyrd knows them. If those sales figures are lower than expected, I'd assume they will work out on making them go up one way or another.

[Jonas Albrecht]

I'd wager sales are the final word on the future of Avatars (in their current state, anyway). If they were poor sellers, safe money's on none in the near future.

[DeleteAccount]

I'd wager sales are the final word on the future of Avatars (in their current state, anyway). If they were poor sellers, safe money's on none in the near future.

Or maybe they will take the non absurd option of looking which ones sold well and which didn't and taking it from there. You can hate avatars all you want mate, but they are here and they seem to be staying.

[Forar]

The same could be said about plenty of models in the game that you may want in certain circumtances but are wholly unsuitable in others and not worth their cost (monetary or hiring). Avatars are tools just like every other model in the game. They were not designed to be every time guarantied options. Having played with and against a large amount of the Avatars, I have yet to find one that I really felt was underwhelming or not worth the cost or hassel.

In the case of most situational models, you know your strat and schemes and opponent's faction, so you can at least make an educated guess as to whether or not it (in theory) should be a good idea to hire X, Y or Z figure.

With the circumstantial avatars, you are paying ahead of time on a hunch that maybe you'll end up in a spot where manifesting will be useful. So unless you're precognitive, that choice is being made without enough information for it to be a properly informed one.

And as noted, even if you guess right, there is a non-zero chance those 2+ stones (either in more/better figures or a larger cache) would've prevented you from being in that position in the first place.

Again, I am not in any way advocating for Avatars to be flat out better than the original masters, but I think that they should at least excel in one aspect of that master, if perhaps at a slight detriment. My main problem is when what they give up exceeds (in my opinion) what they gain.

[DeleteAccount]

Again, I am not in any way advocating for Avatars to be flat out better than the original masters, but I think that they should at least excel in one aspect of that master, if perhaps at a slight detriment. My main problem is when what they give up exceeds (in my opinion) what they gain.

And I ask you, do you believe ALL avatars do this? because as a resser, Kirai is the only one that could be said that and even then, she works so well as an Oh crap button that she is always welcome in my lists. With McMourning and Seamus I definitely don't think that, not by a long shot.

A lot of the people that seem to be against avatars is because they are against the avatars they have access to, so I'd recommend a bit less generalization and more analizing why theirs aren't up to snuff compared to those that do work.

[Fetid Strumpet]

But this demonstrates the varied experience people encounter with Avatars. You particularly like aKirai, while I think aKirai is pretty subpar, as my philosophy of game construction means if I need an "omg button" then either I constructed my list incorrectly, or I played badly. I'd rather spend my resources so that every stone spent is directed in achieving my ends rater than bankrolling some in an effort to swing the game once I start to lose. I've never wished I had aKirai in my list, while you feel she is an auto include for you.

The avatars that get used most in my experience are only those that are far superior to their base version, I.E. Seamus and Ramos, or those that are basically the base master but at a higher level I.E. Sonnia and Nicodem. Past that I really hardly ever see avatars used, which says to me as much as we all like to think we are not "that guy" who only includes things that work best for mechanical advantage, there is a limit to what we are prepared to spend $ and SS on if it doesn't provide a distinct mechanical advantage in game.

[Forar]

And I ask you, do you believe ALL avatars do this? because as a resser, Kirai is the only one that could be said that and even then, she works so well as an Oh crap button that she is always welcome in my lists. With McMourning and Seamus I definitely don't think that, not by a long shot.

A lot of the people that seem to be against avatars is because they are against the avatars they have access to, so I'd recommend a bit less generalization and more analizing why theirs aren't up to snuff compared to those that do work.

At no point did I say that "all avatars" are situational. I own aSonnia, and while there are things she gives up that I do like, I feel the benefits outweigh the costs in many circumstances, and as such I don't regret the purchase. I haven't even fielded her much yet, but I think that when I play Sonnia there are good odds I may attach her Avatar. It's not an auto-include, but what it does matches nicely with what I generally build her crews to do anyway.

Contrasted against other guild Avatars like Perdita and Hoffman, who give up some pretty spicy abilities when they change forms. Particularly the latter, as those are generally the crews I build the most synergistically, and his Avatar form sheds much of his synergy for self sufficient combat (and not without some drawbacks as well). LJ I haven't read over recently, but what I saw didn't really blow my hair back either, at least when contrasted against how I generally build crews for her (plus she isn't a master I run quite as often anyway, since we have a pretty dedicated LJ player in our group as it is).

Edit: I'll say this much; between 7 players in my group, several of whom own an entire faction + other crews, we currently have 2 Avatars. My aSonnia and a friend who has aRasputina. For a group willing to drop literally thousands of dollars on the game collectively, it's interesting how few avatars have gripped us (2 Guild players, 3 Neverborn, 1 Arcanist and 1 Outcast, with a smattering of 10T and Resser crews spread amongst us).

Edited December 31, 2012 by Forar

[nix]

I think once Nathan caroland posted that the forum users were a very small minority of those who purchased malifaux models. i can say that of the 20-30 people I know that own malifaux, maybe 3 use the forums including me. Also this post will probably hit over 100 replies and it sure isn't all people talking about how great avatars are. What i was trying to say is , wyrd should shoot for 100%, not the crap they gave us who don't play sonnia,ramos, zoraida. I play zoraida and can afford to buy her and its still not worth it to me. Plus her model bores me, but thats personal.

I am intrigued Ooshawn, so I figured I would go ahead and ask the question. You listed the masters you play in an earlier post (lilith, pandora, zoraida. kaeris, marcus.Mcmourning, vickies) and I am curious about what you do not like about thier Avatar's. I saw some of your comments about Marcus, but what is it about aZoraida, aVicktoria, and aMcMourning that you find not worth the expense in money or in effort to manifest?

I ask about those three specifically because I am assuming aPandora you do not like for the immobility and aLilith for the Forest dependance.

[ukrocky]

aMcMourning came 4th at the UKGT amazingly

[Gruesome]

aMcMourning is great.

Period.

But does not need to be auto-include, either. Which is also great... (IMO)

my philosophy of game construction means if I need an "omg button" then either I constructed my list incorrectly, or I played badly.

So, your opponent playing really well or surprising you is always your fault rather than them just having a moment of inspiration.

And likewise, you have never played really well, its always been your opponent's mistakes that have won your games. What a negative perspective that seems to me.

So, all that aside, using your own terminology, you'd rather just accept the loss and go back to the drawing board than potentially having an "omg button" ?

I am really interested in seeing how so many people really stretch those 2SS into such value that it can never be spared for an avatar. I cannot imagine how awesome the other 30-33 must be in top it it...

[Forar]

2 SS means an 8 cache instead of a 6, or getting a Witchling Stalker instead of a Desperate Merc, etc, etc.

Is it game breaking? No. But if the Avatar in question is unlikely to enhance my board position much, and may actively act against my goals at worst, I'd rather have a slightly better crew in hand than an "oh hell must change focus entirely now!" button.

I completely respect that for some factions and crews in particular the Avatars are awesome without necessarily being auto-includes. It's getting a little insulting here that anyone with an opposing viewpoint (often influenced by playing different masters/factions) that their options are underwhelming.

Again, very few people seem to be advocating "man, yes, all avatars, all the time!'. But to say that there aren't some with a poorly skewed risk/reward ratio is straight up shenanigans. Similarly, I don't think anyone is expecting all 20+ of them to be perfectly balanced. Not all of the leaders themselves are perfectly balanced. But there are shades of grey present.

[Gruesome]

I completely respect that for some factions and crews in particular the Avatars are awesome without necessarily being auto-includes. It's getting a little insulting here that anyone with an opposing viewpoint (often influenced by playing different masters/factions) that their options are underwhelming.

Again, very few people seem to be advocating "man, yes, all avatars, all the time!'. But to say that there aren't some with a poorly skewed risk/reward ratio is straight up shenanigans. Similarly, I don't think anyone is expecting all 20+ of them to be perfectly balanced. Not all of the leaders themselves are perfectly balanced. But there are shades of grey present.

I can understand what you are saying.

What I wonder is if you recognize how many replies have been primarily directed at Jonas as a reaction to the statement:

I think Avatars are were a bad idea, from conception to execution.

And NOT at people for simply having "opposing viewpoints".

I have not seen ANYONE say that everyone should always take avatars because they are all so great.

I *HAVE* seen someone say that everything about avatars is wrong.

Who are you arguing with?

[Jonas Albrecht]

You can hate avatars all you want mate

That statement has nothing to do with my opinion on Avatars.

What I wonder is if you recognize how many replies have been primarily directed at Jonas as a reaction to the statement:

Irrelevant, since Forar is making his own argument.

[Forar]

Jonas can fight his own battles.

I have referenced what I felt were pertinent points worth investigating further, whether they were directed at him in particular or the aether of the webintertubes in general.

[Gruesome]

Jonas can fight his own battles.

I have referenced what I felt were pertinent points worth investigating further, whether they were directed at him in particular or the aether of the webintertubes in general.

That's cool. I agree with some of your points... You were the one that said you were feeling insulted. Nothing more.

[Pierowmaniac]

IMHO I like the way Avatars work and enjoy using them.

It's also obvious that some are Auto includes (eg Seamus), some are WTF/why (eg Colette)? and quite a few are strategy dependant (eg Pandora).

But coming back to the question of the thread "why didn't Wyrd make the avatars more interesting". I disagree completely and say that even the badly competitive ones are interesting in both models, concept and rules.

[nix]

2 SS means an 8 cache instead of a 6, or getting a Witchling Stalker instead of a Desperate Merc, etc, etc.

*grin*

In a crew containing aSonnia, a Desperate Merc is just a cheaper Witchling Stalker anyway!

*grin*

Speaking purely on the masters I play regularly that have Avatars (Sonnia, Justice, Zoraida, Hoffman, Lilith, Dreamer, Colette, Pandora) I see the avatars as follows:

Sonnia / aSonnia

I have taken aSonnia 17 time to the 1 time I have chosen Sonnia this year. I really like the way aSonnia plays and feel she is not only fun but also very competitive. I would not say she is an "Always Take" or a "Must Take", but for me she far outnumbers the times I choose Master Sonnia to bring me through the game. With that said, I do not always rush to manifest her, instead keeping Master Sonnia around a while depending on the game.

Justice / aJustice

I think that aJustice is also a very very competitive choice to take. My games where I chose one over the other are a bit closer than the Sonnia games, aJustice being my choice 16 times to Justice being the choice 12 times this year. Justice is a real killer, but I have not felt that aJustice loses much of that killing power in the act of manifesting. Add to that her Spiritual Shackles ability and On the Trail and things get real nasty. I do not understand why people say aJustice is not a competitive choice, and bring her in tournaments regularly.

Zoraida / aZoraida

aZoraida is a straight upgrade to Zoraida in the majority of circumstances in my opinion. The only time that Zoraida is a better choice is when I need late game movement from Raven. The biggest reason aZoraida has not seen much play for me is simply because I just started playing Zoraida this year and wanted to get experience playing the Master before upgrading to the Avatar. The Avatar is simply more and better for how I play Zoraida, and makes a Nephilim Grow list simply disgusting (double obey... yes please). Once again, I do not rush to manifest her, as it depends on the game.

Pandora / aPandora

aPandora will nearly never see the table for me. Her immobility is such a downgrade in my opinion that its not worth putting her on the table. I can see where it would be incredibly useful in some strategies, but its not something I use. Pandora is a primarily tournament/competitive master for me, so I do not get a lot of games in with her during the year and rarely for fun casual games which is the only place I can see using her Avatar.

aHoffman / aLilith

aLilith is a very situational Avatar in my opinion, requiring at least 2 decent sized forests on the table to make her worthwhile to use. She seems to be a "fun" avatar, and while not bad she is not a model I can see regularly making it into my lists. I also have not assembled her model, so that hampers my playing. Along the same lines, I do not have aHoffmans model yet so have not really tried him out. I believe he is another situational avatar and I am not sure how much I would use him.

aDreamer

I love the idea of the Dreamer's avatar, and have played some proxy games with him. None of those games have been this year, and I have not yet gotten aDreamer assembled and painted up yet. He is on the short list of models to get out on the table, but was sidelined to the Ten Thunders after Gencon. I think he can be fun, and can be plenty competitive. The issues I see with aDreamer is that he is not necessary to the crew. By the time you get him on the board you have likely already won the game.

aCollette

I play a heavy showgirl list so I think aColette will be a lot of fun to play. Because of how she changes playstyle from Master Colette, specifically in the loss of her movement tricks, I cannot see taking her competitively. I have bases completed for her and she is also on the very very short list of models to get painted. Sadly, she was also sidelined by the Ten Thunders. With my Oiran getting painted currently, chances are aColette will make it back onto my paint tray shortly and then onto the table.

[Odin1981]

Pierowmaniac, I think the reason behind avatars wasn't strictly for power play. Their are a # of avatars that are sidegrades or worse than their original forms. Their our however a few that are upgrades to their base forms. I believe avatars were created to give additional options for players so that if they don't like 1 version of said master perhaps the avatar version plays more to that individual persons playstyle.

I believe this was done to increase the enjoyment for more players in the game. I know the main reason I took a 3-4 month break from the game this spring was mainly the "game" got stale for me and lead to a bit of gamer funk. That was mainly due in part to me that I would mainly use like 2 crews more or less with no changes ever. However if you don't limit yourself to few options the chance of gamer burnout has much less of a chance of happening. That in part is to why I think avatars where created. As a breath of fresh air to a crew/master for someone who has played them a certain way for a long time that needs a curveball of sorts to spice the game back up.

One of the main things that I see a lot of people who don't like avatars in this thread is they all expected that avatars would all be "upgrades" for each master. To me this isn't the right line of thought in complete context. Not everyone plays for competition. People due play games for just fun as well. In that context I can humbly see why avatars where "correctly done" when you look at it from that context. I believe they where mainly included for fun and to keep the game fresh instead of getting stale.

Just my 2 cents and i am aware all won't agree with what I have said. hope everyone has a happy new year as well cheers.

[Jonas Albrecht]

One of the main things that I see a lot of people who don't like avatars in this thread is they all expected that avatars would all be "upgrades" for each master.

I'm curious about this, because it's the place that nearly every discussion of Avatars goes. The assumption that people want them to be upgrades, I mean.

I don't know who you're referring to specifically, but I have no trouble picturing something closer to "experienced" (Epics are a fine shorthand, because people know what you mean, but it also sucks because people think you're talking about "better" models) Masters, whom you don't have to manifest, who are an alternate playstyle and not an upgrade.

[Odin1981]

I'm curious about this, because it's the place that nearly every discussion of Avatars goes. The assumption that people want them to be upgrades, I mean.

I don't know who you're referring to specifically, but I have no trouble picturing something closer to "experienced" (Epics are a fine shorthand, because people know what you mean, but it also sucks because people think you're talking about "better" models) Masters, whom you don't have to manifest, who are an alternate playstyle and not an upgrade.

I wasn't referring to anyone specifically by my comment. But the impression I got from the context that a few of the avatars=bad type posters was what I was commenting on. Basically according to how quite a few people came off they where expecting every avatar was suppose to be a sonnia or zoraida or ramos or a seamus by what I got from reading threw the thread and where upset whenever their particular favorite master didn't have a kick ass upgrade in avatar form.

[Omenbringer]

In the case of most situational models, you know your strat and schemes and opponent's faction, so you can at least make an educated guess as to whether or not it (in theory) should be a good idea to hire X, Y or Z figure.

With the circumstantial avatars, you are paying ahead of time on a hunch that maybe you'll end up in a spot where manifesting will be useful. So unless you're precognitive, that choice is being made without enough information for it to be a properly informed one...

You choose to attach an Avatar during crew hiring after you have generated the random Strategy. It doesn't take precognition to know if attaching one could be a detriment anymore than choosing to hire specific models.

There is also a very subtle benefit to attaching Avatars, namely that your opponent now has to worry about if you manifest them. This is a very potent thing in itself.

but I think that they should at least excel in one aspect of that master, if perhaps at a slight detriment. My main problem is when what they give up exceeds (in my opinion) what they gain.

All of the Avatars do either excell at one of their Aspects or offer a completely knew one. I can't think of one that doesn't do this.

2 SS means an 8 cache instead of a 6, or getting a Witchling Stalker instead of a Desperate Merc, etc, etc.

Interesting argument in that a large SS cache for the most part only benefits one model on the board and is a risk in itself. Taking high SS models reduces the size of your total crew and can be a detriment. Relying on in game summoning is a gamble as you may not have the cards or components required to make it work. This is all part of the game.