Well DragonVenom, at the beginning of my post, I said:

Have single-based chargers been hurt? Yes. How many figures that were used before as single-based chargers will now be unplayable? Not many. My post explaining my logic is floating around in various places. If you'd like to read the full thing, go check out "Centaurs" in Dear Wizkids. Fact is, single-based chargers have NEVER been used to a large extent. Sure, some people like them, some people have different playstyles, etc. etc. but for the most part, single-based chargers have always taken a backseat to mounteds. Your entire post was an argument about who would win between a single-based charger and a Blade Golem. If you'll take note, nowhere in my post did I even mention single-based chargers.

On to the armies you pointed out...

Actually DV, Sascha's army contains 2 chargers. ;) It's not a big deal, but the fact is she did have two very solid first striking figures. It can be argued that the Dwarven Ram is in some ways a first strike figure with his Ram, as well. Steven's army contains 2 solid first strike figures, as well. Warpath was, arguably, one of the best charging units. Magus Anendu, for obvious reasons, was a nice bounding figure. I realize only being able to shoot 16" is 'slow' ;) but still, over half of his army was based on first strike figures, including the centerpiece of his army.

Sorry for that rambling on... back to the point. Of the four armies I faced at Nationals, I played against 3 Elroodons and a Skyros. Now sure, the armies weren't focused around the Elroodons (the Skyros, of course, was the centerpiece), but how can you deny the simple fact that mounted chargers were overpowered?

A bit much of a generalization when you're talking about 15 or so figures, isn't it? I've argued this point time and again and I really don't feel like doing so again. In all likelihood, neither of us are going to change our minds.

quix0te:

I think you're way off on this one. Quite the opposite, I think figures OVER 30 points will feel the affects worse than smaller figures. I can assure you I'll be fielding a group of ***E@A with a Standard Bearer in many of my 2.0 matches.

How many 2.0 figures is each faction going to get? 3 or 4 nons at most? 1 in the case of the EL. How many factions had effective Defend in 1.0? 2 or 3. If you wanted a Defend figure for your faction in 1.0, you were either going to have to pay a lot of points for a junky defender within your faction or you were going to have to drop the points to pick up the EGM. How many factions had decent ME'ers? Again, 2, 3, maybe I'd agree with 4. Forced march has been phased out of 2.0. You should be thankful that you have your FM in 1.0, because it's only going to make your 1.0 figures better. However, again, the same argument can be made... how many 1.0 factions had decent FM? 4 Yes yes, I realize these are specific examples for specific SAs and a broad generalization cannot be made from them. The fact remains, though, 1.0 figures are going to be just fine in 2.0.

Are you kidding me? How much better is the Regal Draconum, or the Heirophant, or the Storm Golem now? Each one of these guys can now do their full damage instead of one each to 3 figures at the most. In the Storm Golem's case, toss on a few enhancers and watch the fun begin. The Elven Falconer was never any good. It's always been worthless. I think most people agree that any 50 pt figure that can only do 2 damage with a 10 attack is pretty much useless, with a few exceptions. I think you're so off base on this one it's not even funny.

I agree Baldy. The one non-unique charge figure we've seen is the ***UbKhan. Is he good? Yes. Is his charge range big? Yes. Is he worth his almost 60 points? Probably, but time will tell. I don't think he's underpriced or unbalanced in any way, though, that's for sure.

Just remember old man - I've got an all-1.0 army waiting to whip up on your all 2.0 army at Origins. Just show up. ;) And I'm not going to go easy on you just because your kiddo is a clanmate. :p

D

The big problem with the old charge figs is that 2.0's chargers seem to have at least 8" charge. (from what previews i've seen). So exactly how do any of the old chargers (even the mounted ones) with a 6" charge or less be of any real use? I don't think them DTing for free will make them much more usefull.

The Dwarven Ram and War Hatchettkrug are the best usefull, because 1)they don't have charge, 2)have a higher printed move, 3)are able to move faster because of 2 and, 4)they have ram. ;)

As for Mrdbeau's argument of charge being "broken". Exactly when did it become "broken"? Don't give me broadoak and skyros. :rolleyes: Both have average attacks and ok defenses, other than that they're very overrated. (yes i know that sky has sweep and command, but it's only for the first 2 clicks, doesn't change my opinion. :D )

Did I say 'broken' anywhere in my post Shadow? Did you read it? I said overpowered, and compared to ANY other melee figures, they were.

Look at these 2 armies:

Sascha Koch:
Elroodon Lightfoot 38
Wraith 61
**Dwarven Ram 45
***Shadow 41
**Crystal Protector 15
TOTAL 200

Steven Simonaitis:
Magus Anendu 87
Warpath 36
***Fell Reaper 43
2 x ***Crystal Protector (@17) 34
TOTAL 200

Sascha's army - 2 chargers and a mounted rammer. Also the Wraith, which I think most people will agree is a great melee figure. CPs were pretty standard at Nats/Worlds.

Steven's army - Warpath, a great charger. Magus Anendu, a bounder. ***Fell, a great all-around versatile figure. And again, the CPs.

Why do you think we didn't see hardly any melee figures anymore in the metagame that weren't chargers? Why use a non-charge melee figure that has no first strike capability when you can use a charge figure that gives you first strike capability on any other melee piece? If you can't see the benefit of that, well...

Overpowered and "broken" are in the same neighborhood, but nope, don't see it. Eldroon has an average attack and defense, though i never knew anyone who owned one, but i never wanted it personally.

You do have a good point with the first strike thing, but it still doesn't really make them overpowered. Not to me anyways. We do have different veiws of "competitiveness", so that might be why i don't see your point. *shrugs*

QUOTE]Originally posted by Shadowmancer
The big problem with the old charge figs is that 2.0's chargers seem to have at least 8" charge. (from what previews i've seen). So exactly how do any of the old chargers (even the mounted ones) with a 6" charge or less be of any real use? I don't think them DTing for free will make them much more usefull. [/quote]

As much as I rant about the nerfing of 1.0 charge figs, I don't think you can look at movement without considering points and make a fair judgement. (Comments on dumbness, e.g., centaurs moving slower than footmen, are fair game :) but not game play.)

If, all else being equal, the 1.0 charger moves 5 inches and the 2.0 charger moves 10, and their point costs reflect that in reality (how people actually play them, the reality of the MK army building marketplace), then they are "balanced."

If all the 2.0 charges end up with 8+ movement and cost 50+ points, or if they cost 30 points but are considerably weaker than their 1.0 counterparts, or... you get my drift. Basically if the old slow figs are worth the points, because nothing has superseded them in 2.0, then 1.0 chargers will find their way into armies, IMO.

(Note that DV did a great job showing how, vis-à-vis other 1.0 figs some 1.0 chargers have been nerfed. If *overall* charge is disempowered, meaning *none* of them, 1.0 or 2.0, are what they used to be, then IMO it’s a Game Play decision and WK really was after improving the play (though it may not). In that case charge figs might not be played as much, and while I may not like it personally the argument that it’s better for the game may hold water. If it’s only 1.0 figs that are so neutered, then… marketing… selling… screwing the 1.0 collections… rip off… grrrr…)

They may be in the same neighborhood, but their at opposite ends of the block. Everyone complaining about only having 25 or so figures competitive at the end of the 1.0 big bound era... guess what people, that was as much the fault of charge figures as it was big bound.

That's because of just 2 figs (i don't include bakus since he's not commonly availble) WK made and were played by players who cared less about having fun and more about winning at any cost all the time. :rolleyes:

Other than that bound wasn't that big either.

Overpowered and broken may be at the opposite ends of your neighborhood, but they're neighbors to me ;)

Balduran: I'm not that big a buff on the balance thing points-wise, but your statement does make a bit of sense. :D

quix0te:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Any figure with a point value of less than 30.
These cannot make formations with 2.0 figs, so the only way you can use them is in a formation of other 1.0 figs. Otherwise you must spend an action to give each of your Crystal bladesman a move.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think you're way off on this one. Quite the opposite, I think figures OVER 30 points will feel the affects worse than smaller figures. I can assure you I'll be fielding a group of ***E@A with a Standard Bearer in many of my 2.0 matches.

All 1.0 formations will of course be possible. But your E@A's will not be able to get in a formation with any 2.0 figs that you might take a fancy to. And thats a significant handicap if you ever want to have mixed formations.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Any fig with forced march, most figs with defend or magic enhancement. They can no longer make formations with 2.0 figs. Forced march requires a formation. Defend and ME can be used without a formation, but you must spend an action to keep your 1.0 fig in base contact with any 2.0 figs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How many 2.0 figures is each faction going to get? 3 or 4 nons at most? 1 in the case of the EL. How many factions had effective Defend in 1.0? 2 or 3. If you wanted a Defend figure for your faction in 1.0, you were either going to have to pay a lot of points for a junky defender within your faction or you were going to have to drop the points to pick up the EGM. How many factions had decent ME'ers? Again, 2, 3, maybe I'd agree with 4. Forced march has been phased out of 2.0. You should be thankful that you have your FM in 1.0, because it's only going to make your 1.0 figures better. However, again, the same argument can be made... how many 1.0 factions had decent FM? 4 Yes yes, I realize these are specific examples for specific SAs and a broad generalization cannot be made from them. The fact remains, though, 1.0 figures are going to be just fine in 2.0.

Umm, all you did was argue that these SA's werent common. Individually, no, they weren't. But when you looked at them collectively they were significant support abilities which cannot be shared between 1.0 and 2.0, and they made up a decent chunk of the 1.0 figs.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Almost any ranged attacker with more than one arrow. Yes, you can still use your tribow and your Elven Falconer and your Thunder gunner, but they will be overpriced for their abilities/effects. These figs were always of problematic use without bound because it was unlikely your opponent would expose that many figs. But now its a worthless ability. The elven falconer can do 1 damage to 2 targets or 2 damage to one, for about 50pts. That fig is worthless now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you kidding me? How much better is the Regal Draconum, or the Heirophant, or the Storm Golem now? Each one of these guys can now do their full damage instead of one each to 3 figures at the most. In the Storm Golem's case, toss on a few enhancers and watch the fun begin. The Elven Falconer was never any good. It's always been worthless. I think most people agree that any 50 pt figure that can only do 2 damage with a 10 attack is pretty much useless, with a few exceptions. I think you're so off base on this one it's not even funny.

Okay. I dont understand what you are saying. Regal draconum has four ranged attacks. Before, he could do five damage each to 4 different targets. Now he has to split his five damage between four targets. He's weaker. Bottom line. Look on page 12 of the new rule book and it's crystal clear.

So, to recap, individually, none of these abilities/cases were that common. Take them all together, and MOST of the 1.0 figs are not playable, except (maybe) in all 1.0 formations, which is a major handicap.

And the most frustrating part is that I dont see a play balance issue being served by not allowing 1.0 and 2.0 to be considered the same factions.
For that matter, it isn't even reasonable. These are the SAME FACTIONS. Same elves. Same orcs. Same atlanteans. They just have different names. Why shouldnt they be able to make formations?

We'll worry about mixed formations on down the road. Right now, however, I'm worrying about what we've got. And bottomline, there's not enough 2.0 nons to make much of a difference. Whenever I see a figure that I think to myself, "Darn it, I wish I could use that... *fill in the blank* with my E@As", then I'll be a bit aggravated. Until then? I'm not worried about it.

You're right, they are significant support abilities. But the fact is, people are still going to be using the EGM to defend a pack of... whatever. That's not going to change. People did it all the time whenever she couldn't make formations with the figures they were using, and it still worked just fine. Magic Enhancement isn't going to be as big of a deal because of the Ro3. If you want Magic Enhancement, either go with a cheap formation of ESAs or bring a single Shaman for cheap healing, as well. Bottom line, we're going to still be seeing all of the 1.0 support pieces in 2.0, and it won't make much of a difference that they can't be in formation.

Ahhhh... I see the problem here. You don't know the rules. No biggie, but here's the deal. Under the current rules (MK 1.0), when a figure has multiple targets, they do 1 click of damage to each figure they target with one of their multi-arrows. For example, Heirophant targets two figures with each arrow, he's going to do one damage to them each. Now he can do five split up among his 2 arrows. This 2.0 ruling makes many multi-arrow 1.0 figures MUCH BETTER!!

So, to recap, the vast majority of 1.0 figures either don't change in usefulness, or get quite a bit better. If it really truly matters, though, the issue is playability. Draddog has stated it in many places - issues of 'brokenness' of 1.0/2.0 factions were being raised. Like I said earlier, time will tell. I'm betting it'll tell us that there isn't much of a problem here.