same here, we have a small group (active core of 6 players) that are casual/competetive.
some go for wanting to have a high chance of winning, others work with a certain theme and see how it works.

we have 2 bms so we switch roles every week so we can play now and then next to the prize system we have our own ranking and every 6 months we issue prizes etc we ad the envoy rewards to that prizepool, since we can play for certain prizes aswell. most dont really fight for the card but try to keep their score up.

we had one player who had an army that was 90% the same everytime (with the attitude "if it aint broken why fix it" after 2 or 3 weeks majority of players based their army against his, kinda took away the fun and unpredictability of the game. though almost every player favours their number of factions there s always an expectancy on what we can face. though he left and atmosphere only got better.

atleast in our group it isnt one person who wins like 4 weeks in a row. one player plays more for fun with friends, other always has quite suprising armies, in my experience they earn majority of fellowships, so basicly everyone in our group wins something every month, keeping the level of play healthly.

the whole unretirement in my opinion is opening up old wounds. now everyone used to it and the level of play it creates suddenly thats changed, giving a BM full authority of what can and cant be played can be nice but perhaps to powerful tool. (with great power comes great responsability). on the high competitive scene i think retirement is good, otherwise old school players who have certain old pieces will always win of the newer generation who doesnt have access to those. with retirement every year there will be different armies. atleast for nationals and big league tournaments i say retirement is healthy. plus its a way to clean up past mistakes that with certain rule changes only become stronger.

I don't remember if this is the case, but I do remember some discussion about a controversial tactic that took advantage of some scoring vagueness.

IIRC, the tactic was to kill something quick (enough to ensure VC1, assuming they don't kill Bounty Hunter), grab VC3 and salvage Bounty Hunter. You opponent wins VC2, but you get 1 & 3.

You are exactly correct.

ca151 - Bounty Hunter
ca016 x 8 - DF ATV Squad
ca015 - BR ATV Squad or ca014 - HL ATV Squad

Rush the deploy zone to load up on VC3 and tie down opposing units. Bounty Hunter comes up and has to kill 125 points worth of pieces, suicide all of the ATVs, and get BH to salvage.

The key to defeating it is to keep a few ATVs alive long enough to kill BH. That used to be fairly hard to do, but not anymore. BH is still tough, but he's not king of the field anymore.

Its a cheap, childish tactic, but it worked. Not sure how well it would work now.

Just a 1 trick pony.

We have one Uber competitive player at our venue, that uses many of the most effective units in the game and I really don't think it bothers most people. I use him as a measuring stick for my playing and army building skills. I have been playing for less than a year and now our matches usually come down to the last few moments. Sure he beats me most of the time, and takes first place, but I become a better player every single time I play him.

His sportsmanship slips when we get into close matches too, but that just lets me know that I am frustrating him.

Sure he can sell that prize card on Ebay for $5-$10, but going down to the wire with a top tier player, and frustrating him to the point where it looks like his head will explode? Priceless!!

I'm a casual player that has his moments. I don't mind losing a match primarily since it happens so often :) I really try and learn from the players that win. Sometimes it's the pieces, sometime it's the tactics. While I may not stock the same inventory they do, I can wangle what pieces I do have into some semblance of a efficient fighting unit.

Now there is one uber-player that pops in now and then. I personally can't stand the guy. During the game he mutters under his breath cheering his successes (i wouldn't want to be you) and mocking my failures (that's too bad). I can't help feeling that I'm just a road bump on the way to winning the event.

I envy how much he spends and the time he uses to work his armies. The core of guys at the venue are much nicer and keep me coming back. We all celebrate wins over the uber-dude. He's all about winning and getting the prizes.

On the plus side, he spends a lot. This keeps WK happy. On the downside, only the best players look forward to playing him. The rest of us dread the 50 minute ordeal (if we last that long).

I really respect those good players that take the time to teach and explain. Even if they are trashing my army, at least there is some learning going on. It validates the effort and the spirit of competition.

lol I bet it's really fun to pound on players like that. I have no players like any of those at the venue I go too, we all play faction pure(including GA/SA). It usually ends up with me playing against the CJF player at the venue, he usually wins.


If I ever come across players like that I would do my best to anihilate them with extreme prejuduce. Those kinda players take the fun out of the game. I also think faction pure is more fun than rainbow armies, but I won't persicute you guys who like rainbow armies.

I had one BM make me become a rules-lawyer at one point. He's not a BM anymore, so that's not a problem anymore, at least.

I've encountered the prize hunters before, but they only tended to show up for the really big tournaments. To a certain degree, I might be considered one, since I only tend to show up at the big prize tournaments... but I don't feel I count, since, (a) I only get to go to one tournament a month, most months, which means I'm not travelling from venue to venue hunting prizes, and (b) it's pretty rare that I actually win the big prize ;)

I guess, really, in the past I've seen all of the poor-fellowship player types listed. But, fortunately, I haven't really seen most of them in a while.

Thankfully, at least from my one time there so far, the venue I go to now that I've moved across the country seems to be entirely free of such beasts. Everyone there is really cool, and is there to have a good time. Certainly the matches I had could have inspired total frustration, but everyone still seemed to enjoy themselves, and didn't exhibit poor sportsmanship when winning or losing. I can only hope I can do as well as them.

@Kotch,
Engineer taught me how to play. I know him better than any person on these boards or anywhere else for that matter. He thought retirement was such a bad idea initially that he QUIT playing the game. I told that it got rescinded and the first thing he said was, "That's it for MW" I agree.

@Brinxter,
The sad thing about the Twins was that they were COMPLETELY abusive to a fault and WK KNEW IT before they came out. They even said, "We're going to watch this issue and see how it plays out."

that was a problem that should have been caught in playtesting and been stopped thoroughly, but it wasnt.

Having BMs being able to ban pieces is a bad idea. A BM doesn't have to explain his reasoning for banning a DF Schmitt anymore than he does for banning the Twins because the criteria for an "abusive piece" rests solely with the BM.

@Trevor,
I don't agree with much you say, but that's ok because I don't read your posts.

As far as competitive vs uber-competitive, i have to ask the question, "What does it matter anymore?"

Either every game is going to be counted toward the ranking system or they'll reset it or get rid of it. None of those works out well for the competitive play environment at all. They either get rid of us, set us back to square one, or every game gets counted and the ranking system becomes worthless because no game is the same.

I don't know why they couldn't have just left things they way they were.

@Blizzard,
If you are arguing for a position you don't personally believe in, then why do it? It doesn't benefit you in any way to do so, so why not either speak your mind or not?

Didn't you read where Blizz posted that ragging on WK publicly was a voliaton of your contract as a BM? T-Dog it's a very bad idea to start gettin' the mods angry with you.

I want to know how tamias knows he doesnt agree with Trevor, yet also doesnt read trevors posts. Thats a pretty sweet trick.

Also... so nobody knows if the bounty hunter army won nats?

Well i really really dont hope that thats the future of MW.
But its kinda like your in this car, stuck on a railroad crossing with the doors stuck and a train about to hit... hoping i't'll be ok :)

I think that the game will survive, but there will be casualties.

Well thats not how it happened, in playtesting the twins didnt have that tag team ability.
This is what worries me, "they" design a piece (or make a new rule) let people playtest it, get say perfect results and THEN change it before it goes live.
Also the time it takes to change those things is absurdly long. (this isnt aimed at the rules arb, but the people higher up)

Excuse me?

Like i said, the people who left because they disagreed with retirement already left, and are probably not going to come back (en masse)
This has the potential to go really, really bad... but i am certain that enough people love the game so it will survive.

@Tamias, since you are a BM I would suggest you try and be positive about this. Look at the good side and most importantly when you represent the game to other people, try and be positive.

I have reservations and concerns but I'm keeping those to myself. There comes a time for trust and faith. If we walk away or diss the game because of what might happen then all we do is reinforce the likelihood that it will happen.

i.e. if we walk because of what we think may happen, we make it come to pass. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

First off, do you realize just what a stupid and utterly contradictory statement
that is?

Secondly, me and Trev have had our share of disagreements in the past.
However I know that everything he says, whether or not I agree with him, is
motivated by a deep love of the game.

Lastly, grow up.

Well-stated, sir!

These archetypes all have one key thing in common - they play for blood, not
the sort of fun fellowship that advances the game.

Just so others are aware - players such as Kotch, Trev, and Elite130 do NOT fit
into this category.