Exactly? Well I can't give away all the secrets can I? However, there are stats that are static on the terrain.

Quote

So regular terrain that we currently use in 1.0 will still need to be placed 2" apart in 2.0 ? Or is it 3". Steve

3"

Why 3" on normal terrain, but constructed can be touching each other ... (those sexy constructed pieces :) )

Steve

Might be to Allow for the slightly incresed bases of the uniques..? 2 Uniques can't block a passage between terrains now ? just a guess.

Magnets?
Just kidding, constructed terrain is much smaller then normal terrain. So if you, for example, wanted to bring some constructed terrain walls, it wouldn't be very useful to have a 2 inch wall out. However, being able to place 2 next to each other makes a nice 4 inch wall. Not a great example, but there ya go.

I would also think that with a 3 inch gap between terrain pieces it is now impossible to create a safe haven where titans and chariots cannot enter.

Apparently the old saying is true,

you can run, but you can't hide.

cheers,
Bob

That venthia's mask would be nice if say, there was a IRHG on the field. THe other mask might be too pricey with adding a push damage but would still be usefull to put on something Vladdish with vamp through most of the dial.
All in all I greatly enjoy reading those battle reports for 2.0. Thanks and keep up the good work.

Thanks for the great report and for all the nuance clarifications Draddog. Makes 2.0 look "ArmyC-ilicious"!

I am happy to report that I don't find any accidental errors in this one (at least from what I know of unit stats).

I think the battle report has been the best by far. That general Vale seems like quite the beast of burden, he took lots and lots of damage.

General Vale does seem like an interesting figure. There are not many non-mage spawn figures whose values get stronger as the figure takes damage. Off hand, Vampiric Draconum is the only other one that I can think of, but there may be more (not including those Berserk figures, of course).

Shraka... read my other post first... If you have, then I hope you'll realize that what I'm saying is true. 2.0 isn't overly complicated. Kevin and Brooks just made a few mistakes in the first two and didn't realize it or whatever. Fact is, 2.0 is just fine, and once the final rules come out, I think we'll all realize that.

D

That poor Horned Hunter... he wasn't having a good day, was he?

I'm sorry perhaps I didn't phrase something right along the way. I was not trying to say that 2.o is overly complicated, but more complicated and that it is turning off a majority of my players. Personally I actually like the added complexity. Complexity means more realism (often and in this case) and in reality many battles are won or lost due to mishandling of troops. So forgetting to turn of an SA or utilize an SA at the begining doesn't bother me. However applying damage to a Magic Immune unit from a Magic attack then realizing it much later in the match makes an Envoy make a very difficult decision. In my eyes that makes it a bad game mechanic for a tournament setting. It means that there needs to be a rule book for judgements to keep the playing field fair from one venue to the next.

Please believe me when I say that I am only trying to bring attention to possible flaws and address them to benefit the game.

On the complexity issue, I taught two people on Friday how to play 2.0. Neither of them were gamers what's so ever, and I don't think either had played any of our games (and I know they had not played classic Mage Knight). As far as I know, they are your classic non-gamers. They picked it up after 1 set of turns and had no problems following the rules. Sure they still need pointers with strategy, but they were able to grasp the rules and remember the sequences very quickly.
Complicated? Sure, but in a good way! :)

ah, so hard to get a point across, especially online.

It is not at all surprising to hear that people can grasp the rules, even those not accustomed to tabletop games. Still not my point and to attempt to explain it further will insult people (in general and not specific) and possibly start a flaming which I would rather avoid.

To sum up and generalize: For my area the tournament goers (and my friends and family) are not interested in 2.0 because of myself and one other regular player (before anyone asks no I don't play in my own tournaments but I do attend those of other Envoy's). It is because we play with such well planned strategy and fine detail of rules that the idea of more variables will only stregthen our edge. We both dread playing one another because we usually walk away from the table with a headache. We also like a close game, not a landslide, so this lack of a tournament scene concerns us. While I only have seen this scenario play out here I'm certain other areas must be going through the same situation. I am also certain that this scenario is in the minority however it is still a large enough issue that I feel merits attention.

The fact I try to present is that the complexity does, and for good reason, turn off some players. MageKnight has been a primary hobby of mine and I hate to loose it because I play well.

I really think MK 1.0 needed added complexity. Unfortunately, 1.0 began to get stale and I really came to believe that if MK were to grow it had to make some major changes. I have always said that if I designed MK 1.0, three of the things I would have changed are (1) have separate combat values for range figures and melee figures; (2) make mounted figures the fastest figures; and (3) change the victory conditions. MK 2.0 has basically done all of this and much much more. I love what I see so far, and am really excited about 2.0. I have played several games using the 2.0 rules and all of them have been really fast-paced and fun.

Shraka I understand what you are saying, but I really think your players will adapt to the new rules and enjoy the game more once they get familiar with it. If anything, the new rules will cause them to develop new tactics--they will not be able to rely upon their tried and true finely-tuned strategies. This to me is a positive thing. I realize that some players may be turned off by change, but once you play 2.0 for a few weeks (depending upon the person) it will become like second nature. Remember, many of the rules are the same in 2.0.

We had a few people play a 1.0 game two days ago, and I honestly cannot play 1.0 anymore. I really enjoy 2.0 now. The pacing and game mechanics at least for 1.0 figures (have not used 2.0 figures yet) are much improved. I really like having the option of surging and double timing, and objective-based victory conditions are much better than using strictly points in determining the victor.

To me 2.0 is necessary for MK. Having played wargames for many years these changes are much welcome because they add a lot more options and strategic depth. If need be Shraka, why don't you have your players play some 2.0 games using only 1.0 figures. You can introduce more of the 2.0 elements later when the game is released.

2.0 has me excited about the future of MK, and I am really looking forward to it. I think every MK player should give it a shot before they dismiss it as too complex or for some other reason. I think they might be pleasantly surprised.