I think it was a combination of the following forces:

1.) Uber Prizes and the Uber Gamers They Spawned. Initially, LE prizes were more cost-efficient than the regular figs you could get out of boosters. Some warlords (who got these pieces for free as rewards for holding the tournaments) and other Uber players won them and used them to build more efficient armies that would, in turn, help them win even more LEs. The cycle had been going on since Rebellion first came out, and by the time I got into Mage Knight (around the time of Sinister) most of these folks had armies built with pieces that held such a huge competitive advantage that they virtually could not lose to armies that lacked those pieces. So in other words, the same folks kept winning all the time.

For my part, I got frustrated and quit playing tabletop, focusing instead on Mage Knight: Dungeons, which I enjoy more anyway because it's like other games I love -- D&D and HeroQuest. In speaking with other gamers at my venues, a lot of them were annoyed that these Uber players kept on winning, but I guess they had more time or money or something than I did because they kept buying more boosters and trying again and again to beat these Uber guys.

I think WK essentially was on to something: I really do believe there was a serious barrier to entry for newbies that might have wanted to play Mage Knight. But the problem was WK's own making, by having LEs that were better than the stuff a newbie could pull from a booster. Things could have been better if WK had started to balance the figs a bit better, but instead ...

2.) Retirement. I'd like to think that some of the Uber Players were better than spoiled children who took their toys and went home once they lost their competitive advantage; however, in light of what I saw at my own venues, I can't actually say that I believe that. Some of those guys just want to be Lords of All They Survey, and when they started losing once in a while, well, they cried about it and then went home angry. And never came back.

That of itself probably wasn't a bad thing. I'm sure enjoying the tourney scene now that those guys are gone. But the decision to retire all of 1.0 was, in my opinion, like using a Nuke to burn the hornet's nest in your back yard. OVERKILL. And it did some terrible collateral damage, namely:

Other folks who weren't uber gamers but who had been loyally playing MK, buying box after box of toys hoping to unseat the Uber Gamers, suddenly found themselves in the same boat as the Uber Gamers. After spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on Mage Knight, WK told them they couldn't use their pieces anymore. So a lot of people -- not just the Uber Gamers -- felt like they'd been cheated, that their collections had been devalued (not just from a dollar-value point of view but also from a gaming-value point of view). A LOT of people quit Mage Knight as a result of retirement.

So here's a dilemma: If the old guard of Uber players and Long-time Collectors have left the game, and newbies have not been brought in to replace them, who is left? The newbies in my area rarely picked up MK because they couldn't beat the big guys. But without the big guys, there were no tournaments and so no visibility for the game. Worst of all, some of the Uber Gamers and Long-time Collectors were, in fact, the warlords themselves. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens to a game when the people who are supposed to promote and represent your product suddenly start promoting and representing somebody else's product -- or even start to out-and-out discourage your product to other potential newbies.

WK again missed an opportunity here. If they had made a concerted effort to attract new players with a marketing campaign that reached outside of the comics shops that were hosting WK tourneys, then maybe there would have been a wellspring of new interest in the game, from which we could have cultivated new players. But even though HC and MW are sold in Toys 'R Us, Mage Knight never got that treatment. I never saw a TV ad or heard a radio ad about Mage Knight, or even a magazine ad that wasn't in the comics/gaming trade. Advertising in a gaming mag after you've peed in the drinking water of the audience who reads those mags is kind of futile, I think. WK should have reached out to nontraditional gamers; if they wouldn't do that, then at the least they needed to have done a better job of convincing people that retirement was the right way to go. Unfortunately, that was too big a hurdle -- probably because, in fact, it really wasn't the right way to go. 2.0 was a great excuse to unfurl some banners and tout this new game, but it simply wasn't done anywhere that a receptive new audience would have been looking.

That's my opinion. Not enough balance of power early on caused new players to stay away; then, retirement ticked off the majority of the players who were still playing.

So why am I still playing? Well, due to my job I was never really able to make it to tourneys. So I play just casually with friends. As a result, retirement didn't really affect me. I still play with the figures I bought -- regardless of the set from which they came. And none of the guys I play with are Uber Gamers anyway. We just have a good time. Imagine that!

I don't believe the 2.0 game is any harder to understand, or to learn to play, than the old 1.0 was. However, I do think that, from the point of view of being a competitive player, you now have so many more options to take into consideration when building your army. You have to think, "but what if my opponent brings such-and-such combo/relic/domain/figure/etc./etc.?" So, if you've got that kind of personality, building a 300 point army may not be as easy or as fun as it used to be -- you're so worried about finding the combination that counters every cheese tactic out there that you're not really enjoying the game anymore.

I think when some folks say that 2.0 got "too complicated" with DR and Sorcery, what they're really saying is, "it's too hard to build an army that counters everything." I kind of think that is the same line of thought that the Uber Gamers of old would have used; "Waah! My army can't beat EVERY OTHER ARMY!" Wwaahh!"

But like I said, I just play occasionally, and for fun. I'm not trying to be National Champion or anything. Yes, I still occasionally run into an opponent who plays "TripleDodge/DoubleVenom/Can'tRangeMe/Can'tBaseMe/Nyah,Nyah!" kinds of armies, and that's not a lot of fun. But on the whole, most of those guys have left MK behind. Good riddance, in my humble opinion.

Lots of good points made on this thread. Dont think I can add any more points.

On the topic of good and bad sets I think Omens was the worst, what was the point Adventuring companies and Multiple dials for champions. The AC's usually didnt make sense. I think 2.0, Dark Riders and Sorcery were great. Nexus isnt impressing me much.

I thought Omens was lame too.

I like Sorcery and Dark Riders a lot. Sorcery is my favorite MK 2.0 set. I like using spells and most the uniques in that expansion are good.

I do wish WK would have released another mounted set. There could have been some neat mount possibilities.

-Q

No, I don't think so. Yes, a lot of competitive players stopped playing because every army had to have a weakness. They didn't like that every player they'd meet would have a chance to beat them if they had the right army.

However, there were a lot of complications in 2.0. Now, I don't think 2.0 was too bad, just take it a step at a time for new players. However, the overcomplication started with Dark Riders.

Now, I really like the concept of the mounts and riders. The concept was light years ahead of Lancers & Whirlwind riders. However, in practice it was far too complicated. Just the rules for them by themselves were confusing (can I dismount, attack, remount and attack again on the same turn?) but one top of that we had several proficiences, odd special abilities interactions with Mounted Charge & Mounted Bound.

I don't think Sorcery's rules were too complicated. Besides the basics, you only had to worry about browse costs and affinities. However, the 90 spells introducted initially were just a bit too many, IMO. There were so many interactions that the complexity level jumped.

I think Omens was the best 2.0 set (well, outside Nexus). The concept of champions was great. A more versatile version of heroes. It would have been expanded a lot (they could do future variations on existing champions dials). Plus, you had a 1 in 4 chance of a unique in a booster! Adventuring companies weren't too complicated really.

However, all of this together is just overwhelming to a new player.

Wow, I couldn't agree with you more DB. You took the words right out of my mouth. The only thing I would add is the odd rule debacle that made it so you couldn't use charge/bound and any other abilities. This confused and annoyed a lot of old players. It was only made worse by the fact that they kept making figures that had charge, weaponmaster and 0-1 damage. Yeah that was cool.

But eho cares, it is all overed, the game islost, it is death:( :( :( ...............


What do you think, a good dramatisation.....

Actually, I liked that you were limited in the abilities you could use with Charge and Bound. Look at all the items or spells that would be absolutely dominating and overpowerful if they could be used with Charge and Bound.

Now, I might have made different choices as to which abilities were limited. However, the general idea has a very sound base.

As the rules are now, it's hard to remove. Someone I chat with periodically likes to point out that if the ability to use all those abilities were put back, then mounts lose a large part of their value because one of their advantages is the ability to use those abilities while moving and attacking.

This is going to be blunt and to the point.

The reason Mk failed was WizKids's ineptitude to keep the game at a quality level that would keep people interested in the game.

All they had to do was maintain the game at a consistent quality level without hitting reset buttons, 2.0, to keep players interested.

They failed miserably.

Why are you saying reset? The only rule that was changed from 1.0 was the free doubletime with charge or bound figures. The game would have become boring if max 1-2 new abilities came with every pack, i think the new stuff was good.

Retirement was a big failure, lot of topics were about it.
What they really screwed up after that was playtesting and quality. Lots of misprints, broken combos and missing parts/figures. These were a good point for naysayers, who "advertised" the game negatively.

Hey. let's go down this line of reasoning: Mage Knight didn't fail. It had a failry strong fan base and sales weren't terrible, but it didn't bring in as much profit as the other 2 Wizkids games, which were both based on licensed products.

Mage Knight died because it wasn't easy to market and Wizkids could turn a LOT more profit by simply making more little clix dials with Spider-man glued on them.

Oh .. and the whole focus of the game via objectives.
For any who will say that all you need do then is wipe out the enemy, it makes for a totally different approach to army building which in turn mean that whatever your approach, your opponent can play the objectives game.

and Domains
and Surge
and the introduction of Double-time
and soaring
and gang-up
and a host of changes to ranged combat
and... etc

Not that they're bad changes, just making a point.

Whilst making a point I'll add another ..

It is not necessarily the case that so called "ubber players" stopped because they lost sometimes. It was for a number of reasons, of which the army builds was just one. Focusing on the army build question though ..
When you could build an army with all of the possible threats in mind and there was not one thing that could totally hose your strategy it all came down to the mat when both players were equally strong in their building ability.
With the advent of MK2 (which I still enjoy playing and will for some time to come) however good your army building strategy you could still get hosed by a Domain or a single combination. This put off many competetive players, who want a level playing field, where it's all down to how well you play on the mat.

I do agree that them leaving the game was to its detriment, as a competetive player I miss the games and the discussions of build strategy that the game spawned, but I can't see how anyone can be down on them for no longer wishing to be involved in a sytem that no longer excites their competetive spirit.

If all you want is to play "home" games then you don't need to play in tournements, if you play in tournaments then expect to meet competetive players :)

1) set retirement - AKA dont bring the amazon drac back.
2) Objectives and 2nd player advantage - AKA - you didn't kill me, but i can still beat you.
3) It did get to hard for new players to come into the game after dark riders.
4) secondary market cost to field competitive tourney armies.
5) companies changes of the game and the taste it left in player's mouths.
6) lack of advertising

What did NOT kill MK....
1) Relics: the absolute best thing ever to happen to MK IMO
2) sorcery - It was very exciting and challenging for our group
3) LE's spawning LE's - Remember Kyma? the Kyma boom! yes - winning 2.0 le's used to mean you will continue to win until you get beat. Isn't thats the point of tournament competition? No one gives me an advantage when i go auto racing when i make $50 and the winner makes $250. He can put that much more money into his car, and it COSTS me greatly to keep up. If your a sore loser - your still a loser. If you learn and adapt - your winning becuase you can set achivable goals.

As a Warlord for about three years, I can say I truly despise these counter-arguments.

I proposed to WK to have them, after 2.0 came out, have a set of beginner tournaments with simplified rules so new players would have an easier "in" to the game. It was quickly shouted down by other players saying "If your new players are too STOOOPID to understand these simple rules, then WK doesn't need them."

The rules can be easily learned, but trying to attract a new player to the game was incredibly hard (because of them). The presentation to the new player was more geared for people somewhat familiar with the game, not someone who picked it up on their own at a store. I've run quite a few demos in the past, had tons of people come look at the pretty figures, but loose them when I try to explain the basics of the game.

I truly hate to see it go - I had a ton of fun and good memories from this game.

Since it seems to be my comment that this is in reference, too, let me say that it was intentionally an oversimplication of the reasons behind it. I was merely using that to contrast the comment I was replying to.

The facts were correct in my statement, but it certainly could be expanded past my simplification. The top players want to be beaten by skill and not luck of the draw. MK 2.0 was certainly directed to the less competitive players giving them a chance against the top players.

There are any number of competitive players who would be turned off by this. There are the "purists" who want the skill to win every single time, without regards to luck. There are the egoists who are in it to win to stroke their ego, and losing to someone they consider "inferior" requires them to blame the game (which, in this case, would be accurate). There are the "professionals" who would go from venue to venue, using the same cheese armies (because there will always be a top few armies that will almost always win in a "competive game") and would make money by selling the excess prizes.


MK 2.0 wasn't really directed towards these players. It was directed at the players who sit down to have fun and occasionally win a game.