:eek: :eek: :eek: i want them, (but i would only keep the Necro mount LEs and the KI mount LEs.(most of them at least)
then i would just sell the rest, monnney A!(in Mr. Crabs voice(from spongbob))

How's this for a twist:

How about they make you register your army, and THEN tell you the scenario?

That's what they did to us at the Canadian Nationals. In that situartion, you have to have a versatile, multi-purpose army and be very skilled. Or you can do what I did and take a chance that your army will be useless in the scenario.

But you know what? I won anyways. Now THAT'S fun!!! :cool:

OOOHHHH...!!!!
Pretty prizes.....:eek: :eek: :eek:

Secret scenerios are a bad idea:
MK is already random enough with out having to build your army first and then figure out what you have to do with it.

Imagine you build an amazing original army thats very good, but only has 4 figs in it. The scenerio ends up being a gather the tokens on the board theme, and you lose to a guy playing 15 shades. your gonna be pretty ticked off.

Or its a capture event and all your figs have battle fury (orcs?)

I dislike being screwed by the dice enough as it is. Let alone adding another level of randomness to the game. If mage knight wants to strive for a competive tournament scene than they need to eliminate as much luck as possible. Scenerios are fine for fun games at the local store, but keep them out of the competive tournament scene.

I couldn't disagree more with Bshugg. Frankly, an unannounced scenario is the only way the Nationals will be all that interesting to me. Watching monkeys play their usual ML/Ram, F/L, Troll, KI, or Striker armies occurs to me like of a snoozefest, as opposed to the best test of skill. Rather than adding an element of randomness, I believe sudden scenarios add an element of skill by forcing people to use skill and improvisation instead of using their pat deck, uh, I mean army.

I find myself agreeing with JasonMannington here.

I would rather be caught off-guard by a bizarre scenario along with everyone else than sit through a 7 hour tournament where the broad majority of people are playing a few of the same old carbon-copy armies to victory.

LOL!

Really, I am... :D

I agree.

Yeah, I'm going to be there this year and I'd hate to fight the same carbon-copy armies. Personally, I have my own orig. armies that bear little resemblense to some of the ones here. OK some my be based off of "standard" (like Artie-Priestest) constructions, but have my own spin (Prietestses replace with Shamen). Prize lucks sweet, I just wish I WizKids would send some sort of confirmation or invitation to people who hold seats. I won the Whirlwind Marquee all the way back in November and have had to get WRITTEN (re. a couple E-mails) proof from the tourney coordinator that I have my seat. Now my dad's just got to get a flight (I'm only 15 so it's kind of hard to get to Ohio on your own).

Tony:
I disagree with your disagreement (huh?)

Your right that people will bring there streamlined killer armies (decks? lol) but thats the whole point of a national championship in my eyes. Everyone plays the best they have, to their best ability and the winner is the one who skillfully wades through the competition. You mentioned it as a borefest but rattle off 5 different distinct army types in the same breath. Thats not even the whole list of what could be competive. Each build has multiple variants and can be tuned to beat certain match ups. If anything new ideas keep popping up. Look at Borgs swarm/charge, or his Revenant army. Both can win a tournament like nationals if played well and were not in your list.

I have no idea how you can consider the wacky army you played at Wizworld to be boring. It has enough interactions and possible routes to victory as to never play the same way twice. If it truly was boring for you than you must be very skilled strategically if the right decisions just pop out with out much thought. I consider my self to be pretty darn good, but would have to think long and hard about what the right play was each turn. I have mentioned multiple times on here why I play my army. Its powerful, can take down just about anything, and forgiving of all the bad mistakes I make(which I do a lot)

as for scenerios:
scenerios do the same thing to the field just in different ways. Rather than spend the time coming up with the best army, you can spend the time breaking the scenerio. Either way you are rewarding the players who put more time into the game. Also you run the risk of stifling the viable army types out there. Sure there are some powerful archetypes in H2H that limit other designs, but what if the scenerio makes it so a persons favorite army type is not viable. Is that any better? some people really, really like to play one army type. should they be punished for it?

as for random secret scenerios? I mentioned that before. Adding that amount of luck to the game will do more harm than good. A lot of people are traveling long distances to battle with their favorite pet army at Origins. I dont want to see them get mad when they find out that what they built is terrible for the scenerio and lose because of it. Also it will stifle creativity. If you knew there would be objectives and were not sure what they were, what would you play? a flexible ML army, just like everyone else. You wouldnt choose something slow (trolls), or nonflexible (KI swarm)

Tony (again):
I understand your views about the H2H format being boring, but remember a lot of people dont feel the same way. I like that there are certain defined archetypes that everyone plays. The thrill of the game for me is making my archetypical army tuned enough to handle the other big guys. I like playing the mirror match ups and actually outplaying my opponent. In no way am I knocking your skill or person, but perhaps the competive tournament format isn't for you. You do well in it but don't find it fun or challanging. A lot of people still do, but it's not for everyone, just like competive Magic (which you often make references to)
The game needs a widely endorsed format that can be the benchmark for all other formats. Other wise whats the point of a ranking system or such. H2H is a simple enough format, and though we dont agree, has multiple viable army types. Having Nationals as any other format just takes away from that.

In response, I don't think hidden scenarios add "randomness" or an "element or luck" to the game. Rather, I think it forces you to design a better, more flexible, adaptable army that can compete in any environment. This is one of the most basic principles of warfare. That's why light infantry units are employed so much around the world these days.

And how can you complain about luck?!? This is the core of this game, more so than CCGs! How many times have you seen a critical miss or hit decide a game? Frustrating, yes, but this doesn't take anything away from the game, rather it ADDS to the experience.

But in a competive format, do you want to increase the level of luck? I personally dont like it when i play my rear off through 7 hours of a game, and then lose to dice rolls the final match, when you clearly out play your opponent. Why shoot your self in the foot and have a big random Die roll (of how viable your army is in a format) at the the beginning of the tournament. Sure luck is part of the game, but why add more.

As for adding to the game. Read my last post about having to play a flexible army.

bshugg: I agree with a lot of what you say. It's definitely true that my personal perspective is one who has played a kazillion too many games of regular constructed. And yes, a lot of success in a scenario-based championship would be who could bust the scenario. And yes, ML dominates a lot of scenarios, especially if they are too simplistically movement based.

However, that a scenario is somewhat bustable doesn't necessarily make it worse than h2h. What is a scenario but MK with some rules changes, particularly around victory conditions? Standard h2h is in fact a very specific scenario, one that has been "busted" to death already. A new scenario would at least make people bust it from scratch, which is a more worthy test of skill. To believe this isn't true is to believe that standard h2h is a far more interesting, fairer game than anything else, which I just don't believe to be true.

How's this for a "scenario"? One faction armies only. You will have several dominant army types, like standard h2h (KI, elemental, Atlantis, Mage Spawn/Shyft would all be very competitive) but they won't be played out. I'd love to see one faction only become the standard for h2h constructed, but that's a whole long argument...it would elegantly get rid of ML/Ram without a rule change...

I'd also like to address the idea of luck. Personally, my favorite format, BY FAR, is booster draft. (Draft, not sealed booster). Detractors say they don't like the luck involved in what you might draw. You know what? I think there's less luck in booster draft than in standard h2h. The draft element reduces luck quite a bit. I've played a ton of booster events. I've had great draws and terrible draws. And I feel there is less luck in this format than in any other. Why? Because the format tests your ability to play and build and army from scratch--in short, to invent and improvise. I've seen people who can steamroll people with ML/Ram be completely lost in a booster draft. I think this is a very true test of skill.

Here's another analogy about why I think Booster Draft and unusual scenarios are far more skill-based than standard h2h that I've used in the past. I play a fair bit of poker. There are "standard" poker games, like draw, seven stud, texas hold-em, etc. Then there are a million and one wacky variants with wild cards and special rules, etc. I've seen players who say they don't like zany games because they increase the luck. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. In wacky games, good players improvise and adjust their assessments of the odds much better than poor players, and do even better than usual. This is because good players understand general principles of poker, no matter what the game, while mediocre players may just know the standard plays in the standard game without a deeper understanding or skill, just like a mediocre player may be good with their same ol' ML/Ram army but be without a clue in Booster Draft. End of rant.

Here's another "scenario" idea: have WK make the armies. They make five different armies, all sort of junky theme armies, like the ones that come in demo kits, all playtested to be even. You can buy one of your choice in your tournament entry fee. Everyone will be on even footing, and the play will be strongly based around skill.

What fun is that, say detractors? What about the skill of army building? Well, with the "skill" of army building taken out, the tournament would paradoxically be more skill based! But I want to play with my Storm Golem! Or my Striker! Who are you to tell me I can't? Well, play it some other time. Have the Nationals with it's giant prize be the truest test of skill.

JasonMannington hit the nail on the head here.

The true measure of skill in this game should be the ability to improvise and innovate, even in unusual and unexpected situations. It should not be the ability to build and command the same army against the same competition every time, and yet it is. The competitive army is growing more and more stagnant with the same proven armies always triumphing, and I for one am glad to see the WizKids appears to be doing something about it.

To respond to bshugg, of course having an unannounced scenario will put some armies at a disadvantage- but then why not design a creative and more versatile army that covers more bases, so that you can minimize that luck? I would gladly trade an occasional tournament fought at a disadvantage because of the nature of my army in exchange for a competitive environment with some measure of variety, rather than what we have now.