You know, I tried 2.0 when it came out, and I've played a few times since with borrowed figures. I just don't like it. As Bord said, its just more, and not better at all.

I'm still not sure what to believe on set retirement. But if you look at it from one perspective, 2.0 was just a form of set retirement. Whether or not retirement was in the works, 2.0 forced it to happen. They simple couldn't just leave things as they were at that point.

As for me, I haven't quit MK, just retired...

I use to only buy from boosters. A friend helped me buy my first must have fig off of Ebay. Even so, I was still buying MK by the case from the game store. Then the retirement happened. So now I buy 10-12 boosters from the game store and I get the rest from Ebay. Now I am hooked on Ebay.

If WK wanted my loyalty, they should have not burned my collection the day after I ordered two cases. I cancelled them the morning after the anouncement.

FYI - I loved 1.0 except that my enemy could run all day. I love 2.0 except that it is so complex, that after watching a game or a demo, most people move on to L5R or 40k or warmachine. They are easier to learn and don't scare the tourist.

last thing:

I am a warlord, and my short form stats are -

during 1.0, I gained 2-3 players with each release. Reached 7-8 regulars per event.

during 2.0, I have lost 2-3 players per release, with 1 new player since 2.0.

Current regular player count: 3

I'm absolutely curious as to how anyone can think 40K is LESS complicated than MK? :D If we want to star bringing up a game run by money grubbing bastards then, Games Workshop definitely takes the cake for this overcomplicated high-dollar monstrosity.

THE SENTINEL [ag]

I agree with your position on this as well. I think our thoughts differ simply as to which version, 1.0 in that state or 2.0 currently, gives the game a better position.

It's the abilities such as "shut down all ranged combat" that I find counterproductive for the game. When 2.0 was first mentioned, I was all for abusive abilities and figures, but what they created was far beyond even what I wanted.

I wanted 3+ figures with the power of the solonavi striker in each set. Not game changing effects, but simply a gigantic selection of "tier 1" figures.

My rationale was that if x figures dominate, and x is too small for all players to get, make x bigger. Do not reduce x (banning), do not shift x (rotation), do not weaken x (rock/paper/scissors), and do not make x obsolete (more powerful items/figures)

Let's say the max range when you include bound distance was 22. Let's make a ton of figures with 22 inch range, with different abilities and weaknesses. throw in a small selection of 24 inchers just for good measure and let it roll.

If tier 1 included 50+ 100pt figures that shared the same general quality, no one would be stuck trying to find one old dominating figure.

The problem: they were not smart enough to make it balanced. Each set brough a single "uber" figure that dominated the uber figure before it. Storm Golem was taken by Techun, Techun by Striker, Striker by Amazon and Corphy, and the last two were at odds when 2.0 hit.

Shutting down range, instant movement all over the battlefield, 48 inch ranges, slowing down specific figures, instant damage from all over, uberabilities that only few figures have, play altering domain, and possible immunity in certain combos takes the fun out of it.

A bigger figure pool was all that was needed.
Not in size, but in "tier 1" quality.

Now some people will say that if everything is brought up to that level, then there will be one or two other things that dominate-
Not if the designers do their job of releasing the right things. Not if the playtesters do their job of testing to make sure they work right.

There was more that could have been done, but I'm not going to bother getting into it. It won't be able to prove or change anything anyway, only argue an ideal.

HOW is this solution different from ...


... this?:
its the same thing except on a larger scale- each set cancelling the last and you would also have a power shift .... no one...and I mean NO ONE would dare to play anything less than the farthest ranged units in the game... instead of big bound
we'd have range swarm ... or MK version of artillery rnaged gifted units.... in short a rebirth of the "death star" but comprising of more figures rather than one buffed up via ME. tell me what was more powerful in MK 1.0... the figure with 6 CC damage, no range and 10" movement or the range unit with 4 damage and pierce for 22" range AND Close combat. unfortunately for MK 1.0 no range was NOT an option.


since you and many others have been saying that the Playtesters haven't been doing their job up to this day.... how would you example escape the same fate? it doesn't hence the MK 1.0 debates of WK consistantly releasing set counters would continue.... and be a dominate form of play in tournaments. MK 2.0 removed that problem... there has been some small inclusions in sets to counter certain heavily played abilities, such as revenant and high defense (auto-damage is returning in force) but over all we are not compelled to HAVE to play those new additions to be tourney viable... there are still hundreds of options. my .02 on the issue.


peace,
Gunny

Indeed we do seem to agree as to the problem and not the solution.

I would extend the issues with "shut down X" to "reduce all X to Y". Reducing the range to 6" hurts figures with a 12" range significantly more than those with an 8" range. The same with movement penalties. The fact that these are so common is even worse. I might even wonder if there was some recognition of this fact with the inclusion of Chinook and Level the Field in Sorcery.

As for constantly adding figures of the highest level, you still reach a point of overload. Part of the game strategy must include at least a reasonable chance of knowing what you are going to face. And at this point, can you (or anyone else from the "old days" rattle off the salient points of even half the figures from the pre-2.0 sets? How about just half the Uniques and LEs? I'm missing only 4 MK LEs, and I'm not sure I could do that with just 2.0 right now!
Likewise the constant addition of "preferred" figures means increasing, or at least tacitly admitting and consigning to the scrap heap, all the other figures. It has been mentioned repeatedly how "bad" it is that MK is marketed as a collectible game with random figures in boosters. How much worse will that be when it is known that only 25% of the figures in any set are worth using?

The only way to control those factors would be to reduce the size of the releases to no more than 1 common sculpt and 1 Unique Sculpt per faction. 45 figures per set (including 1 LE per common sculpt) and you can go through 20 sets before hitting overload. Of course with the shift to having common sculpts with item slots you can effectively eliminate the difference between the two in the next few releases, and eliminate LEs or Uniques altogether and replace them with a combined "Special" type that covers both. (That is, common sculpts given a name, or separate sculpts with a higher power level.) That would allow more common sculpts per set, and more figures overall before hitting that upper limit. Of course that will also require more items and more ability to customize that way, but most people like that.
(Hmmm . . . I wonder if that will turn out to be prophetic?)

See? Isn't it much nicer to agree on the problem and calmly discuss different options as a solution?

Here's what we did:
We changed the combat system over to one very similar to Dungeons, where you "pay" 4 points of your movement ability to take a combat action on the same turn you've moved. This allows a big fig to be targeted up to 3 times in the same turn. Allows ranged fire to take action a lot quicker without all the time to aim and reaim.
To give you an example: we played a three player game one night. I had Corphy in my army, another player had the AD and the third had a half troll behemoth. The AD was toast in 3 turns. (granted, the dodge roll was missed) I had to skirt Corphy around the edge of the battlefield and couldn't use him all gung-ho and reckless. He was taken out, but not before doing some damage himself. Neither of these pieces were considered uncontorllable threats.

And just to keep this on topic, we've been able to use 1.0 and 2.0 figs together quite well. Never had a problem. No need to retire anything.

Not at all my good man. You see, while all ranged armies could be popular, things like LI and now ghostform can easily keep them in check. Sure, you can use all ranged- might be wasting a few points, but keep in mind 1.0 figs did not loose stats if it was a ranged figure doing close combat.

In the first scenario, I described a gamestate where any numbers of figures can be rotated in or out of army slots, and your chances of winning depend on the players skills in using that which is before them.

In the second, there are many more effects that do much more of a devastating impact on gameplay. Winning depends only partially on general skill using the best to the worst of figures, but it also relies a great deal on "the luck of the draw". Mainly, if you run into something you can't handle, fuggedaboutit.

I wasn't under the impression that you were "blending" MK 2.0 with Mk 1.0. As I underestood your post, you were giving me the impression that Mk 1.0 could have been saved by WK not doing what they did before and just brought out more units in quantity that were accessable to the avg. player. Now with LI, you brought up a good point...we're back to being LI dependant AND the fact that range unit are still as good in CC as they were in RC. (as you mentioned they don't lose stats).

now you mentioned skill: skill at what though hexian?.... the only skill I can imagine is something similar to two Amazon drac armies almost identical in shape, size, count and units. sure it'll come down to skill everytime.... I can get the same feeling in chess. BUt like I said, I didn't see this as a blending of two MK's I read your post withthe understanding that we are speaking about MK 1.0 BEFORE mk 2.0 came out and what WK should have done instead of MK 2.0... anyways... I do get what you are saying now.... but in a sense what you are suggesting is similar to MK 1.0 but in MK 2.0... a mass amount of units to cull out the prior set... cept we don't need power splurges. Hey If I misread your post feel free to correct me.


Gunny

Reference post #41 in this Thread to understand my comment.

Ditto.

Wyvern has it nailed dead-on. This I think would be the best and most promising saving-grace for WK to endure well into the future.
Hey Wyvern, maybe when WK goes under, you and I can put our pennies together, buy the company off Topps and a penny per buck value, and make this work?
OK OK, no one at WK get your panties in a bind at my last sentence there. You have a great game and I love it. But please be aware that although there are many of us who will play your games to the bitter end as long as you keep the quality as high as it is now, the strategy you are using to grow this game leaves something to be desired for you to live long and prosper. It's coming time for an all or nothing approach. I believe in Wyvern's approach of going for it all. Keeping your current strategies sure aren't working. Are they? I have yet to hear of any Venues that have grown in Tourny attendance. Are your sales growing or falling? OK, forget sales even. How are your profits? Seriously! Can you use being in the red to justify not going Wyvern's route? I'm just assuming profits have fallen with sales. I used to give Game Stops a lot of money for Wk product. Anyone seen any on their shelves recently? It's not cause they sold out. It's that they no longer sell it. Half the actual hobby/comic/game Venues in San Anotnio have discontinued carrying Mage Knight. No sales.
C'mon guys, market things more cleverly, hit it right with some new strategies, and this game will certainly outlast even the old titans like WH40K, and certainly the new ripoffs of your great idea that are springing up.
If I'm wrong and your profits are showing either growth or are staying level, is it because of an increase in sales? Or because of some clever quick fixes you have made since your beginnings which include a downsizing of prize support and being rid of the Envoy point system, etc? Keep in mind I have no problem that you did either, they were good business decisions. But they can't be used to justify the sales vs profit dilemma. You are coming to a point where you cannot cut much more, I would guess. So please please please find a strategy to increase sales AND profit.
I do not want your game to perish.

Skill in 1.0 was how well you understood and played your army.
Skill in 2.0 is much more random.

Before anyone jumps at that, allow me to explain.

There was an army I designed that was discussed in the strategy forum quite some time back... the idea was to hit hard with range and not back down. It required 3 mid to large bounders with at least a total 15 inch range, 2-3 chump blockers, and a healer- enhancement if you have the room.

This army focused on all range. The idea was to indentify the biggest thread in your opponents army and take it out within a single turn. Position until the kill is set and attack.

Wost Case Scenario:
I face an army of all invisible / stealth units.


-1.0-
The Good: These armies are rare. The worst match up would probably be a zombie baron or maybe a vampiric drac.

The Bad: I can't hit jack. Range takes a hit and I get to sit there for a bit. BUT WAIT! my units have the same power in melee! So I lost range... but I still have 3 heavy hitters...

The Ugly: I can turtle and pick off a small figure towards the end for the win if need be since I will probably be able to gain first strike. (doubtless the -entire- army is not invisible) Not the nicest of tactics, but it is effective and can win.


-2.0-
The Good: Items/Relics and such can help me to include what my figures are lacking in melee. (even though that is not the point of the army.) :rolleyes: where are you?

The Bad: Range can get nerfed. Gamebreaking domains and relics that can give me the screwjob, not to mention ruin movement etc while not being devastating at all to them. Throw in the tower trick, Instant damage from anywhere and the like and this isn't fun.

The Ugly: Too many options. There is no way for me to be comfortable going into ANY match. Maybe that was the "security blanket" of 1.0, you knew what was out there, and even in the worst case you still had a chance.


It just feels like you lost that extra chance in 2.0. There are just too many gamebreaking effects to be able to have a chance against all of them. Seems like if you get unlucky, you can just sit there and take the pain.


1.0 was solid, and 2.0 in many player's eyes is just rocking a boat that used to be a lot more calm.

Maybe we were on rough waters before, but now it just feels like we were hit with a white squall.

In my opinion, this is exactly what ruined the game for me around Uprising. With that reasoning you have right there, there was no reason to play anything other than the Bound/Range. You knew you'd see it just about every time you went to the board. First strike and you're the same in melee as any other close combat beast, generally with a high damage value. The absolute worst thing was.. they were costed way too cheap. Bakus, Amazon Drac, and Magus Anendu and to a lesser extent Courpheous.

This exists to a lesser extent in the 2.0 environment amongst my play group. I do not see Bound in every army or even range units in general. That's my take on things.

Well, that is one of the nice things about 2.0. You have to think twice about using an extreme army like all fast bounders. You need more balance in your army. I think the "bad" happened a lot with this type of army in 1.0. Kill an imp and run. Took no real thought and was extremely frustrating to the opponent. Bounders broke away easily, so non-ranged figures had a difficult time killing them. I saw plenty of matches where a melee force had no chance against Amazon Drac and company. Actually, the fact that the Amazon Drac and other figures like her were good in close combat made it even worse. Take a look at Khan Rava. Awesome in range, but average in close combat. Compare him to the Amazon Drac. I find the that relics and domains make 2.0 very challenging and fun, much better than the overly predictable 1.0 games.

It seems like people are upset that they lost their security blanket--an easy, overly powerful 1.0 strategy. This sort of strategy ruined the game for many people.