Even with range focused armies, I still got my rear handed to me by melee on several occasions. Gobbo Volunteer swarms with 1 or 2 melee powerhouses were able to do massive damage to armies like mine.

My favorite army to run was something called "The Meat Grinder"
Look it up in the strategy forum... only range it has was a zombie baron. Last time I checked, he didn't classify as big bound.
In 2.0, balance is forced.
I don't want to be forced to play swiss.
I want to use it when I opt to.

I don't doubt that people lost on occasion with range dominant armies to melee but in my area (and that's all I can really comment on and be honest with myself) it was a rare site. With Magus Anendu shooting through anything he wanted the only protection was LI and Stealth. There weren't too many viable attackers with those SA's that I saw. You had Marrow, ZB (his ability to send things flying and not get shot made him good), and Utmen Chura (spelling)

Those opposed to Amazon Drac, Corpheus, Bakus, Magus Andendu, Khumeret combined with the dreaded Crystal Protector shield wall of doom. Add in a mounted unit with Charge/Double Move and it was done.

I remember a game where an out of town opponent came to play at a tourney we were giving Bakus and a GFD away at. He was an older gentleman, about 40 or so and this was for a 300 point game. Our armies were the same nearly. Amazon Drac and Maguse Anendu with LI and a KI Cavalry unit. The game was won by the first hit. We both knew it as soon as it happened. 90% of the game we spent carefully measuring and moving peices trying to get the other one to move where we wanted him and neither of us was dumb enough to do it. Finally I got tired and just moved my Am Drac into his line of fire. That was pretty much the game. While the game was stimulating from a stratagy aspect, much like a good chess game, it wasn't as fun to me as a good game of 2.0 with the Surges and Double Times.

That's the best example I can think of to express why I like 2.0 more than 1.0.

Actually I agree with you there except the 2.0 definition is a bit longer and more detailed. my interpretation:

"Skill in 1.0 was how well you understood and played your army." - word for word this 100% correct.

"Skill in 2.0 is much more random." thus requiring players to adapt and improvise to changes, pushing the envolope one has in skills and how well they know their army to survive and win. - there are many matches where I did not have the upper hand and managed to win simply because I knew my figures and rules of the game very well. the same applies for others.

[quote
Before anyone jumps at that, allow me to explain.[/quote] no, you can't, I won't let you, stop, I mean it.... no milk and cookies if you....... ah shoot, you did it anyways ;) :p

Okay, I'm with ya on what you said this time around ;). fire away.


Like what staark said, this made your type of build dominant even in when the opposing player used LI and stealth.... it made no difference, they were screwed either way. but I added some stuff in italics to "equalize" what you did in the MK 2.0 comparison.

Okay not repeat like a parrot but what did the 2.0 section have to do with

you covered this in the 1.0 point of view, but you totally skipped in in the 2.0 point of view... which in fact sounds more like a general gripe of MK 2.0 as a whole. here's what I think it should have looked like: No offense is meant, so please bear with me. mind you this would be a realistic MK 2.0 build versus a MK 2.0 build. its only fair you grade each in their environment.. my .02.

The good: These kind of armies are rare. worst match up varies with either melee capable uniques with GF or LI, or uniques with various range killing or denying relics. this forces my opponent to use up points in that dept.

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." but I do know I can field counters as well and I should have built some similar concept in my build as well, If I didn't its purely my fault or intent. Mk 2.0 requires me to improvise and adapt more readily than I had to in Mk1.0 because alot happens in MK 2.0 when things get tweaked or changed wheras very little happens in MK 1.0 allowing the dominate player to maintain the upper hand regardless. Main issue: skill is a must when dealing with a nerfed environment.

the Ugly: I built my army as pure range, unfortunately there are far too many ways to shut down pure attack type builds, so I lose and lose badly. Mk 2.0 penalizes the player who plays pure melee or range. forcing a mix of both to be viable on all fronts. benefit from this is more army consideration is required because of boni of attack types vary in power and number, wheras Mk 1.0 didn't have this problem range units had no worries if range was nerfed by LI or Stealth, attack values and damage remained the same.




the security blanket was the comfortability of having so little to choose and easily knowing what you would face, in MK 2.0 you do not and requires players to adapt more readily rather than be consistantly dominant with that same 12 figures in every match which was only less than 1% of the MK 1.0 sets all together... the rest was garbage

**note** in the 1.0 version you had a negative and positive.... you completely left out any positive in the MK 2.0, IMHO that was unfair comparing.


winning everytime isn't possible anymore, winning most of the time is. using your wits beyond simple tactics is a hard to learn trait in MK 2.0, this much I'll admit... either you can keep up with the tactics and combos or you can't.


Oh mk 1.0 was solid, so solid that only one type of build was viable... you only went with what was the most solid build....in the end WK shot themselves in the foot because they eventually narrowed the game to one solid type of combat. "2.0 in many players eyes is just rocking the boat that used to be alot more calm" : I'm sorry but I do disagree with that comment.... Mk 2.0 provided more boats to use rather than just one. the reason the water is a bit choppy at times is because there are alot more boats in the water making waves ;)


if you were playing you'd know this isn't true.... I know you prefer the good ole days of simple tactics and dominant builds bought for $35 on ebay... (yes, Ebay sold pre-made dominant archetypes online.... thats sad.) but those days have gone away with the freshness that is MK 2.0 in terms of various combos being used. I wished you really sit down and see why many love the game... but I suspect its simplicity that attracted you to MK 1.0 and I can't blame you for that... I know many players who love MK 1.0 for that reason alone... but simplicity came with a price...poor damage control on dominant archetypes by WK. I prefer Mk 2.0's chaos of combos and build options and I find that I still win most of the time due to my skills at building and knowing the meta-game.

Peace,
Gunny

oops must have missed a "[/b]" somewhere...sorry.
-G

And now I know we're polar oppisites as to how we view the game. A lot of folks' main complaint about 1.0 was the fact that melee figures were awful. They couldnt' keep up with range. I think one of the coolest things about 2.0 is that range has become risky at best with flying ghost formers like Varatrix and Relics like Inferno. That doesn't mean range sucks. It's just more balanced.

Too many options? I've never heard that as a complaint. Your security blanket should come from excellent tactics and proper army building, not from having the best army off of the net. Not that you did this Hex. As a matter of fact I remember some of those net armies being designed by you. Or was that Hitman?

Your complaints with the game are two reasons I think 2.0 excels over the original. Definitly have to agree to disagree on this one. Though I'll still be calling you to the mat. Oh, and saw you spamming in another post (that's two now). Better watch it or Xan's gonna have to find other names to call me. :D

THE SENTINEL [ag]

or eight.

Honestly, I didn't include a good part about 2.0 because for now I don't see a good part to 2.0. Thats just my opinion.

gunmix, I could get into all the strategy articles and such that have been discussed since the beginning, but I don't think I need to repost all that. There has been much activity on the realms before you first got here. I'm sorry you missed it- I think you would have liked most of it.

Maybe I'll give 2.0 a shot again, who knows.

I think it's the rotation that really set me off. Initially it didn't feel so bad, because I had a handful of 2.0 stuff to use. Now I feel that unless I go out an spend more money, I won't be able to play at the same level as those who are buying the new stuff. Eh, time will tell. I'll be in nyc this weekend.

Hexian, would you have not bought anymore MK assuming they hadn't gone to 2.0 or retirement? I have to collect all the Dracs, so I consider having to buy new stuff a necessity for my collection, not necessarily my game.

At the end. I know at one point there were complaints that melee was too powerful, no one got off any ranged attacks (pre-Sinister). There were a few waves throughout 1.0. I expect the same with 2.0, especially with set retirement making evolution of the metagame easier.

I don't collect. I only pick up the sculpts I like to use them for a mod or the stuff I want to use.

Life hit hard 2 years ago and it's getting more rough. I need to pay college tuition, car insurance, cell bill, train tickets to school, and food with money from work outside of full time school. Over the summer its a bit easier, but funds run tight. Especially now when I need a new car.

I'm sure I could squeeze out a few bucks to pick up a handful off boosters, but it wouldn't be much. Throw that on top of only being able to use that stuff, and I don't have much of a reason to go to tourneys- can't use what I have anyway.

OMG, you're killin' me! "older -- 40"...... :eek:

Scrye magazine, in their latest issue, talks about the HUGE number of new (not expansion) games in 2004 and those scheduled for 2005. It's getting to be a big, competitive business.

Everyone is going to follow the obvious leader in this industry -- WoTC. Magic has had rotation and block play for quite some time, and it's still rollin' along. Everyone is doing it, and until MtG falters, everyone will.

Mage Knight has (Topps) cards for use with their figures now. Mech Warrior will have (Topps) cards for use with their figures in January (Age of Destruction), and even Hero Clix, the best selling of them all, will have (Topps) cards added for battle conditions and "feats."

There is a definite influence of the Wizkids/Topps association. PoTSM anyone???

I love playing the game. Oh yeah, that's right, it's a GAME! If you like 1.0, play unrestricted, or play at your pal's house, or play with yourself ;) ...

I spend no more on this than I would if I went to the movies and got popcorn and a soda everytime I went to play MK or MW...

GAME ON!!

HA! Beautiful reality check from Black Sword.

And I also agree, "older gentleman," wha?!?!?!? wha wha wha?!?!?!?

I think when someone makes the mistake of calling me an older gentleman in my 40th year, (coming pretty soon,) well, to avoid getting penalty marks on the forums, let me just say, it's gonna be ON!:eek: :boot: to the @ double s:eek:

he he he he heh. (vocalized as a toothless cackle)

Although as a Warlord trying to promote the game and keep it alive, I still believe set retirement and rotation for WK is an uber-bad choice for their survival, I certainly love the changes the 2.0 game system has brought. A problem which could be resolved by WK announcing 1 Classic game supported by them each month.
To respond to some other posts here in this rotation Thread...
I think 2.0, despite some of the problems we all know about, is a superior game to most of the competition out there. More random than 1.0? Yep. No argument. Maybe it's the gambler in me that likes this. I'm a pretty good gambler. I win more than I lose. Usually. It's that "usually," part which keeps things interesting. Anyone remember the old Twilight Zone where the guy goes to Heaven and he wins at EVERYTHING? Can't lose. It starts to get to him, until of course at the end he finds out he wasn't in heaven at all? Well, does anyone REALLY want that unbeatable army? 1.0 had some that darned near were that way by the time it ended. Me, I didn't like I'd figured out how to use the rules to my advantage so well that I could whoop on things hardcore. I think that was a reason I came to prefer Dungeons. More randomness. Much more. It's more exciting. More challenging. Makes you think more when something unpredicted happens. I love that. A lot. Keeps it as an actual "game."
But ya know, a game should be fun, so play it as you prefer to keep it a game for yourself and your preferences among friends.
My 2 cents.

The only difference is that MTG prizes are worth while. I mean, a $30-40K prize purse here and there is something to shoot for. There's a REASON to get good at MTG other than enjoyment of the game. Top MTG players like Finkle and Budde get recognition and cash. Top MK players get figures that will eventually rotate out of the competitive environment. Sad isn't it.

Now folks like me enjoy the game because its fun. However, it sure would be nice to have a little more encouragement for new players to join the game and in my opinion, and at the risk of sounding negative, I don't think that continued rotation is the way to go. Initial rotation of 1.0 proved useful. Any further rotation is taking only a part of MTG, but not the overall incentive for play.

THE SENTINEL [ag]

Where does this come from.
Initial outlay can be fairly high, but you can use the figures forever, re-equip old ones and play at whatever points value you like.
The rule-books are what cost :D

Looking at set rotation (back on course)

In the environment that WK have created (both gameplay and business), it became necessary. Personally I believe that it was pre-planned, having seen the difficulties of maintaining balance over a number of sets WK almost had to introduce it or spend time and money on a huge, professional, playtesting dept. From a business viewpoint there are examples of how successful rotation is at keeping the punters spending. together these two things make it very attractive to the company.

Might be cheaper over in your neck of the woods Orc Mage! :D My understanding is that GW ups the prices over here in the colonies because (quoting a GW staffer) "You Yanks will pay it!" As far as complication, is it still a separate rulebook for each main faction and aren't they continually updated? I used to play 40K and enjoyed it, but I find MK much easier to maintain and less time-consuming.

THE SENTINEL [ag]
BTW My sister's over in London right now going to school for the semester. Where are you?

I'm based in Cornwall, down in the SW.
200 Miles or so from London.
Where in London is she ?
I lived in London for about 12 years, might be able to give you some pointers to pass on.