doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

:p

Your facts are wrong. Mage Knight 2.0 became tournament legal mid-November of last year. Set retirement took effect mid-May of this year. There were 6 months of tournament games before set retirement took effect. I really can't answer about how many I played during that time. However, I made use of a lot of currently retired figures in official tournament games during that time.

While there may be some interconnected issues between set retirement and Mage Knight 2.0, they are separate issues and took place at different times. Indeed, I'm almost certain that the connections are tenuous and not directly connected.

"My Answer:
A2: All. While I can use any figure within the rules of the game in non-official games- IE: House Rules tounrys, or tournaments were there is not official prize support, there were no official games that were not affected by a game factor known as "Set Rotation"."

Personally, when they first announced 2.0 I took about an 8 month leave of absense from playing tha game, due to two things. The change bothering me was one, and a rough school schedule was the other. If you ask someone in my clan, I posted infrequently if not at all for a while.

My answer was that I had not played in any 2.0 games that went around the rotation rule.
You are welcome to call that fact wrong, but it is a fact.
I didn't play for that time period.

You know what I'm getting at man. The point is that at the height of 1.0, rotation was not even a whisper in the wind. The game simply did not need it, have it, or was considering it. It took a major change to bring about more.

Might a rotation still have come into place even if 2.0 never came about? It very well could have. But- 2.0 does exist, so I guess we will never know.

The overall idea is that 1.0 did not have rotation to limit choices.

2.0 does. Maybe there was "6 months of tournament games before set retirement took effect", but 2.0 grew into set retirment, where 1.0 did not.
You can not dispute that.

The "fact" I'm calling wrong isn't your entire answer, but the part I specifically italicized - "there were no official games that were not affected by a game factor known as "Set Rotation".

I can and do. What I dispute is " but 2.0 grew into set retirment, where 1.0 did not." Specifically, that it "grew into it." It was something that happened after 2.0 was released, not something that "grew out of" 2.0 being released.

Retirement runs across all WizKids lines (Heroclix and Mage Knight currently, Mechwarrior eventually, other lines are too new). None of them have had the changes Mage Knight did with 2.0 (even the Heroclix rules update with Indyclix wasn't close to 2.0 in amount of change). Mage Knight is just the set with the longest history, and thus the first to be affected by the decision for WizKids to implement set retirement.

2.0 didn't cause set retirement (at least directly). If it did, then the other WizKids lines wouldn't be affected. Set retirement didn't cause 2.0.

Saying set retirement is part of 2.0 because it came a bit after it was released is like saying that the dropping of the second place prize caused 2.0 because 2.0 came after WizKids dropped the second place prize.

I will agree that set retirement does help rules updates, such as 2.0. Game designers can now feel free to change rules that might cause problems with older figures, because the older figures have a limited tournament lifespan.

Still, this is getting off-topic. Lets get back to discussing and comparing the differences in 2.0 & 1.0. If you want to continue this, start a new thread. It's an interesting topic to discuss.

I think I'm still not getting through.

Fact: Set Retirement did not affect MK1.0

(set retirement is non-existant in the history of the 1.0 version of the game)

Fact: Set retirement does exist in the short history of MK2.0

(set retirement is existant in it even though it may be 6 months younger to the MK line then the 2.0 version is)

Can that be disputed? If it can, please explain how.

So there didn't used to be set retirement. Now there is. Ok, more specific. Set retirement overlaps 2.0. It doesn't overlap 1.0. This really isn't a breaking news flash is it?


So what is the real point here?


Let me see if I can sum up how you feel about it:

You, and a bunch of other people, don't like set retirement.


I don't think that is breaking news either, is it?

It appears as if set rotation as being part of 2.0 is in debate. To think that the rotation had nothing to do with 2.0 seeems a little strange. To say that well they (WK) are doing it through all the lines so it has nothing to do with 2.0 is selling it short. The rotation was part of the 2.0 plan and the overall sceem of things.

As WK has stated 1.0 and 2.0 were not designed with each other in mind. 2.0 required by design that 1.0 be shifted out. This is not new that the 1.0 rotation out and rotation in general was part of 2.0.

Wk could not fo rsales reasons go to rotation with Mk and not their other lines. this alos goes with the fact WK is plaining on using many of the same affects that 2.0 uses with the cards and such

I do not believe set rotation was part of the grand 2.0 plan.

2.0 truely gave new life to my werewolves and blade golems.

That fact became a drag on the progress of 2.0. The designers felt they could not take the game where they wanted it to go with the dead weight from 1.0 still in play.

So after 2.0 hit the streets, WK realized they had to cut ties to 1.0 cleanly.

Clean for them, but there was blood all over the floor at my venue.

The way Wk has explained in posts, chats and in person is the fact our werewolves got better was by mistake and not by design. Draddog has said numerous times that 2.0 is a new game that we just happen to be able to use our old figures in. During the chat about rotation they admited that rotation was coming up well before the announcement for 2.0. At the chicago comic con's warlord/envoy night is when they first said something about rotation though it was in a round about way.

In the end the choice was made before 2.0 ever hit that there would be set rotation. Rotation announced at the same time as 2.0 would hav ebene too large of a blow. 2.0 and then 4 monthes later or so an announcement about rotation spaces out the hits a little.

Speaking of dead weight, if I could just give my Tormented Souls the Pathfinder ability, they would all be gods...GODS I SAY!!!!

I am simply claming that out of the many differences between 1.0 and 2.0, set rotation is one of them.

That is the entire point I have been trying to make throughout the last x+ posts.

How some people can not see that is beyond me.

2 cents from a UK Tournament has-been (#### Scottish/Swiss (a Lions Joke))

2 was a great idea as it was presented to us, we happily opened the Demo sets ate Gen-Con last year and looked at the gameplay.

2 brought in a few concepts that had been long needed in 1.

a: Soaring: This was an absolute must, it removed the idea that a figure with flight could be swarmed by a bunch of clumpy-footed land-dwelling Dwarves (or something).

b: Objectives: We often design scenarios and play them, objectives brings this into the main game and adds a new dimension to the pre-engagement maneuvering of 1 (could have been better play-tested I know but I'm discussing the concept, not the implimentation)

c: Relics: Customisable figures are a great idea, you have the basic warrior that can carry a variety of weapons, although they will be more potent with the relics of their particular combat proficiency.

d: Multiple SA's: being able to choose between available SA's is great (does having two incur an extra cost over and above the individual costs, like an SA tax ? If not, perhaps it should)

Of course there is always a down-side and I feel that we lost a few of the things that I loved in 1.

1: Strategy has not left the game, but its focus has changed, when we played 1, we built a force that would execute our strategy on the table, regardless of what we would meet.
Bring on your best shot and my on the spot Tactics changed but my strategy remained. Domains have blown that away, as have the power of Relic/Unique combo's. I know I said that I liked the Relic concept, but I feel thet they are overpowered and in some cases ill-thought out.

2: Retirement: A hot issue that does directly affect the comparison. Limiting the figure pool is a cute way to get over your mistakes and allows you to re-release storyline figures ad-infinitum, however it does not necessarily make the game richer. There are many figures in 1 that I would like to play in full compatibility (as promised) with 2, at tournament level.

3: Variety: Funny that you're all talking about the higher number of viable armies, yet I have heard very little of "Archetypes" since the release of "2", in spite of Hexians repeated requests for ideas. We were forever debating "Archetype" builds with 1.

4: Simplicity: 1 was infantile in its simlicity of play, yet awesome in its capacity to provide strategic play, a bit like chess where you chose the pieces. I cannot imagine anybody claiming the same thing for 2.

Double time and surge make for very strange situations where a man can run as fast as a horse but it hurts his feet ;)

Orc Mage:

So are you saying the lack of archetypes in the 2.0 environment denotes a smaller figure base of usable figures? I would have thought the opposite was true. I don't recall off hand how many viable archetypes were avalaible during the last 2 years of 1.0 but let us say it was 5. If a figure didn't fit into any of those 5 archetypes then it was useless.

I agree with everything else you said. I just don't place much importance on simplicity, set retirement (although I miss me E@A's, HEG, and even Standard Bearers qutie a bit)

This really illustrates what I want to say, mainly because its wrong. Previous to the Corpheus era, I'll take Rebellion over 2.0 any day. From the first set right up until big bound, melee was playable with some creativity and skill. And probably some luck too, that never hurts.

When did all that start to go bad? Say, around Sinister or Minions? I'm not sure, but I'll take old school Rebellion to 2.0 any day.

No, what I'm saying is that there are less strategy debates, in my own opinion because there are currently less viable strategies overall. Many different armies available, but less real strategies due to the need to try to either cover all the bases (Domains & Relics) or be the bases (if you know what I mean)