That's alright then, because I see a lot on your side too.
I have NEVER put a sub-optimal figure in any of my armies.
If you can't get the "best for the job" in there, you're not building the "best possible" army.
Putting "less efficient" figures in an army is something I strongly advise AGAINST.
Excellent example of what NOT TO DO during the army building stage.
When you build your army you want it to be as strong, as efficient, with as much synergy as possible.
If a Blood Shaman is the best choice for your army, you go with it.
You don't weaken your army and replace him with a War Priestess because of a factor you have no control over (a domain played by your opponent) and which you MIGHT or MIGHT NOT run into.
If you run into a Storm Gale, so be it, but you do not WEAKEN your army for EVERY OTHER game , just to avoid a problem in 1 game.
Where do I say that everyone plays the same army.
Sometimes I get the impression you don't WANT to understand what I'm saying.
When I say everyone plays the same armies, I mean everyone plays the same 10% of top figures (give or take a few percentages - don't tell me I have "no proof" of the exact percentage, we're not in court).
Nobody plays the same figs heh ?
Somebody wants Revenant in his army.
What figure are you most likely going to see?
Deathsinger, ....... right.
He also wants a nice cheap healer.
What do you think ?
Crystal Protector, ...... great.
Is this beginning to sound familiar or are you saying I have "no proof" that these figs are indeed called upon "very often" ?

Sure, the main piece of an army can differ, the Relics will differ depending on whether you want to go with range or melee or whatever etc, but the cheap and effective support pieces will soon be known and USED by the great majority of army builders. And why not, since you can "cherry-pick" from every faction.
In Single Faction, this would not be the case.
This is THE line IMO that shows you don't understand what this is about.
A "weakness" Mr TikTak is an ability in which this faction is "LESS" good than the opponent.
A "Strength" is an ability in which it is better.

Let me give you a simple example :
Dwarfs are stocky powerfull guys who can take some damage (Strength) but are rather slow compared to the others (weakness)
Elves have excellent ranged skills (strength) but are rather fragile and don't take damage very well (weakness)

You think this is "wrong" ?
Are you suggesting that all figures should move exactly at the same speed , take damage equally well, are evenly matched at range etc ?

Strenghts and weaknesses are at the core of this type of games. They are what these games are build upon.
How else are you going to have diversity ?
So, you want Dwarfs who can run like hell
and Elves who can take hit after hit ?
Looks like you want every fig to be a clone of the other.

Building an army is not about having no weaknessess but about putting the figures together who match your planned strategy as good as possible.
There will always be a weakness.
The number of uniques will not increase.
But the number of support figures you'll have to use will increase.
No more putting Deathsingers or Crystal Protectors in every army. You'll have to start looking for replacements.
Figures who are just a notch below the best (in Multi faction) and didn't see play because of it.
Thus, more figures will get used.

Since all 6 Factions will be faced with this situation, new (unused before) figures from all 6 factions will see play.
Is that proof enough ?
Sure there are strengths, weaknesses, flavour and unique qualities in Multi Faction.
It's just that in Single Faction there will be 6 times more.
Why is yours better than mine.
Please don't give me this kr@p.
Right.
The 6 fig, 6 different faction army has not hit the scene yet at your venue.
Allowing figs from all factions to be played together is the major reason people abandon formations.
Another kr@p remark.
Next you're going to tell me, Bill Parcells doesn't know a thing about football because he doesn't actually play the game anymore (rolleyes).
Read the Deathsinger, Crystal Protector comments again.
You're as wrong as can be.
By dividing the pool into 7 pools you create smaller pools.
Smaller pools are easier to to balance than bigger pools.
We agree there.
Then comes actual play time.
This will show which Factions rise to the top and which stay behind.
Then come the corrections (in other sets)
Upgrade the weaker Factions, downgrade the powerfull factions.

As a matter of fact having just 1 pool with thousands of figures, relics, items interacting together makes it virtually impossible to maintain any balance.
What can I say other than that you are completely wrong
and fail to see what many others do see.
You like the word "flaw" don't you ?
Has it ever occured to you that your reasonings might just be as flawed?
Do YOU have any proof for your statements?

This isn't as much about "proof" as about "logic" and "common sense."

My friends and I are all extremely advanced Mage Knight players who have been playing since the beginning. I'm know we would all be seen in Nationals and such if we played in tournaments, but there's not a functioning venue within an hour of were some of us live. Instead, we play together quite often. The relevance this has to this thread is that we ALWAYS try to play 100% single-faction armies. About the only time we don't play armies that are 100% single-faction is when point values do not allow, or if we want to toy around with some idea. We do this not only among eachother, but also on the rare occassion that we do get to play competively.

The reasons why we are so inclined to play single-faction is because it is more fun, far more aesthetically pleasing, and gives the game a more authentic feel to it. When we are choosing/building are armies before a game, we even say/decide who is going to play what faction for the game so that no faction is represented more than once (we like to play multi-player melee last-man-standing the best). While this wouldn't work in tournaments, it's still fun.

As for single-faction in tournaments, I would like to see it promoted by a rules addition given to single-faction armies. Something perhaps along the lines of an army that is 85% of one-faction gets a free command roll, or if 100% gets a free command roll + a 10% build point bonus. Anything like that. You could also add or do something like single-faction formations getting added bonuses to speed, damage, defense, or attack depending on the situation. This would make players more inclined to field single-faction armies in competitive play (tournaments), which I feel would only add to the game itself. If enough people e-mailed WK about it, you could see it in the future.

Nah all we do is single factions get a plus one to their fellow ship roll. But instead of doing this 3 storyline figures why not jsut do one third the army or something? I mean u can have 3 figures for a total of like 50 points out of ur 300.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That you don't know this is clear evidence of why not playing the game you are attempting to prescribe for is not a good thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

actually, your response to this is somewhat flawed, borg. football hasn't changed much, not too many new elements have been introduced since parcells' playing days. during your time away, however, the face of the game has changed dramatically. tactics and figure options are significantly different than they used to be.

also, to your comment aboutthe domains, a storm gale is a potential threat EVERY GAME, not just once. so preparing for that possibility doesn't necesarilly make your army worse for the other games. the same holds true for any domain.

Pickman:
But people still use formations do they not?
Formations are still relevant, yes?
Formations have not been rendered totally obsolete, nor have swarms, correct?

So my assertion that multi-faction play has not made formations irrelevant is, when looking at some random examples (my area and your area at the moment), is in fact correct!
Now we could expand our sample, and do on just how many people see formations used in their area. Of course we'd have some crossover of multiple people being in one area, but we would get an idea of just how many people are still seeing formations being used.

Oh, and we have yet to see the impact of the Faction based Faith Domains and Relics. How much will they increase the use of formations?

I play 99% pure faction armies, nearly all the time. The only time I don't is when my venue runs unrestricted, then I play Podo with my Elementals :)

Pure faction for storyline events that require it to be so. If its just constructed and its not a storyline event, anything should be ok. However, I cannot accept the fact that there will be storyline tournies with two factions represented but there will be a representation of other factions' figs. It doesnt make sense. If people start saying that its for the game and that it helps the players then it shouldnt be a storyline event then. The only exceptions are marquees.

Imagine this:

AE and EF fight for ashon rye and the citadel. They both send their respective forces. Someboy fields a Rava or Vale. Wheres the storyline continuity in that?

So how many times have you fielded an army below the allowed limit for an event?
If all you can fit in is a junky piece of filler do you pass on it and play 5-15 points under just to maintain absolute quality in an army?
If there is only 1 figure available that costs 11 points and your build total is 289, then that figure just became the absolute "best for the job".

Unless every player you face has Storm Gale, in which case you have fatally weakened your army by refusing to consider an alternative.
What you have is that a Blood Shaman may actually not be the best choice for your army, even though it is the absolute best healer available.
So you have given us an excellent example of how NOT to rate figures for inclusion in an army.

Actually, everyone who used a Revenant figure today used Dark Crusaders and not Deathsingers. So it seems you are wrong about that.
And didn't someone mention that those cheap Crystal Protectors will have a hard time healing anything? So again they are not the best choice for a healer, just for a cheap, filler, healer.
No, you have no proof of your assertion that the same figures will always be used. All you have are your own personal prejudices.

The exact same thing will happen with Single Faction. All that will change are the identities of what pieces are cheap and effective.
At the most you could add five figures to the pool of what is considered "cheap and effective" for each separate faction. The problem with that is, there are multiple "cheap and effective" pieces for every task right now! And too many times you will not find a suitable substitute in another army.
What is the best "cheap and effective" healer for AE and DC?
Right, none.
What is the best "cheap and effective" Tinker figure for DC?
Right, none.
What is the best "cheap and effective" Mage Blast or Stormfire figure for OK?
Right, none.

And this shows that you don't understand what overall game balance is about Mr Borg.

No, the figures should each retain their distinctiveness. And the way you overcome the weaknesses for each individual piece is being able to use another piece that compensates for that weakness. Without multi-faction play that ability disappears.

Would you have every single BPR army be composed of slow moving Dwarves?
Would you have every single EL army composed of speedy, ranged figures?
Would you have every OK army composed of grunt orc swarms?
Would you have every AE army composed of Wand attack figures?

Simple math will reveal that the number of support figures will decrease. Unless that somehow put out 6 full expansions, each dedicated to a single faction, at the same time.

Given how your first comment was that you'd never use anything but the absolute best figure, you are proof that this is not true.
Figures will not gain any additional quality in single faction play except by the standard I set in rebuttal to that. To wit: they fit the point value of the army.
Instead what you will see is each army composed of a swarm of the best figure or two already available for that faction, with whatever junk thrown in to fill out the point total.

There will be less, as otherwise useful figures are ignored as they can't fit the point cost of these limited armies.

You give me yours, I give you mind.
As I said before, come up with a good argument and I will come up with a good refutation.

And yet people still choose to field formations despite this.

I am beginning to feel Like Copernicus here.
"And yet they play."

When was the last time Bill Parcells coached a game? (Which is still part of playing.)
When was the last time you Warlorded a game? Or coached a player? Or even watched a regular tournament?

Read my responses again.

They are easier to balance internally, they are harder to balance externally.
And once again we have one of your demands to change the game to what you want. And even more! you want the playtesting for balance to be done - through play!
Isn't that what you were ranting about that WizKids does wrong? That they don't playtest things enough and release a set that is unbalanced.
You absolutely must be kidding me with that one.

Oddly, it makes it easier to maintain balance.
At this point it is virtually impossible to create a dominant army and have it survive endlessly. There are counters and counter to counters and counters to counters to counters.
Designing a perfect army that will survive more than one tournament untrashed is approaching the impossible. What more could you ask for to encourage constant creative army building, and variety?

What many others? You and RobRobBinks. Others support single faction for use in occassional unrestricted events, not as a universal mandate.

Yep.
So I reviewed my analysis, from my assumptions to conclusions, considered the opposing points, discussed it with other people, and decided that I was correct.

My proof is in what people play and the armies they build.
They are not restricted to the limited pool you have asserted.

As for logic and common sense, when I see all of the things you say will not happen and none of the things you say will happen in army builds both at my venue and on these boards, the both of those tell me that I am correct.
A horrible thing that empirical evidence, but I just can't give up looking at it when it is right in front of my face.

And I thought I was long winded. :eek:



:D

Multi-faction = option
Single faction = option.

Saying it should only be one or the other takes away options. Many games, not just MK, are really concentrating on giving players more and more options on what they want to play. My feelings go right along with this.

Are you kidding?
That was a short rant!

:p

I would love to see a effective all Solonavi army built that can survive in the standard envoirnment using the current legal figures (meaning minions to dark riders).


Until you can show me an one that can survive against the current other factions (heck, even the Draconum get a powerful mount, a decent rather low cost unique, and the solonavi get a worthless oathsworn, and a huge 207pt unique that wont last long with it taking up more then 1/2 of a 300pt army), single faction wont work, and the only way for it to work is if every faction had a figure that did the same thing.

Oh thank goodness....someone understands whats going on! This is a discussion of the pros and cons of single faction play. I think the game is already evolving in that direction, and look forward to future expansions, fiction and storyline events that reinforce this particular line of flavour. There are very few people that I have met that do not favour one faction over the others already, so what the big deal is , I don't know. Maybe there are some players that really want to fight for their right to have the Revenant ability in their all Elemental Freeholds army, and currently that is their choice, but just seems wonky to me.

On the flip side, please check out some of dharlequin's stories in the story forum, as he wrote some of the most easy fiction about how a seemingly incongruent group can get together and fight for common beliefs.

So, maybe I want to play a game that doesn't exist right now. Funny that the Demo Kits for Mage Knight 2.0 each had single faction armies....Elven Lords vs. Orc Khans.

I hope to see more single faction armes on the tabletops in the future. I also respectfully acknowledge the distinguished gentlemen and women from across the aisle on this issue. Their argument is a strong one: Mage Knight is all things to all people. YOU can play it any way you want...single faction or multi faction. The armies that I chose to play and build are the ones whose subfaction abilities are stronger the more figures you have (Temple Lords and Northlanders)

Peace!

What I would like to see is WK allowing 4 Sanctioned tourneys each month instead of 3.

2 Storyline as they are now (including Conquest at least every other month once they revamp the rules)

1 Unrestricted (with varying point values each month)

1 Single-faction (varying point values)


This format would allow, with prizes, to play your whole collection, to play conquest, to play mixed faction, and to play single-faction, all with prizes (which draws many to the tourneys). I know you can do all this in just for fun games, but it works better if WK makes it official and there are prizes...

Speaking of storyline events. I think they should be pure faction, or at least 50%. It would make more sense anyway.