This came up based on a post from the moderator Maximillion. He mentioned that he felt army construction was less than 1/4th of the importance when playing MK. Mattering only when you choose clearly inferior figures. He percieves player skill being more than 3/4 of the importance.

I tend to disagree. Army design is very important, and once you pass a certain skill level threshold (not being an idiot or throwing the game away) is extremely important.

Im curious to see how everyone else feels about this.
please share your views, but keep the flames and arguments away.

bshugg

I tend to agree with you bshugg. I believe army construction is top of the notch when it comes to what makes you win. This was made impressively apparent when I went to B.O.B. last weekend. I saw that had I played something a little different I probably would have done much better, and I am sure the same applies for a lot of people. Army construction is the quintessential part of strategy in MK.

I think that army construction has to be more then 25%. A well chosen army is the key to a victory. A good player with a poorly designed army is not going to beat an average player with an superior constructed army.

Now that is not to say you can discount the players actual skill, because once you put that army on the table it is all in the hands of the player to take them to victory. There is an old phrase that says no plan survives its initial contact with the enemy. The same is true in army construction, no army survives its first contat with the enemy, and that is where the player comes in.

A strong player will know how to keep his figures alive, and how to take his opponents out. But that job is much harder without the right tools.

If you ask me it is more like this:

20% Terrain
40% Army Construction
40% Skill

I didn't even consider terrain placement when making my initial decision. But your right. I beat a lot of players because they either place or are tricked into placing their terrain badly.

Seriously, I think the player behind the army does the most in determining the winner. Even a fun army in the hands of a great player can(and probably will) beat out the average players KI Swarm. Here is how I'd map it out:

40% Skill
30% Terrain
25% Army Construction
5% Intimidation(in-game bluffing, etc.)

I agree with you Bshugg.

I think army building is very important. Also, knowing exctly how each figure works and how your army is going to work as a team. Choosing and placing terrain is also important, as DNAphil pointed.

Building my armies is not only important, it's fun !!

And I think knowing your army at best is part of a player's skill.

Just my thoughts.

The army design is very important like the skill of the player... I have to say:
15% Terrain
35% Army Construction
50% Skill

I'd say Terrian choice & placement is PART of the players skill. Terrain can actually counter some of the advantage of an opponents army right?

...Well, actually a players skill is also a part of army construction (like knowing what tactics you might have to face with your figures and how you would combat them).

I'd say more like:

Army Construction and Terrain Choice = 50%
Player Skill and Terrian placement = 50%

The Best Players with complimentary Terrian but an average army should be able to beat an average or poor player with the best designed army. He still has to know his figures and how to counter an opponents army.

I would agree to the 1/4th theorie, but let me explain why:

There are four relatively equally important things that lead to success:
- army construction
- planned strategy
- situational adaption (i.e. tactics)
- pure luck

I do not think any part of those is greatly more important then another, so 1/4th would be true :)

General Stormfox

I usually create my army construction out of the metagame i see created at one particular venue. One time i went with a KI swarm, and there were 5 other GA's. I was not able to use the KI swarm in its theoretical useage, partly because the one cen fat fig in the GA's would tear up a hole in my two formations. After that tourney, i figured the metagame for that venue. I counteracted with having figs with toughness. So i brought out figures with toughness like steam golems. The game was not the same and i was able to survive in the competition. Though the metagame does fluxuate, one is able to prepare themselves for an up comming battle if they have a good idea about the metagame.

I also agree with Storm Fox is that there is a percentage of luck. That is why i love MK and the dice. The dice are unpredictable! You might have a poorly constructed army, but if you get 3 times boxcars, and your opponent gets 4 times snake eyes, then you could actually pull it off.

Terrain is also a crutial part of the game. If you play a ranged army, one is not going to put tons of blocking terrain, unless you have MB. Terrain can also be utilized to determine the place of battle. Where will everybody crash into each other. One can decide that with proper terrain placement.

With these in mind, there is always the consideration of the amount of strategic knowledge the particular player has. A timmy might have a GA army but doesnt know how to use it. Or if you play death star 24\7, then switch to KI swarm, you wont know when to react and with what. Knowing your army and its main purpose is key to success in the battle field.

And to my knowledge, the undesputed concept to know when playing MK........ Is to have FUN!!!!!!!

I tend to see this much as Stormfox does. Army design, strategic plan, tactical implementation and luck are all roughly even in significance. An important point I think is often overlooked is that the design and strategy have to be something YOURS. Not perhaps your original idea but an application that you understand and are comfortable in executing. An aggressive army design from say 42UP applied by a cautious, defensive player like NecroDog :D is probably going to result in more losses than wins. An army designed to suit your style, a strategy (including terrain) that fits the design, the tactical skill to adapt to conditions as you play, and decent luck: these in balance should lead to success more often than failure. Of course, the validity of my opinions has to be filtered through the reality of my abysmal performance...:(

Necrodog, you hit a topic that was not mentioned before, and i like it. To some degree one's army is a reflection of their personal style. Perhaps you like a particular fig, and or faction. That will shape your army construction to your liking. The personal aspect of MK is unquestionable, and is informally included.

Maybe this is assumed in player skill, but I find knowledge of the opponents pieces also to be quite helpful. Sure, this is less than 10% of the overall equation, but it is a factor. I have made decisions to push, attack and move based on the numbers showing on an opponent's figure dial.

I believe that Army contruction still plays a very important role in Mage Knight gaming. For example, you may have build a really strong range attack army, but if the metagame of the day is all about anti-range (Limited Invisibility, Fast melee fighters, Swarms), then your army will die without a prayer.

There are different types of armies in Mage Knight. Each has its strenght and weaknesses. Flame Lightning may win against Formation based Armies, but it will falter before non-formation harrassers which high mobility. Death Star army may work against most armies but meet a Magic Immuned Army and it is screwed. etc.

Army construction is important. Without knowing the metagame you need to build an army sufficiently strong to withstand all types of armies you might meet. Even after that, you must keep improving the army since your opponents will figure out a way to beat it the next time around. Its a never ending process.

Regardless of Army construction skills, I believe the percentage for each level is as follows:

Army Construction 30%
Skill 30%
Luck 40% (Doesn't matter that u have a powerful army and the best skill in the match, you still lose if u keep rolling 2s.)

Okay, that's my 2 cents worth of opinion

Ebony Knight
Black Dragoons Regiment

IMO army construction importance decreases as the size of the army increases. In other words it’s much more important for a 100 point army than a 500 point army. In a 100 point battle you can easily be hosed from the get go by choosing a lousy army. A 500 point battle sees the equity of points (hurrah Wizkids!), make the contents of the armies much less important than the person playing the game.

That said, no one has ever really adequately defined what the “skill” of army construction is. The “metagame” angle appears to be simply scoping out what you’ll fight and preparing an army to specifically counter it, or at least not be vulnerable to it. A useful exercise but hardly a “skill”.

“Skilful” army construction is, to me, just picking the most cost effective figs that work well together, that support each other. And that’s kind of a no brainer skill; just play a while, study the figs, and learn from your experience.

Now that I actually write it, maybe I’m wrong... learning from experience is hardly a no brainer. (Probably why I do it so seldom.) Still... the emphasis some place on the “skill” of army building seems to me over emphasized. It’s easy to build a good army. Just know the game.

So, I find myself disagreeing with the idea that there’s a set % of importance on each of the factors. I think:

Army Construction: 30% to 10% (Down as army size goes up)
Tactical Skill: 40% to 80% (Up as army size goes up.)
Luck: 30% to 10% (Down as army size goes up)