Reverse the Whip Army Archetypes

[dok]

I think I spend less time thinking about "how to make this hard to play" than some. I do want there to be at least two places to put "active" OMs most of the time, but I ignore even that sometimes. Both of my more recent TKN armies had a pretty weak alternative OM.

My main thought process is just thinking about potential matchups and whether my army is unusually good or unusually bad in specific matchups. My goal is to avoid unbalanced matchups as much as possible and be left with something that's kinda good against a lot of things. I am also looking to avoid reliance on particularly high-variance figures.

If I succeed in this, then it means fewer of my games will be decided by matchups or dice, and more will come down to quality of play.

[vegietarian18]

For me, I do spend time thinking about my army but it's probably unnecessary in the context of actual success in Reverse the Whip. I just like using the format as an excuse to come up with an army that I think is fresh and introduces interesting concepts. But I guess that's just because Gencon is a high profile event, for smaller Reverse the Whip events I usually just break out something simple or something I've played before.

Like for example this year in Online Con Reverse the Whip I wanted to see if I could make the Arrow Grut + Deathchaser hybrid build work, previous year at Gencon I wanted to put X17 + Theracus combo on the map and use Deathchasers without Raelin, and year before that I was playing a shell build with Raelin backed Tagawa Samurai Archers as a ranged screen for high offense pieces (Knights x1, MacDirk, and Syvarris). There is usually not a mastermind strategy for how I come up with these builds. Mostly just random brainstorming of figures that could fit together, and most of it does not work. I usually just play a couple test games with my dad and find something I like and maybe make a small adjustment to it from my initial idea to make it click. But once I come up with the build I like I spend too much time thinking about how awesome it will be.

I agree with dok that the most important thing is having something you're familiar with, that has smooth matchups, a decently high skill cap, and no high variance figures. I don't think you need to spend a lot of time doing that. You can probably play Spiders with Wyverns every time and dok can probably play TKN and Nagrubs every time without thinking too much about army selection and you'll both have a lot of success.

[dok]

That Arrow Grut/Deathchaser hybrid army was super cool.

[flameslayer93]

When going RtW, or any format where my opponent can play my army, I generally try to tone my army down. It'll still be easy enough to manage (I'm not a great player by any stretch of imagination), but not something like Heavies + Grimnak.

Also, because I'm wicked busy, I generally wait until the week or night before to start building my armies.

[Arrow Grut]

I do the Moltenclaw
Edit: I guess to make my comment more relevant and on topic, the few years I went I had great success Day 1 (prior to alternating RTW) with Moltenclaw and increasingly smaller pods of Greenscales. It was definitely too strong for Day 2, a lesson I didn't fully learn until my last year at the Con, but in terms of prep it was based on me having more experience (even if slightly) with a specific (and mostly unused) figure in a already-good archetype

[OEAO]

So after some thought over the past few months, I think the best way to categorize Splash is this:

Splash includes subtypes of Pod and Toolbox. Pod is largely what Nathan plays (and what most of the Splash armies in the OP are). Both are types of Splash armies, but both are played and built differently. This is mostly just terminological, but it makes a lot more sense imo.

And Pod doesn't always have to be Splash, but Pods in main event are usually Splash.

[Kinseth]

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

So after some thought over the past few months, I think the best way to categorize Splash is this:

Splash includes subtypes of Pod and Toolbox. Pod is largely what Nathan plays (and what most of the Splash armies in the OP are). Both are types of Splash armies, but both are played and built differently. This is mostly just terminological, but it makes a lot more sense imo.

And Pod doesn't always have to be Splash, but Pods in main event are usually Splash.

Is this suppose to be like a Johnny, Timmy, Spike thing?

[Dysole]

Originally Posted by Kinseth

Is this suppose to be like a Johnny, Timmy, Spike thing?

Johnny/Jenny, Timmy/Tammy, and Spike are indicative of play styles used for designed MTG cards and what a person enjoys playing. These are specifically about the army themselves.

~Dysole, who for the non-MTG initiates will briefly explain (Tammy/Timmy gets most enjoyment out of the social aspect of the game and big flashy effects, Johnny/Jenny gets the most enjoyment out of personal expression and is the type to most likely try to win with something off the beaten path, Spike gets the most enjoyment out of competing and playing something competitive to its maximum skill level)