Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Strategy and Tactics => Topic started by: blackirishguilt on July 07, 2014, 01:17:45 PM
-
I really enjoyed reading through the stickied strategy threads, but after playing non-stop for the past few weeks and developing my own thoughts, I thought I would offer an alternative on openings to the thread here (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12466.0). I hope to develop additional ideas on topics like spell book design, mid-game decision making, end-game tactics and more to add to this "article" series. Any and all feedback is appreciated.
Note: We will only be looking at Mages from the Core set to begin with and will expand to include other Mages in future articles, though the concepts should apply to any and all Mages and players.
Play the opening like a book, the middle game like a magician, and the endgame like a machine. - Spielmann
Though Spielmann’s quote was directly related to the game of chess, it can easily be applied to any game that requires branching decision making. As Mage Wars falls into that category, I thought it would be interesting to look at how we can adapt lessons learned from other games to help us succeed in the Arena.
So to begin at the beginning, what can we take from the first part: “Play the opening like a book”? Well, while the mid-game requires artistry and wit and the end-game is dominated by seeing the most efficient way to close, the opening is in the realm of the tactician. It is steeped in theory and craft and sets the tone for the rest of the game. Rather than give scripted openings, I hope to instead delve into more of the game theory behind possible openings so that you can find something that works well for you.
With that in mind, there are a few things I’ve learned in my new found love of Mage Wars that I would like to share with you all. My apologies if these are so basic that they are commonly accepted practices, but I haven’t seen them spelled out as such, so I thought I would share in the hopes that I can help even new players who find their way to the game.
The rules of Mage Wars help us start our examination of the opening by limiting the amount of actions we can take at the beginning of the game. Unlike chess where our army is already on the field, here we start with just our Mage who can take just two actions; one full, one quick cast. The action limitation coupled with our starting Mana serves to limit the ceiling available in the opening. I believe that you can classify the opening possibilities into three categories:
- Aggressive
- Midrange
- Passive
The Aggressive opening follows a similar opening philosophy to that of the chess players who open with a Queen’s Pawn Game in that the goal is to quickly achieve a strong presence in the center of the board. In doing so, the aggressive player looks to control line of fire from the center to allow for better deployment and attack options while forcing their opponent to react to them instead of developing their own plan.
I tend to prefer the Aggressive opening with more mobile Mages or those who don’t mind being on the front line of the fight like the Beastmaster and Warlock, especially if I win initiative for the first turn. The Aggressive opening is categorized by using the Mage’s full action to sprint to the center of the Arena. From there, they can quick cast something that will develop their preferred line of attack. Moving to the center zone gives you “vision” on over 80% of the arena, restricting your opponent to their starting corner and the opposite corner as the only zones available that you can’t immediately interact with.
Already there is room for lots of customization here, but for my money, nothing is better for the Aggressive strategy than a Spawnpoint. Getting one down on turn 1 gives me the most bang for my buck and guarantees I will see a return on my initial investment. I’ve had great success with this strategy deploying the [mwcard=MW1J10]Lair[/mwcard] with the Beastmaster. See this example of a Hyper-Aggressive opening play:
Turn 1 - Sprint to center, quick cast [mwcard=MW1J10]Lair[/mwcard] in opponent’s center. (4 mana remaining)
Turn 2 - Deploy [mwcard=MW1C37]Thunderift Falcon[/mwcard], Pet, cast [mwcard=MW1I23]Rouse the Beast[/mwcard], cast [mwcard=MW1I02]Battle Fury[/mwcard]. (1 mana remaining.)
That’s a 7 die Flying/Fast attack in your opponent’s starting corner on turn 2 that has lots of flexibility (replace [mwcard=MW1I02]Battle Fury[/mwcard] with a [mwcard=MW1Q19]Mage Wand[/mwcard], [mwcard=MW1C04]Bitterwood Fox[/mwcard], or Enchantment based on your preferred play style). You can also cast the [mwcard=MW1J10]Lair[/mwcard] in your zone to make it more durable if you don’t want to press as hard.
I theorize that you could do something similar with the Warlock and [mwcard=MW1J06]Gate to Hell[/mwcard], though when I tried it I made a huge error and placed it in the wrong zone. Similar to the Lair opening we could sprint to center, quick cast our Spawnpoint in enemy territory, then retreat to build a [mwcard=MW1J04]Battle Forge[/mwcard]/[mwcard=MW1J12]Mana Crystal[/mwcard] infrastructure while waiting for the proper time to set off our hellish time bomb.
Side Note - In examining your opening plays, positioning and proper Mana usage are absolutely critical. One small miscalculation can throw off your entire plan. For instance, did you know that moving up one square instead of moving laterally from your starting zone gives your opponent 2 extra zones to move into without being in range of you?
On that note, let’s shift gears and look at our Midrange options. Again, this is an opening I will often consider if I have the initiative but don’t want to be as aggressive. This style of opening would include a move action followed by two quick spells. While I won’t control the center in the same way I would by sprinting, I leverage my Mana into two spells to help build what I need more quickly. This is also a great strategy to employ if I want to get things like a [mwcard=MW1J24]Temple of Light[/mwcard] into the center while keeping my Mage more protected.
Midrange favors the player who wants some presence but doesn’t want to overextend. I’ve had a lot of success with this style of opening with the Priestess building Mana accelerators and Temples as well as the Wizard with his [mwcard=MW1J07]Gate to Voltari[/mwcard]+ [mwcard=MW1E20]Harmonize[/mwcard]. You are able to react quickly to threats while still investing in your own infrastructure.
The last style would be Passive, and is not one I tend to favor though I will sometimes adopt it if my opponent wins initiative and displays an Aggressive posture. Passive openings tend to give up movement to cast two spells right in their starting zone. This will often lead to using the full action on a creature to get something impactful on the board early with the full action while protecting that investment or building resources with the quick cast.
This play style is very adaptable, which is nice, though you are limited to targeting only three zones which can be a drawback if you plan on deploying lots of zone exclusives. The Warlock with a buddy plan can start this way with making something like a [mwcard=MW1C03]Dark Pact Slayer[/mwcard] your Bloodreaper right away, or you can get a nice medium sized pet for your Beastmaster. The Priestess can have a [mwcard=MW1C22]Knight of Westlock[/mwcard] bodyguard while she builds towards the end-game or summon a [mwcard=MW1C28]Royal Archer[/mwcard] to deter anyone from advancing into your territory.
I don’t normally like to cast a Spawnpoint in a Passive opening, but a Familiar can often be a good play as investing in them early to get an advantage in actions throughout the game can be very effective. For example, lets look at one of my favorite plays to make with the Beastmaster if I find myself going second:
Turn 1: Cast [mwcard=MW1C13]Fellella, Pixie Familiar[/mwcard], quick cast [mwcard=MW1J13]Mana Flower[/mwcard] (2 mana remaining)
Turn 2: Move, [mwcard=MW1E20]Harmonize[/mwcard] from Felella (1 +3 from me), cast [mwcard=MW1Q25]Ring of Beasts [/mwcard], quick cast [mwcard=MW1C37]Thunderift Falcon[/mwcard], Pet
If you prefer a different level 1 animal, that’s also fine and you can choose not to Pet if you want to save your mana for a third turn play, but with 10 mana every turn and Fellella generating 2 of her own it’s quite easy to play a level 1 animal, build light armor (like [mwcard=MW1Q15]Leather Boots[/mwcard],[mwcard=MW1Q16]Leather Gloves[/mwcard]) and cast an Enchantment every turn to get a swarm going very early then switch gears to either go more aggressive with your Mage or drop back into more of a support role.
I hope this generates some ideas for new players like myself to get started thinking on how they want to approach their openings and, perhaps more importantly why they make the choices they make. As I’ve started building my spell books, I’ve found I like to have a play in mind based on whether or not I have initiative and if I want to have an Aggressive, Midrange, or Passive opening. The next step towards domination is building the spell book around those openings so that we can progress our main plan, remain adaptive, and answer the threats presented by our opponent….but we’ll get into that in more detail next time. Until then, I hope you enjoyed this and feel free to leave feedback letting me know if you agree, disagree, or how you craft your opening based on your experience. Thanks everyone!
-
Nice article. I look forward to further discussion about this from other mages. Keep up the good work.
-
The topic of openings can be simplified pretty easily, imo. It's all about generation of actions (and mana), really.
Whatever opening you do sits on a spectrum of "Aggro" to "control." Aggro openings favor less investment in action and mana generation, and control, or "passive," favor more action/mana generation.
4 Things generate actions/mana: Spawnpoints, Familiars, mana generators, and just creatures in general.
The more you have of those 4, chances are, the less aggro you are and the more "control" or "passive" you are.
It's not a coincidence that many people consider sprinting into a [mwcard=mw1c01]Lord of Fire[/mwcard] turn 2 the most aggressive play in MW and it happens to generate only 1 additional action a turn and generates no additional mana for you. Also, aggro is about getting the most dice as soon as possible, and [mwcard=mw1c01]Lord of Fire[/mwcard] helps with that :P
Contrast that with a wizard that brings out mana crystal and a [mwcard=mw1j07]Gate to Voltari[/mwcard]. That wizard is getting an additional full action every turn (or every other turn, depending) and an additional 1 mana a turn. I don't think anyone would consider that "aggressive;" no early dice, and heavy investment in mana/action generation an aggro opening does not make.
I disagree with a good bit of the specific strategy you talked about, but I'll spare you most of it.
Summoning a Knight in your opening turn as a Priestess doesn't say passive; bringing out her spawnpoint and a cleric says passive. Also, Gate to Hell to open is just not good, I don't think anyone will agree with doing that. The Gate is pretty much only a flavor card, though I could see it functioning like an Armory for the Adramelech Warlock with a Pentagram after she gets a bunch of demons out.
-
given the way she talked about it, I think he may have meant pentagram but got it mixed up with Gate to Voltari. He was talking about it like it with the spawn point but it's not so I think he meant pentagram.
-
given the way she talked about it, I think he may have meant pentagram but got it mixed up with Gate to Voltari. He was talking about it like it with the spawn point but it's not so I think he meant pentagram.
hm?
-
I think he did mean pentagram, I tried using the gate of fire with my new warlock build and found the gate to be a waste of 24 mana, I would have been much better off bringing out Adramalech instead.
-
Openings fall in a spectrum from aggressive to economy to defensive. Heavy economy openings are passive. That might be a Harmonized Gate to Voltari or Construction Yard -> Barracks, but according to your definitions, those are midrange plays. While either of those could be part of an overall midrange plan, it's really an economic opening.
Openings can be aggressive without sprinting to NC on the first turn (though that is a big clue that the opening is aggressive), and summoning a creature turn 1 is not passive. Summoning a creature on turn one is generally either aggressive or defensive, depending on which creature, and how they are used. Summoning a Necropian Vampiress on turn 1 is a reasonably aggressive opening, depending on how you follow it up. In certain matchups, that can be a better aggressive option than sprinting to NC turn 1. If your opponent is a holy mage, and may use Divine Intervention to counter your creature if you cast it turn 2 in NC, you're better able to pressure your opponent by casting a creature turn 1 and then both running to NC turn 2.
Similarly, casting an Iron Golem and Dragonscale Hauberk turn 1 is not passive, it's incredibly defensive.
Aggressive openings seek to pressure the opponent quickly. Economic openings seek to build a dominating late game through mana and action advantage. Defensive openings seek to prevent the opponent from applying pressure, and to apply counter pressure against aggression.
I generally prefer economy -> aggression/defense depending on what my opponent does, or applying early pressure with the option to back off and switch into midrange or control.
Some spawnpoints lend themselves well to aggression, but others are not as good at applying early pressure. Lair and Battle Forge are both good options for placement in the center of the board. This lets you get creatures from the Lair where you want quickly, let's you get better board control, and allows your Fast animals to cover most of the board. With Battle Forge, if you will be advancing, you want your Battle Forge to be able to reach you. If playing defensively, it's often better to place the Battle Forge in one of the zones adjacent to your starting zone.
The Vine Tree should be placed in the starting corner, but because of Vine range, it can still be used aggressively.
One of the things that's nice about Libro Mortuos is that as you advance, the creatures it summons get summoned closer to the enemy. Due to this, it's nice both offensively and defensively.
Other Spawnpoints don't always lend themselves to aggressive placement, though I'll be playing around with Pentagram, so I'll have to see how that turns out.
-
There are a lot of no brainer tactics in your article (not for a new player perhaps), but I really liked the way you have been wrighting it and how you compare it with chess, which must have gone through all this millions of times.
Try to do your analysis in a similar way but at higher level and you will see more buy in, at least from me. Looking forward to your next article!
-
@ kiwipaul - Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.
@ fas723 - Yes, as I am still relatively new I wasn't expecting to break new ground so much as codify some of what is known and hopefully spark some good conversation. I hope to expand on that and get into deeper topics over time, so stay tuned!
@ Arelemus/sdoug - First and formost, please feel free to disagree as that will help me learn even more! Lets just make sure we keep it civil. If you don't want to do it publicly, feel free to pm me anytime.
I tried to stay away from the aggo - control conversation and focus more on positioning and what the posture we adopt through our opening states about our intention in the early game. Yes, casting a creature early can be "aggro" in that it provides more dice to our attacks or defensive as sdoug mentions with his comments on Iron Golem, but the summons themselves have a built in opportunity cost. By choosing to use our action on summoning rather than positioning we are inherently passive as we are not threatening our opponent or assuming control over the board. Our immediate surrounding may be secure, but we aren't being aggressive which is why I choose to categorize such openings as passive. I tend to agree with sdoug about Economy vs. Aggressive in general though.
When analyzing cards I tend to break things down into three broad categories: Threat, Answer, or Utility when determining why I want to include it in my spell book. If that isn't clear, here are quick definitions: Threats are things that present problems for our opponent and must be answered or they will win us the game, Answers deal with the Threats presented by our opponent to prevent them from winning the game, and Utility is a broad category encompassing everything from Mana generators to buffs/debuffs, positioning tools, counter spells and more. One of the wonderful thing about the design of Mage Wars (IMO) is the versatility some of the cards have in fitting numerous roles. That gives us tremendous flexibility when designing and executing our plan to improvise and it's why I have a soft spot for [mwcard=MW1J06]Gate to Hell[/mwcard].
Disclaimer - I'm not claiming Gate will ever be tier 1 meta material.
Now, I realize Gate is not a traditional Spawnpoint, but I mentioned it with the aggressive Lair opening for a few reasons.
- It immediately impacts our opponents decision making
- Help dictate the style and pace of the game
- It provides a potential answer against certain archetypes
- It can function as a "flanking" Spawnpoint for deployment options
- Gives additional spell book options for unexpected lines of play
Let's look at those a little closer.
It immediately impacts our opponents decision making - If I run up and throw down a [mwcard=MW1J06]Gate to Hell[/mwcard], the threat it presents in attacking 10 of 12 zones immediately affects what you can comfortably play. This feeds right into the next point:
Help dictate the style and pace of the game - As the Araxian Crown Warlock, I'm very comfortable playing solo or with a single medium-large creature. The natural defense against that style is to overwhelm me with lots of aggressive creatures. The threat of Gate can dissuade swarms or vines or other aggressive openings that could give us problems, providing a potential answer against certain archetypes before they become realized.
It can function as a "flanking" Spawnpoint for deployment options - Continuing on the theme, what is our opponent going to do? If they attack Gate, we can spend a turn opening it to get the attack before it is destroyed, or use the extra time granted by the diversion to advance our plan. At a 12 mana "down payment", these are probably the worst options available to us. The attack is very much in line with a [mwcard=MW1A05]Firestorm[/mwcard] that targets 9 additional zones, but I'm not sure that is worth 24 mana if that's all we get out of it.
If, however, we get that attack and can also use it to spawn demons directly into our opponents forces and take advantage of the +1 melee for a turn or two, that can be the kind of swing that can turn a game in our favor. Especially if you consider (Gives additional spell book options for unexpected lines of play) that our opponent may not be expecting a swarm of small demons to come pouring out, adding to or taking advantage of the burn started by opening the Gate.
I actually think that Gate may be better with the new female Warlock and the Imps that can utilize the Burn tokens to maximum advantage and increase her already incredible damage potential through the roof, especiall given that we have lots of Flame Immune and Burnproof options to include as we build our strike force. Now, is all that worth the actions and Mana? I'd say maybe, in an extremely match-up specific kind of way. I'm not sure if paying the 6 points for it to sit on the bench most games is worth it, but the Johnny in me wants to make it work, so I'll keep playing around with it and having fun.
Keep it coming guys, loving the discussion!
-
Back to the original topic. Engaging your opponent early is only advantageous if your opponent has already played cards that are sub par for immediate engagement. (Mana crystal, spawn points). Getting close is a threat because you might engage at any time. Threatening to engage as a feint and then actually retreating to continue investing in economy is an interesting strategy that I haven't seen explored much.
-
Great post here, it's excellent to see more people talking about openings. I personally have been playing a ton of the Necromancer lately, and I tend to open with the Death Ring and the Libro in almost every single circumstance. It becomes a powerful advantage and mana generation combination I've come to love. Thanks so much for posting this!
-
Back to the original topic. Engaging your opponent early is only advantageous if your opponent has already played cards that are sub par for immediate engagement. (Mana crystal, spawn points). Getting close is a threat because you might engage at any time. Threatening to engage as a feint and then actually retreating to continue investing in economy is an interesting strategy that I haven't seen explored much.
It probably hasn't been explored because that sounds like a terrible idea. It sounds like a complete waste of dice. :-\
For example, a couple days ago I had to walk my [mwcard=FWC11]Butcher[/mwcard] into a [mwcard=mw1e22]Hellfire Trap[/mwcard] to get at the enemy Warlock. That trap could've been armor, block, etc, instead, but I wasn't just going to waste dice by not attacking, even if that dice is reduced. I really don't see any reason to "fake out" your opponent with dice threat.
-
@ Toxziq - Really glad you enjoyed it, thanks for the feedback.
@ Arlemus - I don't think that is what Boomfrog is suggesting (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here Boom). I think he is referencing adopting an aggressive posture to bait out the opponent and see how they react so that you can devise your own plan.
I borrowed the term "vision" from League of Legends to speak about this. If we assume that the effective range on 90% of spells we will be casting or attacks we will be making is 0-2, then anything within 2 zones and LOS is effectively within range or within our "vision". That what makes the sprint to center play so aggressive, I have vision over 10 zones leaving my opponent only their 2 corners out of range. That means if they move, they are susceptible to attack unless they sprint up to the opposite corner, which is extremely inefficient. So we are effectively limiting them to their own starting zone without us able to interact with them without yet another double move action.
In Boom's example our opponent may have already played out their economy/passive opening so coming out as the aggressor can potentially change their follow up play for turn 2. We would then have the option of retreating back to develop our economy (thus the feint) or continue to press the gas and go all out aggro based on what we see. You need mobility for this to work so a turn 1 [mwcard=MW1E05]Cheetah Speed[/mwcard] could certainly be an option if you aren't one of the Beastmasters.
-
@ Toxziq - Really glad you enjoyed it, thanks for the feedback.
@ Arlemus - I don't think that is what Boomfrog is suggesting (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here Boom). I think he is referencing adopting an aggressive posture to bait out the opponent and see how they react so that you can devise your own plan.
I borrowed the term "vision" from League of Legends to speak about this. If we assume that the effective range on 90% of spells we will be casting or attacks we will be making is 0-2, then anything within 2 zones and LOS is effectively within range or within our "vision". That what makes the sprint to center play so aggressive, I have vision over 10 zones leaving my opponent only their 2 corners out of range. That means if they move, they are susceptible to attack unless they sprint up to the opposite corner, which is extremely inefficient. So we are effectively limiting them to their own starting zone without us able to interact with them without yet another double move action.
In Boom's example our opponent may have already played out their economy/passive opening so coming out as the aggressor can potentially change their follow up play for turn 2. We would then have the option of retreating back to develop our economy (thus the feint) or continue to press the gas and go all out aggro based on what we see. You need mobility for this to work so a turn 1 [mwcard=MW1E05]Cheetah Speed[/mwcard] could certainly be an option if you aren't one of the Beastmasters.
Makes more sense now. The problem with doing that is you give up a turn of action/mana generation, effectively setting yourself behind 1 turn. Doing that against a spawnpoint/mana generator/etc opening already puts you into a losing position (their economy is ahead of yours) and the only thing you might've made them do is play armor or w/e earlier.
Maybe if it causes them to overreact and be inefficient "feinting" could be ok, but I think at best it would only make up for the ineffeciency of starting your economy late.
I'd like to see this thread be more about concrete openings, aka Turn 1= blah, Turn 2=blah, etc. We already have way too many theory craft threads and this thread could have the potential to give newer players solid openers to try.
-
Great post here, it's excellent to see more people talking about openings. I personally have been playing a ton of the Necromancer lately, and I tend to open with the Death Ring and the Libro in almost every single circumstance. It becomes a powerful advantage and mana generation combination I've come to love. Thanks so much for posting this!
That's how I open with the Necromancer. The option to get 4 Venomous Zombies down by the end of turn 3 is just huge, but regardless, that opening gives you a massive action and economy advantage while leaving you with flexible options.
So far, my favorite Necromancer opening is
Turn 1 (20): Death Ring -> Libro Mortuos (6)
Turn 2 (16): Venomous Zombie -> Venomous Zombie -> Leather Boots (3)
Turn 3 (13): Venomous Zombie -> Venomous Zombie -> Leather Gloves (0)
I wouldn't try that against another Necromancer, and I would be hesitant to use it against a Wizard, but it is so good against most mages.
Starting out with an aggressive posture but then not attacking the enemy mage directly is something you generally do against defensive openings, not economic openings. If your opponent opts for an economic opening and you opened aggressively, you need to press your early game advantage. If they set up a strong defense, you might be better off switching into economy or pressuring them with another line of play while using your original line of play to constrain their options. The biggest thing that comes to mind for this type of thing is Iron Golem, as they're just such efficient guards, and a number of tools just don't work against them (Bleed, Rot, Taint, Burn, Vampiric, Bloodthirsty...). If an opponent summons an early Iron Golem, or particularly if they summon 2, it's often not a good idea to engage directly.
-
Arlemus - Check it out! (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14342.msg38944#new) There is a new thread going for specific openings as a corollary to this one.
I did have a question related to this though.
I'm a big football fan (American football, though I like futbol too :P) and I know that some coaches like to script their first few plays while others prefer a blank slate and will base their play calling on the tempo of the game. I think that in this regard, Mage Wars is very similar. Personally, I don't like to pre-script turns as I feel it removes some of the artistry and flexibility away from my decision making, but it seems there are others who really like to have a 2-3 turn template they start the game with almost every time. Where do you fall on this spectrum and why?
-
Arlemus - Check it out! (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14342.msg38944#new) There is a new thread going for specific openings as a corollary to this one.
I did have a question related to this though.
I'm a big football fan (American football, though I like futbol too :P) and I know that some coaches like to script their first few plays while others prefer a blank slate and will base their play calling on the tempo of the game. I think that in this regard, Mage Wars is very similar. Personally, I don't like to pre-script turns as I feel it removes some of the artistry and flexibility away from my decision making, but it seems there are others who really like to have a 2-3 turn template they start the game with almost every time. Where do you fall on this spectrum and why?
I doubt many 3-turn templates survive contact with the enemy. Even 2-turn templates might not if the opponent goes hard aggro (or possibly if they go hard economy, e.g. a spawnpoints+meditation amulet opening).
What I do like is to know some early options. For instance, if my Johktari drops a harmonised Lair on the far centre first turn (a favourite attack on campers), I like to know what I can do that lets me keep summoning animals etc and still have just enough mana for a bow: I don't want to be one short.
-
]I doubt many 3-turn templates survive contact with the enemy. Even 2-turn templates might not if the opponent goes hard aggro (or possibly if they go hard economy, e.g. a spawnpoints+meditation amulet opening).
That was my thinking as well Myr. Turn 1 is about all you can count on to develop unmolested since we've already demonstrated the ability to attack starting corner on Turn 2. It's why I'm not a fan of hard openings as much as I am having a theoretical framework from which to operate.
-
I like to come up with openings with a plan for the first ~3 rounds. I won't necessarily stick to it depending on what my opponent does, but it gives me a sense of where I want to be at the beginning of round 3-4 if my opponent isn't insanely aggressive, and how to efficiently get there. Some of my openings are more likely to end up as stated, and others are more of a rough framework. In general, economic openings with some built in defense are more stable than aggressive, defensive, or hard economy openings.
-
I generally have two planned openings. One against aggressive and one for against passive opponents. If my opening is very aggressive then I theoretically would only have the one plan, but I personally don't like hyper aggressive strategies.
Any plan that starts attacking before turn 4 seems to fall apart against a competent opponent.
Also, I for any conjuration heavy book like one that uses a spawnpoint I have a special plan against druids because druids punish immobility.
-
I generally have two planned openings. One against aggressive and one for against passive opponents. If my opening is very aggressive then I theoretically would only have the one plan, but I personally don't like hyper aggressive strategies.
Any plan that starts attacking before turn 4 seems to fall apart against a competent opponent.
Also, I for any conjuration heavy book like one that uses a spawnpoint I have a special plan against druids because druids punish immobility.
This is a very interesting statement (the bold bit): how large/varied is your group? Because I get the impression from these forums that the opposite certainly used to be the case: any build that was so slow it wasn't attacking by turn 4 was probably doomed to quick aggro. Druid etc. obviously benefit a defensive play, but I'm still surprised by this claim.
My own experience is only with 2 opponents, a forcemaster who tends to play cheetah speed, run and summon Galvitar, and a Necromancer who tends to cast Death Ring and Libro Mortus in his home corner. I'm the mid-range player with a Beastmaster who can advance while summoning, sometimes uses a Lair but often just relies on rings. But even with my 'mid-range' approach, I'm still often attacking necromancer with a pet falcon on my third turn...
-
I'm also curious to hear other experiences on this topic. I also have very limited information as I only play against 1 or 2 opponents, but unless we both go passive/economy, it seems like turn 3 is about when the shift to the midgame tends to occur and attacks start happening. I decided last night to try a creature heavy Priestess build with the express goal of getting out 2 [mwcard=MW1C22]Knight of Westlock[/mwcard] which looked something like this:
T1: (20) Cast [mwcard=MW1C22]Knight of Westlock[/mwcard], QC [mwcard=MW1E05]Cheetah Speed[/mwcard] on Knight hidden. [5]
T2: (15) Cast [mwcard=MW1C22]Knight of Westlock[/mwcard], QC [mwcard=MW1Q03]Crown of Protection[/mwcard] [1]
T3: (11) Move, Cast [mwcard=MW1J08]Hand of Bim-Shalla[/mwcard], QC [mwcard=MW1E33]Retaliate[/mwcard] [4]
I was then able to reveal [mwcard=MW1E05]Cheetah Speed[/mwcard], move both Knights to flank his mage and do something like 18 damage the next turn. I was very pleased with how it played out. The next game we played I opened with [mwcard=MW1C06]Brogan Bloodstone[/mwcard] and a [mwcard=MW1J13]Mana Flower[/mwcard] and tried to play buddy style buffing Brogan but I wasn't as happy with the way that one played out. We did win eventually after a [mwcard=MW1I22]Resurrection[/mwcard] brought Brogan back into play along side the 2 Knights, but it was much more of a grinding, attrition game than the double Knight opening.
-
My experience is pretty limited but against some very good opponents (they play a lot but i don't get to play much) so don't take the "attacking turn 3 is to early" thing as fact, I just haven't been able to make it work. If you do the turn 1 lair in FC, falcon attacking turn 3 thing does your opponent not already have a creature ready to defend or shoot your falcon turn 3 as well? It seems like you are giving up an action or two moving while your opponent can meet you creature for creature and all other things being equal you've given up two actions for no gain. Things like iron golam and devouring ooze are used a lot in my meta so charging forward is just playing into your opponents hands.
In regards to the double knight plan, did your opponent move forward? If you summon a creature turn 1 your opponent should be staying in his starting corner to force you to come to him.
-
My experience is pretty limited but against some very good opponents (they play a lot but i don't get to play much) so don't take the "attacking turn 3 is to early" thing as fact, I just haven't been able to make it work. If you do the turn 1 lair in FC, falcon attacking turn 3 thing does your opponent not already have a creature ready to defend or shoot your falcon turn 3 as well? It seems like you are giving up an action or two moving while your opponent can meet you creature for creature and all other things being equal you've given up two actions for no gain. Things like iron golam and devouring ooze are used a lot in my meta so charging forward is just playing into your opponents hands.
In regards to the double knight plan, did your opponent move forward? If you summon a creature turn 1 your opponent should be staying in his starting corner to force you to come to him.
Well, it depends! If you have initiative turn 1 you can attack as your first action turn 3, so they only have a guard ready if they summoned it turn 1. Iron Golem is just a crazy good creature, but against strong, slow guards I'd teleport them away (or better still, push them through a thorn wall)
The underlying point is that a Lair opening (often followed up with enchantment ring) is pretty good economy-wise: so if they focus on defences, you can start to build up an advantage over them on mana/creatures. That's why I consider it a midrange approach. My forcemaster friend doesn't use that much mana as he's too busy hitting people: he'd just teleport you away, or mind control your guard if it was living. And then when his mana built up summon a big friend (bear, Adramalech...) a few turns in.
-
Round 3 is the fastest most early aggression should hit, and in many circumstances it actually hits round 4 if the other player plays defensively. Faster aggression usually puts you behind in mana and actions, and is generally inefficient. A Grimson rush hits round 2, but Grimson is fragile, so you need to be extremely careful with him.
Let's say you open with
Round 1 (19): Sprint to NC -> Enchanter's Ring (17)
Round 2 (26): Lord of Fire -> FD Cheetah Speed (1)
In this case, you'll still need to use Force Push or Teleport in order to land an attack in round 3 if your opponent is still in their start corner, but you can attack if your opponent has moved out at all.
One of the fastest aggressive options I've thought of was a Forcemaster opening that attacks on round 3 with a Steelclaw Grizzly, but I've still not tried it. It would go something like this:
Round 1 (20): Sprint to NC -> Battle Forge (12)
Round 2 (22): Enchanter's Ring -> Steelclaw Grizzly -> FD Cheetah Speed (3)
Round 3 (13): Force Ring -> FD Bear Strength -> Force Pull -> reveal enchantments -> attack with Grizzly (4)
You could opt for armor instead of the Force Ring, but either way you're in a position to cast Galvitar and start doing quite a bit of damage. I like that more than other options that use position control to get an attack in round 3 because Force Pull is a much cheaper investment than Force Push/Teleport.
Starting to spam attack spells in round 2 or using Divine Intervention/Teleport to start attacking with a melee creature in round 2 puts you behind.
-
Round 3 is the fastest most early aggression should hit, and in many circumstances it actually hits round 4 if the other player plays defensively. Faster aggression usually puts you behind in mana and actions, and is generally inefficient. A Grimson rush hits round 2, but Grimson is fragile, so you need to be extremely careful with him.
Let's say you open with
Round 1 (19): Sprint to NC -> Enchanter's Ring (17)
Round 2 (26): Lord of Fire -> FD Cheetah Speed (1)
In this case, you'll still need to use Force Push or Teleport in order to land an attack in round 3 if your opponent is still in their start corner, but you can attack if your opponent has moved out at all.
One of the fastest aggressive options I've thought of was a Forcemaster opening that attacks on round 3 with a Steelclaw Grizzly, but I've still not tried it. It would go something like this:
Round 1 (20): Sprint to NC -> Battle Forge (12)
Round 2 (22): Enchanter's Ring -> Steelclaw Grizzly -> FD Cheetah Speed (3)
Round 3 (13): Force Ring -> FD Bear Strength -> Force Pull -> reveal enchantments -> attack with Grizzly (4)
You could opt for armor instead of the Force Ring, but either way you're in a position to cast Galvitar and start doing quite a bit of damage. I like that more than other options that use position control to get an attack in round 3 because Force Pull is a much cheaper investment than Force Push/Teleport.
Starting to spam attack spells in round 2 or using Divine Intervention/Teleport to start attacking with a melee creature in round 2 puts you behind.
I don't think Force Pull works here: it only targets something 2 spaces away, and the grizzly could reach them anyway!
But if you want all out aggression, attack with the mage themselves! A forcemaster with initiative can:
Turn 1 (20): Cheetah speed on self (5), sprint to Near Centre, Battleforge (8) 7 left
Turn 2 (17): Battleforge casts Ring of enchantment (1), bear strength (4), run to adjacent to opposing mage, force pull (1)
Turn 3 you're placed to deploy galvitar on yourself and double-attack them. To reduce this to a single attack they have to teleport away with quickcast or similar, wasting mana and still getting hit. And you have mana to burn, meaning you can mind control big creatures, keep using the battleforge for attack/armour... whatever you want!
Not saying this is ideal: but having faced slow builds and fast builds, the latter can definitely be intimidating!
-
In round 2 you're in NC with a Steelclaw Grizzly with a face down Cheetah Speed. In round 3 you'll need to use Force Pull either on the enemy mage or on the Grizzly in order to land an attack with the Grizzly if your opponent stays in their start corner. In either case you're going to be moving your Forcemaster forward a zone to FC.