Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Strategy and Tactics => Topic started by: Shad0w on October 23, 2012, 09:45:50 AM
-
If you have not had a chance to read it Jeff Cunningham did an break down back in 2007 of Aggro, Combo, and Control (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/academy/22) and the hybrid forms of each archetype. Even though the main focus is about MtG it can be applied to many aspects of MW.
This will be the basis of this thread.
Aggro
Currently we have 3 aggro styles that players are looking to build.
1 Creature swarm / overrun
2 Monster build - One - Two well buffed creatures and your mage
3 All in mage centric
Control
We have talked about a few options for control builds.
1 Mana Drain
2 Zone Control - example of this would be the archer, wall build
Combo
Currently this is the least popular of all the builds. I know a few combos that can be included in builds but I have yet to come up if a combo worth building around.
Combo / Control
1 DoT (Damage over Time) build - this use constant effect like Ghoul Rot, Malcoda, Idol of Pestilence, Chains of Agony, and Mage Bane to slowly eat away the health of the opposing army. While you have mass regen effects to keep your stuff alive.
What I want the goal of this thread to be is the sharing of information and Ideas to help develop new builds playtest them and see how viable they are on a tourney level. If this thread gets too long each archetype will get its own thread. If you come up with something new I want to see how it holds up to the current know builds
-
I am not sure if I understood this thread purpose, but I have one decent idea/combo I use for my Aggro Beastmaster.
It is valid for lone mage or one-two big creatures:
Fellella, Pixie Familiar + Harmonise on her in my first turn + lots of different enchantments in spellbook.
- with chaneling 2, she is able to cast one enchantment every turn, giving you oportunity to do other stuff. You still have to have mana to reveal those enchantments, but you save 2 mana and action on every single of them.
- if you cast Decoy with Fellella, you may transfer 2 mana from her to your mage.
- you have to cast enchantment every turn, because you will not be able to use stacked mana on Pixie.
- with so enchant heavy deck you may have less Equipments and Incantations in your spellbook.
- you have to be careful with Purge Magic - you should have Nullify on your enchant-heavy creature or spread enchantments on more than one targets.
- protect Fellella - if she dies, you will lose key element of your deck - you should have Enchanter Ring as your B plan
-
I like the idea Lets see how it hold up to the known spell books types people are playing. If you need an idea of how to make one of the know build just ask.
Has anybody in your group tried the Beastmaster Dog swarm build?
2-3 red claw because they may die, max Timberwolf, max Bitterwood Fox, max Call of the wild, max Rouse, Tree of Life to heal. One thing I do is use Teleport to move the opposing mage close to the pack at end of a round. The a force hold or other way so they cant move. Next round cast Call x2 and attack. At this point even foxes can put out 6D+
-
I am not sure if I understood this thread purpose, but I have one decent idea/combo I use for my Aggro Beastmaster.
It is valid for lone mage or one-two big creatures:
Fellella, Pixie Familiar + Harmonise on her in my first turn + lots of different enchantments in spellbook.
- with chaneling 2, she is able to cast one enchantment every turn, giving you oportunity to do other stuff. You still have to have mana to reveal those enchantments, but you save 2 mana and action on every single of them.
- if you cast Decoy with Fellella, you may transfer 2 mana from her to your mage.
- you have to cast enchantment every turn, because you will not be able to use stacked mana on Pixie.
- with so enchant heavy deck you may have less Equipments and Incantations in your spellbook.
- you have to be careful with Purge Magic - you should have Nullify on your enchant-heavy creature or spread enchantments on more than one targets.
- protect Fellella - if she dies, you will lose key element of your deck - you should have Enchanter Ring as your B plan
What would be your threat creatures? the Bear, or maybe the mage?
-
I like the idea Lets see how it hold up to the known spell books types people are playing. I you need an idea of hoe to make one of the know build just ask.
Has anybody in your group tried the Beastmaster Dog swarm build?
My group currently has one (mine) copy of game and I've played only a few games and I haven't try dog swarm yet.
But my Beastmaster spellbook has some foxes/wolwes/Redclaw + Lair, some totems and Call of the Wild - so I think it is Dog Swarm build - but it is an addition to my Fellella-enchantment play. Dog Swarm does not cost too much points, so it is nice add-on to have an element of suprice (you know - I do not usually start with dog swarm, but I can do it sometimes and my enemy will not exept it).
-
I am not sure if I understood this thread purpose, but I have one decent idea/combo I use for my Aggro Beastmaster.
It is valid for lone mage or one-two big creatures:
Fellella, Pixie Familiar + Harmonise on her in my first turn + lots of different enchantments in spellbook.
- with chaneling 2, she is able to cast one enchantment every turn, giving you oportunity to do other stuff. You still have to have mana to reveal those enchantments, but you save 2 mana and action on every single of them.
- if you cast Decoy with Fellella, you may transfer 2 mana from her to your mage.
- you have to cast enchantment every turn, because you will not be able to use stacked mana on Pixie.
- with so enchant heavy deck you may have less Equipments and Incantations in your spellbook.
- you have to be careful with Purge Magic - you should have Nullify on your enchant-heavy creature or spread enchantments on more than one targets.
- protect Fellella - if she dies, you will lose key element of your deck - you should have Enchanter Ring as your B plan
What would me your threat creatures? the Bear, or maybe the mage?
I have some - in one play it was mage, in other it is Bear or Panther (better, if an enemy has many guards, but I have Mongoose Agility too). I have some middle sized creatures too - wolves and lizards and with many enchantments they are comparable to Grizzly. Skyhunter with Bear Strengh and Bull Endurance is deadly to every single flyier - even Lord of Fire.
-
2-3 red claw because they may die, max Timberwolf, max Bitterwood Fox, max Call of the wild, max Rouse, Tree of Life to heal. One thing I do is use Teleport to move the opposing mage close to the pack at end of a round. The a force hold or other way so they cant move. Next round cast Call x2 and attack. At this point even foxes can put out 6D+
Sorry for trippleposting, but that's what you get, when two guys write in the same moment :P
I have only one copy of the game + Core Spell Tome and I do not use proxies, so I have only one Redclaw. Also, my spellbook isn't focused around dog swarm, so I don' have max foxes and wolves, but I have some of them (3+3 I gues). I have Tree of Life and maybe 3 Call of the Wild (I am thinking about replaceing it with Mage Wand - so I can have even less Incantations in my enchantment build) I have only one Rouse of the Beast, but maybe I'll get second copy. I have Tenglave and Force Push and Wall of Thorns to keep my enemy where I want him to be.
But, as I said, I havn't have a chance to test my dog pack part of spellbook yet and can't tell for sure if is it working. Also, my group isn't very experienced yet, so even if it would work well, I can't tell for sure if my idea is good or my oponents are weak :P
-
2-3 red claw because they may die, max Timberwolf, max Bitterwood Fox, max Call of the wild, max Rouse, Tree of Life to heal. One thing I do is use Teleport to move the opposing mage close to the pack at end of a round. The a force hold or other way so they cant move. Next round cast Call x2 and attack. At this point even foxes can put out 6D+
Sorry for trippleposting, but that's what you get, when two guys write in the same moment :P
I have only one copy of the game + Core Spell Tome and I do not use proxies, so I have only one Redclaw. Also, my spellbook isn't focused around dog swarm, so I don' have max foxes and wolves, but I have some of them (3+3 I gues). I have Tree of Life and maybe 3 Call of the Wild (I am thinking about replaceing it with Mage Wand - so I can have even less Incantations in my enchantment build) I have only one Rouse of the Beast, but maybe I'll get second copy. I have Tenglave and Force Push and Wall of Thorns to keep my enemy where I want him to be.
But, as I said, I havn't have a chance to test my dog pack part of spellbook yet and can't tell for sure if is it working. Also, my group isn't very experienced yet, so even if it would work well, I can't tell for sure if my idea is good or my oponents are weak :P
The only reason I would recommend proxies is to see how it plays out before you investing in more copies. The reason proxies are good for testing is it lets you work on the optimum build and see how your current build could be improved. Another thing is once you know how your build runs and what the key cards are look for cards that could be replaced. BTW I would fit the dog build into a Aggro-Combo classification. Because it uses cards that improve each other like Red Claw and Call. It may not sound like a lot of damage but you could be rolling 30D+ on turn 6-7 if played correctly.
As a good rule of thumb always build and test against the most complete build you can. Just because your group can't make it does not mean that nobody can make and play that build.
Try the DoT build out and let me know what you think.
-
The only reason I would recommend proxies is to see how it plays out before you investing in more copies. The reason proxies are good for testing is it lets you work on the optimum build and see how your current build could be improved. Another thing is once you know how your build runs and what the key cards are look for cards that could be replaced. BTW I would fit the dog build into a Aggro-Combo classification. Because it uses carsd that improve each other like Red Claw and Call. It may not sound like a lot of damage but you could be rolling 30D+ on turn 6-7 if played correctly.
As a good rule of thumb always build and test against the most complete build you can. Just because your group can't make it does not mean that nobody can make and play that build.
Try the DoT build out and let me know what you think.
I would probably never buy more copies of base set - I am waiting for expansions - but I like an idea it is not collectable card game, and buying singles/more of the same would ruin my experience.
About dog pack - I was thinking about making that deck specificly, but I decided not to - it is too obvius and I find not fun to do obvious things with this game.
Damage over Time would be my third build to try - sounds challenging and interesting enough :) I want to try "Cage of Death" build with Wizard first (lock enemy with strong creature surrounded by walls + Raven to cast some support spells inside the cage)
-
Well play the builds against each other and tell us how the matches play out. Play one build against most of the know builds to see how well it holds up. If you want a hard match for the DoT build try it vs swarm.
Solo equip build Warlock can smoke any Mage right now. We have yet to see the Warlock lose a game. I played a game rolling 9 dice on melee with Vampirism. Fire support is crazy good also. Its pretty easy to get the Warlock up to 6 armor which helps.
This was form another thread but I felt the need to post it here.
-
I don't have any great ideas of combos, but one thing I know is that out the three categories personally I like the combo style the best.
I would love to see more combo driven cards. Cards that maybe isn't that good in it self, but get really great once combined with something. I wrote in another thread several weeks ago that would like to see creature that acted like evolves of each other. I.e. a tiny creature (maybe quick cast) that would have 2 in health and 1 attack die for 3 mana. Not good at all, but you could later cast a evolve at it to grow it into a beast of some kind. This would require your opponent to pay attention to your small creatures before then becomes larger and harder to kill. I'm thinking this could also be done in several steps, so that you could evlove it even higher: tiny golem -> golem -> Fire golem or tiny golem -> golem -> Stone golem.
Basically, more combo cards (not not just obvius ones) are very welcome!
-
I don't think the M:TG concept of "Combo" is completely applicable to MW. MTG combos generally rely on spending several rounds "setting up" the combo (either by having the correct cards in hand, or other prerequisites), then playing the combo to win in a single action. MW doesn't have anything comparable (yet). While Redclaw and Gate to Hell are certainly designed around having big swarms of Dogs or Demons, there's no true "combo" where having the right prerequisites turns one card into an insta-win. After all, in a game where you can draw any card whenever you want, that would be horrifically game-breaking.
I would almost suggest that instead of Aggro, Control, Combo it should be Aggro, Control, Terrain:
Aggro: Deals direct damage to enemy mage + creatures.
Creature Swarm
Big Creature Build
Equipment Build
DoT Build
Control: Directly prevents or counters enemy actions.
Mana Drain
Action Advantage (Familiar, Hold, Stone, Banish, Nullify, Jinx, etc.)
Heal-based Defense
Terrain: Inflicts or prevents damage by using terrain.
Archer/Wall based Defense
Static Defense build (Temple of Light, Poison Cloud, and traps)
Kill-Zone Offense (ie, teleporting your foe into Hydras and traps)
-
I don't think the M:TG concept of "Combo" is completely applicable to MW. MTG combos generally rely on spending several rounds "setting up" the combo (either by having the correct cards in hand, or other prerequisites), then playing the combo to win in a single action. MW doesn't have anything comparable (yet). While Redclaw and Gate to Hell are certainly designed around having big swarms of Dogs or Demons, there's no true "combo" where having the right prerequisites turns one card into an insta-win. After all, in a game where you can draw any card whenever you want, that would be horrifically game-breaking.
I would almost suggest that instead of Aggro, Control, Combo it should be Aggro, Control, Terrain:
Aggro: Deals direct damage to enemy mage + creatures.
Creature Swarm
Big Creature Build
Equipment Build
DoT Build
Control: Directly prevents or counters enemy actions.
Mana Drain
Action Advantage (Familiar, Hold, Stone, Banish, Nullify, Jinx, etc.)
Heal-based Defense
Terrain: Inflicts or prevents damage by using terrain.
Archer/Wall based Defense
Static Defense build (Temple of Light, Poison Cloud, and traps)
Kill-Zone Offense (ie, teleporting your foe into Hydras and traps)
I would agree with you to some extents but it possible to build combos that do not auto win. I have a deck that can not win or lose and nobody ever dies. If it goes off nobody in the game will die or lose in any way, but I cant kill because the total power in the deck is 0.
In fact if you read Jeff article.
Combo is a strategy that utilizes the interaction of two or more cards (a "combination") at the same time or in sequence, resulting in a powerful effect. This strategy can also refer to using a single powerful spell to instantly win the game while the rest of the deck is designed to ensure its success. Many decks have smaller, combo-like interactions between their cards, which is better described as synergy. A good combo should be fast (achievable early enough in the game to matter), consistent (regularly achievable), and powerful (so the effect translates into victory).
Both parts are true it can be a game winning effects or just a powerful interaction between 2 or more cards.
Control-Combo is a strategy that combines heavy disruption elements (control) with the ability to unleash an extremely powerful internal synergy (i.e., a combo). Requiring specific cards, but having lots of strategic crossover between them, this is an uncommon decktype in shallower formats (Block and Standard), but such decks are regularly seen in Extended, Legacy, and Vintage.
I would put to DoT style build into a combo control classification because it use interactions from more then 1 card to constantly put out damage each turn. You use things like force hold and walls to slow down the attack and hold off the other mage. I also include full set of negates, rev mag, jinx, rev attack, dissolve, and 2 explodes in my build. These are just some of the disruption elements. In the next set we are testing a few more cards that I will be including.
Terrain: Inflicts or prevents damage by using terrain.
Archer/Wall based Defense
Static Defense build (Temple of Light, Poison Cloud, and traps)
Kill-Zone Offense (ie, teleporting your foe into Hydras and traps)
I could break these done into the already determined archetypes.
Archer/Wall based Defense - could be fit into aggro control or pure control deepening on your build
Static Defense build - could fall into control or combo
Kill-Zone Offense - this would most fall into the aggro or control line depending on how you use the AOEs, Whats is nice about this is it is a very modal build and can change the play style as needed. I would say this probably one of the best example of mid range Aggro Control you can find.
-
Has anybody in your group tried the Beastmaster Dog swarm build?
2-3 red claw because they may die, max Timberwolf, max Bitterwood Fox, max Call of the wild, max Rouse, Tree of Life to heal. One thing I do is use Teleport to move the opposing mage close to the pack at end of a round. The a force hold or other way so they cant move. Next round cast Call x2 and attack. At this point even foxes can put out 6D+
You could potentially have little foxes doing 8 dice of damage if you added in marked for death on the enemy, and used Rajan's Fury for charge +1! :woohoo:
Would you use any enchantments on the pack? Bear strength on redclaw? Regeneration? ...Or just use them as is?
...Also, one flaw with this build are powerfull zone attacks or chain lighting. Those poor foxes will go up in flames pretty easily.
-
500th post again :woohoo:
Has anybody in your group tried the Beastmaster Dog swarm build?
2-3 red claw because they may die, max Timberwolf, max Bitterwood Fox, max Call of the wild, max Rouse, Tree of Life to heal. One thing I do is use Teleport to move the opposing mage close to the pack at end of a round. Then a Force Hold or other way so they cant move. Next round cast Call x2 and attack. At this point even foxes can put out 6D+
You could potentially have little foxes doing 8 dice of damage if you added in marked for death on the enemy, and used Rajan's Fury for charge +1! :woohoo:
Would you use any enchantments on the pack? Bear strength on redclaw? Regeneration? ...Or just use them as is?
...Also, one flaw with this build are powerfull zone attacks or chain lighting. Those poor foxes will go up in flames pretty easily.
Correct you have to plan for AOE spells. I have said before 1-2 well played AOEs could set you back 3+ turns and for swam builds that can be game breaking. I do use enchants Bear Strength, Rhino Hide, and the protective stuff like Reverse Magic, Reverse Attack, Block and Nullify.
This is why this thread is all about meta playtesting to find what holds up and what needs reworked. The dog build is very fast but has a glaring flaw when it comes to AOE spells and CL.
-
Combo does not really exist in MW because there are not really any combo cards. Also, there are several rules in the rulebook that strongly discourage combos (ex. attack bonuses only on the first attack).
Here are some defining characteristics of combo cards with MTG examples:
1. Give up something for something else (Channel, Necropotence, Mind over Matter)
2. Situational Effects that sometimes fail completely (Black Vise, Tsunami)
3. X Spells (Fireball)
4. Very strong cards (Darksteel Colossus)
5. Free spells (ornithopter)
6. Strong defect that can be worked around or handled (Eater of Days)
7. Cards that require extreme amounts of something in the deck (Endless Wurm)
8. Effects that multiply instead of add (WOW:TCG Heroic Strike and Mortal Strike/Rak Skyfury)
9. Cards that are much better if you do something weird first (Ashen Ghoul w/ buried alive)
All of these types of cards could be added to Mage Wars, then combo would truly exist in the game. Combo cards are hard to design, but very rewarding to certain types of players. WotC continue to support the Johnny/Timmy/Spike player archetypes when they design cards. On the other hand, Mage Wars has great Timmy (power) and spike (competitive) support, but not much for Johnny (combo).
-
Combo does not really exist in MW because there are not really any combo cards. Also, there are several rules in the rulebook that strongly discourage combos (ex. attack bonuses only on the first attack).
Here are some defining characteristics of combo cards with MTG examples:
1. Give up something for something else (Channel, Necropotence, Mind over Matter)
2. Situational Effects that sometimes fail completely (Black Vise, Tsunami)
3. X Spells (Fireball)
4. Very strong cards (Darksteel Colossus)
5. Free spells (ornithopter)
6. Strong defect that can be worked around or handled (Eater of Days)
7. Cards that require extreme amounts of something in the deck (Endless Wurm)
8. Effects that multiply instead of add (WOW:TCG Heroic Strike and Mortal Strike/Rak Skyfury)
9. Cards that are much better if you do something weird first (Ashen Ghoul w/ buried alive)
All of these types of cards could be added to Mage Wars, then combo would truly exist in the game. Combo cards are hard to design, but very rewarding to certain types of players. WotC continue to support the Johnny/Timmy/Spike player archetypes when they design cards. On the other hand, Mage Wars has great Timmy (power) and spike (competitive) support, but not much for Johnny (combo).
Bryan had mentioned before that he plans on making cursed equips and enchantments that give out penalties like flame +2. Cards like these need to be thoroughly before going to print.
For example one version of marked for death read when this creature is attacked add +1D. An older version of wall of thorns used to make 1 attack per level of the creature passing through it at 2d each. So if i marked for death you and used force push it would be 6x3d them i force push again for another 6x3d that is 36D in two actions. when I did the full build I had huggin make a 3rd push. for a total of 54D in 1 turn.
That is what I would call a combo. So it is possible but the palytesters need to weed out the game breaking combos before they go to print.
-
Correct you have to plan for AOE spells. I have said before 1-2 well played AOEs could set you back 3+ turns and for swam builds that can be game breaking. I do use enchants Bear Strength, Rhino Hide, and the protective stuff like Reverse Magic, Reverse Attack, Block and Nullify.
This is why this thread is all about meta playtesting to find what holds up and what needs reworked. The dog build is very fast but has a glaring flaw when it comes to AOE spells and CL.
How do you plan for AOE's when after an attack all your dogs are in a pack crammed in one space (hopefully the space with sacred ground and tree of life in it).
Would you also include the beastmasters spawn zone? With it, i'd imigine you could get all six of your foxes out very quickly.
Lastly, I dont have my rulebook on me, can you benefit from the use of two call of the wild cards? I thought the rules said you can never benefit from two of the same card... or am I crazy :blink:
Thanks!
-
Going back to the beginning of the thread. There is one combo that comes to mind.
Wall of thorns and push spells combined with Whirling Spirit. Push the mage through the wall of thorns for 10 damage every time. Of course even one point of armor can destroy this and so would the mage running away, so you'd need a Tele-Wand and Dissolves. But even though this is aggro it requires a set of cards to really make the build work, thus a combo.
-
This was asked in the Conjuration Stacking (http://magewars.com/jsite/forum/general-questions/2638-conjuration-stacking#2642) about 10 days ago but it does cover what you are asking.
So there's a thread on the Geek where someone asked if Conjurations bonuses stack. I replied that as long as the Conjuration was not Legendary or Unique, then it was ok. The counterargument from two different people was that you can't have multiple bonuses from a source of the same name. Now, I know this is true of enchantments, but I could not find in the rules anything about Conjurations. Basically, that counterargument is saying that stuff like Tooth & Nails, and Mana Flowers/Crystals do not stack, but I know that to be untrue even though I don't have a rules passage on my side either. Can someone official chime in either here or there? I'd like to know if I HAVE been playing it wrong.
Thanks
Shad0w Wrote:
A zone may never have multiple conjurations with the same name attached to it.
An object may never have multiple conjurations with the same name attached to it.
Each object or zone cannot have more than one enchantment with the same name.
You may not have more than one equipment spell with the same name attached to your Mage at any time.
None of these state you can not get bonuses from things with the same name. For example if you had an enchant that gave all other friendly creature in this zone +1 melee. Each creature with that enchant would share the bonus with all other friendlies in the same zone.
Upkeep +X
This object’s controller pays X mana during each Upkeep Phase or this object is destroyed.
Upkeep for example can stack if Mordoks Ob was not legendary and epic you could have 4 in play at the same time. Giving all nonmages an upkeep of +4
Regenerate X
This object heals (removes) X damage each Upkeep Phase. The Regenerate trait does not stack or combine with other Regenerate traits. If an object acquires more than one Regenerate trait, use only the highest one. The Finite Life trait prevents regeneration.
Regen on the other hand says they can not be stacked.
Channeling +/- X
Modifies a creature’s Channeling attribute by +/- X. Channeling cannot be reduced below 0. Modifies only existing Channeling, it has no effect an object without a Channeling attribute.
On channeling it does not state you can not stack the bonus. So as long as each mana flower / crystal is in its own zone you could fill all 12 zone with one of each for +12 channeling.
Here is another example. If Redclaw was not Legendary you could have 4 in the same zone each pumping the rest.
I hope that helps.
Call x2 would Use the same rule because it does not stay attached to you mage. once it resolves it goes to the discard pile.
How do you plan for AOE's when after an attack all your dogs are in a pack crammed in one space (hopefully the space with sacred ground and tree of life in it).
If you watch the way a player does this build you will have 1 turn of warning before the majority of the pack moves in. So the planning phase before they are going to attack prep an AOE and some form of protection to lower the amount of damage that will be in coming.
-
Going back to the beginning of the thread. There is one combo that comes to mind.
Wall of thorns and push spells combined with Whirling Spirit. Push the mage through the wall of thorns for 10 damage every time. Of course even one point of armor can destroy this and so would the mage running away, so you'd need a Tele-Wand and Dissolves. But even though this is aggro it requires a set of cards to really make the build work, thus a combo.
I have talked about this combo several time but in reality it is currently not strong enough to focus an entire build around.
-
Hmm perhaps. Then perhaps it's really not a build. The beauty of it is that you can still have plenty of other spells if you're facing a mage that you don't think it'll work against. But let me ask, why isn't it strong enough?
-
Hmm perhaps. Then perhaps it's really not a build. The beauty of it is that you can still have plenty of other spells if you're facing a mage that you don't think it'll work against. But let me ask, why isn't it strong enough?
The wall is very weak and as you pointed out armor or defense effects like aegis drop its damage output way down. I do include it in my solo style builds because because it is less then 10 points to set it up.
-
Yes, Aegis and armor completely ruin it that's why you'd have to be constant with dissolves and what-not. The way I look at it if you're clever you can cast the wall and hit them twice in one turn (saying you had the spirit out already) if you keep it up for a round or two by the time they've stacked defenses you can finish them off by other means.
Anyway that's the only combo I can think of so far...
-
This thread has been sitting idle for months now. I don't know if people don't like the idea of classifying spellbooks or just felt they didn't have anything to add. Personally I like this subject but felt I didn't have anything to add.
A few have posted that they thought the combo classification in the magic sense did not apply to mage wars and I agree completely. In fact I wonder if the magic system of classifying decks translates to MW spellbooks at all.
I don't really want hijack the thread into a discussion of MW vs magic but I need to go there briefly to explain my point. Even before MW was released I thought it would replace magic for me and it has but not for the reason I thought it would. I thought it would be a "fixed" version of magic containing all the good stuff magic offers with none of the bad. Imagine playing magic without getting mana screwed or mana flooded, not to mention never having to top deck an answer. After playing MW I realized that any similarities to magic are superficial and the two games are very different experiences. Mana ratios and card draw are not weakness's but an integral part of the magic experience, love them or leave them. A game of Mage Wars just feels different to me than a game of magic. The reason I gave up magic isn't because MW is an improved version of magic, it's because it is the game I've been looking for all these years.
Ok, back to the topic. The point I'm trying to make is that if I am correct and mage wars and magic are two very different experiences, maybe the community should create a new system of classifying spellbooks instead if trying to fit them into categories conceived to describe magic decks.
-
i agree i dont think magic classification fit too well. since a well built book can and will be a little bit of everything.
i think books are better classified by their strategy.
i also think opening plays are even more valuable to examine then the books themselves. for example we have aggro openings, attrition openings, and things in between.
-
i agree i dont think magic classification fit too well. since a well built book can and will be a little bit of everything.
i think books are better classified by their strategy.
i also think opening plays are even more valuable to examine then the books themselves. for example we have aggro openings, attrition openings, and things in between.
I have thought a simple one word descriptor of the content of the spell book might be an appropriate place too start. Perhaps something along the lines of proactive, balanced, or reactive based on whether a spellbook was heavy in proactive or reactive spells or fairly balanced between the two.
Add in the Mage used as a second descriptor.
And most importantly the strategy/tactics employed as you suggest.
So a particular spellbook might be described as Proactive/Beastmaster Wolfpack Swarm or a Balanced/Beastmaster Wolfpack Swarm.
I think opening moves is a fascinating subject that probably deserves its own discussion.
-
Yeah, I think that the way to go is to use a one word description of the strategy involved in the build with the mage type included for clarity. That's how I describe them. As was mentioned in this thread, and said by me many times, the best spell books are going to be well rounded, but they will still probably have an overall strategy that they will be focused on to win so that can be used to describe them.
Here are the basic strategies that I see right now:
Rush (usually meaning an in your face mage who will seek to melee/blast you very aggressively)
Swarm (summoning lots of creatures to try and overwhelm)
Turtle (like a Temple build or a ranged build)
Control (more of a catch all strategy, like mana denial, movement lockdown, etc)
Hybrid (a well rounded build, meaning that it can do two or more of the above strategies)
So we could classify spell books like "Wizard Control", "Beastmaster Rush" or "Priestess Hybrid (Turtle/Control)".
Thoughts? Any other core strategies I'm missing?
-
What you are calling rush sounds suspiciously like what we would call "solo" mage, although sometimes not technically solo, a very lonely mage who does most of the heavy lifting himself with little or no creature support. If that is not what you mean then I guess solo would be another strategy.
Control seems a little generic. The way the spellbooks are constructed pretty much every one has some control elements.
This game is still in its infancy, at least as far as its exposure to the community at large. I think classifying spellbooks is a work in progress that's going to evolve as we log more games and think up new strategies to try.
-
This thread has been sitting idle for months now. I don't know if people don't like the idea of classifying spellbooks or just felt they didn't have anything to add. Personally I like this subject but felt I didn't have anything to add.
A few have posted that they thought the combo classification in the magic sense did not apply to mage wars and I agree completely. In fact I wonder if the magic system of classifying decks translates to MW spellbooks at all.
I don't really want hijack the thread into a discussion of MW vs magic but I need to go there briefly to explain my point. Even before MW was released I thought it would replace magic for me and it has but not for the reason I thought it would. I thought it would be a "fixed" version of magic containing all the good stuff magic offers with none of the bad. Imagine playing magic without getting mana screwed or mana flooded, not to mention never having to top deck an answer. After playing MW I realized that any similarities to magic are superficial and the two games are very different experiences. Mana ratios and card draw are not weakness's but an integral part of the magic experience, love them or leave them. A game of Mage Wars just feels different to me than a game of magic. The reason I gave up magic isn't because MW is an improved version of magic, it's because it is the game I've been looking for all these years.
Ok, back to the topic. The point I'm trying to make is that if I am correct and mage wars and magic are two very different experiences, maybe the community should create a new system of classifying spellbooks instead if trying to fit them into categories conceived to describe magic decks.
Repainting an old car does not make it a new car. These terms have become a standard across more than just card games. I see no reason to come up with new terms when these are so widely accepted already. That being said I see no reason we should not a sub classification to a build Archetype.
Agro - Swarm
Agro - Solo
Control - Solo
These are just some examples.
-
It may be worth the time to research Roman gladiator combat to see how strategies were categorized in those arena battles. Or modern boxing, kickboxing, mixed martial arts, etc.
Mage Wars is an enhanced model of arena combat to the death. The spellbook design discussions just feel like evaluations of different starting sets of resources. Perhaps comparing them against opponent spellbooks would be more effective. i.e. match ups between opposing scenarios. Think of Ali versus Frasier or Spartucus versus a Lion den.
-
It may be worth the time to research Roman gladiator combat to see how strategies were categorized in those arena battles. Or modern boxing, kickboxing, mixed martial arts, etc.
Mage Wars is an enhanced model of arena combat to the death. The spellbook design discussions just feel like evaluations of different starting sets of resources. Perhaps comparing them against opponent spellbooks would be more effective. i.e. match ups between opposing scenarios. Think of Ali versus Frasier or Spartucus versus a Lion den.
Interesting , this makes me think about an old magic article written by Mike Flores called "Who Is The Beatdown Deck" or something close to that. He discusses the ability to discern whether you should take the beatdown or control role when two similar decks face off. One off the most profound articles ever written about magic and a fascinating read since the concepts are generic enough to apply to many games.
Your statement seems to touch upon the concept of being flexible enough in your stratagy to adapt your tactics based on your opponent, indicating the key is in analyzing the various match ups as opposed to classifying spellbooks. Unless I'm misinterpreting your point.
-
Mike's post was a great post with lots of insight but people tend to forget what he talks about is when a build is close but not a perfect mirror then the player must figure out what role to take in the match. He also still refers back to the aggro and control archetypes.
Who's The Beatdown?
Mike Flores
1/01
Another classic from the Dojo (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/3692_Whos_The_Beatdown.html)
" The most common (yet subtle, yet disastrous) mistake I see in tournament Magic is the misassignment of who is the beatdown deck and who is the control deck in a similar deck vs. similar deck matchup. The player who misassigns himself is inevitably the loser.
You see, in similar deck vs. similar deck matchups, unless the decks are really symmetrical (i.e. the true Mirror match), one deck has to play the role of beatdown, and the other deck has to play the role of control. This can be a very serious dilemma, if, say, both are playing aggressive decks. "
I do like the fact that we are having a well thought and intelligent discussion. I just do not see a need to break away from what has become the standard for naming build archetypes. Being able to change a builds play-style is called tempo (http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Tempo). This not to say that at each builds core it does not favors one line of play over another. The only way this would be true, would be to put an even number of cards from each archetype then it would have no classification.
PS: If you want to learn more about tempo check these out
Article: Understanding Tempo By WhiteLotus (http://themtgnoob.com/article-understanding-tempo/)
Better Deckbuilding 101 – Understanding Tempo with Ghost Dad (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/bb59)
-
The most important section of that post by Mike Flores is often forgotten.
Who's The Beatdown?
Mike Flores
1/01
Another classic from the Dojo (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/3692_Whos_The_Beatdown.html)
" The most common (yet subtle, yet disastrous) mistake I see in tournament Magic is the misassignment of who is the beatdown deck and who is the control deck in a similar deck vs. similar deck matchup. The player who misassigns himself is inevitably the loser.
You see, in similar deck vs. similar deck matchups, unless the decks are really symmetrical (i.e. the true Mirror match), one deck has to play the role of beatdown, and the other deck has to play the role of control. This can be a very serious dilemma, if, say, both are playing aggressive decks. "
This is a great post with lots of insight but people tend to forget what he talks about is when a build is close but not a perfect mirror then the player must figure out what role to take in the match. He also still refers back to the aggro and control archetypes.
I do like the fact that we are having a well thought and intelligent discussion. I just do not see a need to break away from what has become the standard for naming build archetypes.
You may have been able to tell that this is my all time favorite article on magic strategy. It is close to 13 years old and still relevant today.
He most certainly does reference aggro and control, I chalk that up to it being an article about magic. I mentioned the article because I think it offers insight into many games including MW. Plus it is about match ups and the previous post mentions match ups.
I built a priestess book the other day. I constructed it by selecting the cards I felt I needed to advance my strategy along my chosen path of victory. Then I selected the cards I thought would be useful in disrupting and countering my opponents game plan(I am using opponent generically here, I didn't have a specific person in mind). I had 126 points in my book (that's pretty low for me, I used to end up with 160 plus) so I trimmed the cards I thought I was least likely to need to get to 120. For the first time ever I then proceed to count my proactive cards which I consider to be cards that advance my strategy and/or don't require my opponent to do anything in order to be useful and my reactive cards I use to disrupt my opponent or remove his threats. The ratio was 62 points proactive to 58 points reactive. I was surprised to see how balanced it was. I didn't have a preconceived notion of what the ratio should be but when I was building it I was thinking of it as a control build. With almost 50% dedicated to countering my opponent it is fairly controlish. I counted my damage dealers and found there to be 39 points worth of them. Almost 1/3 of my book is offense, this seems high for a control deck and just a little bit low for an aggro deck. If I so chose I could start off playing threats and continue to do so for turns to come. With all that firepower and the ability to get any card i want from my spellbook on turn 1, forget that defense lets go beat up the opposing mage. In all fairness my creatures aren't the type I would use to pressure my opponent early. I guess in magic terms I had built a mid range control book.
I looked at the ratios of the other books I had built and none of them had much more than 70 points dedicated to proactive or reactive. It seems most of the books I build are pretty balanced. I don't know if this is more my nature or the nature of building spellbooks in Mage Wars. I'm thinking its more an indication of MW. This being the case it would seem if you apply magic terms to describe spellbooks almost all would be classified as control or mid range control. And yet mage wars does not feel like a never ending series of control vs control match ups (which would get boring pretty fast) every game so far has been exiting, it just feels different.
Mage Wars just plays so different from magic that my attempts to impose magic style classification has seemed inadequate. I suppose I might be trying to import the classifications too literally.
-
The point of what I am getting at is these terms are use beyond magic. Just like Mark Rosewater's Timmy, Johnny, and Spike (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b) and Timmy, Johnny, and Spike Revisited (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b). They have grown to encompass more than just MTG and are used in other games.
Just run a search on the web and you will find aggro, combo and control in other games.
Like I said these terms have extended well beyond MTG and have become a standard across several aspects of gaming. Depending on the style of game other terms have then developed from these. Tanking, Mitigation, Crowd Control, Evasion I could go on but I think this is a good place to stop. ;)
-
So what would determine if something is aggo or control?
A ) The contents of the spellbook.
B ) The way the player plays it.
C ) A combination of A & B.
D ) Other.
Edit: Not sure why the face is where the letter B should be.
-
Typically these classifications are used for the deck design. If the player takes an aggro deck and attempts to control that's his choice, it's still an aggro deck.
-
So what would determine if something is aggo or control?
A ) The contents of the spellbook.
B ) The way the player plays it.
C ) A combination of A & B.
D ) Other.
Edit: Not sure why the face is where the letter B should be.
I fixed it for you. B followed by a ) is this emote B)
-
So what would determine if something is aggo or control?
A ) The contents of the spellbook.
B ) The way the player plays it.
C ) A combination of A & B.
D ) Other.
Edit: Not sure why the face is where the letter B should be.
Thanks. Who da thunk?
I fixed it for you. B followed by a ) is this emote B)
-
I read the articles on Tempo and find them similar to the military strategy term Momentum. The ability to deploy threats at an operational and strategic level. However, the articles seem to relate this back to the mana supply as the limited resource each opponent is seeking to optimize.
In Mage Wars I find that Momentum/Tempo has additional nuisances as many types of threats introduced into the arena provide additional non-mana consuming opportunities to attack or create new threats. The prime example are creatures who, once in the arena, can manuever and use their own abilities to create new threats. i.e. Actions become an additional resource in addition to optimizing the flow of mana.
Archtypes for deck designs don't seem very useful to me unless we add the element of which specific mage we are discussing. This is one aspect that makes Mage Wars interesting for me, while MTG was not. The unique abilities and training of each Mage is what forces players to have unique deck designs. Even if two mages wanted to have the same spellbook I believe the spellpoints costs for different schools of magic would make this impossible. I haven't validated this premise, but it seems likely.
I can see the archtypes described above have meaning in the world of MTG, but players do not have the unique mage abilities and training limitations imposed on them when designing a deck. At least I do not believe they do. For me it would be more interesting to develop archtypes for Mage Wars around schools of magic and mage abilities rather than existing archtypes from MTG.
For example, has anyone done an analysis of each school of magic by spell type (or threat type) to see if this offers insights into strategies that are more efficient for a given mage? As the schools of magic evolve with new spells, the builds for each mage will be influenced in certain directions as the cost of spells in trained schools are cheaper.
-
i would also agree that the game eliminates alot of definition of the term combo deck.
normally Combo decks are a combination of 2 or 3 cards that when put together instantly win you the game such as granting infinite damage/extra turns/mill. In whatever case, in mage wars you have the limitation of multiple instances of identical effects plus the spell book search for the answer to said combo.
i would instead suggest there that the deck archetypes are more "war game" like:
1) Assasination as Aggro: Your spell book is designed to take out one target and that is the opposing mage. As examples, An animal horde rush from the beastmaster, and a geared up warlock with fireballs.
2) Denial as Control: Your spell book is designed to stop opposing strategies. As examples, A metamagic mana draining wizard, and a healing priestess with despel or disolve on a wand.
3) Attrition as Combo: Your spell book is designed to trade well with my opponents spells in my favour. For example my enchanted angel kills your demon, my block was cheaper than your Lightning bolt, or i teleport you into my hydra killbox.
-
I want to respond to this but. Currently a bit tired from the con and had to be at work by 7am. I will read your post sometime this week and respond.
-
I'm actually a fan of the idea of moving away from TCG-Style classifications. I think they're limiting, and don't get close to describing what's going on with a spellbook. Honestly? I'd lump the entire game into the 'toolbox' style of decks and call it a day.
One of the big things i've noticed in Mage Wars is that you have to consider a lot of what-ifs when building a spellbook. We've pointed out a bunch of them already in this thread: What if my swarm of puppies gets hit by an AOE? What if my one big creature gets hit with a Purge Magic? What if X happens to my Y?
So, i think considering the entire spellbook is a bad idea. There's going to be a lot of points (My number is usually 25-35) dedicated to toolbox situations - countering specific strategies that you see often.
To that end, I think if we must have classification, we need to start with the Mages, then split them into their various strategies. I actually want to call them 'Specializations' since that seems to be a very accurate representation of what's going on; you have one big focus for your mage, and then the tools to protect them.
So, the 'basic' Beast Master strategies to me are Pack Lord, Master Tamer, and Shape Shifter. I consider the basic spell book a mix between Pack Lord and Master Tamer.
Pack Lord builds focus on many small creatures to make multiple attacks in a round via Lair and the Beast Master’s quick summon ability. He uses more creatures than enchantments, and likes using arena-wide benefitting conjurations.
Master Tamer builds focus on making one to two legendary creatures absolutely devastating to your opponent, then running up and smashing them. He stays away from spawnpoints since he only needs one or two creatures to make his plan work, and has a massive number of enchantments.
Shape Shifter builds focus on the Beast Master himself, using incantations, ferrets, and enchantments to turn himself into an avatar of nature’s wrath. While it does require your mage to go onto the front lines, he can deal some serious damage while doing so, and take some hits if he’s set up right.
This can be repeated for each of the other mages, but I slipped and busted up my arm, so this is just an example of the beastmaster, and a kind of thematic way to talk about the different strategies.
-
I think one major difference between MW and typical CCGs is that you can play the same deck in very different ways.
For example - let's focus on a very specific BM deck - the Lair based swarm deck. You have a lair, a ton of small creatures, and things like Sacred Ground, Rajans Fury, Call of the Wild that are designed to boost swarms. Then you have a small but powerful core of Equipment, usually some armor plus a mage staff or staff of beasts, and a couple of Teleports for utility.
============
It is quite possible (and effective) to play this deck as a Beatdown (aggro) deck, moving aggressively toward your opponent while summoning hordes of Bobcats and Falcons, and frequently using Guard or melee attacks to support your creatures.
It is also quite possible (and effective) to play this deck as a critical-mass (combo) deck, waiting until you have a very large number of Wolves and Redclaw before attacking with call of the wild and rolling a truly frightening amount of dice.
It is also quite possible (and effective) to play this deck as a sniper (control) deck, keeping your creatures a few spaces back and using teleports and/or tanglevines to isolate and kill large enemy creatures until your army is much stronger than theirs.
-
I haven't read everything in this thread, but I can offer how I think of the game. At any time, a player will be playing one of 3 ways: aggressive, defensive, MIX. Let's call these Aggro, Control, and Combo. A player will shift between these playstyles in response to the opponent.
If you are playing Aggro, you are doing some mix of the following:
-Attacking nearly every turn with an attack spell
-Summoning tons of cheap creatures and swaming the enemy (charging relentlessly, caring little for which ones survive)
-Ignoring enemy enchantments
-Ignoring enemy equipment
-Using only offensive incantations (like Battle Fury)
If you are playing Control, you are doing some mix of the following:
-Utilizing one powerful creature on the board
-Denying the enemy access to mana (really only applies to The Wizard)
-Heavily favoring defensive enchantments like Block and Nullify
-Heavily favoring de-buff incantations like Dispel, Seeking Dispel, and Dissolve/Explode
If you are playing Combo, you are doing some mix of the following:
-Attacking only when the enemy has their defenses down
-Using 2 or 3 medium costly creatures, buffing them up when you feel like it
-Using defensive enchantments only when you feel they are absolutely necessary
-Using incantations like Dispel, Seeking Dispel, and Dissolve only when you feel like you need to
MTG theory states the following: Aggro > Control > Combo > Aggro > ... etc.
Aggro beats Control because Aggro doesn't give Control time to get a stable footing
Control beats Combo because it gives Control enough time to set up
Combo beats Aggro because it can start fast if needed be
So I guess I am trying to say this:
1) If your enemy is trying to swarm you with creatures, try to fend them off with a couple medium powerful creatures. Keep your creatures buffed, heal them when necessary. Don't try to solo against a swarm.
2) If your enemy is focusing on dispeling your enchatments, dissolving your armor, denying you mana, etc. you should try to swarm them with creatures or surprise them by going on the offensive.
3) If your enemy is not falling into either Aggro or Control, try playing the Control game against them. Disrupt their combos. Dissolve their equipment. Dispel their enchantments.
I hope some of this made sense to somebody.
-
It makes sense to the people who already understand it. :lol:
-
The mages as I see them in relation to these terms:
Warlock: Definitely Aggro-Control. He is rewarded for using curses (control enchants) over buffing enchants, and his Bloodreaper ability makes his demons very cost-effective. Sure, it costs life, but aggro strategies are known for sacrificing resources to gain immediate advantage. Aggro strategies don't care about their own life total, only that the opponent dies before they do. The warlock also has the highest base life and a melee skill, so he can stay on the enemy mage without needing to retreat much.
Priestess: Appears to be control or maybe midrange-control. She is rewarded for preserving her resources in order to gain a long-term board and mana advantage, after which she can drop haymaker Angels that are simply more powerful than most creatures and are difficult to interact with due to flying. She also has access to the best defensive creatures in the game with which to guard her conjurations, the Knight of Westlock, and an Angel that punishes your opponent for destroying your clerics (mana batteries resources with some utility). Gray Angels are particularly midrange-control-y; they're decent beaters in the midgame with an emphasis on preserving other units and resources once they have outlived their usefulness. She also has access to the most efficient dazing spells, letting her get the action advantage over other mages for very little cost.
Wizard: Not sure the Wizard falls easily into a particular category, but I'd probably say control also. The elemental school choice varies, but arcane does not, and a majority of arcane spells focus on manipulating your opponent's resources while increasing your own. Additionally, most arcane creatures are rather expensive and have powerful full-action attacks, but poor quick-action attacks, and are also Slow so they can't really make good use of quick actions anyway. They also have regenerate, which rewards zone-specific controlling play and makes it hard to engage them at range effectively over the course of the game. Gate of Voltari also rewards this strategy.
Beastmaster: Aggro-combo for sure. Combo in MW doesn't carry the same kind of undertones as combo in MTG does though...you still have to win through combat, regardless if you stack enchantment after enchantment on a large fatty creature, or horde a bunch of smaller creatures and then use a Call of the Wild or two. The Beastmaster doesn't really have much in the way of controlling cards, and even the ones he can use effectively, like Tanglevine, reward you more for using them against guards than to control creatures.
These aren't meant to be strict interpretations of how each mage MUST play to be effective--on the contrary, I've been on the receiving end of some innovative aggressive tactics from the Wizard and Priestess. That's the great thing about this game; if you want to play a very aggressive Priestess or Wizard, or a very controlling Warlock or Beastmaster, it's certainly possible and effective if you time it right. I do however think that, in the above roles, each mage is an expert and will more often succeed from those lines of play.
So, to summarize:
Warlock: Aggro-Control
Beastmaster: Aggro-Combo
Priestess: Control, or Midrange-Control
Wizard: Mainly control, varying somewhat depending on your element choice
-
I think all Mages can be on a varying scale from aggressiveness to controling.
And in general sense, each Mage also has their own unique synergy focuses.
Scale:
Most Aggressive
Beastmaster - Combining Buffs on particular Creatures
Forcemaster - Assassination with Galvitor and Defenses
Warlock - Hulk up some equipment and burn with a demon
Warlord - build a fortress of walls and traps to shoot from
Wizard - Mana denial + Wand Combos, teleporting Hydras
Priestess - Priests and temples into Angels plus Healing.
Most Controling
I would claim the scale shows the duration the mage wants the game to be
The beastmaster wants the quickest battle, the priestess the longest battle.
-
My scale would look like this, separating the Mages into two classes, then ranking them in terms of that scale from most aggressive to most controlling in their class
Brute
1-Warlock
2-Beastmaster
3-Warlord
Control
1-Forcemaster
2-Wizard
3-Priestess
Mages in the Brute class are defined by lower channeling and higher life. This makes them naturally more aggressive, because they can leverage their higher life best earlier in the game when there is little mana between them and their opponents. They lose that advantage as the game continues on and each mage has access to more and more mana and spells. They all have a melee skill too and will win in an early slugfest against the non-brute mages.
Mages in the Control class are defined by higher channeling and lower life. They can't win in a battle of strength against the Brute mages without more spells to help them, and thus must rely on their higher channeling to supply that advantage over time, where their better access to mana will eventually overwhelm their opponents.
Spawnpoints are a good "at a glance" way of figuring out which mages are the most controlling/aggressive in their respective class, because it lets you see how easy it is for them to generate a late-game advantage without any other kind of investment. Another good indication is a mage's ease of access to early haymaker-style creatures, since those creatures give the best value for your mana when you have a lot of it (i.e., at the beginning or end of the game).
For example, if we look at the Brute class, the Warlock's Pentagram still only generates extra mana if he or his friendly creatures are attacking, so to make use of this mana/action generating conjuration, he still needs to remain aggressive early on. He also has the easiest access to Adramelech, Lord of Fire, who is pretty much the most expensive, aggressive creature in the game. He has another great aggressive opening in Goran and a Dark Pact Slayer.
The Beastmaster's Lair is the most expensive conjuration in the game, as much as 3 mana crystals, yet only channels 2, so it's very much the middle-of-the-road spawnpoint out of the 3 Brute mages. Beastmasters have access to Pet Steelclaw Grizzlies, which come pretty close to matching Adramelech in power, but lack the Flying that helps Adramelech go straight for the opposing mage without having to worry about ground attacks that might Hinder him.
The Warlord's Barracks can channel 3 mana with an overall investment of 20 mana, without him having to be aggressive at all. This is allows him to have the best late-game mana of the 3 Brute mages. Warlords are a bit different in how they handle aggression. Against Control class mages, they boast Sir Corazin, Blademaster, who has the Sweeping and Doublestrike needed to get past defenses and guards, but who can still defend the Warlord well enough with his 2 very good defenses. The exception is against the Forcemaster, which demands an Iron Golem.
Against other Brute class mages who summon Adramelech or Grizzles or other "bombs," the Warlord needs Thorg, Chief Bodyguard, who is the most powerful defensive creature in the game. Thorg swings for a good amount of dice on the attack, but he really shines on guard where he can swing for a massive ten dice and block even some piercing dice with his 4 armor. He can even ground massive fliers like Adramelech or Selesius with his taunt ability. Thorg can buy the Warlord time to muster enough mana to mount an effective counter-assault later on against the more mana-starved Brute mages like the Warlock and Beastmaster.
For the Control class, the Forcemaster is certainly the most aggressive. While she has familiars that generate mana, she doesn't actually have a spawnpoint, and can't really compete in a late-game war of mana against most other mages due to how squishy her flying brain-pets are. This is pretty much the reason why Force Hammer deals extra damage to corporeal conjurations; it allows her to combat mid/late-game spawnpoint builds efficiently and prevent other mages from building up too much of a mana advantage. She also easily has the most aggressive weapon of all the Control class mages, Galvitar, capable of swinging 8 dice, or quick attacking with piercing damage, and a defense that combats the fact that she only has 32 health. Given that this defense costs 1 mana per use, she pretty much effectively has as much channeling as the Brute mages when in combat.
Forcemasters also have the Invisible Stalker, which is probably the best fatty creature any Control class mages have access to. It's very tenacious and difficult to interact with and swings for a lot of quick-attack dice.
The Wizard is the more middling of the Control mages. He doesn't have the powerful aggressive equipment that the Forcemaster does, or the natural defense, but he does have a damage shield that helps him out when he needs to fire off some attack spells. He also has access to the Darkfenne Hydra which can really lay on some dice, but is more naturally defensive due to its slow and regenerate traits and will likely be guarding your mana conjurations more than chasing the enemy mage (though it can be pretty aggressive if you give it some Cheetah Speed).
That said, his Arcane Ring also lets him build up mana more efficient than the Forcemaster. His spawnpoint can also reliably get 1-2 extra mana per turn, so it's similar in effectiveness to the Beastmaster's. Additionally, most if not all Arcane spells are late-game or defense focused, with an emphasis on draining mana in one way or another.
Finally we come to the Priestess, the most controlling mage in the game. She has access to the most efficient Daze/Stun spells, which really help her out when on the defensive. It helps her negate her opponent's actions while she builds up mana and defenses. Her spawn costs 20 and channels 3 mana at full capacity and her Asyran Clerics operate as both mana-batteries and help aid defenders when need be. She also has a lot of very powerful legendary angels that she can field in the late game that no mage can really stand up against if they give her time to fuel her mana.
-
Hey shad0w, could you please include Recent design philosophy in your first post? (you dont have to obviously)
Recent design philosophy is; Midrange,Ramp,Disruptive Aggro,Ramp and Combo
"Midrange" has the advantage over "Aggro"
"Ramp and Combo" is advantaged over "Midrange"
"Control and Disruptive Aggro" is advantaged over "Ramp and Combo"
"Aggro" is advantaged over "Control and Disruptive Aggro"
I believe a Disruptive Aggro and Midrange mention really belong here, as it is very predominate is Mage Wars.
-
I can but I have not had time been a bit busy at work.
-
Cool, thx. I believe that "modern" design philosophy has a place in MW.
Ramp could even be related to temples, and mana crystals/flowers.
Midrange REALLY has a place here.
Disruptive aggro is a great strategy for a aggressive "solo" mage(BURN THEM OUTPOST AND TEMPLES!)
Like I said, its not like you have too,(Its your post!) But I think these are often forgotten for the more "Classic philosophys" and thought I might say something about it.
-
They go hand in hand. The development of more midrange style of play has been on the rise for several years now. ;)
-
(random thought)
After playing MW for a while, I think it's a mistake to think of MW in terms of traditional competitive gaming terms (well, more like just MTG terms) like "rush" as aggro, or "slow" as control, and then proceed to play how you would in most other games.
In MW, the mage you play determines the competitive viability of the strategy you can use. Could you play Beastmaster or Warlock control? I guess so...but is it as good as Priestess or Wizard control? No. It's just a fact that the holy and arcane schools have cards more geared towards control and defense than aggro, just like the Dark and Fire schools have cards that are more geared towards aggro rather than control.
It's similar to the Magic colors and how they tend to specialize in certain things. You could play a black and blue aggro deck, but there's a very good chance it wouldn't be nearly as competitive as a white and red aggro deck, just like a red and white control deck wouldn't typically be as good as a black and blue control deck. Now, over the course of that game's lifespan things have changed to sometimes allow colors to do things contrary to what they represent, but the general rule still stands.
This doesn't mean you can't make some room for a surprise here and there, but if you plan on making the best book you can, it's a much better idea to stick to the strategy that your particular mage is especially good at. Maybe after MW grows a bit we'll start seeing significantly different kinds of builds for each mage, but I actually like how the spellbook system is restrictive. The schools of magic in MW would start to feel really samey if they began to homogenize everyone's access to particular effects and cards...
-
I think it might be a mistake to say that control is always a defensive strategy, or that aggro is always offensive. While that is true in a CCG, Mage wars is more of a Minis game. I read a warmachine article relatively recently that said that there are six different playstyles, three offensive and three defensive.
Offensive: alpha strike (like aggro; strike first and hard at your opponents forces, crippling key models), assasination (like combo; the enemy warcaster/warlock is your only target) and domination (like control, rely on superior fire power to completely destroy enemy forces)
Defensive: attrition (sort of like aggro; taking hits better than opponent and eventually overcoming them through numbers/toughness), terrain/movement control (like control, a bit self explanatory), and denial (like combo, preventing your opponent from using their best models and striking their soft underbelly).
http://steam-poweredgamer.blogspot.com/2011/11/list.html?m=1
So what does this mean for Mage Wars? Well, I'm thinking a lot of these playstyle/strategies need to delve into other playstyle/strategies as a backup plan against certain matchups in order to be competitive. There are also hybrid strategies. Example: one good idea for a hybrid playstyle would be to combine Denial with assasination. Prevent your opponent from using some of their important cards, and then strike at their mage while they are vulnerable. Or you can try a Terrain/movement control and assasination strategy, physically separating the enemy mage from their forces. There's probably a ton of potential different hybrid playstyles.
As for whether you need all six playstyles to be supported relatively equally for a balanced game...I'm not entirely sure. Someone would have to come up with an accurate metagame clock. I imagine it probably is very complicated, especially when we start talking about hybrid playstyle/strategies. Here is all that I've guessed so far:
This extremely incomplete clock is for when both players are completely entirely equal in both spellbook building and playing skill.
Attrition = Domination (unstoppable force meets immovable object)
Yeah, I have no idea where to go from here. I imagine that most good spellbooks are either hybrid or have a backup plan for dealing with certain playstyle/strategies, which means that perhaps no one is purely going for just one of these playstyle/strategies in a competitive build.
Of course this is just a theory; for all I know, it could be way off the mark when applied to Mage Wars.
What do you think?
-
relating strategy from table top games does more closely relate to MW then pure card games. it still has a resource management component (mana) that most table top wargames dont have (I haven't played all so forgive me if wrong).
if we assume mage wars also has its own form of "6 category's" I would suggest when you play to pick 1 based on your mage and play style to be your plan a. then go down to plan b,c etc depending on how flexible you are. using spells that can be used in multiple plans increases your book efficiency. eg agony can be used for "attrition", "control" and agro
-
I thought about it, and I realized that it might not make sense for attrition and domination to be equal. It seems right on the surface, but I realized that perhaps attrition has the advantage at least partially because of that seeming equality. I am going to go back to the much simpler mechanics of CCG's like Yugioh to help explain this phenomenon. Not MtG, since in MtG you can summon unlimited creatures in a turn if you have the mana to pay for it. While it is vastly different from Mage Wars, Yugioh has more of a limit on summoning then MtG, which falls more in line with summoning being a full action and sometimes a quick action, or an extra action if you have spawnpoints etc. Even though Yugioh has unlimited special summoning, since a yugioh player has only 5 zones that they can put one creature each in, I think the analogy will work for my purposes.
You see, since Attrition is essentially Defensive aggro, that means that the attrition mage wants to summon a lot, so they can get a sizable number of defensive creatures into the arena. In Yugioh, if an attacking creature's attack is equal to the attacked creature's defense, no creatures are destroyed. Even though they were "equal", the offensive creature failed to destroy anything, and the defensive creature succeeded in holding off the attack.
In Mage Wars, it's a similar thing. Disregarding special abilities, a creature with 0 armor and 3 health is going to, on average, survive against the attack of a creature with 3 attack dice, with 1 health remaining. Now add in a defense, or some natural armor.
Since Domination is offensive control, it's going to want to power up its creatures to go on a rampage that's difficult or hard to stop. But it can take a while to gather that kind of firepower, meanwhile the Attrition player is summoning defensive creature after defensive creature, more creatures than the Domination player can attack and destroy. Then eventually, even though they are defensive creatures, there will be enough of them to swarm the Domination mage before he or she's had the chance to finish setting up for his or her all out assault.
In essence, I am hypothesizing this metagame clock for Mage Wars, as well as potentially other minis games:
Alpha strike (offensive aggro)>Terrain/movement control (defensive control)>Assassination (offensive combo)>attrition (defensive aggro)>domination (offensive control)>Denial (defensive combo)>Alpha strike...
Alpha strike=Attrition
Terrain/movement control=Domination
Assasination=Denial
Also, on the subject of hybrid builds... I think there are two main types of hybrid builds: those that switch between strategies and those that combine strategies into one. I imagine that an example of a "switching" build would be Alpha strike&attrition. If the Alpha strike fails, attrition is the backup plan. And I think an example of a "combining" build would be Terrain/movement control&Assasination. You control the field with the aim of separating the opponent's Mage from his or her forces so that you can deal the killing blow. Rather than an initial plan and a backup plan, they function as one strategy.
I don't think my hypothesis can really be properly tested until we have a larger competitive community, of course. But what do you think of all this?
-
I'm not sure about your matchup analysis, but I can see those terms being more useful than aggro and control for talking about MW strategies.
Also, on an average result, a 3 health creature with no armor dies to a 3 dice attack. There is a pretty decent probability that they'll survive, but the expectation value of the damage is 3.
-
Oh, oops. You're right, I miscalculated. Thx for poining that out, it makes my hypothesis a little more consistent, since alpha strike being equally matched to attrition wouldn't make sense if the defensive creatures had that kind of advantage.
-
I am probably not qualified to comment on this, only having played a little bit of Magic and a little bit of Mage Wars, both only casually. I've never competed in tournaments, and am just beginning to grasp the concepts and jargon that you all take for granted (by reading these forums in an attempt to improve). However, I thought I would give my two cents.
Everybody seems to be trying to take concepts from other games (Magic, Wargaming, etc) and applying them to Mage Wars. I can understand how that would be useful. No need to reinvent the wheel if you have something that works, and using something people are familiar with will help to familiarize them with this game. With that said though, Mage Wars is it's own game and needs to be looked at on it's own merits.
First Rule of Mage Wars
When you break the game down, to it's simplest level, Mage Wars is a damage race. In a race there is only one way to win, and that is by being faster than your opponent. There are then only two ways to accomplish this:
Tactic 1: Increasing your own pace by maximizing your damage output.
Tactic 2: Reducing your opponent's pace by minimizing their damage output.
These two tactics are thus defined by how you manage your relative pace to your opponent's. We can then define an overall strategy based upon how focused it is on one tactic over the other.
Strategy 1: This build focuses primarily on Tactic 1. She loads her Spellbook with the most damaging, aggressive spells she can find and attempts to kill her opponent as fast as possible. Favors short games.
Strategy 2: This build also focuses primarily on Tactic 1 but has a strong amount of Tactic 2 present. While still loading on the most damaging and aggressive spells he can find, he also includes spells to disrupt his opponent. He favors spells that produce immediate results rather than long term gains. Things like Banish and Turn to Stone.
Strategy 3: This build focuses equally on both Tactic 1 and Tactic 2. She favors versatility. Trying to outlast Strategies 1 and 2, while trying to out damage Strategies 4 and 5. She has to know how and when to switch gears.
Strategy 4: This build focuses primarily on Tactic 2 but has a strong amount of Tactic 1 present. He tends to dance around his opponent for the majority of the game, gaining an advantage over time until the opponent is within the danger zone. He then unloads a huge burst, winning with a glorious finale.
Strategy 5: This build focuses primarily on Tactic 2. She loads her Spellbook with an answer to every possible threat and ensures her foe is effectively neutered. She then wins by a war of attrition. With her opponent unable to fight back, victory is just a matter of time. Favors long games.
Calling a Spade a Spade
Up until this point I've purposefully been very generic because I want people to examine the concepts on Mage War's terms rather than applying preconcieved notions from other games. Eventually though, we should apply names to the concepts we are talking about, and I have thus done so below. The terms I've used do appear in other similar games, but they are not meant to be a direct correlation to other games.
I believe they are similar enough so that people already familiar with other games that use them will still recognize them, but they are being used to describe concepts inherent to Mage Wars. They are not meant to apply concepts from other games to Mage Wars.
Tactic 1 = Aggro
Tactic 2 = Control
Strategy 1 = Aggro
Strategy 2 = Disruptive Aggro
Strategy 3 = Mid Ranged
Strategy 4 = Ramp
Strategy 5 = Control
Why Combo has no place in Mage Wars
Don't misread that. Card combos of course will have a place in Mage Wars of great significance. What I'm talking about though is using Card Combos as a build archetype. First off, I believe Mage Wars should remain true to it's nature as a damage race between two opposing mages. I do not support any idea of putting cards in rotation that automatically win you the game, so we can eliminate that from being a build option.
That leaves combos that affect the current nature of the game, the damage race, which means a Combo would have to focus on either Tactic 1 or Tactic 2, Aggro or Control. Thus even if the combo is the cornerstone of your build, and wins you lots of games, I would argue that your build would still fit within one of the five archetypes I've laid out rather than needing it's own "Combo" archetype.
-
Wow! You make some really great points. What you're doing is classifying playstyles by how offensive or defensive they are. Offensive being increasing your own pace in the damage race, and defensive being decreasing your opponent's. I was probably classifying them more by actions and resource management then by how they manage damage output overall. Perhaps instead of charting specific individual playstyles, we need more of a spectrum of playstyles graphed on multiple dimensions, such as offensive/defensive, and how they use what kinds of resources and objects to be offensive or defensive in the damage race.
I'm thinking both our playstyle ideas could actually be combined.
Rather than having two Aggro combo control wheels where one is defensive and the other is offensive, lets have approx five of them, one for each of the strategies you mentioned. Of course, it probably will need some editing (I don't really think the playstyle chart is necessarily going to be a perfect cylinder shape).