Let's all just Die and Win.

[The Dude]

Recently, it has come to my attention that a lot of users on here seem to be jumping on the "Go for the Throat" tactic of Mage Wars. The, "Let's all just throw balls of fire at each others faces". Roman candle fights are fun, but they will be just as lethal to you as they are to the opponent. Believe me, I know. Let's go back a bit, shall we? To the Land of Two Thousand and Twelve, or, as some might call it, the year the Great Game of Our Time and Yours was released.

The most popular tactic back then was to build. By this, I mean that the mages would spend 2-3 rounds on dropping mana crystals and spawnpoints and whatever they could squeeze out of their *ahem* wands, until there was one giant clusterf*** in the middle of the arena. And then they would use their creatures to fight other creatures until one opponent almost arbitrarily died. Don't worry, there was strategy involved, but come on, we were new to the game. We didn't know about things like Force Push/Wall of Thorns. We thought the most devastating combo in the game was Divine intervention + Vampire (believe me, I built a book around it). And then something new and radically different happened. The first expansion for Mage Wars was released in the form of the Forcemaster vs. the Warlord. And with it, aggro.

Sure, aggro has been attempted before, and even to some success, with the Warlock and his Lash, but never to the extent that Thoughtspore + Battle Fury + Galvitar + 4x Hand + Bear Strength + Gauntlets + Dancing could bring. That's like, a million dice. And I'm not even counting The Dancing attack. And we realized that hey, Killing the opponent before the opponent could kill you was a far more effective strategy that building up a force that could only equal what the opponent had. So it became the norm. So much so, in fact, that we had 3 cards completely nerfed, 3 critical cards that were vital to the strategy of this aggressive book.

But there were other ways to aggression. My own version of Earth Wizard was famous for killing opponents before they could scrape one damage on to my Wizard. this was quite the boring book to play, mind you, but it did win, and a lot. Now, with the exceptionally large part of the meta playing these aggressive books, there was really only one place for the meta to go, and that was downhill. The nerfs were an attempt to rebalance the meta, and it did just that. Within a month of the changes, players started taking a more turtling approach, abusing things like Voltaric Shield and High Armor, Spawnpoints, and Big creature builds. These are all fantastic approaches, and really help to shape the game, to mold and to change it.

So why are we stuck on the Go for the Throat? This tactic is not nearly as fatal as it once was, and although it can fringe win, it is by no means a solid strategy to build on anymore. Almost any Wizard build nowadays will pick a spike damage book apart, piece by piece, until there is nothing left. Aggression is a tactic, not a strategy. A book should be built with it in mind, but it shouldn't be built with it at it's core. Now, on to the big question: Why is it that half the questions on this forum are answered with "On, you should just focus on killing the mage." Or, "Killing the much would be much more effective than trying to take out it's creatures." This is a cop out, a bad excuse for not wanting to actually think. There is more to this game than life totals, mind you, and although they decide the fate of the players who manipulate the cards, there are far more influences on the game than how much damage you can deal. Some games, you may just have the mage to kill. Look at half the Forcemaster books on the web recently. Some games, you might have to take down a large beast. The object of the game is to kill the opponent's mage, correct? You can't do that if you yourself are dead.

Please note that I am by no means saying that players r dum and that aggression is a stupd wy to win. I'm not complaining. Like I said, the book I solely played for about 7 months straight was hyper aggression. But there is more to this game, and you cannot expect to win if you just focus on killing the opponent. Like I have stated, it may win you a fringe game or two, but it will by no means win a large margin of games you play. As well, it's ******* boring to play hyper aggression. The same opening moves, the same exact strategy game after game. So, not only is it not effective, it's not even fun!

I urge you players out there to explore, to find new ways to play, to win with. And if you think Hyper Aggression is the end all be all of strategies, I urge you to take a look at "The Fabled Watergate Build". Charmnya taught me the ways of control when it comes to Mage Wars, and I can tell you it works.

You have to focus on some of the opponent's resources if you hope to win the game. Sure, you could get lucky and roll 20 crit 2s in a roll and just win the game, but in all likelihood, that's probably not going to happen. By cutting off the opponent's resources and routes to victory, you are effectively upping your chances to win as well. It cuts down on the risk of rolling fast and loose, and instead focuses on a planned and effective route to victory. Maybe cutting that third Hurl Boulder for a Teleport, or Trying out a Piercing Strike against those Battle forge builds. What I do is this, if you let an opponent go long enough doing whatever he wants, he will eventually win the game. Playing chance to see if you can beat him before that is just too risky to be effective.

So, go play! Kill some mages, but most of all, have fun! There is no prize for reaching the end of the rainbow in Mage Wars (yet c:) but there is a lot of fun to be had, and a lot of thinking to be done. I don't ever claim to be right, or even partially correct, so don't take what I am saying as an attack against you or your beliefs. I just think it's time for a new way of thinking. And it starts with you.

Oh, and that rug? Really tied the room together.

Dude.

[Zuberi]

Very well written. I have been guilty of using the mantra "focus on their mage" quite a few times. I should probably change it to "focus on your goals" because that's what I mean. I don't intend that you go hyper aggressive, just that you don't get distracted. Everything you do should bring you closer to winning. That does not mean killing them as fast as possible, but it does mean killing them faster than they kill you.

[sdougla2]

Nicely put. I agree that going after the enemy mage is overemphasized on the forums, and that good play will often involve more complicated decision making.

Aggressive play is still viable, but you need to keep in mind that it may make more sense tactically to kill something else before the enemy mage.

[MrSaucy]

Now, on to the big question: Why is it that half the questions on this forum are answered with "On, you should just focus on killing the mage." Or, "Killing the much would be much more effective than trying to take out it's creatures." This is a cop out, a bad excuse for not wanting to actually think. There is more to this game than life totals, mind you, and although they decide the fate of the players who manipulate the cards, there are far more influences on the game than how much damage you can deal. Some games, you may just have the mage to kill. Look at half the Forcemaster books on the web recently. Some games, you might have to take down a large beast. The object of the game is to kill the opponent's mage, correct? You can't do that if you yourself are dead.

Please note that I am by no means saying that players r dum and that aggression is a stupd wy to win. I'm not complaining. Like I said, the book I solely played for about 7 months straight was hyper aggression. But there is more to this game, and you cannot expect to win if you just focus on killing the opponent.

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

Even though I am competitive, in the end I play Mage Wars to have fun. I actually dropped out of games like Magic The Gathering because people were forgetting to have fun and taking everything too seriously. My favorite mages in Mage Wars aren't the ones I win with the most but the ones I enjoy playing the most. Solo-rush Warlock is very effective, for example, but also very bland. Sure, Warlord might not be one of the strongest mages, but I play him a lot because he is fun to play.

The mantra "always going for the mage, not their creatures" is not always the best mantra. It all comes down to what is a bigger threat to you dying - the enemy mage or their creatures.

Anyways, nice post dude.

"This aggression... will not stand, man."   

[ringkichard]

I'd been meaning to write something like this, but you got to it first and better than I would have. Thanks!

There's one part I disagree with, though: the part where you say that aggro is a booring lack of strategy that hurts the game. Warlock aggro is still a healthy part of the game (as Tom reminded me  in our local tournament last week. Ouch).

I was playing Air Wizard and expected curse Warlock. I would have crushed him bad. I had dispell wand, wand of healing, 4 Dispells, a Purge Magic, and a Destroy Magic. I was ready for that matchup. Except that he didn't follow the script and ate my face instead.

Aggro keeps control books honest, and failure to play agro can be just as large a blunder as a failure to play defense.

[sIKE]

This is a great write up as always, it is good to write up and discuss items like this. the MtG folks and such are better at the kill the mage part of the game. The folks we are pulling in from the minis side however are used to creating large armies and letting them duke it out. In that world is about killing the army not the general =, generally speaking . I was doing demo's at BGGCon and it was easy to spot the minis players even during the Apprentice mode we were doing. We gave gentle reminders that killing the Mage was the win condition in the game.

[DeckBuilder]

Thanks, Dude, for another thought-provoking piece (it's like speaking to your sensei when referring to him, even if he is sadly getting more and more fixated on a cult movie classic in his dotage).

This topic reminds me of 2 prior threads started by ringkichard (or Kich as we shall now call him):

"Too Big To Kill"
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12940.msg21634#msg21634

"Strategy Is A Word For Subtlety, Tactics For Brutality"
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12959.msg21811#msg21811

I have to say that I straddle both camps here, as stated in the Too Big To Kill thread. With mage abilities like Wounded Prey, Holy Avenger and Veterans, there are incentives for board control over assassination focus. So those mages are given a good reason to play that way.

Recently, I've advocated "Kill the King" when playing Zombie Brute Squad. This is a deliberate strategy because it bypasses a Bloodthirsty weakness. You have to avoid guards (using movement spells) and delay playing Pestilence until enemy mage is cornered and wounded beyond full healing, else you will just be distracted by his wounded guards. This is a perfectly valid strategy and as it is counter-intuitive to the Swarm Attrition strategy that Zombies were built for (no spawnpoint, mid game Idol), I would be more proud of playing it that way than "the way it's supposed to be played".

I think the Dude is trying to counter-balance a big worry that these Spawnpoints-driven new mages will die to hyper-aggression. Because both these new mages attempt to gain Board Control, to dominate the arena. They play like minis wargamer Generals when Mage Wars really is more like Chess. By all means sacrifice Queen Samadriel if it means you will almost certainly win by checkmating his Mage King.

It's very easy to forget the goal of a game while having fun gaining board control. This happens in many multiplayer board games where the "quiet player" who has efficiently managed his resources without needless resource-wasting conflicts suddenly reveals he has won. Maybe he has "lost morally" for not participating in the enjoyable carnage. But a good game incentivises victory for every strategy to make them all viable - including a carnage strategy. A game should not have super-efficient strategies that are simply better on most occasions.

The elegant simplicity of a cheaply summoned "Vine Pit" that you wand-Teleport a target into and Push/Snatch back when it leaves should win more consistently than the Board Control of 6x Bloodspine, 6x Tanglevine, 4x Thornlasher, 4x Raptor, 1x Galador (Lifetree or Mokhtari as Bond). Both strategies focus damage to swiftly remove a threat (giving it 1 action at best). The latter "ranged control" through a maze of walls while restrained is more ambitious and satisfying when it wins. But sadly, current mechanics favour the former which, if piloted by a player who knows the strategy well, should win more consistently. (That's an indictment of the power of Teleport assassinating mages.)

Both new mages seem very slow. Before, Mid Range was defined as "drop 2 flowers or drop 2 crystals". Here, we are talking about 1 or 2 spawnpoints, so not "Mid Range". But given time, they will gain Control of the arena. Hyper-Aggression is the easiest way to defeat this.

The meta has changed to be slower. This happens in Magic with every 3rd or so rotation. The 2 new mages will be popular for sometime and so finding their Achilles heel and exploiting it is natural competitive human nature. So yes, as a result of these 2 mages, we will see more hyper-aggression out there. The Meta evolves and even if you are playing at a different tempo, you should adapt your play according your opposition, as I tried to explain in my post below.

This is how I see the game, heavily influenced by excellent posts by others. Here is my (very) simplified spectrum of the 4 resources...

Bursts (attack spell or heal spell or push damage) = life
Persistent Threats (creatures) = attack actions, life
Spell Sources (spawnpoint / familiar) = spell actions, channeling
Mana Advantages (inc. mana siphon) = channeling

Every mage build has an anticipated game length for victory. This varies from Lord of Fire (shortest) to Mana Denial (longest). The shorter the remaining game length in your strategy, the more you value the top of the list. The longer the remaining game length in your strategy, the more you value the bottom of the list. So Mana Advantage is early game and Burst (when not removing Persistent Threats) end game.

However, the opposing mage usually has a different game length in mind. This is where you have to be flexible and not get too far behind the opponent's spectrum of the strategy. The control player will trade life resource to gain control but may "fly too close to the sun" and get burnt. Surprise damage spikes is key here as a control player is relying on abilities like regen to undo anticipated damage then suddenly he is lower than expected and reacting to the aggro schedule.

I think that any point during the game, one player dictates the schedule and the other is reacting. This is initially the more aggressive more short-term build but if a less aggressive more long-term build weathers the storm, he will "take control", even if not playing a control build. For example, a mid-range aggro build vs. an all-out aggro build: given time, the former will "take control" via mid-range mana advantage.

Here is a hypothetical tempo-based triangle...

Super Aggro > Pure Control (former too fast for latter to gain control in time)
Mid Range > Super Aggro (former strong enough to resist then leverage advantage)
Pure Control > Mid Range (former given enough time to gain control)
">" means "has an advantage over" so that the match-up if equal skill and luck is not 50:50

If we assume the above hypothetical triangle is true, the trick is to morph your play tempo to become the speed that has an advantage over your opponent. I'm not saying the triangle is true, just demonstrating my theory of how being flexible and changing your strategy's tempo is crucial. Which is where I see channeling vs. damage is all about.

Please note: the Wizard breaks the above hypothetical tempo triangle by being able to cope with Super-Aggro with his Shield, Tower, his large spell book, Teleports etc. That is why the Wizard is still probably the best mage (certainly I'd feel far more comfortable playing any of the quickly-designed and untested Fire/Earth/Air Control builds I recently posted in the "Help vs. Necro" S&T thread than any other mage).


Dude, I really respect your views and understand where you are coming from. But it was a very one-sided view and needed a counter view. As Kich says, the game needs Hyper-Aggression as a strategy. Your piece makes it seem like some dirty, underhand way of winning (it certainly isn't inconsistent played well). Whilst I don't play it much as a preference (it can be swingy, just like I don't play d12 effects much), please give it some respect.

I'll end this "In Defence of Aggro" piece with the wise words of someone I respect immensely when it comes to Strategy & Tactics insight.

Both board dominance and assassination plays can work, you just need to make sure that you're doing things to efficiently support whichever play style you're implementing, and be flexible enough to switch if necessary. There comes a point in any board dominance play where you need to focus down the enemy mage.

If I'm in a good spot to go after the opposing mage, I'll often do that. Tanglevine is generally the best/cheapest way of bypassing powerful guards with multiple creatures, while Elusive is the best way of bypassing guards for a single creature.

If I don't think I'll be able to kill my opponent without dealing with some of their creatures, I will try to find a way to build an advantageous board position. I've had games where I kind of ran out of steam because I didn't worry enough about board dominance, and let my opponent build up a huge creature advantage. You can still win from this position if you've done enough damage already, but it's a precarious position for most mages to be in.

[The Dude]

Deckbuilder, you have made a wonderful argument on a null point! My original post was never meant to shove players off from hyper aggression. IF you really want to focus on assassination, by all means. I was just trying to get readers to try something new, and to stop using hyper aggression as the standard of play, because it's not anymore.


King, man, you are a heavy dude, and you make a good point. While I dig Lash Warlock, at it's core, it is a very simplistic deck to play. Sure, there are still extremely difficult decisions to make, but almost all of those decision involve damaging the opponent. That's the boring part to me. IF the opponent always knows what I'm going to use my full action for, he can certainly use that knowledge to his benefit. I know you may think I'm still ragging on Hyper Aggression, so I'll give you my example as to why I think it's a borring build. In my Earth Wizard, the idea was to Sprint you Near Center round one and Cast Archer's Watchtower. Turn two you have 26 mana, which is more than enough to Rouse a Grimson. Turn three you wanted to control the opponent, so Jinx/Tanglevine was most often the combo I used. Turn four, double hurl boulder. Turn five, Tanglevine if they escaped, Jinx if they haven't, Hurl Boulder. Usually the game was over at that point. I know this sounds like just a dream strategy, one that works great in your head, terrible when actually played out. No. This exact strategy has won me around 40 games. And GOD! It's a little dull. And yes, this was before cloak of shadows.

My point here is that both Hyper Aggression books play either really similarly, or exactly the same. There is a place for Hyper Aggressive Warlock now, because both new mages are allergic to burning, so the Warlock has a nice place in the meta. This will probably change as time goes on, as most things do, but the thought still stands that hyper aggression is fringe playable and just not as valid as it once was, and should not be used as an umbrella excuse when discussing strategy and tactics.

El Duderino.