Book Archetype Primer: Aggro

[Tacullu64]

What is the simplest deck, then? The deck that most people start off building: Mid range. Why is it easier, though? Because you don't have to plan as much. Sure you may have an opening strategy, but nothing as planned out as a good aggro deck is. You don't have to mid-range, because you are more reactive. You play the creatures that will most fit the job, instead of playing all the creatures.

I don't think there is enough data to choose a strategy that is easiest to play yet. So far we have had one official tournament. Mage wars doesn't have a national let alone global meta yet. There is a whole bunch of local meta to date. This is only natural, the game is 7 months old.

Full disclosure, I'm a bad aggro player. I'm much better at mid range and control. This might sound like support for aggro being tougher, it's not. This is more a statement about me and my likes, dislikes, and general tendencies than it is about the difficulty of a particular strategy. I'm more comfortable playing tempo and control than aggro and I just plain enjoy them more.

The statement about not having to plan as much when playing mid range is only true if your goal is to lose. In MW there is no Wrath of God effect that will instantly reset the board state to equal or maybe even favorable to me because I spent my mana developing something other than creatures. That makes reacting to your opponent a much riskier prospect. When playing mid range or control strategy you have to be very conscious of your mana level to make sure you have enough to properly answer your opponent. However all the mana in the world won't help if you squandered the early turns taking actions that inadequately lay the groundwork for the defense needed against the threats generated by the more aggressive mage. The reactive mage needs not only a plan for survival, but one too for victory. You are not going to Block the opposing mage to death after all. The reactive mage needs a plan for his counter attack and the sense of timing to launch it at the proper time or he will never regain tempo. Much more thought goes into playing a reactive mage than you credit.

While there is no definitive meta yet, and thus no easiest strategy to play, if I were to place a bet in Vegas my money would be on aggro being easiest once things get settled in. If mage wars follows the patterns of other customizable games we will find that it's easier to pose the questions than it is to have an answer for every question which might be asked.

[sdougla2]

One other thing I noticed in the guide is that you say that only 1 defense can be used per attack, but an attack can consist of multiple strikes. This is inaccurate. Only one defense can be used per strike. This is presented poorly in the rulebook, since it uses attack to mean both attack action and strike.

Since all defenses available to mages at the moment are once per turn, this distinction is not particularly important in many cases, but attacking creatures with infinite defenses get to use their defense against each strike, and it can still matter if a mage stacks multiple defenses. It's more likely that you'll get at least some damage through, and a single defense will only protect a mage from a single strike, but you could update the wording to make this clearer. The tactical significance of multiple strikes is still essentially what you've already said, but the wording could be improved for accuracy. You could say something about defenses being inefficient against multiple strikes because a successful defense only prevents one of the strikes.

[reddawn]

One other thing I noticed in the guide is that you say that only 1 defense can be used per attack, but an attack can consist of multiple strikes. This is inaccurate. Only one defense can be used per strike. This is presented poorly in the rulebook, since it uses attack to mean both attack action and strike.

Since all defenses available to mages at the moment are once per turn, this distinction is not particularly important in many cases, but attacking creatures with infinite defenses get to use their defense against each strike, and it can still matter if a mage stacks multiple defenses. It's more likely that you'll get at least some damage through, and a single defense will only protect a mage from a single strike, but you could update the wording to make this clearer. The tactical significance of multiple strikes is still essentially what you've already said, but the wording could be improved for accuracy. You could say something about defenses being inefficient against multiple strikes because a successful defense only prevents one of the strikes.

Yup, there aren't really many cases where the distinction will come up, but I will correct the wording.  I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of the creatures that do have an infinite defense also have the Pest trait as well, so they aren't really great for guarding anyway.  I suppose someone could do something funky like put Cobra Reflexes on a Knight of Westlock (that could be pretty annoying  :S ).  Thanks for the catch.

[reddawn]

What is the simplest deck, then? The deck that most people start off building: Mid range. Why is it easier, though? Because you don't have to plan as much. Sure you may have an opening strategy, but nothing as planned out as a good aggro deck is. You don't have to mid-range, because you are more reactive. You play the creatures that will most fit the job, instead of playing all the creatures.

I don't think there is enough data to choose a strategy that is easiest to play yet. So far we have had one official tournament. Mage wars doesn't have a national let alone global meta yet. There is a whole bunch of local meta to date. This is only natural, the game is 7 months old.

Full disclosure, I'm a bad aggro player. I'm much better at mid range and control. This might sound like support for aggro being tougher, it's not. This is more a statement about me and my likes, dislikes, and general tendencies than it is about the difficulty of a particular strategy. I'm more comfortable playing tempo and control than aggro and I just plain enjoy them more.

The statement about not having to plan as much when playing mid range is only true if your goal is to lose. In MW there is no Wrath of God effect that will instantly reset the board state to equal or maybe even favorable to me because I spent my mana developing something other than creatures. That makes reacting to your opponent a much riskier prospect. When playing mid range or control strategy you have to be very conscious of your mana level to make sure you have enough to properly answer your opponent. However all the mana in the world won't help if you squandered the early turns taking actions that inadequately lay the groundwork for the defense needed against the threats generated by the more aggressive mage. The reactive mage needs not only a plan for survival, but one too for victory. You are not going to Block the opposing mage to death after all. The reactive mage needs a plan for his counter attack and the sense of timing to launch it at the proper time or he will never regain tempo. Much more thought goes into playing a reactive mage than you credit.

While there is no definitive meta yet, and thus no easiest strategy to play, if I were to place a bet in Vegas my money would be on aggro being easiest once things get settled in. If mage wars follows the patterns of other customizable games we will find that it's easier to pose the questions than it is to have an answer for every question which might be asked.

At this point, as you suggest, I'm not sure we can really say which strategy is the easiest/hardest/whatever, or if such a conversation is really constructive.  In my experience in other games, which even then are difficult to compare to a game like Mage Wars which has a much broader strategic/tactical scope, preference usually determines whether something is easy or hard for you.  I personally play aggro and control well and easily, but midrange is something that is sometimes difficult for me...but again, that's just me.

As I stated before, I would agree that aggro is easier to grasp in concept, but just as deep if not more so strategically/tactically as the other book types.  Aggro and control are pretty much equally easy to grasp conceptually and it has to do with how immediately important winning is to those books; to aggro, it's the first and foremost concern, whereas to control, winning is not immediately important and more something that will naturally happen after you set up lots of mana and board presence.  For Midrange, it depends on the book, though in general you want to win in the mid-game (as the name implies).

[Tacullu64]

I think you chose well when you chose aggro for your first article. It is probably the most important strategy because none of the strategies can win without attacking since there isn't an alternative victory condition to eliminating the opposing mage. Everybody should be able to find something they can take away from your article.

The reason aggro is my worst strategy is because I don't relish putting my mage in harms way. While I suppose it's possible to play aggro without committing your mage to the front line, he needs to be close enough to support his creatures and supply more when one is destroyed. That way once he starts to put pressure on the opposing mage he can maintain it. If his attack falters he runs the risk of having to regroup which could cause him lose tempo and give a reactive mage an opportunity to counter attack.

[Tacullu64]

I Just noticed you updated your article to include flyers.

The mobility they bring to the table is another key feature of flying creatures. They aren't hindered by non-flyers and they can fly over walls, there by potentially allowing you to attack the opposing mage a turn sooner. Honorable mention to the Thunderift Falcon for having both flying and fast.

[reddawn]

I Just noticed you updated your article to include flyers.

The mobility they bring to the table is another key feature of flying creatures. They aren't hindered by non-flyers and they can fly over walls, there by potentially allowing you to attack the opposing mage a turn sooner. Honorable mention to the Thunderift Falcon for having both flying and fast.

I'll update the wording to better reflect the mobility fliers bring.  While they aren't hindered by non-fliers, they also don't hinder non-flier movement, which is relevant if you want to keep the opposing mage within 1 zone of where he/she started the round.  It can be important for following up attacks with shorter range, more efficient nukes like Flameblast.

I do really like the Falcon.  I currently have a midrange-aggro Beastmaster book that makes heavy use of early fast creatures, like foxes and falcons, in combination with one or two Rajan's Fury.  It usually transitions into a Lair around the time that the starting wave of animal friends starts getting slaughtered, then tries to end the game in the midgame with an even larger horde.  Back it up with Call of the Wild and it's pretty hilarious.

[piousflea]

Flyers are absolutely a double-edged sword. They are highly mobile and great at attacking, but you cannot protect a flyer with Guard, so they are very easily killed by mages with Reach, and flyers can't hinder non flyers which makes your opponent more mobile also.

About the "Fire vs. Earth" debate - if the elemental cloak did not exist, fire would clearly be the superior element for pumping out damage. However, elemental cloak not only exists but it is incredibly common in most decks. This really really limits the power of fire nukes compared to earth.

[piousflea]

Flyers are absolutely a double-edged sword. They are highly mobile and great at attacking, but you cannot protect a flyer with Guard, so they are very easily killed by mages with Reach, and flyers can't hinder non flyers which makes your opponent more mobile also.

About the "Fire vs. Earth" debate - if the elemental cloak did not exist, fire would clearly be the superior element for pumping out damage. However, elemental cloak not only exists but it is incredibly common in most decks. This really really limits the power of fire nukes compared to earth.

For any aggro deck it is important to have a sense of:
1) What timing do you want to hit? Round 3? Round 4? Or round 5? For a round 3-4 timing you should have a very good sense of exactly what creatures, enchants, and equipment you will have on the turn that you start rolling attack dice. Round 5 is difficult to fully predict.

2) For round 4-5 aggro decks, what is your plan against a round-3 aggro attack?

3) What is your backup plan, if your opponent sets up a superior defensive position (ie, an archer behind walls of piles with teleport traps and caltrops everywhere) Maybe you are committed to an early attack no matter what, maybe you use a "telefrag" to teleport the enemy archer out of his comfy nest, or maybe you fall back and build up equipment.

4) What is your backup plan against strong control effects, like a mind control or turn to stone? Do you dispel it immediately? Do you run away and let your opponent spend mana on Upkeep? Or do you press the attack anyways, overwhelming your opponent with swarms?

[Tacullu64]

@reddawn  These four items could make interesting topics as you expand your article. Some good stuff to explore here.

 It sure is easy for me to find stuff for you to write about. I should be your agent and get a cut.

[reddawn]

About the "Fire vs. Earth" debate - if the elemental cloak did not exist, fire would clearly be the superior element for pumping out damage. However, elemental cloak not only exists but it is incredibly common in most decks. This really really limits the power of fire nukes compared to earth.

Fire does have a ring to compensate.  More important, however, is the fact that Fire and Lightning have very inexpensive attacks spells while Earth has only very expensive spells.  This allows you to support your aggression with Fire and Lightning attacks spells over Earth spells.  You aren't exactly going to be able to fire off Earth attacks if you start out very aggressive.  8 mana nukes simply aren't going to work well with Turn 2 Adramalech into Imps (or turn 1 Goran into turn 2 Slayer), Turn 2 Pet Steelclaw into Foxes, or Turn 1 Sir Corazin into Grunts.

[reddawn]

Added a section on aggro openings for each mage.  Feedback anyone?

[Tacullu64]

Added a section on aggro openings for each mage.  Feedback anyone?

Thanks for the update.

The Forcemaster should finish turn 1 with 13 mana since I'm sure she casts her Force Ring 1st and then uses it to reduce the cost of Dancing Scimitar to 4 mana.

[reddawn]

I reordered the cast order for the FM opening. Thanks!

[Tacullu64]

I reordered the cast order for the FM opening. Thanks!

I think she would also use the Force Ring to reduce the mana cost of the Invisible Stalker to 14, so she would finish round 1 with 3 mana. Round 2 she channels 10 mana taking her to 13 mana, she then uses the Force Ring to cast Dancing Scimitar for 4 mana, leaving her with 9 mana, then she casts Psi Orb for 7 finishing round 2 with 2 mana.

Unless my math is wrong.

Edit: She would finish with 1 mana. I forgot to account for the Invisible Stalkers +1 upkeep.