The Dynamic Between "Kill the Mage" and "Kill the Threat"

[Coshade]

I have gotten some PMs about a strategy manual Intangible and I were working on awhile ago. I'm hoping to get around to it sometime soon! This topic is along the same lines of strategy, but I'm not sure it is appropriate to include it in the guide.  I just wanted to preface this post by saying this analysis is still a work in progress. I thought I would get a discussion going to get more opinions on the topic. I hope this post reaches on some sort of deep competitive train of thinking. So basically here's some word vomit.

I've been creating an idea in my brain about what it means to be going for the late game as a control build vs hitting a timing push earlier on. The big difference is economy, and that doesn't mean just mana but actions, life and much more. Generally I've been noticing that the more spawn points, familiars, or basic economy generators you have, the more control like you want to be. 

So early timing pushes I want classify as the "Kill the Mage" technique. Big creatures, attack spells, and trying to trap you in situations you will lose either way. This play style hits hard. It requires the opponent to properly identify when you are attacking and must respond absolutely perfect or will lose. The downside is that it is inflexible as you are setting the pace, and once lost, it is very difficult to pick back up. This is because there is such low economy in this style. Since you are going for the mage, losing things is a given but trying to win within a time frame is of upmost importance.

For later game strategy I've noticed a lot of players tend to "Kill the threat" technique. This involves building up a slight edge in economy, then trying to survive by a sliver to in the end overwhelm your opponent. It also revolves around being reactionary as opposed to setting a pace. The timing is more flexible because your goal is to stay just far enough ahead of your opponent economy wise to win out. What is interesting with this option is that you may not want to take out their economy since you always are ahead, instead you take out the things their economy is producing - equipment, enchantments, creatures for instance. The difficult part about this is you must build a tree of contingencies to deal with all the options that are available to kill you. What is interesting about this style is that when you lose, you tend to have done zero or close to zero damage to the enemy mage. This shouldn't be viewed as a slight in your play style, rather that your reaction to their style was not appropriate and you must revise your strategy when vsing that style again.

I have public books on both of these trains of thinking. A weird thing I've been thinking about is in every game is there always a player that sets the pace and another that must react? Can both be going for the long game equally, or both hit a earlier timing push equally? Even if playing the same mage and the same book once a few dice are rolled does that put you in a strange position in this context?

[RomeoXero]

This is intriguing. I think to answer your last question we need to understand the core concept of arena. Kill the mage. I find that my downfall is that i will often be forced into making a shift in my overall strat after losing tempo somewhere. This usually happens in my early rush books. The issue usualy arises because of my god awful rolling luck, and ill end up wasting mana on a spell selection that does sub par damage and skews my plan for that round.
As a result i find myself either going all in (which works better with some  mages better than others, my priest and my AC are good examples) or shifting to a plan B.

I think that in any match one must have a plan of action, but I've been thrown off my primary plan by a tricky opponent or an abysmal roll many times, so in my opinion if one sticks blindly to the pre set plan, that plan becomes more easily identified and countered.

So after a little word vomit of my own i say this,  though it's perfectly possible for two mages to try and set the tempo so to speak, eventually it becomes bad form or at least poor competitive play for one mage to not switch to a different more adaptive plan.

I tend to fall into the trap of trying to plan for everything, and 120 sp is not enough to do that, no matter the mage. So ive been trying to drift away from long game books of late, (my druid misses me, books getting dusty) and in so doing train myself to better understand the rush mentality. I feel that when i finally return to my priestess, druid, necromancer books i will have a much better clue as to how to handle threats while defending a long game strategy.

But maybe that's just me

[silverclawgrizzly]

The smartest thing any player can do is to try and play as every mage and against every mage. Obviously depending on your player base that can be tricky but it's still the goal. We must have a fine understanding of how each ticks in order to decide when best to rush and when best to control. Each mage has the potential to do both though obviously some are better at one or the other.

I play Straywood Beast Master and have made my book as close to a meld of the two strategies as I can. Yes I have a Lair for control purposes. Gets those birds out fast and lets me transition to offense very quickly. Also the enchanters Ring, walls, and other board manipulators. I also however have the big guns and can just simply hard cast a couple of them early if I think the opponent is going to try and build up some and is likely better at it than me. I agree 100% with Romero that flexibility is mandatory in most games.

One thing I'm interested in seeing is the dynamic of the Paladin and Siren in terms of rush and control. I've played both of them and while I'm pretty set in my opinion on how they should be run I'm interested in how the community as a whole will take them.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I have gotten some PMs about a strategy manual Intangible and I were working on awhile ago. I'm hoping to get around to it sometime soon! This topic is along the same lines of strategy, but I'm not sure it is appropriate to include it in the guide.  I just wanted to preface this post by saying this analysis is still a work in progress. I thought I would get a discussion going to get more opinions on the topic. I hope this post reaches on some sort of deep competitive train of thinking. So basically here's some word vomit.

I've been creating an idea in my brain about what it means to be going for the late game as a control build vs hitting a timing push earlier on. The big difference is economy, and that doesn't mean just mana but actions, life and much more. Generally I've been noticing that the more spawn points, familiars, or basic economy generators you have, the more control like you want to be. 

So early timing pushes I want classify as the "Kill the Mage" technique. Big creatures, attack spells, and trying to trap you in situations you will lose either way. This play style hits hard. It requires the opponent to properly identify when you are attacking and must respond absolutely perfect or will lose. The downside is that it is inflexible as you are setting the pace, and once lost, it is very difficult to pick back up. This is because there is such low economy in this style. Since you are going for the mage, losing things is a given but trying to win within a time frame is of upmost importance.

For later game strategy I've noticed a lot of players tend to "Kill the threat" technique. This involves building up a slight edge in economy, then trying to survive by a sliver to in the end overwhelm your opponent. It also revolves around being reactionary as opposed to setting a pace. The timing is more flexible because your goal is to stay just far enough ahead of your opponent economy wise to win out. What is interesting with this option is that you may not want to take out their economy since you always are ahead, instead you take out the things their economy is producing - equipment, enchantments, creatures for instance. The difficult part about this is you must build a tree of contingencies to deal with all the options that are available to kill you. What is interesting about this style is that when you lose, you tend to have done zero or close to zero damage to the enemy mage. This shouldn't be viewed as a slight in your play style, rather that your reaction to their style was not appropriate and you must revise your strategy when vsing that style again.

I have public books on both of these trains of thinking. A weird thing I've been thinking about is in every game is there always a player that sets the pace and another that must react? Can both be going for the long game equally, or both hit a earlier timing push equally? Even if playing the same mage and the same book once a few dice are rolled does that put you in a strange position in this context?

I think it is possible to run a more controlling book with fewer creatures. If you summon a powerful buddy, destroy enemy spawnpoint early enough and then use action control like dazes and sleeps or just destroying what creatures opponent managed to summon so far, and making sure your buddy stays alive, then you win either by finishing them with some combination of burst damage and your buddy's attacks.

I recently made a forcemaster that works like this, although she is the one who is attacking, not the buddy. The buddy is a thoughtspores and she also uses a battleforge.

It's the difference between increasing your own actions and decreasing the opponent's actions.

The important thing isn't how many actions you have total. It's how many more you have than your opponent, or how many less they have than you.

[Kelanen]

I have public books on both of these trains of thinking. A weird thing I've been thinking about is in every game is there always a player that sets the pace and another that must react? Can both be going for the long game equally, or both hit a earlier timing push equally? Even if playing the same mage and the same book once a few dice are rolled does that put you in a strange position in this context?

Are you familiar with a very old and very fundamental Magic the Gathering theory called "Who's the Beatdown?" by Mike Flores in the late 90's. Like many theory's it existed and was used long before that, but he was the one to articulate it, codify it and publicise it. It's VERY applicable to Mage Wars, and often harder to determine and keep track of than in Magic.

In it's essence, for any board position between two books (including before the first turn) one is more suited to the shorter more aggressive game, and one to the longer more controlling/economical, and a key skill is to recognise which you are, and therefore how you should be playing.

Yes, one of you always has an advantage one way or other, so the other has the reverse position, even if the difference is so slight, you can't work it out (this is the skill). Even a mirror match between two identical books based on who started, based on whether that first roll or two of damage was above or below average, based on a look-ahead 5 turns, and who will have initiative for that critical turn...

What's much the same as Magic is evaluating the starting position from archetype, and specifics of your book, and your opponents if you know them. Many books can play different kinds of game, but they are best suited to one most of the time. In essence you are weighing up each of your book's playstyles against each that the opponent can pull off, but mostly it's your 'A' game against their's that matters most, at least at the start. Building a book that can start into different ways is generally a design flaw in my view - but building one that can react to the current situation into different game plans is a strength, and many people confuse the two. MW also has the complexity that you can get any card when you want it so you can 'splash' silver bullets in a reliable way that most MtG decks never can.

The part that is much harder than in Magic, is to assess and predict the changing tide. It happens every (successful) game for a control book, but it happens often for all books. The classic example is when I am sitting back playing a control Wizard against your aggressive book - I am sitting there minimising your threats for as few actions and mana as I can, all the whilst building up  my various resources. Assuming this strategy has worked, and I am not losing and clinging on for dear life, there comes a point where I have stabilised enough, that actually I am now the 'Beatdown'  - the aggressor, the threat, and that aggro-warlock/Beastmaster is now on the backfoot. Most dramatically, this is the point you switch from parrying threats into 2-3 Hurl Boulder/Fireballs and win, but the change in tempo can be much more subtle.

In my experience, far too many aggro players don't predict this sufficiently far ahead (this was the turn you needed a Q/C Brace or Hauberk, not another creature or attack spell!), and too many control players get so set in defensive mentality that they don't switch into aggression until a turn or two after they could have done. In that small window of recognition and opportunity lies victory!

[Kelanen]

The smartest thing any player can do is to try and play as every mage and against every mage. Obviously depending on your player base that can be tricky but it's still the goal. We must have a fine understanding of how each ticks in order to decide when best to rush and when best to control.

The important thing isn't how many actions you have total. It's how many more you have than your opponent, or how many less they have than you.

Both very true!

[Super Sorcerer]

ב"ה
This is a great strategy session
It is indeed very important to know when to go for the mage and when to go for the threats.
But there is also a thing I usually name "damage economy". Things such as a magebane early on or a rot condition on the enemy mage are both good examples of "damage economy". When you have effects that damage the enemy mage over time, you gain advantage the longer the game goes. So while the damage economy purpose is killing the mage, having a damage economy allows you to go after the threats in order to make the game longer so the damage economy work for a longer time. I also use the term "damage economy" when I count offensive creatures by their damage output.
Just for the example, I would like to discuss the "damage economy" analysis of recent Gencon winning books:
2014) With the straywood aviary book, each bird had a damage output, which increased with the number of Rajan furies. A bird coupled with "rouse the beast" is immediate damage, like an attack spell, but the bird staying to hit again in the next round is damage economy (the more birds you have, the greater your damage output every turn). This would probably qualify as a "rush book", so I would say that the only economy it needs is the damage economy.
2015) With the jinx wizard, the main damage dealers were the mage and the wizard's tower. While the mana economy and the action economy were amazing, and he totally won the tournament because of his action economy, he didn't really have much damage economy except for the wizard's tower. The only game he lost was to the priestess with the 4 guardian angels, which his damage economy just couldn't best. That book relied on enough actions and attack spells (and the spellbind quality of the wizard tower to keep his attack spells) to take down what he needed to take down.
2016) Well, I didn't fully understand this book since I never saw a competitive skeleton necromancer without an armory yet, and I really hope I will understand this book better after arcane duels will publish the Gencon 2016 games, but I will analyze by what I read so far about this book. Like most necromancers, this one bring early the Idol of pestilence, which is one of the best damage economies in the game. Combined with a Deathlock, the Idol of pestilence simply set a clock for the game, so your opponent actually have to come to you (and destroy either the deathlock or the Idol or the necromancer before the Idol and the deathlock kill him). As I understood it, the whole point of the book was bringing damage economy, and then go for "kill the threat" until the enemy mage got enough damage from the damage economy to be finished by the attack spells.

Now, sometimes the most important part of your strategy is knowing when to attempt to "Kill the mage". Against players who are too set in the Idea of "Kill the Threat", I usually bring a zombie necromancer. There are 2 possible outcomes to such a thing, either they learn that sometimes they should just go for the mage or they end up becoming Necromancer players themselves. Trying to "Kill the Threat" against a zombie necromancer is a really bad idea, so those who doesn't become necromancer players themselves just learn that they have to rush them. On the other hand, against a druid it is usually a bad Idea to go for the mage before you kill the tree, even with a rush book (though in this case there are some exceptions).

What's much the same as Magic is evaluating the starting position from archetype, and specifics of your book, and your opponents if you know them. Many books can play different kinds of game, but they are best suited to one most of the time. In essence you are weighing up each of your book's playstyles against each that the opponent can pull off, but mostly it's your 'A' game against their's that matters most, at least at the start. Building a book that can start into different ways is generally a design flaw in my view - but building one that can react to the current situation into different game plans is a strength, and many people confuse the two. MW also has the complexity that you can get any card when you want it so you can 'splash' silver bullets in a reliable way that most MtG decks never can.

Well, I really don't think that "Building a book that can start into different ways is generally a design flaw". Most of my books have different openings against different mages. For example, every non-necromancer non-rush book I build got an alternative rush opening to be played against necromancers. I see absolutely no flaw in having different openings against different mages.

[Kelanen]

Many books can play different kinds of game, but they are best suited to one most of the time. In essence you are weighing up each of your book's playstyles against each that the opponent can pull off, but mostly it's your 'A' game against their's that matters most, at least at the start. Building a book that can start into different ways is generally a design flaw in my view - but building one that can react to the current situation into different game plans is a strength, and many people confuse the two. MW also has the complexity that you can get any card when you want it so you can 'splash' silver bullets in a reliable way that most MtG decks never can.

Well, I really don't think that "Building a book that can start into different ways is generally a design flaw". Most of my books have different openings against different mages. For example, every non-necromancer non-rush book I build got an alternative rush opening to be played against necromancers. I see absolutely no flaw in having different openings against different mages.

That's a completely fair corollary! Against different mages (or different styles of book) you may require different plans, and different openings, and that is good book design. Hopefully however these are smallish variations over the greater game however, because otherwise you are building 3x 60 pt books in 120pts, rather than a 120 pt book if you see what I mean. If you have a book who's main plan just falls over and dies against any reasonably likely circumstance then you don't want to weaken Plan A to allow for Plan B - you want a different book entirely that can accommodate both scenarios in Plan A, with just small adjustments.

What I meant to say, and clearly rushed (since it was tangential to my main point) is that I often see people throw together a bunch of cards they like, that may all be good, but are not good together. When questioned (or when asked what their game opening looks like) they will offer something to the effect of well I could start A, B, C, or maybe J, K, H, or sometimes I'll mix it up and go with X, Y, Z...

Now even assuming all three a strong and viable plans, you are better off weighing up your skills, play preferences, your local metagame, and so on, and working out which is the best plan on balance, and then focussing the book to do that really well, with a  few forks on the decision tree for different styles of opponent. Not having 3 random gameplans, that should be 3 different books.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Many books can play different kinds of game, but they are best suited to one most of the time. In essence you are weighing up each of your book's playstyles against each that the opponent can pull off, but mostly it's your 'A' game against their's that matters most, at least at the start. Building a book that can start into different ways is generally a design flaw in my view - but building one that can react to the current situation into different game plans is a strength, and many people confuse the two. MW also has the complexity that you can get any card when you want it so you can 'splash' silver bullets in a reliable way that most MtG decks never can.

Well, I really don't think that "Building a book that can start into different ways is generally a design flaw". Most of my books have different openings against different mages. For example, every non-necromancer non-rush book I build got an alternative rush opening to be played against necromancers. I see absolutely no flaw in having different openings against different mages.

That's a completely fair corollary! Against different mages (or different styles of book) you may require different plans, and different openings, and that is good book design. Hopefully however these are smallish variations over the greater game however, because otherwise you are building 3x 60 pt books in 120pts, rather than a 120 pt book if you see what I mean. If you have a book who's main plan just falls over and dies against any reasonably likely circumstance then you don't want to weaken Plan A to allow for Plan B - you want a different book entirely that can accommodate both scenarios in Plan A, with just small adjustments.

What I meant to say, and clearly rushed (since it was tangential to my main point) is that I often see people throw together a bunch of cards they like, that may all be good, but are not good together. When questioned (or when asked what their game opening looks like) they will offer something to the effect of well I could start A, B, C, or maybe J, K, H, or sometimes I'll mix it up and go with X, Y, Z...

Now even assuming all three a strong and viable plans, you are better off weighing up your skills, play preferences, your local metagame, and so on, and working out which is the best plan on balance, and then focussing the book to do that really well, with a  few forks on the decision tree for different styles of opponent. Not having 3 random gameplans, that should be 3 different books.

I only partially agree with you. It's possible to have 2 different plans in a working spellbook, but only if those plans use a lot of the same cards. If the same cards can be used for more than one plan, it makes it easier to adapt to different situations or to transition between plan A and plan B. That being said, having more plans might make you more flexible, but it makes your spellbook have less synergy. I suspect you might be able to get away with three plans if you're only using aggro strats, since aggro generally doesn't use as many of their spell points worth of cards during a single game as control books do. Three plans is probably the absolute limit though. Any more than that and your spellbook won't be able to have any synergy at all!