Aggro, Combo, Control & Hybrid Archtypes

[jmmeye2]

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).

[Shad0w]

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.

[paradox22]

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!

[Intangible0]

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.

[Shad0w]

This was asked in the Conjuration Stacking 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.

[Shad0w]

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.

[Intangible0]

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?

[Shad0w]

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.

[Intangible0]

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...

[Tacullu64]

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.

[residualshade]

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.

[Tacullu64]

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.

[Koz]

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?

[Tacullu64]

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.

[Shad0w]

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.