SE strategy--Who's The Beatdown?

[StrayDogStrut]

I remember reading that article when it came out... I miss The Dojo. All that talk about about Jackal Pups and Cursed Scrolls makes me nostalgic.

That being said, I don't think Mike's idea translates especially well to Shadow Era. We can try to contort it to fit, but it's a bit like someone's boss quoting Sun Tzu, then trying to tie it into his marketing strategy.

The essence of Mike's "beatdown" vs "control" is whether it's worth offering or accepting bad tradeoffs in order to dictate the game's tempo. This can have have profound implications in Magic because choosing to be the beatdown means giving your opponent advantage, since the defender determines how combat resolves. The beatdown player trades cards/life for damage, the control player trades resources for time, card advantage and board control. (This is simplified, and ignores permission aspects for which there is no SE counterpart)

In Shadow Era, the attacker has every advantage... he gets to deal damage AND force his opponent into bad exchanges. There's no tradeoff, so we spend the entire game fighting over who gets to be the beatdown. We play the "beatdown" role whenever we control the board, or think we can win without it. We're forced into the "control" role when we don't fully control the board, and need to in order to win.

Note that the in-game beatdown/control roles are pretty distinct from Shadow Era deck types. Almost every deck is an aggro deck... I suppose the relative "control" deck is the one who has better tools to deal with losing board control. This mostly means better card draw, more expensive cards, or board swing cards such as Tidal/Portal/Raven. There are a few true control decks on the fringe like Lone Wolf decks, mill decks, and maybe allyless Nish.

These are interesting distinctions to make, but again they don't greatly inform your turn-by-turn decisions. If you're not the beatdown, play for time and hope you draw something good. Otherwise, beat away.

[He-Man]

That being said, I don't think Mike's idea translates especially well to Shadow Era. We can try to contort it to fit, but it's a bit like someone's boss quoting Sun Tzu, then trying to tie it into his marketing strategy.

The essence of Mike's "beatdown" vs "control" is whether it's worth offering or accepting bad tradeoffs in order to dictate the game's tempo. This can have have profound implications in Magic because choosing to be the beatdown means giving your opponent advantage, since the defender determines how combat resolves. The beatdown player trades cards/life for damage, the control player trades resources for time, card advantage and board control. (This is simplified, and ignores permission aspects for which there is no SE counterpart)

In Shadow Era, the attacker has every advantage... he gets to deal damage AND force his opponent into bad exchanges. There's no tradeoff, so we spend the entire game fighting over who gets to be the beatdown. We play the "beatdown" role whenever we control the board, or think we can win without it. We're forced into the "control" role when we don't fully control the board, and need to in order to win.

Note that the in-game beatdown/control roles are pretty distinct from Shadow Era deck types. Almost every deck is an aggro deck... I suppose the relative "control" deck is the one who has better tools to deal with losing board control. This mostly means better card draw, more expensive cards, or board swing cards such as Tidal/Portal/Raven. There are a few true control decks on the fringe like Lone Wolf decks, mill decks, and maybe allyless Nish.

These are interesting distinctions to make, but again they don't greatly inform your turn-by-turn decisions. If you're not the beatdown, play for time and hope you draw something good. Otherwise, beat away.

As I mention in the OP, at this point in time, this piece of strategy is of limited use and relevance. The only reason for that however, I believe, is the limited card pool, as it only allows a small number of combinations, and the number or really good cards is extremely limited. The way SE works however (so, the rules) do allow for this type of strategizing to become increasingly important in the future, provided new cards are released.

EDIT: I do not agree btw with what you describe as "the essence" of Mike's original piece. You make it sound like you are screwed if you are in the defensive role. If that is how you feel when playing, chances are you really are screwed. But if you have a good deck, and know your strategies, you will do just fine. Much more than in MtG, in SE you have to be prepared to play defensive in a lot of games (close to half I'd say), so having two ways of playing your deck is essential.

[sweetgab]

@StrayDogStrut That's a very insightful comment. In Magic, playing out your whole hand by turn four doesn't give you card advantage at all, only tempo (i.e. pressure on opponent, forcing them to react); while here, getting out stuff sooner means everything from tempo to card advantage (each ally you kill means +1 card). Unless really defensive allies exist or ally-less decks run rampant, players will still fight for board control starting on turn one/two.

[He-Man]

@StrayDogStrut That's a very insightful comment. In Magic, playing out your whole hand by turn four doesn't give you card advantage at all, only tempo (i.e. pressure on opponent, forcing them to react); while here, getting out stuff sooner means everything from tempo to card advantage (each ally you kill means +1 card). Unless really defensive allies exist or ally-less decks run rampant, players will still fight for board control starting on turn one/two.

A lot of this, I cannot agree with. Killing an ally does not give you card advantage per se, for instance. It depends on how you kill the ally (e.g., spending a card to do so vs using an ally to do so). Getting your stuff out sooner, i.e. increasing your tempo, is good for any deck, regardless of whether we are talking about MtG or SE. If the defensive MtG decks could play their 10/10 fatty for the win on turn 2, they would. The only reason they play the defensive role, is because their kill condition takes longer to set up than that of the opponent.

[He-Man]

Great work, He-man.

Thought exercise: Who's the beatdown in the current Amber vs Gwen matchup?
Early game, Amber can try to take over the game with Puwen/Blake - Aidon - Jeweler's Dream, especially if she went first. Then Gwen tries to stabilize using the very powerful Soul Seeker - she acts as the control player for the moment, since the longer she lives the more likely she will be able to set up Rapid Fire + multiple Soul Seekers.

But that's not the end of story! Now Amber has yet another trick in Blood Frenzy, since it will eventually produce enough card advantage to overwhelm Gwenn's deck (Getting things like Armor of Ages, Smashing Blow and maybe multiple Ravens). Gwen can counter with Bazaar, but it seems to me that Amber will win the game if the game goes really long - when it all comes down to the weapon duel, Amber simply has better armors.

To sum it up, Amber can win by playing beatdown early, then Gwen has a window of time in the middle where Gwen has to become the beatdown player herself - otherwise Amber will have inevitability (win the long game). Correct me if I said anything wrong.

That is about what I would say, yeah. Usually Amber decks are more low-cc-ally heavy, and that allows her to get in significant damage early on. Amber's better drawing capacity would dictate the controlling role for her, but I personally always try to stay on the offensive when playing Amber (mine is a very aggressive build). Midgame, I try to keep Gwen off her bows with Crippling B(l)ow, but other than that I shoot everything straight to the dome, mostly ignoring her allies. If your Amber build is less aggro, or you meet an ally-heavy Gwen, you will likely have to reverse. And again, going first or second, and what you have in your opening hand is crucial (if I do not have a 2-drop and a 3-drop ally in my hand, I often switch to defensive mode).

[StrayDogStrut]

EDIT: I do not agree btw with what you describe as "the essence" of Mike's original piece.

Could you explain which part you disagree with? Note that his article isn't about deck design, it's about in-game decision making.

You make it sound like you are screwed if you are in the defensive role. If that is how you feel when playing, chances are you really are screwed.

I never said that; I just said that the beatdown player in SE has the advantage. A large part of the strategy in SE is understanding out how to overcome that advantage, so that you can take over the beatdown role.

Much more than in MtG, in SE you have to be prepared to play defensive in a lot of games (close to half I'd say).

I agree... someone should be on the defensive roughly half the time.

A lot of this, I cannot agree with. Killing an ally does not give you card advantage per se, for instance. It depends on how you kill the ally (e.g., spending a card to do so vs using an ally to do so).

Being the beatdown doesn't always give you card advantage, but it gives you plentiful opportunities for it. Consider... who has the advantage in "Chimera vs Behemoth", or "Raven vs Raven+Alden". The answer is: whoever attacks first.

A big reason that cards like Portal and Retreat are powerful is that they let you turn defenders into attackers, and would-be attackers into defenders.

Getting your stuff out sooner, i.e. increasing your tempo, is good for any deck, regardless of whether we are talking about MtG or SE.

The third example in Mike Flores' article is praising a player for knowing when to slow the tempo, "Dave just played land and Scrolls and did very little else." And that was a Sligh Deck, one of the most hyper-aggressive archetypes ever seen in MtG. It's hard to slow the tempo in SE because you can't cast allies, and then choose not engage with them.

I really want to note that I'm not trying to criticize the thread... I think it's interesting, and has sparked good discussion. I just thought someone should provide the counterpoint.

I'm also not trying to say that Magic is better, just that it's VERY different. I doubt that Mike Flores would have written this exact article if MtG attackers had first strike+vigilance, and also got to declare the blockers (this is huge). So I wonder how portable his concepts are to SE.

[arebelspy]

The idea of inevitability is that in a given match, if the match goes on for enough time, the deck with the "highest inevitability" will always win. In Shadow Era 1.25, Elementalis stall is the perfect example of a deck with super inevitability. All he's trying to do is make the game take longer, because the longer the game goes, the more likely it is he'll win.

A good explanation of this is here: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazin...com/academy/36

That article was EXCELLENT, possibly the best one so far. Highly suggested reading.

[Seth]

That being said, I don't think Mike's idea translates especially well to Shadow Era. We can try to contort it to fit, but it's a bit like someone's boss quoting Sun Tzu, then trying to tie it into his marketing strategy.

This is wrong, it is still EXTREMELY applicable to Shadow Era. I very often win games by tricking my opponent to choose the incorrect role in a match. Let me give you an example:

I was recently playing against a friend of mine on the 1.27 test server. I had revamped a Majiya deck, he an Eladwen. We both had similar strategies: A bunch of creatures to throw out, and tons of burn (basically). However, I was playing Majiya with Research and Shadow Knight, and all he had for card draw was Research and a couple of the Oracle. I destroyed his Researches immediately so that he never got to use them more than once, and I only saw two Oracles that game. I knew that I had superior card-drawing, and was therefore the Control. I focused most of my burn on his allies, and I kept throwing out all of my highest threat allies into situations where I knew he would quickly destroy them. He took the bait, and the result was that hhe constantly wasted burn cards and attacks on killing all my allies, thinking that he needed to maintain control over the board. As I continued using Research, Majiya's power, and an endless Shadow Knight loop, though, eventually he was top-decking and I still had a hand full of cards. I played out my hand and dispatched him in a few turns.

The lesson from this is that the amount of damage he dealt to my allies was probably enough to kill me TWICE (I ended the match with under 15 health), but because he assessed himself as the Control and not the Beatdown, he wasted a TON of his damage on my allies, and that allowed me to win.

The specific decisions may look a little different in Shadow Era, but the concept is definitely as directly applicable here as it is in Magic.

[StrayDogStrut]

This is wrong, it is still EXTREMELY applicable to Shadow Era. I very often win games by tricking my opponent to choose the incorrect role in a match. Let me give you an example:

You know, I thought about your exact example (mages or weapon heroes vs each other) when I wrote my original post. That's why I phrased the rules like this (emphasis added):

There's no tradeoff, so we spend the entire game fighting over who gets to be the beatdown. We play the "beatdown" role whenever we control the board, or think we can win without it.

Your opponent just didn't realize soon enough that he could win without board control.

I think your example is also closely tied to the excellent "inevitability" article that arebelspy linked. You do need a timer in your head against strong card draw heroes, like Maj and priests.

[arebelspy]

I think your example is also closely tied to the excellent "inevitability" article that arebelspy linked.

lol. the person you're arguing against linked to it, not me. i was just saying how good it was.

i do think inevitability plays a huge role in SE, and is more closely linked to SE than who's the aggro (/beatdown), but who's the aggro and who's the control does play a big part as well and can translate to SE.
'