Mage Knight

Strategy & Tactics

Introduction

About this book

Important:

As you will see, this guide is still in the middle of being drafted. Many of the links from the TOC are not yet hooked up. Many sections are still blank or full of rough notes and excerpted posts from strategy forums. Don't expect a lot as you read through what's here now. If you have any ideas or suggestions, or want to offer content for this baby, please email me or even better, post your thoughts on the MK Realms Battle Plans forum.

Mage Knight is a new and unique game in many ways. The rules are relatively simple for a miniatures game, making it very easy to learn, but mastering the game is not an easy task. The tactics are numerous and some are fairly complex, and the strategic considerations are deeper than even those for chess.

This guide first explains the basic tactics that arise from the properties of the game. Tactics are the specific techniques you use to take advantage of opportunies that present themselves during the course of a game, and to achieve short-term objectives. Knowing when and how to apply tactics is what separates experiences players from newbies, and is also a prerequisite to understanding strategy.

The guide next explains the strategy of the game. Strategy is your general gameplan at the start of the game, and the thing that guides your movement and placement decisions during the opening and middle game when you still both have a lot of figures on the table with a lot of options and complexity. A keen understanding of strategy is what distinguishes the strongest players.

Tactics and strategy provide the foundation for best understanding the remaining sections of this guide, which cover how to evaluate figures, compose your armies, and place terrain at the start of a battle.

Finally, a list of credits is provided, since many people have contributed to the ideas and examples used in this guide.

Special terms used in this guide

Mage Knight is a very new game, and no real "how to" books or advanced strategy guides have been written for the game yet. Since I'm the first out of the gate with detailed tactics and strategy info for Mage Knight, I have to blaze some new territory and actually create some new, specific jargon so that explanations of strategic concepts and tactical maneuvers can be as concise as possible.

Rather than bog down the main flow of this document with a long side trip into special terms you'll be seeing used throughout this guide, I've created a separate document called MK Tactical and Strategic Terms that you can use as a reference when you come across an unfamiliar term in this guide. I recommend that you at least skim this list of special terms before proceeding too much farther into this guide.

Skirmish notation

Some of the techniques and maneuvers that make up skirmish tactics requires using a special diagramming notation developed by myself and Ken "Janx" Forslund to show you the flow of a skirmish between two or more units. Trying to describe even simple maneuvers and key responses to things your opponent may try would be extremely difficult without being able to visually represent the movement and actions of units as they fight each other in a skirmish.

Rather than bog down the main flow of this document with a long side trip into the whys and hows of skirmish notation, I've created a separate document called MK Skirmish Notation that you can print out and use as a reference when viewing some of the skirmish diagrams you'll see throughout this guide.

Skirmish Tactics

Skirmish tactics are specific maneuvers and tricks you use when trying to initiate a fight between opposing units (or when defending yourself against somebody else trying to initiate a fight with you).

Before getting into the maneuvers and techniques themselves, it's important to understand a few basic laws and maxims that affect all skirmishes. By "laws", I don't mean the rules of the game. Yes, the rules are also "laws" of the game, but I'm talking about some fundamental facts that aren't part of the rules, and which not everyone is really aware of, but which greatly affect your options and decisions in every skirmish. These three laws are:

Dice Roll Probablities

The Off-Square Rule

The Mobility Rule

Relative Power

A Maxim is a rule of thumb that is generally held to be true. There may be specific situations in which a particular maxim does not apply, but for the most part, the following 10 maxims form the basic principles of sound tactical thinking in skirmishes:

All skirmishes boil down to single fights between single figures

All skirmishes hinge on your heavy muscle

Support units must die first

The first-striker usually wins between forces of equal power

Push damage is almost always worth it

First-strikers should always push for a 2-tempo advantage

Never allow the first-striker more than a 1-tempo advantage

Never allow "free" ranged attacks on your units

Always be prepared for reinforcements

Run away from skirmishs you can't win

The Hidden Laws

These "laws" aren't really hidden so much as they're just not that obvious. Just as much as your tactical decisions must take into account the written rules of the game, so must your tactics take into account these not-well-known rules of the game.

Law 1 - Dice Roll Probabilities

Knowing the probability of rolling up specific numbers can be very helpful in determining whether or not to make a particular attack, capture, or breakaway attempt. Most importantly, however, is that you cannot accurately predict the outcome of a fight between two figures without knowing the relative probability of each figure being able to land a successfull attack against the other. More on this subject when we get to Maxim 4 - The first-striker usually wins between forces of equal power.

Without going into detail about how to compute the probabilities of a 2D6 or 1D6 roll, here are some numbers you should either memorize or else scribble down on the back of your Battle Report Form to help you make decisions faster in a game. (Die roll probabilities written on your Battle Report Form would not, in my opinion, constitute a "cheat sheet".)

Attack or Capture Rolls (2D6)

If you need this number... The probability of rolling it is...

2 (critical miss) 3%

3 or better 97%

4 or better 92%

5 or better 83%

6 or better 72%

7 or better 58%

8 or better 42%

9 or better 28%

10 or better 17%

11 or better 8%

12 (critical hit) 3%

Breakaway Rolls (1D6)

If you need this number... The probability of rolling it is...

4 or better 50%

2 or better 83%

Law 2 - The Off-Square Rule

New players often struggle with the concept of line of fire (LOF) when dealing with ranged combat attacks. At first it may seem like ranged units are clearly superior to melee units, and it's easy to wonder why anyone would put melee units in an army. After playing several games with some good opponents, people quickly pick up on the basic concept of blocking LOF with a figure's base, and so is born the ability to rush a group of ranged defenders under the cover of a blocking maneuver.

But people measure LOF by eyeball, from above, checking whether LOF is clear by seeing whether the edge of your ruler or a piece of string clears the base of some blocking figure. It doesn't dawn on a lot of people how inaccurate this way of measuring LOF really is. If you move your head even a couple millimeters to one side or the other of the line you're using to check LOF, the position of the apparent LOF changes by a lot. Most people at least subconsciously realize this, so the tendency is to make sure that figures are positioned in a way that ensures LOF never runs too close to the edge of a figure's base—you make sure that it is obviously blocked or not so that there can be no argument.

The problem with this tendency is that it can cause people to never really think about how much coverage a figure's base really provides, with the net result that blocking tactics are often very underutilized. Watch several games between new and intermediate players and you'll see that in most blocking maneuvers involving more than one attacker, the players arrange the attackers in a kind of zig-zag "conga line" behind the blocking figure.

The few players who take a careful look at the actual geometry of blocking and LOF, however, eventually figure out that a single figure can block LOF to two figures behind it, both placed side-by-side instead of staggered behind each other conga-style. Not only that, but that single figure can block the LOF from not just one firer, but two firers that are in base contact, which is common to many defensive formations. The following diagrams tell the whole story:

Figure 1. The Off-Square Rule - Part 1

"Big deal," you say, "what's the point?" Well, let's take a closer look:

Figure 2. The Off-Square Rule - Part 2

As you can see, even in these crude diagrams drawn with tools that cannot precisely place lines any closer than a pixel apart, it's pretty obvious that the LOF lines are now closer together than before and the new LOF lines now cross the blocking's figure's base.

Now, there are two problems with actually putting the Off-Square Rule to work for you in a game. First is that if the firing group and target group are not rotated off-square by a very large amount, it can easily look like LOF is not blocked when eyeballing it from above with a string or ruler. In the diagram above, for instance, the two groups are rotated off-square by close to 35 degrees, yet the new LOF lines are still extremely close to the edge of the blocking figure's base. Remember that even if the two groups are rotated off-square by only a miniscule amount, even by a single degree or less, then geometrically speaking LOF is indeed blocked—but to the naked eye the two groups may seem to be perfectly square to each other.

The second problem is that you must be sure to rotate the relative facings of the two groups—you can't simply shift the two groups but still keep their facings parallel. As shown in Figure 2, a line drawn from the center point of the blocker through the point behind him where the two figures make base contact must point directly at the spot where the two firers touch in base contact, but a similar line drawn from the firers must not point back at the blocker's group. Figure 3 shows what happens if you only shift one group up or down without rotating them.

Figure 3. The Off-Square Rule - Part 3

For now, just drill it into your mind that a single figure can block LOF from two firers to two targets, and that you don't have to waste a lot of time measuring out a perfect placement in game or worrying that your opponent will try to claim he has a clear LOF. Even if the two groups look square to each other, all you have to do is verbally declare that your intent is that they are off-square, and that according to the Off-Square Rule your intent is that LOF is blocked to both targets. If your opponent wants to argue the fact, or even worse if a warlord wants to argue the fact, then throw the book at them—this book. Seriously, until this "law" becomes fairly well-known, you might be smart to print out these few diagrams and keep them handy if needed at a tournament to prove your point.

We'll talk more about a useful application of the Off-Square Rule in the section on blocking maneuvers.

Law 3 - The Mobility Rule

The importance of having as many options as possible is often overlooked by novice players, and not even consciously recognized by some intermediate players. Mage Knight's movement mechanics are unusual in that you do not have to move within pre-established lanes of travel marked out by a grid, as in chess and many other turn-based wargames. Nor are you required to move the full extent of a figure's Speed or to move in specific increments. As a result, there are literally an infinite number of positions that you can move a figure to during the course of a game

The Mobility Rule is shorthand way of labeling the fundamental concept that you have the most options of places to move when a figure is near the center of the play area. A figure's options are reduced as it nears an edge or corner of the play area, or as it nears any piece of terrain that hinders movement.

Between players of high skill, skirmishes and entire games are won and lost on the basis of superior maneuvering, and the side that can maintain the best overall mobility for his army has the most options for maneuvering.

Law 4 - Relative Power

It is not always easy to look at two different figures and predict which of the two is more likely to win a fight with the other. For starters, there's the totally random variable of those 2D6 attack rolls. Then, there's fairly complex-looking interaction of the way the two figures' attack, defense, and damage values interact as each figure takes damage and their relative statistics change with each click of the combat dial. Finally, there's the fact that different figures can take different amounts of damage before they die.

However, there is a concrete, statistical way to measure up two figures against each other, and it's really not that hard to do if you have some basic numbers available to you. The following four numbers all make up what I call a figure's average combat stats:

A figure's average attack value, which is the statistical mean of all the separate attack values on its combat dial. (Example: A blue Amotep Gunner has attack values of 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 0, and 0 before it dies. Its average attack value is therefore 5.)

A figure's average defense value, which is the mean of all its separate defense values. (Our sample blue Gunner has an average defense value of 12.42, which we'll round down to an even integer of 12.)

A figure's average damage value, which is the mean of it's damage values. (Our blue Gunner has an average damage of 1.57, which we'll round to 1.6.)

A figure's health, which is the total number of damage clicks it can take before dying. (Our blue Gunner has a health of 7.)

To measure up two figures against each other, you use these numbers to come up with a relative power for each figure. To show how this is done, let's compare our blue Amotep Gunner, whose average combat stats we've already seen, with a yellow Troll Artillerist. The Artillerist's average combat stats are: 6 attack, 12 defense, 2.2 damage, and 6 health.

Determine the relative hit percentage of each figure by comparing their average attack values and average defense values:

The Gunner's average attack is 5, so he needs a 7 or better to hit against the average defense of the Artillerist. Looking back at the table in Law 1 - Dice Roll Probabilities, we can see that the Gunner's relative hit percentage is 58.

The Artillerist needs a 6 or better to hit the Gunner, so the Artillerist's relative hit percentage is 72.

Determine the relative damage of each figure by multiplying each figure's relative hit percentage against its average damage value:

The Gunner's average damage is 1.6, and multiplying that number by 0.58 gives us the Gunner a relative damage of 0.94, which we'll round to 0.9.

The Artillerist's average damage of 2.2 multiplied by 0.72 yeilds a relative damage of 1.58 which we'll round to 1.6.

What this all means so far is that in a fight between a blue Gunner and a yellow Artillerist, the Gunner will average 0.9 points of damage with each attack roll, and the Artillerist will average 1.6 points of damage with each attack roll.

Finally, determine the relative power of each figure by dividing each figure's health by the relative damage that its opponent can dish out:

The Gunner's relative damage of 0.9, factored into the Artillerist's health of 6, yields a relative power of 6.6, which we always round up to the next highest integer. So the Gunner's relative power in this match-up is 7. This means it will take the Gunner an average of 7 attacks to kill the Artillerist.

The Artillerist's relative damage of 1.6, factored into the gunner's health of 7, yeilds a relative power of 4.4, which we again round up to 5. It will take the Artillerist an average of 5 attacks to kill the Gunner.

Now that you've learned how to figure out relative power the hard way, here's a Relative Damage Table you can use to look up the needed stats.

We'll talk more about how you use this concept of relative power later, in the following maxims that deal with first-strikers and tempo, but for now, let me leave you with the thought that even in the matchup we just examined, the Artillerist is not always guaranteed to win a fight against the Gunner. The difference in relative power is only 2, which means that if the Gunner can somehow manage to get in 2 extra attacks against the Artillerist, it's actually an even fight! And if the Gunner can somehow get in 3 extra attacks, he should statistically win the fight.

This is where tactical maneuvering and using harrassers can win the day. If the Gunner is trying to attack an Artillerist that is just standing there, the best that the Gunner can probably expect is an even chance at winning. But if the Gunner is the defender, he actually has a good chance of winning the fight, especially if he has a harrasser that he can use to mess up the Artillerist's attack timing.

But enough teasers--let's look at a couple more matchups to be sure you've got the basic math down:

A red Steam Golem versus a red Steam Golem:

okay, this is a trick question. You really don't have to do any math because the two figures are identical, so the difference in their relative power is 0. As I'll explain later in Maxim 4, whichever one gets the first strike will probably win.

But if you do all the math, each Golem's average combat stats are: 8 attack, 14 defense, 3.1 damage, and 10 health. So the relative hit percentage of each one is 72%, the relative damage is therefore 2.2, making the relative power of each one 5. Whoever gets five attacks in first will win.

A Storm Golem versus a Heirophant:

The Storm Golem's average combat stats are: 11 attack, 15 defense, 3.0 damage, and 11 health.

The Heirophant's average combat stats are: 11 attack, 15 defense, 3.3 damage, and 11 health

The Storm Golem's relative hit percentage is 92%, its relative damage is 2.8, and its relative power is 4.

The Hierophant's relative hit percentage is 92%, its relative damage is 3.0, and its relative power is 4.

This one is also a dead heat--whoever gets four attacks in first will win.

The 10 Basic Maxims

Being able to quickly and accurately evaluate tactical opportunities and threats is a basic skill that every player must learn. The whole trick to doing this is to memorizing and understanding the 10 basic maxims of skirmish dynamics. Then, when presented with an opportunity to engage in a skirmish, you just run down a mental checklist of all the maxims, using them as simple rules of thumb to determine whether it looks like the skirmish will go in your favor.

Maxim 1 - All skirmishes boil down to single fights between single figures

Mage Knight is a turn-based game. Every turn you have a limited number of actions, and with very few exceptions, you cannot perform two actions with the same figure in the same turn, and most of the time you don't want to perform two actions with the same figure even on subsequent turns or else you take push damage for doing so.

So even if you take 10 attackers and charge 10 defenders in a single, huge skirmish, the mechanics of the game guarantee that only a small number of figures will actually be swinging at each other in any given turn.

The net result is that you can pretty accurately gauge the probable outcome of a multi-figure skirmish by mentally pairing up the toughest attackers versus the toughest defenders, in order, and then looking at which figure is likely to win the outcome in each such pairing.

After that, repeat the process, mentally pitting the "survivors" against each other, being sure to take into account their "new" attributes based on any damage they're likely to take in the first "round" of fights. Keep doing this until all the figures on one side or another are eliminated. 95% of the time, whichever side is left with some figures still standing at the end of this mental exercise is going to be the winner, provided you are good at estimating the likely pairings and outcomes of each individual fight.

Maxim 2 - All skirmishes hinge on your heavy muscle

Never forget that harrassing units and support units are not the units that do the actual fighting in a skirmish. If your harrassers do get to take some opportunistic potshots, that's great for you, but never, ever depend on them being able to do you any good in the actual fighting. The real fight takes place between the muscle units. Always evaluate a potential skirmish first using only your heavy muscle and your opponent's heavy muscle. Ignore all the harrassers and support units completely.

If you don't come out the victor in that scenario, stop right there and look for other targets or bring in some additional forces before you engage in the skirmish. If it looks like your heavy muscle will win out, only then should you consider the additional factors that the harrassers and support units add to the mix.

Maxim 3 - Support units must die first

If your opponent has any support units in range to support his heavy muscle, that is an overwhelming advantage for him. If you do not likewise have your own support units that can counter-balance his, then you should stop even considering the skirmish. Instead, switch your focus to evaluating whether how to get rid of the problematic support unit with as little cost as possible.

In most cases you will need to sacrifice one or more units of your own in order to remove the problematic support unit. It's worth doing this even at a victory point deficit, as long as you can make up the lost victory points by successfully taking down your original targets once their supporting unit has been removed.

Maxim 4 - The first-striker usually wins between forces of equal power

As defined in Law 4 - Relative Power, the only statistically accurate way to predict the outcome of a fight between two fresh units is to look at their relative power. The bottom line is always how many attacks each one needs to kill the other one.

When two unit's relative power is exactly the same, then as a general rule the one who gets the first strike will win, because unless the first striker makes some mistake in timing his attack actions, he should always be able to maintain a 1-tempo lead, meaning he should "win the race." As will be discussed in the next maxim, it is sometimes even possible for the first striker to get a temporary 2-tempo lead if his opponent does not know how to properly time his attacks.

The point of all this is to remember the following basic rules of thumb when trying to apply Maxim 1 to your evaluation of a potential skirmish. I'm going to use extremely simplified skirmish notation to illustrate each rule of thumb. These diagrams do not take into account any variations that occur when one side or the other pushes for an extra attack--we'll cover that in maxims 5, 6, and 7. For now, I'm trying to set a baseline for the way skirmish timing works between units in different fatigue states.

Between two fresh units:

1/|\2 The 1st striker takes an attack, followed by his opponent.1 | 2. Both units rest the following turn 1/|\2 The 1st striker takes a second attack, followed by his opponent.1 | 2. Both units rest again ... This pattern continues

the first striker will win the race if the units are of equal power

it's an even race if the first striker has a relative power that is 1 less than his opponent

the first striker will lose the race if his power is 2 or more less than his opponent.

Between a fresh first striker and a fatigued opponent:

1/| 2. The 1st striker takes an attack, and his opponent rests.1 |\2 The opponent attacks while the 1st striker rests 1/| 2. The 1st striker takes an attack, and his opponent rests.1 |\2 The opponent attacks while the 1st striker rests ... This pattern continues

the first striker will win the race if the units are of equal power

it's an even race if the first striker has a relative power that is 1 less than his opponent

the first striker will lose the race if his power is 2 or more less than his opponent.

Between a fresh first striker and a pushed opponent:

1/| 2: The 1st striker takes an attack, and his opponent can do nothing.1 |\2 The opponent attacks while the 1st striker rests 1/| 2. The 1st striker takes an attack, and his opponent rests.1 |\2 The opponent attacks while the 1st striker rests ... This pattern continues

the first striker will win the race if the units are of equal power

it's an even race if the first striker has a relative power that is 1 less than his opponent

the first striker will lose the race if his power is 2 or more less than his opponent.

Between a fatigued first striker and a fresh opponent:

the first striker will win the race if the units are of equal power

it's an even race if the first striker has a relative power that is 1 less than his opponent

the first striker will lose the race if his power is 2 or more less than his opponent.

Maxim 5 - Push damage is almost always worth it

Maxim 6 - First-strikers should always push for a 2-tempo advantage

Maxim 7 - Never allow the first-striker more than a 1-tempo advantage

Maxim 8 - Never allow "free" ranged attacks on your units

Maxim 9 - Always be prepared for reinforcements

Maxim 10 - Run away from skirmishs you can't win

Overcoming the tempo advantage of defenders

The first and most basic skirmish tactics you must master in the game of Mage Knight are how to overcome the natural tempo advantage that defending forces have over attacking forces. Because most units cannot move into attacking range and attack on the same turn, defending forces generally have a strong advantage over attackers because fresh defenders are usually able to dish out two attacks before the attackers can dish out even one attack.

Since most tournament-worthy armies are built around attackers that can do at least 3 damage per successful attack, this two-tempo advantage is a big deal, because every time you try to pick a fight with some figure or formation just standing there, you risk taking as much as six or more clicks of damage if you can't afford to push immediately for an attack on the turn right after you move into combat range with the defenders.

Being able to deal more attacks than your opponent is known as having a tempo advantage. In skirmishes between evenly-matched forces, the side with the tempo advantage will usually win. Let's take a closer look at the tempo advantages of defenders over attackers:

In a matched skirmish between two fresh units, the defender always has at least a 1-tempo advantage over the attacker, because the defender gets to deal the first attack while still fresh, while the attacker is already fatigued. The real problem is that the defender can grab a temporary 2-tempo advantage if for some reason the attacker cannot afford to push right away for a counter attack on the turn after he moves into combat range with the defender. Novice players who don't understand tempo mechanics will often chose to rest their attackers on the turn after them move into combat range, in which case the defender can capitalize on their mistake and push right away to grab that 2-tempo lead. Either way, if the defender manages to grab a 2-tempo lead it can hurt a lot.

In a matched skirmish between a fresh attacker and a pushed defender, it's now the attacker who always has a 1-tempo advantage. The timing of action counters allows the attacker to make the first attack and subsequently keep that 1-tempo advantage throughout the skirmish.

In a matched skirmish between a fresh attacker and a fatigued defender, the defender will still have a 1-tempo advantage, but they cannot possibly push to gain a temporary 2-tempo advantage.

In a-D range-out skirmishes, the relative tempo advantages work exactly as they do in matched skirmishes.

In an A-d range-out skirmish between two fresh units, the attacker always has at least a 1-tempo advantage, because if the defender does not want to flee and avoid the fight altogether, the defender must waste at least one action just trying to get into base contact with the ranged attacker. Otherwise, he's just a sitting duck. This gives the attacker the opportunity to make the first real attack of the skirmish.

If the melee defender can close the gap to the attacker in one single move, then Since both units are fatigued when the attacks start flying, however, the tempo advantage is not quite as strong for the attacker as it normally is for a fresh defender in matched skirmishes (assuming the melee defender can close the gap to base contact with the

Some novice players will argue that in range-out skirmishes, the ranged unit will often be able to get some "free" ranged attacks in on the melee unit as it's closing to base contact with the ranged unit. This is not actually true, however. As you'll see in the following sections, there are several tactical maneuvers that can be employed to completely negate the ability of a ranged unit to fire on a closing melee unit: corner-flanking, blocking, and flanking.

Attacking with tempoed forces

Attacking with tempoed forces means to attack with figures that have Charge or Bound, or with figures that have been tossed into attacking range via Magic Levitation. This tactic is the most preferable way to initiate a skirmish, because the attackers get the first real attack of the skirmish as if they were fresh units. This allows tempoed attackers to grab a temporary 2-tempo if they attack fatigued defenders, which is a dramatic change from the usual state of affairs.

However, this tactic comes with a subtle kind of high cost--less flexible army construction. Figures with Charge or Bound don't even exist in the current MK set, and are likely to be very rare when they do get introduced into the environment. Likewise, Magic Levitation is a very rare ability. The current set has only 3 figures with ML, two which are uniques and one is a limited unique. To put both of the more "easily" available unique figures in your army would cost 113 points, which doesn't leave much room for attacking forces to toss around.

Attacking with blocking maneuvers

Blocking maneuvers are really just a variation on the rushing tactic. You use a low-cost figure (or multiple figures, if needed) to attack first as a diversion, with your main attacking force positioned behind the blocker in a way that prevents LOF from ranged defenders. When blocking against non-ranged defenders, the position of your main attacking force relative to your blockers is not as important because you don't have to worry about ranged attacks. What is important in both cases, however, is that:

your blockers must be a legitimate threat. If they can be completely ignored by the defenders, then they do you no good. The defenders must feel compelled to attack the blockers.

your blockers must either be very low-cost and expendable (like an Imp), or else tough enough to take some punishment and then get away alive after your main attacking force has engaged the defenders. (Tough flying creatures make excellent blockers, because they can break away easily.) The point here is that if your blockers are killed in the skirmish, you want to make sure they don't give your opponent too many victory points. If a 20-point blocker and a 20-point main force attacker get killed in the process of taking down a 36-point defender, you have actually lost the skirmish in terms of raw victory points. But if only an 8-point blocker and 20-point main attacker die in that same skirmish, then you come out ahead in victory points.

your main attacking force must be strong enough to win the skirmish with the defenders even at a moderate tempo disadvantage. The defenders will still get the first combat action in the skirmish, but they'll have to push to do so, which means taking an additional "free" click of damage. While blocking does totally eliminate the tempo advantage of defenders if they do only 1 click of damage, it only slightly minimizes their tempo advantage if they do 3 or 4 clicks of damage.

your main attacking force must start the maneuver positioned just out of range of the defenders.

your main attacking force must have a faster speed than the defending force.

your main attacking force must start the maneuver with no action counters.

First, let's look at the basic concept of blocking. Regardless of whether the blockers are serving as living shields against ranged defenders or not, the real purpose of the blockers is to force the defenders to use up a tempo by attacking the blockers. As soon as the defenders slap down an action counter for a combat action against the blockers, you move your main attacking force into range.

The net result is that the defenders start the next turn with an action counter. If they attack your main attacking force now that they have a clear shot at the attackers, they will have to push to do it, taking a point of damage. If they do choose to push and attack you immediately, you should push right back, and the skirmish is now in full swing.

Two other basic concepts to keep in mind:

if the blockers push in order to take a combat action against you, you should push too, unless there's a strong reason not to.

is that at various points, the defenders will either be forced not to take any combat actions because they just pushed on the previous turn, or else they'll choose not to take any actions because they want to avoid pushing. When the defenders back off like this, you might be better off taking that opportunity to move your blocker away to safety if it's still alive at that point, rather than pressing the attack further with your main attackers.

and is beneficial mostly when attacking ranged defenders that are grouped together tightly. When blocking, the lead units in the rush are small, very low-cost, expendable figures. The blockers' sole purpose is to absorb the brunt of any ranged attacks from the defenders, while literally blocking LOF to the rest of the attackers charging in behind him, and to survive long enough to make base contact with the defenders.

Attacking with flanking maneuvers

Attack with a flanking maneuver, which again is just a variation on the rushing tactic and is beneficial mostly when attacking ranged units. When flanking, you run a second, ultra-fast unit around and behind the defenders to threaten them from the rear. This forces at least some of the defenders at some point to use up a move action to spin in place or otherwise reposition themselves to cover their rear.

In blocking and flanking maneuvers, the timing of your moves is critical. The idea behind both of these maneuvers is to force the defenders to use up an action token dealing with a diversion. Then, your main attacking force can get into attacking range with a tempo advantage—your attackers will get the first real attack of the encounter, rather than the defenders.

-----------------------------

For example, blizting in smaller units to attack support units from behind. Such as killing that Demi-Magus or Amazon Priestess or Elemental Priest that is backing up a couple heavy artilliery.

Screening moves

Attacking ranged units

Newbies often struggle with the false impression that ranged units are impossible to approach without being at an extreme disadvantage. This can lead to needless periods of boring cat-and-mouse manuvering that is especially problematic in timed tournament play. The key to successfully attacking ranged units is to perform specific distraction maneuvers with harrassers so that your attackers can safely get into combat range.

Using Blockers

Brute-force rushes are usually too inefficient. Sure, you can swarm a ranged unit with a mass of bodies and he will eventually crumble under the weight of the assault, but if you have to get at him from the front, it's usually more efficient to use a single expendable (or very tough) blocker to sneak in the troops that can take him out. Direct frontal approach from just outside range, using an expendable blocker to shield the units you really want to get in from the enemie's line of fire. This includes the special movement tactics needed to use a fast blocker to cover the advance of a non-ranged assault force into b2b contact with the enemy.

Using Flankers

Flying, levitating, or moving a harrassing ranged attacker to the side or rear of a enemy unit/formation, behind the reach of their front arcs, to snipe at them and force them to spend an action token turning to face the harrassing threat. This allows your main assault force to more safely move into attacking range (or b2b contact).

A two-pronged threat, consisting of any combination of ranged or non-ranged assault forces, can effectively manipulate an enemy ranged unit/formation into a severe disadvantage. It's all in the timing of moves.

Using Flame

Attacking a strong ranged formation can sometimes be difficult even with blocking and flanking maneuvers if there is a strong key figure surrounded by a circular formation of other figures that are effectively blocking LOF to the key figure. If you don't have any flankers available, you're in the same situation if the key figure is hiding behind a wall of front-line troops, out of range of your attackers.

If you could just damage the key figure directly, you could reduce its stats or special abilities to the point where the formation is easier to rush with a blocker. In cases where you can't flank the formation to get at the key figure, the Flame/Lightning ability can sometimes be useful as a formation breaker. If the key figure is in base contact with any of the outlying defenders who are within your attackers' combat range, you can damage the key figure by attacking one of his defenders with Flame/Lightning. If your attack is strong enough to score a hit on both the target figure and the key figure, you can whittle the key figure down.

Pushing to manipulate a figure's attributes

These 'push-spawns' are a lot of fun, but I only play them in Graverobber armies. They are ultra-prime with Necromancy bringing them back in the pinnacle of their stattage. One pitfall you need to avoid, thoug, is pushing these guys to get them into combat. Of course you're anxious to get them into a frenzy and peel back that dial to get to the best stats, but be careful! Bear your oppenent's damage in mind. If he does 3 or more per hit, don't go in with your push-spawns at prime stattage. One hit and your tough werebear just might get emasculated. Try to time your push-spawn to be in his prime stattage after he takes his first lick from the 'biggie' he's up against. Then when that werebear smacks back for 4 damage, it will hurt. One last thing to remember is that all of the push-spawns are fairly easy to capture, so think twice before you send them out alone on kamikaze missions...

Endgame tactics

One new thought: Omo brings up a good point in that terrain also plays a huge role in changing the effectiveness of a figure. I was doing some tactical exercises today similar to end-game mating exercises in chess, where the scenario was only one ranged figure left on one side, and several weaker non-ranged units on the other side. Assuming the victory points are equal so far, who is more likely to win the "endgame"? If the non-ranged units all together cost roughly the same as the single ranged unit, and they can eliminate it while still keeping at least one of the non-ranged units alive, then they will win the game on victory points.

Guess what I found out?

Put a ranged figure in a corner and he becomes at least three times stronger. There's no way to slip a figure behind him to manipulate his action counters by forcing him to spin, which is the primary way melee units can take down a ranged unit. You can put at most two units in base contact with him, so you can't easily use swarming tactics either.

This tactical observation wasn't immediately obvious to me because in chess, being forced into a corner is usually the kiss of death. In Mage Knight, it's just the opposite, especially if it's a ranged unit being put in the corner.

So tactical generalization #1: if you're down to one ranged unit left in a game, haul butt for a 90-degree corner, either some piece of L-shaped blocking terrain, or else the corner of the table.

Tactical generalization #2: keeping at least one ranged unit alive until the "end-game" is really, really important. If you end up with no ranged units left, versus your opponent's single ranged unit, it will be almost impossible to kill him if he gets to a corner.

Tactical generalization #3: the best tactic to handle ranged units stuck in corners is not to kill them, but to capture them. Use a single blocker to get two units safely in range for a final rush into base contact. Make sure that they have only one action counter after the rush, so that they can push on the next turn and *both* make capture attempts. If you have additional units, move them in behind the two trying to capture, so that you can do the same thing again if the ranged unit kills the first two trying to capture him.

Capturing and avoiding capture

A viable tactic that many players use for capturing is to use units with Quickness to do the capturing. This way, after capturing you can move the captor and captive each turn in addition to your normal actions. For example, the red Shade is an ideal unit for making captures, because his 9 attack yields a reasonable percentage of successful capture rolls.

When an opponent makes base contact with a critical figure of yours, and you're worried that he's going to try a capture attempt, it often does no good to just run with your character, because he can just catch up with you again in many cases.

A better way to foil a capture attempt is to first run another of your figures over into base contact with the figure that's attempting to capture you. Then declare your move and make your breakaway roll for the figure that you want to help escape capture. This way, your opponent has to make a breakaway roll in order to follow you, improving your chances to get away free.

Deciding when to use Flame/Lightning and Shockwave abilities

Newbies may have trouble distinguishing when it is better to chip away at multiple opponents, versus focusing maximum damage on one opponent at a time.

The fine art of Magic Levitation

Using levitation to slingshot captives back towards your starting area. Using two levitators, placed appropriately, to multiple slingshot your heavies or harrassers practically anywhere on the board, including well behind enemy lines. Reminders that a levitated character can still perform an action, leading to tactics like levitating a Shockwave attacker into a dense group of enemies.

Here is one effective way to move around or move faster then the other guy.

Use a Magus with Magic Levitation to Levitate a tough guy, then use the tough guys move to close into the opponents shooters/support group. The best time to do this is after the opponents wall of Golems has pushed and the Magus/beefy guy of your choice is near the front line. He thinks he is going to close on you while you move 10 inches from the levitation plus whatever your figures movement is. Hopefully the charge into his rear will alter the Golem march before they close on the Magus, allowing the Magus to shoot at there backs before they get out of range.

The fine art of Necromancy

Since figures often come back from the grave with a certain degree of damage, keep a healer next to your Grave Robber or Necromancer to heal revived creatures to the strength you need them at.

----------

Gotta disagree with the negative assesment of the Yellow Skeleton. Frankly, I find that it's the most useful one of the bunch, for several reasons:

1. 10 point cost. Easy to squeeze into any army, and not a big loss unless you get it killed several times during the battle (even this can be no problem at times, see point #3).

2. Mandatory Weapons Mastery. You don't even have to think about whether or not to use WM, because the worst he can do is the same as his default damage.

3. Attack 10. This is the real benefit of the Yellow Skeleton. Since figures have an average defense of 15, this means he only needs a 5 or better on 2D6 to inflict 1D6 worth of damage, which just rocks. Even better, it means that he only needs a 7 or better to _capture_ most opposing figures. That's better than a 50/50 chance. Heck, I've seen Yellow Skeletons march back to their starting areas with Paladin Princes & Troll Chieftains in tow! A gain of 140+ points from a 10 point figure is nothing to sneeze at, even if he died several times while trying to pull it off...

The best way to use a Skeleton is with a good assortment of obstructing terrain so it can take cover while approaching the opposing forces. Better yet, use faster units to pin 'em into place & prevent 'em from firing before charging the Skeleton into the fray.

Once he's in base to base contact with an enemy figure, _push him_ on your next turn. He's not going to last long enough for you to wait a turn. If you've got a clear path out, try to capture the figure he's in contact with (try to keep him only touching one opposing figure), otherwise use his WM and cross your fingers.

If he gets killed, bring him back with a Necromancer or Grave Robber and try again. If using a Necromancer, wait until he's in base to base contact with someone, then bring the Skeleton back in contact with the Necro & his opponent as your first action, and attack with the Skeleton as your second action.

------

Using Terrain

Using hindering terrain

Using blocking terrain

Using elevated terrain

If you have some very irregular-shaped elevated terrain, such as a small hill with deep canyons cut into the sides of the hill (see this picture for an example), you can play cat-and-mouse with ranged attackers who've taken the hilltop. By putting a canyon and part of the hill between you and the firer, the fact that his LOF crosses the play surface in the canyon, and then the small bit of elevated terrain that you're hiding behind, blocks his LOF. This makes a very strong position for a figure with Magic Blasting.

Using abrupt elevated terrain

Using multi-level elevated terrain

I know there are currently no official rules for this, but folks are going to want to play with these terrain types in casual games at least, so we might as well address this terrain type as best as possible. My guess is the official rules will boil down to this: "All multi-level terrain must consist of discrete, obvious levels. With 3D terrain models, or stacked objects like books, these levels should be obvious. When felt or paper terrain is used to represent multi-level elevated terrain, each level should be clearly marked with a number for easier recognition. Any elevation difference between figures of more than one level is considered abrupt elevated terrain. Any elevation difference between figures of only one level is considered elevated terrain."

Using water terrain

This is where we detail how to drown captives.

Using low walls

Positional Tactics

Using formations to increase mobility

Strategy

Strategy is your general game plan for a battle and being able to recognize and manipulate tension and imbalance. Understanding how to apply strategy versus tactics is where the newbs are separated from the veterans.

Tactics verus strategy

You must have a main plan and backup plans

Highly specialized strategies are risky, because if they're disrupted, you've lost. Flexible strategies pay off in the long run. Always ask what you would do if your opponent neutralizes a critical piece of your main strategy.

You must pay attention to your opponent's apparent strategy

You can't play in a vacumn, because sometimes the best thing to do is not to advance your own strategy but instead to hinder your opponent's strategy.

The fine art of positional play

Understanding subtle points like evaluating strategic imbalances ("the position"), gaining the initiative (being able to make threats that your opponent must respond to), deciding when to pursue a tactical objective versus improving your strategic imbalances, and so on. Most of chess theory on positional play can be applied equally well to Mage Knight.

The concept of imbalances

Troop strength

Central control

Regarding whether control of the center is important in MK like it is in chess, Omo and others are of course fully correct that terrain considerations can totally overshadow the need for center control. Or can they? Maybe it just *seems* like terrain considerations overshadow the concept of central control. Let's take a closer look.

I'm dogging on this theory of central control because it isn't a very obvious thing to somebody who's never studied chess, and it *is* applicable as a basic strategic consideration in MK.

Assume a 3'x3' board with *no* terrain. Now stick a troll artillerist square in the middle of it. Right where he's standing, he has a killing zone (direct cover) of about 28 square inches in front of him. That's not a big deal by itself on a board that is 1296 square inches.

However, if you consider the area that the artillerist can directly cover with just one move action, the picture changes significantly. He can move as far as 6 inches in any direction, and and spin as needed to cover an additional 12 inches in any direction from the point where he lands. So in one move from the center, he can cover a circle that spans 36 inches in diameter!! That's the entire play surface, minus a little space in the corners! To be precise, his area of indirect coverage (the space he can cover with one move, then immediately attack with a subsequent push) is 1017 inches, or 78% of the entire play surface!!!

Okay, now put that same artillerist right in the middle of one edge of the board. His direct coverage is still only 28 inches, like before, but his indirect coverage has been cut in half! It's now only about 39% of the board!!

There is no two ways about it. From a purely strategic standpoint, even if you're dealing with terrain that blocks your LOF in various spots, your army simply has more mobility, more indirect coverage, and more *options* when it's located near the center of the board.

So in the absence of extenuating factors, it should always be in the *front* of your mind to think about the center of the board at the start of every game, when you're first placing terrain. You want to place terrain in a way that helps you to *own* the center, if at all possible, which means helping you get the bulk of your forces to the center quickly and maintain enough threats (control) to keep the bulk of your opponent's forces out of the center.

If you can do this, with intelligent terrain placement and good maneuvering, if you can *own* the center, you will have a significant advantage over your opponent, because he is forced to dance around the edges of the center to get at you. He has to cover more territory, which slows him down and reduces his options.

Now, a smart opponent is going to be trying to do the same exact thing, and he may be able to place terrain in a spot that is terrible for you and great for him. That terrain placement may make it very difficult for your forces to *own* the center. You may find it more important at first to keep your opponent from being able to exploit that terrain to his advantage, so you might either fight him first for control of that terrain piece, or you may think such a fight is useless and decide instead to set up shop away from the range of that terrain piece so he can't use it to his advantage against you.

But guess what? If he set that piece there with an eye towards using it to help *him* to own the center, and you stay away from that piece because it's too dangerous and you can't afford to fight him near it---well, he has managed to beat you to ownership of the center. =P And I guarantee he will gain strategic advantage and better mobility and more options because of it.

Bottom line is this: Central control *is* important, and whether you realize it or not, the battle for control of the center begins long before your army even leaves your starting area.

You may *think* that some elevated terrain piece or hindering terrain piece is more important than the center, and your main battles and most of your exchanges may center on that terrain piece. But the whole reason that you're fighting over that terrain in the first place is because of the importance of central control.

If you're still not convinced, try this: think about every battle where your actions were dictated strongly by the placement of certain terrain pieces. You know, where your opponent's stealthed army just set up shop in some hindering terrain and waited for you to come to him, or vice versa. Then ask yourself this question: if that terrain piece had been stuck in a corner or edge, would it have been nearly as important?

When you place a piece of hindering or blocking terrain anywhere in the middle quadrants of the board, you are doing it to give you an advantage in the center or to minimize your opponent's advantage in the center. Whether you consciously realize it or not.

When you place a long, narrow piece of hindering or blocking terrain out closer to one edge of a board, running vertically from your side to your opponent's side, so that you can run flankers up the outside edge of it and get them safely behind your opponent to snipe at his support units, you are using that terrain to help you control the center. Whether you consciously realize it or not.

And remember, we're talking *strategy* here. Your general gameplan at the start of the game, and the thing that guides your movement and placement decisions during the middle of the game when you still both have a lot of forces on the table with a lot of options and complexity. That's when the center is important. Once you've traded off most of your figures and you're down to a foreseeable end-game maneuver, the center usually becomes very unimportant. At that point you're in tactical end-game mode. There's a specific thing you're trying to do (nail a certain remaining unit or formation, or avoid getting nailed), and at that point the weaker force is gonna be running for cover, which will be some advantageous terrain or else a corner of the board.

-----------------------------------

But I still believe that if you disregard the concept of center control, you'll have some blind spots in your strategic evaluation of the game at any point where there are no obvious tactical opportunites to pursue.

In your comments about chess, you left out two things about the center. Yes, technically the center is the middle four squares, but *pressure* on the center can come from any distant corner of the board. Keep in mind that for the modern openings you mentioned where a gambit is made on one side to break open the position far away from the center, these openings were developed to combat openings that had previously proven to be tough to dislodge from the center. In other words, even the side-breaks result from the struggle for control of the center.

In a similar vein, if a break occurs on the king's side of the board, but all your force and control is located on the queen's side of the board, you are gonna be in bad shape, because your pieces may lack the mobility needed to get all the way across the board.

All of this holds true in MK as well. Just a bit more diluted and a bit less obvious.

One other argument that came to mind while working out a description of tactics related to attackers and defenders in MK: practically everyone knows by now that defenders, the pieces just sitting there in a strong position, have a significant advantage over the pieces that try to rally an attack against them.

Reduced to it's simplest terms, I feel confident making the the generalization that for most Mage Knight figures, if a given figure is sitting still with no action counters and nowhere that it needs to go right now, its potential is MUCH stronger than a figure that is actively on the move. In other words, if a figure wants to move from point A to point B to achieve some objective, and it has to pass near or within the radius of your attack range, that puts you in a strong position, because you have the option of initiating an attack without any tempo penalty.

So keeping that in mind, where would you want your figures just standing around, all other things being equal? In the center. Where they have the greatest mobility and freedom to go muck with the opponent's plans. If your opponent has to stay away from the center and take longer routes to get from point A to point B, because your pieces are sitting in strategic spots to control most paths through the center of the board, then you are literally slowing your opponent down. It may take him two more turns to get a small attack force where he wants them to go, if he can't go through the center because your forces "own" it.

Also, if your forces are in the center, they can more quickly respond en masse, if needed, to developing threats in *any* quadrant of the board. If you've got them all concentrated in one corner, on the other hand, it will take a lot more moves to get to the opposite corner if there's something going on there that you need to deal with.

But again, this is all high-level strategic abstraction. Yes, absolutely, some nasty terrain placement might make life very difficult for you, if you try to "own" the center this way. But as I said before, even the very act of choosing and placing such terrain in the first place is really in itself a struggle for the center.

----------------------------------

Wow, the last two comments were really good. I like Zilasram's concept of the "functional" center being moved away from the ideal center.

Omo: I really want you to add some applicable Sun Tzu-isms to my strategy guide when it gets a bit further along.

Regarding the corners, I've been leaning towards describing center control and strategy and corners more or less like this:

1. At the start of the game, when you first start placing terrain, it's with an eye towards doing something about the center of the board. And as you start deploying your troops from your starting area, you're trying to get in position to control or otherwise exploit the "functional" center(s) that crop up after all the terrain has been placed. This phase is equivalent to the opening in chess.

2. In the middle of the game, while both sides still have most of their troops in play, there may be a lot of complexity and options to consider. Much of your play is positional, meaning that when no immediate tactical opportunities are presenting themselves, you attempt to improve your mobility and control of important areas (the functional centers), while at the same time slowly squeezing your opponent into less mobility and less control of the functional centers. And when tactical opportunities do arise, you pursue them only if it will yield more victory points for you than for your opponent. During this phase, material is slowly exchanged (meaning figures on both sides are being eliminated or captured). This phase is equivalent to the middle game in chess.

3. When enough material has been exchanged that the end is in sight, when one side or the other has been weakened so much that the stronger side is now planning tactics for the final set of kills/captures, the functional centers become almost irrelevant. The weaker side will be scrambling for the corners and other defensive strong points, so that he can hold out as long as possible and deny as many final victory points to the winner as possible. This phase is equivalent to the end game in chess. Strategy is out the window, and everything boils down to pure end-game tactics.

What do you guys think? Is this a workable reconciliation of all the debate about the importance of the center versus terrain and other factors?

The other thing I'm wrestling with is how to describe the pheonomenon of players with ultra-small, tightly focused armies just hunkering down in a single highly-defensible spot and waiting for the opponent to come to them. Part of the reason I starting working on a strategy/tactics guide in the first place was to help people understand that they don't have to be afraid of ranged attackers. They don't have to be reluctant to go after a stronger-looking army and take some risks. But the current tourney rules in particular can sometimes encourage games where both players square off their ultra-fattie armies just out of range of each other, and then play cat-and-mouse waiting for the other one to throw the first punch. Or you hightail your entire army for some choice piece of terrain, and then sit there afraid to venture beyond its safe confines.

------------------------------------

But for Shakti, I think we should redefine what the center is. In the chess the exact center is the most important region of the board. For numerous reason, which I don't care to list at this time because I think you know them. I like how you labeled the term "functional centers". I think this is what we should refer to from now on. "Functional centers" would be strategic locations on the board which are vital for mobility and offensive/defensive pressure points. Has it happens to be, there is only one of these points on a chess board. But thanks to terrain and other features of MKR, there can be multiple "functional centers". I also like how you described the beginning, middle, and end game scenerios. Also, I dislike the problems that arise from cat and mouse game. I have ran into this problem a few times, and it makes the game drag, while taking the excitement out of it. More people should be will take take risks. (I must admit, I am driven by shrewd practicality and probability. So, I am partly at fault for this cat and mouse phenomenon.) Just because someone has a Steam Golem aimed at some of your forces, does not necessarily mean that they will get a hit. (THANK YOU DICE ROLLS!!!) But that is the state of things now, and we have to find ways to confront and overcome these cat and mouse game strageties.

-----------------------------------

I'm not sure I agree that in an open field with no terrrain, the center is a trap against an army with ranged units. I was actually leaning to the opinion that on a board with no terrain whatsoever, the center of the board *is* the functional center, by sheer dint of the mobility advantage it gives you.

I would think that only three situations arise that can shift the functional center(s) away from the geometric center:

1. Placement of terrain *within attack range of* the geometric center that could make for adverse conditions on any force occupying the geometric center. (Examples: a long strip of hindering terrain 10 inches to one side of the geo. center, or L-shaped blocking terrain near the center that MB-casters can hide behind.)

2. Placement of tactically advantageous terrain far away from the center. (Example: if you have an all-stealthed army, you might place a couple large pieces of hindering terrain near a corner near your starting area, plant *all* of your troops there, and just wait for your opponent to come try and dig you out.)

3. An army strategy of just burying your forces (mostly ranged) in one or two corners of the board, to protect your rear from flanking maneuvers by the enemy and to reduce the number of opposing figures that can get into base contact with you. (Example: picture a Priest-Artillerist formation that is dug into a corner. There is no possible way to flank and attack the priest from the rear. You've got to batter down his wall of artillerists by sheer brute force, and their front arcs cover every possible approach.)

-----------------------------------------

This works fine for two player games. I don't feel it's always a wise choice in 3 or 4 player games.

Most three player games I've played usually play out like so

1) someone gets double teamed. Not always intentional but rarely have I seen three people all fight equally and simultaneously.

2) the double teamed player gets whooped

3) the remaining player that either avoided most of the confrontation or is less hurt then cleans up shop. This also creates a situation prime for stalling. You can have a situation where one player is now ahead on points but clearly is not in a position to stay ahead if one team played vulture and is going to beat up a wounded team.

Four player games vary a little more. I find they usually end up as two games of two on two. Whovever wins the smaller battles quicker and less painfully will then have the advantage. They will be able to regroup and attack either of the other two teams that are likely duking it out. One of those teams will then likely get crushed between a hammer and anvil.

OK so how does this relate to senter control? In 3+ player battles you don't want to face more than one opponent at a time at all costs. Moving to the center of the board is putting you in a poor position with multiple opponenets. It's the old addage where you don't want to fight a two front war. Rather than trying to control the center, I find vulture tactics work better. Meaning you hover about waiting for others to engage an then flank them where your opponent can't use his entire force to engage you. Getting to the center too early will likely spell doom. The only expection is if you have long range missle troops. You might be able to position them to rain fire down upon those foolish enough to go for the middle of the board too early.

A final comment. If there is a time limit then you'll have to judge the pacing of the game. If it's going slowly then you'll have to turn aggressor to get the points you need. You can't avoid the fight forever. An army that plays aggressive and can get enough points early may be able to then play keep away long enough to hold out for victory.

Terrain control

Mobility

Initiative

And re initiative versus tempo. They are related but *not* exactly the same thing, even in chess. Initiative specifically refers to the ability to *keep* making threats that your opponent is forced to deal with, never letting him make any threats of his own. When you have the initiative, you are somewhat in control and can dictate your opponent's actions to a degree. However, holding on to the initiative is tough, even in chess. You may make one subtle mistake or your opponent may pull a brilliant counter threat out of nowhere, and thereby seize the initiative from you.

The concept of initiative is just as applicable to MK. For instance, the situation could be somewhat static, as in a face off between two forces, with neither willing to commit to launching an attack. Neither side may have the initiative at that point. One side decides to move some flankers behind the enemy group to strike at a support unit in the rear. The enemy is turtling, and doesn't have any spare units of his own to launch a similar threat against your group. In this situation, you are gaining the initiative, because you are forcing your opponent to deal with your threat.

Tempo is not the same thing. Initiative is basically a strategic thing. It's usually an advantage, an imbalance in your favor, to have the initiative, because it limits your opponent's options. Tempo, in chess, means to literally gain "extra" moves in your development, compared to your enemy. It's turn three, and your opponent just put his knight on a certain square, as part of his opening development to gain control of more territory. On your next turn, you develop a bishop to a square that threatens the knight (this is the crossover with initiative--you making a threat he must respond to), and the player is forced to retreat his knight back to some less strategic square.

The net result of an interchange like that is that you got to further along your development, but your opponent had to move the same piece twice. In other words, you gained an extra move compared to your opponent. That, in chess, is called gaining a tempo.

The reason I started using the word "tempo" when talking about MK skirmishes is because it's the closest analogue to describing the relative effects of napoleonic movement on the timing of skirmishes. Because of the mechanics of napoleonic movement, if you move into combat range with an enemy unit, they get to take first swing at you, yeilding an entire turn's advantage. In terms of the actual trading of combat actions, the defender has a full tempo's advantage in most cases.

I think every skirmish, whether it's between two pieces or two formations, *must* be evaluated in terms of who gets the tempo advantages and how much those tempo advantages are. Assuming all dice rolls are equal, the person with the tempo advantages is the most likely to win a skirmish if the forces are evenly matched.

For example, in a simple melee versus melee skirmish between two figures, everyone knows by now that the defender gets to take the first combat action roll, and so is at an advantage. But how many of you conciously realize that it is almost always beneficial for the defender to *push* on his second turn if the attacker chooses to rest (pass) after moving into combat range? Unless there is some critical ability on your combat dial that you stand to lose by pushing, or unless you would hit demoralized by pushing or would be severely weakened, you stand to gain a temporary 2 tempo advantage over your opponent, and if they are inexperienced and don't know what to do in response to your pushing, you might even gain a temporary *3* tempo advantage before they can equalize things back to the normal one tempo advantage.

Two hits is enough seriously cripple a lot of figures, and you can get those two hits in before your opponent ever gets a single shot at you. For the price of one click's pushing damage, that's a pretty good deal.

Evaluating Figures

Which stats and abilities are most important?

The importance of flexibility

The importance of cost-effectiveness

Is Tough always better than Standard or Weak?

Are Uniques or Limited Editions always better?

Composing Armies

How army size affects your choices

Neither scouts nor shades are really viable as attacking figures. The range ability of scouts is therefore pretty much worthless. Against the average figure's defense value of 13, all varieties of scout/shade do pitiful, pitiful relative damage. In a damage race, they'll be dead long before they do more than scratch most other units.

So their only real usefulness is as harrassers. If the yellow scout had quickness, it would be the BEST overall harrasser in the game, because it would be extremely cost-effective at only 7 points. However, the yellow scout doesn't have quickness.

So when you start comparing the blue and red scouts to all varieties of Shade, there's no comparison. The shades have much better average defense (in the 90th percentile). The shades all have at least one click of quickness, and when the quickness drops they still have stealth. And most importantly, shades all have a reasonable chance of pulling off a capture attempt, whereas scouts don't have much chance at all of making successful captures.

The only advantage that scouts have over shades and imps is that you can move a bunch of scouts in formation. In 200 point armies this isn't too much of a real advantage, but in 300-point armies and up it can be very useful to be able to move entire groups of harrassers with just one action. In 300-point armies I'd still probably not resort to scouts though--if you want harrassers with some teeth, Noble Archers are MUCH better. In a 300-point army, I'd try to field at least 3-4 noble archers in addition to the usual complement of imps and shades.

Pound for pound, imps and shades are still the best overall harrassing units. Skeletons are also great if you go the necro route. If you want harrassers that can move in formation, I'd go with Noble Archers first, just because they have some real teeth with their 12-inch range, double attacks, high average speed, and an attack value that stands a chance of scoring a hit. I'd probably use Scouts only in 400-point armies and up, when I had a lot of extra points to spend on harrassers.

-----------------------------------------

"Harrassers" is a general term for low-point-cost figures that you use as cannon fodder to block, stall, intercept, lock-up, and snipe at your opponent's figures.

A good way to think about your army construction is that you MUST have some "big beef" or "muscle" figures that are your main fighting units. These are the figures that can dish out 3 damage or more when they're at full-health. You're just not going to win a game if the best that any of your figures can do is 1 damage on a successful attack.

The problem is that the game mechanics don't make it very easy to get your muscle units into combat range with the figures you want to beat on. Or, if you're the defender and your opponent is trying to swoop down on you with his muscle units, sometimes you're facing the wrong direction, or pushed, or otherwise vulnerable to his attack.

So the answer, for both attackers and defenders, is to use cheap, disposable figures to help out your muscle units.

Attackers can use harrassers to block LOF from a ranged formation while they move into combat range (or base contact) from behind the cover of the blocker. You could care less if they kill your blocker because it's usually some ultra-low-cost figure like a yellow imp. Attackers can also harrass with fairly inexpensive Shades, who have that nice Quickness ability for "free" movement and a reasonable attack value of 9, to flank a target and attack from the rear in a pincer maneuver. Now, the defenders have to worry about a potential capture attempt from the shade sneaking in behind them, as well as worry about your muscle units threatening to move in and dish out some whoop-*** from the front.

Defenders can use harrassers to go intercept some incoming attackers (or even incoming harrassers) and tie them up temporarily by getting into base contact with them.

These basic examples should give you an idea of what harrassers are, and the value they provide for their low-point cost. In my opinion, EVERY army should have at least 3-5 harrassers or more. Five 5-point imps only uses up 25 points, leaving you with plenty left over for your muscle units and support units.

Check out my Strategy Guide for more ideas (beware, it's still under construction, so expect some mistakes, holes, and incomplete sections.)

How board size and terrain affects your choices

How action mechanics affect your choices

You need two "attack" units per 100 points of the army.

The reason is simple: when the chips come down, you want to be able to use all of your attack units as often as possible without pushing, and that's 1 per action every other turn.

I strongly recommend the units have a range of at least 8 and a damage of at least 3, but that's a personal opinion, and not inherent in the game.

------------------------------

For every 100 points you have in an army, you get 1 action per turn, right? So, if a figure costs 100 points exactly, his being there generates 1 action per turn, still with me? But how many actions can any 1 given figure use? Well, without pushing, any given figure, be it Vladd or imp, can only take 1 action every other turn, or half of the turns. That means any figure can only use 0.5 actions per turn. Formations generally count as one figure using this type of logic, because it only takes one action to move an entire formation. Given though, that once that formation reaches battle the members are likely firing separately or a healer is in there healing, costing more actions, and that makes this whole designing an efficient army business really tricky. This long run on sentence should just be a base on the idea. I say then, in order to make your army use all of it's actions without pushing, passing, or leaving guys behind, the average cost of movement groups in your army should be about 50 points. I do recommend using formations more expensive than that, but how would it work out then? I have noticed on this site that most of you do not know the value of imps. They are the crappy little cheap guys that can't hurt anything, right? NO, they have definite tactical uses, extremely effective ones, and since they are so cheap, they can eat up your actions that the expensive figs or units left over.

How factions and formation rules affect your choices

Also, 100 point armies should always be 1-2 formations, and 200 point armies should be 2-4 formations. However, in a 200 point army all of four of your attack units must be able to move in a total of two formations, or your attackers will get outflanked. Two formations with two attackers each or one formation with four attackers is most popular, but there's no reason you can't go 3 and 1, particularly if the three is range-striking and the one isn't, or vice versa (such as Amazon Queen with three Amazon Blademistresses).

Define your strategy first

Choose figures that support your strategy while retaining flexibility

In addition, you need support units, depending upon what your attack units are. Demi-mages, Grave Robbers, Shamans (Shamen?), and Mending Priestesses are all popular. You may also want to consider Shades or Imps for blocking, more attackers to make formations with or die trying, or really cheap rangestrikers to give your big attack rangestriker +2 to hit. Choose your attackers first, then figure out what you have to support them.

Picking the attackers is easy- the real questions is which support guys you take. Often a tiny change in them can make a huge difference in the game.

Tools to help you develop your army

Print stats for each of your army's figures

Terrain Placement

Bringing terrain that benefits your army and your strategy

Anticipate terrain placement your opponent could make to hinder you

It should be pointed out that some players will bring two pieces of hindering terrain that fit within the rules, and try to lay them down next to each other (though 2" apart, according to the rules). This way they can get some of the same effect as having a single large piece of terrain. Smart opponents usually see this and prevent it by laying other pieces near the first, or choosing their opponent's own terrain and putting it somewhere less useful.

Myself, I enjoy watching an opponent put a piece of hindering terrain down, and then seeing their reaction as I put a wall between it and the rest of the playing area.

Evaluating which terrain in the pool helps you and hinders your enemy

Place terrain to control the center

This one goes hand in hand with the positional aspect of strategy. For example, if your opponent has brought a piece of terrain that is key to his strategic command of the battlefield if it's placed anywhere near the center, such as something with multiple abrupt elevated platforms to enhance his army of flying ranged attackers, it may be prudent to attempt placing it yourself as close as possible to an edge.

Credits

These are the players and warlords who have contributed to the ideas and examples in this guide. The names highlighted in bold have been major contributers, either in the sheer number of ideas they have contributed, or else in the depth and broad impact of ideas they have contributed.

DrakeTheLesser - die roll probabilities

failure - army composition

Janx (Ken Forslund) - significant improvements to the concept and presentation of skirmish notation. I'd essentially consider him a co-author of the finished version I use throughout this guide. Also major contributions to the various skirmish tactics. He has done a lot of work in parallel with me, and has come up with some good ideas and tactical maxims.

jspektr - terrain placement, originator of the "functional center" concept

JTFC - army composition

Omo - general devil's advocate, flanking/melee tactics, how to attack ranged units, thoughts on the center

Pat664422 - advantages of ranged figures versus non-ranged figures

Ramongoroth - thoughts on the center, die roll probabilities

Sarim Rune - capturing tactics

Uziekiele - pushing and necromancy tactics with push-spawn

Zilasram - thoughts on functional centers

Warlord Convict - using captives to rush a ranged defender

Warlord Kitsune - advocate of flexible army composition

Warlord Steenbock - necromancy tactics with skeletons and zombies

Warlord Valkarth - anti-ranged tactics

Warlord Wiz2020 - levitation tactics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorized Usage: You may print hard copies of this particular page for your personal use, and you may distribute copies of this document to other people so long as no profit is made from such distribution and this copyright statement and the Credits section are included in the hard copy versions.

You may not borrow original ideas, unique terminology, or diagramming conventions from this document for inclusion in commercial products sold for a profit without the express written consent of the author.

Players and warlords may freely use these ideas, unique terminology, and diagramming conventions in free public forums and in all printed materials or verbal discussion associated with free presentations, demos, clinics, and tournaments. However, if players and warlords directly quote any content from this document in the above mentioned contexts, they must give credit for such quotations as being from "Warlord Shakti's Strategy Guide."

Trademarks: The Mage Knight brand name and related marks are tradenames, service marks, trademarks, or registered trademarks of WizKids, LLC. All other brand names and product names used in this site are trade names, service marks, trademarks, or registered trademarks of their respective owners. THIS WEB SITE IS NOT PRODUCED OR ENDORSED BY WIZKIDS LLC.