Let's chat: Sepulchral Guard

[Goblin-King]

Your elite skeletons are really strong. Especially Champion with cleave has a good chance of wounding an orc.
Start by killing their leader or the orc with the big axe. Hakka and Basha are really harmless if you simply ignore them. They can't even one-shot petitioners.
Get rid of the orc elites and you will be having a good time.

[Bowlzee]

I should note, that I'm only playing other inexperienced guys... I'm definitely not saying I'm super awesome, just that I don't see Petitioners as being Glory farms.

I rarely attack models if I'm honest. I always play my objectives and ignore the other player. I leave my harder hiting stuff up front so I can res back to Inspired mode, Esepcially the Prince, who seems useless as normal. Petitioners I use t oblock charges, and keep one at back to sit on an objective with the Warden. 

In my last game against Orruks, I didn't attack any of them, Only the Warden attacks their Leader twice, after he had charged in... So i knew I could remove before ed of turn and not have him inspired.

What I have found, is that most models have a hard time hitting and wounding without upgrades etc. So I tend to ignore them unless they are interfering with my own plans.

I have a small beginner tournament on Sunday, we shall see if my style of play works or not  

[Goblin-King]

The thing is... the non-petitioners are really great units. Good damage and medium durability.
There are only 3 petitioners to "farm" - and if you ever resurrect a petitioner you are either playing wrong or in a super specific end-game situation. But standard gameplay petitioners stay dead.

So it feels like the enemy is either engaging in mutual dangerous combat with the undead elites - or they are wasting their activations fragging petitioners leaving them open to get ganked by champion, harvester and warden.

[Sleboda]

6 hours ago, Goblin-King said:

. Especially Champion with cleave has a good chance of wounding an orc.

Wounding an orc only makes him stronger. You need to send in two guys to even have a chance to kill one orc,  and neither one better fail to wound him. 

[Goblin-King]

Sure, but that's the name of the game. If an orc happens to charge in, he can quickly find himself in big trouble.
If I have to spend 2 activations to kill Bonecutta or Gurzag I consider them well spent. Especially if you can pull it off early.
But yeah, you better finish what you started

[Requizen]

31 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Wounding an orc only makes him stronger. You need to send in two guys to even have a chance to kill one orc,  and neither one better fail to wound him. 

Yeah, it can be scary to fight an Orruk, but there are ways to make it less so. Attacking one after a Charge is relatively safe, as is a 1-2 combo with Ceaseless Attacks or Time Trap (if you run them, more tech cards than anything). If they get themselves in a clumped position, you can sacrifice the Harvester to hit multiple and then follow up with the Champion to finish off whatever he hurts. 

Additionally, if it's only Moved, hurting it allows you to push and be free of retort until the next turn (mostly), so an Inspired Orruk isn't a big deal if he can't swing. 

Great Strength is a nice upgrade since it pushes the Champion to 3 damage or the Warden to 4 once Inspired/Upgraded with the Cleave attack. If the Warden gets Great Strength + Lethal Lunge it's pretty bad news for Orruks (or Stormcast).

[Sleboda]

I certainly get that those ideas are all valid,  but to me,  when you avoid your own strengths (holds, etc.) and play into your foe's (combat), you are playing a disadvantaged plan before you roll a single die or draw a single (well. 6th)  power card.

Trying to beat an enemy at what he does best while not doing what you do best,  in other words,  feels like folly.

 

Btw, I almost never use the Harvester to attack more than one guy. Same for other models with sweep attacks. It gives those models more die facings that block attacks,  meaning it's an even riskier attack than going after one enemy at a time. 

I am highly risk-averse. 

[Requizen]

35 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I certainly get that those ideas are all valid,  but to me,  when you avoid your own strengths (holds, etc.) and play into your foe's (combat), you are playing a disadvantaged plan before you roll a single die or draw a single (well. 6th)  power card.

You seem to contradict yourself. You're bemoaning that combat is pointless, but when given tips on how to properly combat, you say that it's not even worth considering. My suggestion wasn't to focus on combat alone and ignore Objectives - it should be noted that all of the cards I suggested I have used in my Objective based decks. You don't need to build entirely around combat to be good at it, a couple tech cards coupled with correct play are worthy enough.

Skeletons are powerful because of their flexibility. Yes, your Objective deck and game plan should be around getting onto the right objectives and doing board control shenanigans, but you can't ignore combat entirely. Orruks, Khorne, and Stormcast will get into your lines and start fighting. If you just let them, of course you're going to lose. You can't ignore the fact that the Champion and Warden can hit super hard, that the Prince is pretty reliable and can push hard, and that the Harvester can bop a couple things at once. If you tech it in, Shadeglass Sword or Daemonic Weapon can even turn a Petitioner into a surprise kill tool. 

I would posit that the Guard have the largest toolbox of all the Warbands at the moment. To ignore it is just gimping yourself. 

Besides, once you move two Petitioners onto Objectives that aren't going to move, and the combat zone has been established (generally around a central objective or the middle line you are trying to cross to prevent Denial/Contained), your plan needs to shift. Pushing opponents off objectives, killing the fighters that can instagib your named characters, etc - these are all just as important as moving, especially when you can no longer make moves that provide more Glory.

[Sleboda]

To be clear, I'm not saying combat is pointless. My SG decks have several of the upgrades you mention, and yes, with the right draw, the right boards, and some luck, you can kill a model here and there. 

I'm saying that each warband has strengths and weaknesses, and playing in a way the minimizes your strengths and tries to succeed in your weaknesses is not a good approach, imo.

Reavers - speed

Stormcast - durability

Orruks - combat

Undead - objective holds

All warbands can attempt any style of play,  but why "give up" a baked-in strength just to try to build up a thing they are not good at?

When the enemy gets close to SG, sure, fight if you have to. Otherwise hold, hold, hold. The only problem is that there are many ways to deny holding that don't "cost" combat or speed strategies anything to do. On the flipside, to maximize Hold effectivess, you have to disproportionately weight your deck with cards that increase the chances of holding. 

I won ... a lot... with SG right up until my opponents realized they could play keep away with the objectives and know that at most I would be getting 5 or 6 glory.

The games became mathematical and repetitive.

Now I'm using Reavers and it's much more flexible than SG ever were.  I can play any style because speed supports claiming objectives,  picking off isolated enemies, fulfilling/denying zone control objective cards, and really any other plan you have. 

The SG have two big advantages over others - numbers and reanimation. A savvy opponent will use cards to mess up your Holds and attack only in the latter stages of round 3 so that your reanimation is largely meaningless.

[Requizen]

For clarification, what cards can "mess up" holds in ways you can't respond to? From what I figure, they can move you with Distraction(/Peal of Thunder), move Shards with Shifting Shards, and maybe steal one with Shardcaller if they know which one you're trying to claim. Maybe the one that destroys and Objective, but that's once per game and requires them to knock you off/get onto it. 

That may mess you up every now and then, but pretty much all of that is counterable - having your own Shardcaller or Shifting Shards, countering Distraction with Sidestep, fighting for control of objectives to stop destruction. Proper positioning can make it so if one fighter gets knocked off, another can get on, and/or positioning so that you will have support on defense.

My question is, how is this downside any different for Khorne? Your opponent can still shift you off of objectives, still destroy them. I would say the Orruk matchup is even harder for Khorne than it is for Sepulchral Guard. 

[Goblin-King]

The way I see it SG's specialities are their numbers, resurrection and double move.
But that doesn't mean they are bad in combat. I generally find that Lunge, Strength and Cleave are all I need as far as upgrades go to have a force to be feared.

Attacking invaders is not giving up your game plan. The petitioners are in place on their objectives right? Let the bodyguards do their job. It's all according to plan in my opinion.

And of course cards and actions can mess your plan up. Like when my pal thinks he is gonna score Denial and Contained - but I teleport a skeleton to an empty starting hex and it cheekily runs across the border. Being messed up applies to all factions. It's the whole purpose of the game.

But of course it also depends on the local meta. If your opponents actually packs shardcaller and desecrate etc. in their orc decks... I mean... that's a bit surprising I guess...

[Grontik]

" Like when my pal thinks he is gonna score Denial and Contained - but I teleport a skeleton to an empty starting hex and it cheekily runs across the border. " In my opinion this is just as important as holding objectives for the Guard. I tried the Objective oriented deck and could not win a game. So I added some speed, trickery and a sprinkle of enemy zone objectives and I finally won a game against the Orruks. One of the main reasons I did this was because I consistently won the initial roll off and always ended up having just the two objectives on my side to work with. With a few ploys the Orruk player can ruin your game early on and then his guys are in your half wrecking the joint. The other reason I changed from the Objective oriented deck was when I played against Stormcast it was a slog to disrupt their plans if they stick in their backfield. One of the big things I am learning about this game is that you have to maximize your activations so I am tweaking my deck towards those cards that offer a benefit that would normally cost an activation (ex. Swift Evasion, The Necromancer Commands, ..etc) and removing any cards that rely on luck. It also pertains to using the Harvester more heavily as his attack allows for what is essentially multiple activations (if placed properly). I almost gave up on the Guard but now that I made those changes I seem to have something to play every activation and enjoying their style. Add to that the recent FAQ where all counters are removed from them when they come back and I am hoping they can be a real contender.

[themiro]

On 1/13/2018 at 3:46 AM, Requizen said:

For clarification, what cards can "mess up" holds in ways you can't respond to? From what I figure, they can move you with Distraction(/Peal of Thunder), move Shards with Shifting Shards, and maybe steal one with Shardcaller if they know which one you're trying to claim. Maybe the one that destroys and Objective, but that's once per game and requires them to knock you off/get onto it. 

That may mess you up every now and then, but pretty much all of that is counterable - having your own Shardcaller or Shifting Shards, countering Distraction with Sidestep, fighting for control of objectives to stop destruction. Proper positioning can make it so if one fighter gets knocked off, another can get on, and/or positioning so that you will have support on defense.

My question is, how is this downside any different for Khorne? Your opponent can still shift you off of objectives, still destroy them. I would say the Orruk matchup is even harder for Khorne than it is for Sepulchral Guard. 

I played dozens of game with Khorne and Guard, and I ended up thinking that Khorne can play a shardcaller-objective grab avoidance deck, whereas Guard performs much better by playing aggressive "dirty surprise tricks" melee.

I think objectives like Tactical Supremacy and Supremacy are relatively easier to score with movement 4-5 than movement 2-3. Not to mention stuff like plant a standard that would require the Warden to get exposed in enemy territory.

So in an ideal case where you have 3 objectives in your territory, Khorne and Sepulchral are same-ish (Guard maybe has an edge by requiring less activations to occupy objectives thanks to the double moves in the early game and has more bodies to park on them waiting to fish for the right objective cards in round 2 such as Supremacy or Determined Defender). But in a scenario where you have 2 objectives, and the opponent stuffs them in the back (Orruks or turtle SC) it's a tough match for Khorne, but doable, and an utterly uphill slog for Guard. I'd rather take a warband-deck combination that has a modest chance of winning all the possible matchups rather than one that can easily win only in case of a favorable board placement roll off and has no path to victory in the other case.

Just one note also, IIRC Shifting Shards can only be used on unoccupied shards, e.g. cannot be used to move an objective that has a fighter sitting on it right?

[c2h5oc2h5]

10 hours ago, Grontik said:

Add to that the recent FAQ where all counters are removed from them when they come back and I am hoping they can be a real contender.

Please note however that latest FAQ update changed wording (made it more generic for a reason unknown ATM), but didn't change anything in the way Guard plays if analyze update carefully. Move/charge/guard tokens remain sticked to a model. Only tokens on a card are cleared, which currently means just wounds.

 

That was pretty unfortunate FAQ update, as it do is quite confusing...

[themiro]

31 minutes ago, c2h5oc2h5 said:

Please note however that latest FAQ update changed wording (made it more generic for a reason unknown ATM), but didn't change anything in the way Guard plays if analyze update carefully. Move/charge/guard tokens remain sticked to a model. Only tokens on a card are cleared, which currently means just wounds.

 

That was pretty unfortunate FAQ update, as it do is quite confusing...

Agree, that specific FAQ was a word salad... and still there is the other piece of older FAQ that specifically says that a model returned is still considered to be charged if charged earlier in the round.

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, themiro said:

I'd rather take a warband-deck combination that has a modest chance of winning all the possible matchups rather than one that can easily win only in case of a favorable board placement roll off and has no path to victory in the other case

QFT. Having much more flexible success with Reavers than I did with Guard. I never feel like the game is lost on the roll to place boards like I often did with Guard.

Still no clue how to add quotes to a post,  so here's another

" I consistently won the initial roll off and always ended up having just the two objectives on my side to work with. With a few ploys the Orruk player can ruin your game early on and then his guys are in your half wrecking the joint. "

Yep. Oh goodness yep.

[Sleboda]

18 hours ago, Grontik said:

Add to that the recent FAQ where all counters are removed from them when they come back and I am hoping they can be a real contender.

 Curious. How is this impacting your games? Nothing seems to have changed. 

[Requizen]

To each their own. I have found amazing consistency with my Guard especially against Orruks, focusing on mobility and less on fighting. I'm taking them to Vegas and hope to do well, this weekend we have a test tournament so maybe I'll become disillusioned then haha.

[Clawlessdragon]

good luck in Vegas - let us know how you get on (and your killer deck)... I've only played a few times and each time lost big time... so it will be interesting to see other peoples take on a good deck.

BTW - have you guys seen the sample decks in GW new card library / deck building resource just launched today... there are 3 different decks... I have not had time to digest them yet, but I wonder if they are similar to other peoples or have they provided something new?

 

[Grontik]

5 hours ago, Sleboda said:

 Curious. How is this impacting your games? Nothing seems to have changed. 

Doh!! Now that I know it doesn't remove the tokens from the model then I guess nothing has changed. That is confusing and luckily I haven't played any games trying to use that.

[Sleboda]

7 hours ago, Requizen said:

To each their own. I have found amazing consistency with my Guard especially against Orruks, focusing on mobility and less on fighting. I'm taking them to Vegas and hope to do well, this weekend we have a test tournament so maybe I'll become disillusioned then haha.

How similar, if at all,  is your deck to the one posted on the GW site recently? My gf and I are going to try using or against her Orruks to see if it matters. 

[Carnelian]

Played an objective heavy deck today against a kill heavy bloodhound deck and won 2 lost 2.

I won when I used my petitioners to lurk on objectives at the back of the board and to stay out of the way. 

I lost when I used my petitioners as sacrificial front lines. 

Lessons learned: sepulchral guard can really dish out a decent amount of fire power.

[Sleboda]

I played 3 over the weekend using the suggested anti-orruk deck from the gw site (only swapping out robbery for shardfall). 

Won first one 10-10 on tiebreaker, lost second 8-0, win last one 11-10.

It was nice to win,  but yikes! If the "best" vs Orruks runs that tight,  it's not a good sign.

Our conclusion at the end was that what makes Orruks so cool is that their deck composition is not all that important.  Because they are such solid all-rounders, you can make due with whatever bonuses and tricks you draw. Other warbands need a plan and must get good hands at the right time. Orruks just roll with what comes up.  No bad hands.

[Requizen]

Guard did very well at LVO Grand Clash this weekend! From what I saw most Guard decks went positive against Orruks too, though Orruks were the most represented by far. 

[CodFather]

Ya, out of the 8 rounds I played at the lvo, 5 of them were against orks