Concerns about objective play

[Urbanus]

From the onset it was clear that some warband were never able to rely on the "Hold objective X" cards due to lack of models. But more and more players on here and other fora seem to shy away from those objectives even though they play model heavy warbands such as Bloodbound and even the Guard.

This concerns me because any aspect of a game that falls into disuse is a sign of poor game design. It would be a shame to see those objective tokens go completely unused and all warbands playing to kill.

So what are your impressions? Is The objective grabbing gameplay alive and well or is the game decending into a murderfest?

[Killax]

Hold Objectives are the easiest to guarantee at the end of phase 1. In fact I'd say here it's completely alive but I will also say that due to how well the Sepulchral Guard play this game there is much less reason to thinker with Bloodreavers at the moment... Both Orks and Stormcast don't really need either and the alternatives arn't directly better either. But this is based on my 20+ games versus Stormcast with the mayority lost with Bloodreavers, so it also boils down to playstyle somewhat.

The cool thing about the cards is that it basically is a players preforance. You can play without them and it means you have to be the aggressor which in turn means you let luck decide the outcome more. 

I believe the balance between the two strategies to be roughly equal. It is however easier to play without them because then you can completely focus on offensive strategies. Basically there is no reason to play defensively at that point. It makes the decisions that much easier.

Lastly, as far as Ive heard (not seen the replay) the Sepulchral Guard player won by activating the Warden after he charged, which is technically not possible. So while we have a first winner, I cannot confirm he won by making legal moves...

[Changer]

4 minutes ago, Killax said:

Lastly, as far as Ive heard (not seen the replay) the Sepulchral Guard player won by activating the Warden after he charged, which is technically not possible. So while we have a first winner, I cannot confirm he won by making legal moves...

Yeah this is true.  The game designer even went over to the table to tell them he'd done an illegal move but both players were happy to carry on.

[Urbanus]

Good point on the offensive vs defensive gameplay Killax. I hadnt thought about that. I really hope the balance is there to keep objective play viable

[Killax]

12 minutes ago, Changer said:

Yeah this is true.  The game designer even went over to the table to tell them he'd done an illegal move but both players were happy to carry on.

Yeah usually it's not that important. But I do think it's worth to note anyway. The Bloodreaver player who became second seemed to have the Hold Objective cards and did very well with them anyway.

In any case at this moment there is no expertise on the game yet which confirms one stratgey is better as the other. With my own experience I can only say I would go for either all 5 Hold Objectives or none at all.

The idea behind this is simple:
- 5 out of your 12 cards are Hold Objective cards, this means you have 42% of any Objective card being a Hold Objective X.
- For ease of understanding Supremacy is a Objective card related to and most Warbands have Objective cards who also interact directly with them. Better put 50% of your deck revolves around them.
- You know both players will at least have 2 Objectives who can be anywhere in their zone, meaning you might have up to two "dead" Hold Objective cards based on regular placement but usually will have 3 Hold Objectives who are possibly capable to gain.
- If you discard your initial hand and those have one or two Hold Objective cards that are in your opponents zone you know that the rest of your Objective cards are all possible to archieve/obtain without spending any Activation in discarding and drawing a new Objective. The order in which this happens depends on your other Objectives and hand.

All that information simply leads to them being very possible to obtain without any dice roll involved and that's why I like them personally. I do not see any reason for Sepulchral Guard to not play them, this is simply based on how Petitioners are very unlikely to do much and moving 2 onto 2 for the rest of the game (guaranteed) means you can focus on the rest of your 5 relevant Sepulchral Guard for just 1 Activation on the Warden  

For Bloodreavers the Hold Objectives are actually less pressing as the sole advantage they have in the game is Movement and that advantage dissapears if your opponent moves in to combat on your side.

To date I also feel that the game itself might be more interesting if there was a rule that the last Objective in a 1vs1 must be placed in the Neutral zone if possible. The moment you skip on them altogether the tactical choices become more narrowed down but this isn't punished in any way, shape or form. However there are some Objectives who are simply extremely hard to obtain anyway. Most of which are in the Bloodreaver Objective set.
- Let the Blood Flow  is very hard to score. They need to be succesful attacks afterall. 
- Blood for the Blood God is very hard to score phase 1. Unless you play Sepulchral Guard you can set up your Warband so that 3 Charges arn't possible phase 1.
- There is Only Slaughter is very hard to score. Usually you end up on one Objective, even randomly.
- Coward! is very hard to score. There is little to no reason to run away from any Bloodreavers.
So for Bloodreavers specifically I don't see a lot of good alternatives. 

For Sepulchral Guard scorig Hold Objectives is easy. For Stormcast playing defensively but with Objectives is very well rewarded thanks to Eternals, Consecrated Area, Immovable Object, Seize Ground or Sigmar's Bulwark. Orruks on the other hand can easily move to any Objectives thanks to Kunning but Brutal and Brutal but Kunning. 

[Gaz Taylor]

I used Sepulchral Guard at the Grand Clash last week and I included all of the Objective 1 to 5 cards and I also think I had the one where you score three Glory Points for holding three objectives. I still went round murdering things whilst claiming objectives but I'm going to tweak my deck to try and ignore the Objective game as I think it will suit my playstyle. I have no idea if it will work but we will have to wait and see and I think this is what a lot of players are doing. They are trying things out and seeing what works for them. 

To win the games, you need to play to your objective cards. Yes you can kill everything which can net you points, but a clever opponent can still win with no models if they got all their cards. And there are plenty of Objective cards where you can score points with no models  

[Killax]

Yeah with the cards available so far generally speaking the defensive plays are rewarded "better". The way Upgrades allow you to snowball games also means that there is a lot of worth in obtaining at least some glory phase 1.

E.g. a fighter with Great Strenght is a whole different beast as one without. This applies to pretty much all Warbands. 

It's very possible that we'll see more cards who will reward kills later or sooner (Orruks have them) and then aggressive plays can be equally rewarded. The thing remains however that 2 out of the 4 available Warbands have models who are not killable with a one-hit in phase 1 (one fighter vs one fighter) and in Sepulchral Guard there are also 4 fighters with 3+ Wounds which in turn mean it's also very difficult to thake them out in one hit.

Bloodreavers on the other hand are what I'd call the goombas. They only have one guy who deals 3 damage from the getgo without Upgrades and there are no Khorne Power cards who adress that. Insensate is cool but despite it being the best card in the deck basically is an irrelevant effect to Orruks and Undead because they have fighters who maximum deal 1 damage anyway...

[Changer]

I’ve not played a game with the guard yet, but I’m contemplating swapping out the hold 1-5 objective cards whilst leaving game in supremacy and possibly the hold 1&2 and hold 3&4. 

I’m just not sure if it’d be a waste, but I’m hoping to play them quite aggressively.

[Attackmack]

I wish i could play games often enough to participate in these discussions 

[Killax]

Just give it a go. There are some combinations I like from the Holds but I do think, especially now Orruks and Undead are out that more and more options have become available and this really affects the options. On the Facebook page and based on my own experiences I feel that if you do thake the board with the blocked hexes the Objective game you have is very solid. The moment you get lucky enough to place 3 Objectives in your territory I do feel that the Hold Objective cards and Supremacy are such an extremely solid combination that the defensive Objectives become much more effective for your group. Other than those card combinations I also feel that Stormcast in particular can play the sit and wait game very well and so do the Undead. So far I feel the Orruks are the best aggressors.

Boards:
In general as above I think every Warband has something to say about a board. The set up spots in itself arn't too relevant, as set up choices are outside of our control. So are possible board chokes. What is important to me though is that when you do play the Hold Objective cards the blocked boards usually work out better. The prime reason is that if your opponent does not have Hold Objective cards he is forced to engage himself and basically has to struggle with the choke. This is more difficult to archieve against Bloodreavers but otherwise several boards blocking 2 to 3 spaces is enough. To ensure it is enough I'd also highly recommend playing Sharfall and Sidestep. 

Objectives:
In general you can go two paths. I like the Hold Objective path but the offensive path is very cool aswell. I do however still feel that Sepulchral Guard are actually a superior choice for defensive games and Orruks for offensive games. Reason being that Orruks can actually move out and move back again, this is essential and not found in Bloodreavers or Stormcast. What's interesting for me to consider is the potential combinations. The moment you include Hold 1 to 5 you might aswell include Supremacy and Plant a Standard. 

The last two sets are so new however that other than that I can't comment on new designs just yet. I do think there is a lot of new Objectives that are interesting but again not as interesting as Hold 1-5 typically. Here's the new vanilla rundown:
- Blooded, 3 fighters need 1 wound, which to me seems to difficult too pull of.
- Brawl, 3 fighters need adjecent to enemy fighters, good for Bloodreavers, Orruks and possibly Sepulchral Guard for defensive reasons. 
- Contained, too difficult for me, all need to be in their territory, which is very different from keeping them out of yours because it isn't difficult for an opponent to go to neutral.
- Devide and Conquest is awesome for Bloodreavers and Sepulchral Guard.
- Enless Slaughter to me is too difficult.
- Geared for War is not bad but there are better alternatives.
- Ploymaster is good but there seem to be better alternatives.
- Scent of Victory again seems too difficult. 
- Superior Tactician is good but there seem to be better alternatives.
- Twilight Conquerer is neat but also not my prevered card.
- Victorious Dual seems very cool for Orruks but for the others I am uncertain on how hard you want to go here. For the Orruks the only reason to go through with this plan is the possible 6 Health and immunity to initial death.
- Bloodless is interesting for defensive decks.
- Crushing Force is just unrealistic in my opinion. It is not bad but going for one-hit-kills gets rewarded better.
- Determined Defender is an excellent two turn hold and this is amazing for Bloodreavers and Sepulchral Guard. As they have "too many" models anyway.
- Plant a Standard is nice for Orruks and Bloodreavers.
- Reaper is too difficult.
- Stymied is certainly a nice filler.
- Swift Advance is great for anyone willing to go aggro.
- Tactical 1-2 and 3-4 just seem very hard to evaluate at this point. I don't think they will see play but I am willing to give it a try. It's more a lucky reward in my eyes. 
- The Harvest Begins is just unrealistic.

So based on my opinion, you can go aggro but even if you do Hold Objectives are not a bad choice. Again what they allow for is easy scorings both offensively and defensively. Orruks for example play very well with them but so do Sepulchral Guard as your guaranteed to at least see 2 successes with them.   

[ledha]

I wish glory point used for upgrade card could not count for the total of glory at the end of the game

It would make the upgrade a nice decision balance. Do i want to profit of my early advantage, at the risk of loosing my advance in glory points ?

I didn't played enough game, but i'm afraid it's too easy to snowball with early glory points

[Killax]

What makes it cool now is that aggressive strategies allow for more Glory to obtained. I still say the use of either all or none is a viable choice for most Warbands.

No worry for snowballing though, first hand does require Ploys to set up Objective holds succesfully. In addition most Upgrades are good but there is a twist on them, sometimes because they are exclusive and other times because they add a non-winning factor such as wound or defence.

Lastly all Objective cards require some form of luck. Such as having opponents or Objectives in reach at all. 

The mix of luck and tactical play are good. In Conquest LCG there was minimal luck involved, just smart play. More 90/10 tactics/luck.

[ReynakZhen]

For my stormcast warband, I do have a few hold objective cards in my deck, but, those are strictly ones located in enemy territory as i'm going offensive build and will be in enemy territory all game anyways.

[Mikester1487]

For my ironskullz I keep 3 objectives in the deck to score that early point.  I've tried to be aggressive with them and it works out sometimes, but letting phase one be your power up stage has become much more useful in my mind.

[Carnelian]

50 minutes ago, ReynakZhen said:

For my stormcast warband, I do have a few hold objective cards in my deck, but, those are strictly ones located in enemy territory as i'm going offensive build and will be in enemy territory all game anyways.

But surely you don't know what objectives will be in enemy territory when you build your deck?

[ReynakZhen]

37 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

But surely you don't know what objectives will be in enemy territory when you build your deck?

You are correct, which is why I don't use the numbered objective cards, instead I use one's like: seize ground and plant a standard.

[Urbanus]

I hadnt thought about multiplayer. There the objective play is even harder to pull of since the objectives will be more scattered... I hope this will balance out somehow. Maybe objectives should be 2 glory in multiplayer games

[ReynakZhen]

24 minutes ago, Urbanus said:

I hadnt thought about multiplayer. There the objective play is even harder to pull of since the objectives will be more scattered... I hope this will balance out somehow. Maybe objectives should be 2 glory in multiplayer games

The hold objective cards have extra choices with more players involved. For example, hold objective 4 becomes hold objective 4 or 7 in a three player game, and hold objective 4,5 or 9 in a 4 player game.

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

In my opinion only skaven and reavers will be able to properly play objective play and in order to do this, one must gear his deck accordingly. That means movevement (both of objectives and fighters) cards, the objective switcher upgrade, duel of wits to ensure milling/or doing a mulligan, and grabbing ALL objective related cards.

[Killax]

2 hours ago, Carnelian said:

But surely you don't know what objectives will be in enemy territory when you build your deck?

That's not extremely relevant if you play all because your opponent works with the same options if he has Hold 1-5.
Thing is, it's up to anyone to play Hold Objectives. My personal experience makes me like them. 

However we turn this debate, playing Hold Objectivec cards doesn't mean you have to be defensive or offensive. It just means you have easy acces to scory 1 Glory in turn 1. This applies especially for every model without Movement 4 because there are several ways to set up the board so an opponent cannot make 3 charges phase 1 and thus makes it very unlikely much Glory is scored from that strategy.

So for those who don't want to play them, all is fine too  Keep in mind that I believe that design of the game itself will focus enough around them to validate their inclusion. This idea is further supported by Hold 1 to 5 being gold promo's and Objectives not being a random token but specific. 

What I will say is that I see no reason to exclude them from Sepulchral Guard because phase 1 Activation 1 you can put two Petitioners on Objectives, no questions asked. Even if you do not have the Holds your opponent is forced to consider this as an option for you to obtain 2 Glory without any additional move. Now imagne you have 3 Objectives on your side and you see how each Petitioner will hold an Objective phase 1 and Activation 2...

Now if you could activate the Warden after he himself charged, sure, now you have less need for those Holds. This isn't a legal move however  It's worthy to consider because it means the Warden is a Charge option but it will mean all other members will have to "activate on their own". 

[Urbanus]

5 hours ago, ReynakZhen said:

The hold objective cards have extra choices with more players involved. For example, hold objective 4 becomes hold objective 4 or 7 in a three player game, and hold objective 4,5 or 9 in a 4 player game.

Ah good point. I missed that. Thats a comfort