The Frustrating Problem with Objective-based Strategy

[Sleboda]

Hi all,

Now that my opponents have played 40 or so games against my Sepulchral Guard, they have honed their plans to ensure that the undead's best way to play is nearly impossible to use successfully. I would post this in the Guard thread, but I think it applies to all Objective-based Glory forces. It just hurts undead way more because their weaknesses (slow, easy to kill) are meant to balance them being so capable of playing Objective-based games.  Take that away, and you are left with a warband that is crippled.

Anyhoo, the problem.

Winning by going for Objectives requires much more careful timing and coordination than other styles of play.  You have to hold the Objectives at the right time, get to them, hold them longer, etc.  That's fine, and is actually fun. Howevz, there are roughly a zillion cards that just automatically derail the whole plan, so most players will have several ways to mess your whole plan up each round..  Push a fighter off a hex. Destroy an Objective.  Move or swap an Objective. Shardfall on an Objective. Plus, of course, you can just kill the people who are on the objective. This says nothing about those who like to put Objectives at the far ends of the boards. Now that Sprint got gutted, those far Objectives are effectively non-factors usually.

 

I am thinking that as word gets around, Sepulchral Guard players are going to have a very tough time winning at events, and others that try to go win on Objectives will swap over to better strategies that are not so delicate.  One card can truly take 6 Glory away from you, and usually at least 4, as has been happening to me often now.

 

Any advice or thoughts?

[Red_Zeke]

Interesting thoughts. Are you playing against all-comers decks, or are players teaching against you specifically?

[Sleboda]

They play all-comers, with maybe a card or two here and there taken with me in mind.

The thing is, though, the cards that kill Objective-based play, and Guard in particular, are cards that most decks will have anyway.  That's part of the problem.  You don't need to customize your deck to mess up Objective-based players.  Shardfall, Confusion, Bellowing Thingie, etc.  All these are great at stopping the plan and are useful in all decks.

[Red_Zeke]

I’m curious if the challenges for ‘hold objective’ decks are exacerbated for SG.  I’ve run some recent games as combat (duh) Orruks vs hyper defensive Stormcast and its a hell of a challenge to get to grips in time. By the time you get there, the SC potentially have a significant upgrade advantage.

SG, on the other hand, have to fill every deployment spot and can’t hide in the background effectively. Maybe you have to go hybrid?  What are you running now?

[Sleboda]

My deck has minor changes here and there, but for the most part it's the standard stuff:

Objectives

Hold 1-5

Supremacy

Tactical Supremacy - both

Determined Defender

March of the Dead

Skills Unforgotten

Battle Without End

(The last two vary)

 

Ploys

Spectral Form

Shardfall

Terrifying Screams

Necromancer Commands

Ceaseless Attacks

Restless Dead

Confusion

Distraction

Illusory Fighter

Time Trap

Dance Macabre

 

Upgrades

Frightening Speed

Undying

Grim Cleave

Shardcaller

Fatal Strike

Lethal Lunge

Dazzling Key

Flickering Image

Shadowed Key

Deathly Charge

Great Strength

 

[Killax]

Hi Sleboda,

I agree, my prime potential issue with the current Objective deck is that while it's great if you have 3 Objectives there is little to do when you dont. Better put there is no clearly shaped end game plan. The simply solution I would go for is the following:

Objectives: Include both Denial and Containment. Sepulchral Guard are actually very good in defending their territory. Likely better as many other Warbands due to spread of models and potential power to obtain. However when including these there is one small downside which is the potential to have them round 1 and basically have to sit on them.
Upgrades: I personally am not a huge fan of Flickering Image in this deck, the Harvester can be good with it but at the same time wants to be inside a group and this usually means the potential to do something good with it isn't that great. I also think that in non-Stormcast decks Soultrap is usually better as Undying and most of the time one Key is enough.
Ploys: Looks good to me in any context but would still likely not play Spectral Form. Most of the time I think there are better cards available. In an ever so slightly more aggressive Sepulchral Guard deck I think On Your Feet also remains a very good defensive mechanism to keep inspired Guard around or the Warden for that matter.

All in all I do believe we are in a current vague state still with the Objectives and at the same time we all have acces to sufficient Upgrades and Ploys. This will likely change. What I mean by this is that I believe more allround Objectives will come who further flesh out the Objective based or melee plan. At the same time it could also be very possible that we'll just see more good melee orientated Objectives. It's an aspect of the game that is often less predictable but this also adds to the excitement of the game.

[cserz]

Absolutely agree with you. Playing Orruks is a piece of cake, just go forward and kill; the kill has his own benefit and if you play with the good objectives you are in the track of victory ...and fun :-) But going defensive is largely dominated by the first roll about table and objective placing and if you cant deploy three objectives you play an uphill battle. With just one leg. And blinded. Half of the ploys are kill-based (which can mess with an objective based play), some of the remaining can immediately denying your objective defense and just one or two can help you stand your ground for an activation, not the whole turn ...if they are in your hand in the right time. I hope the two coming warband's neutral cards will help somehow; if not, the Mighty Undying Skeletons will only scare the first timers...

[Killax]

5 minutes ago, cserz said:

Absolutely agree with you. Playing Orruks is a piece of cake, just go forward and kill; the kill has his own benefit and if you play with the good objectives you are in the track of victory ...and fun :-) But going defensive is largely dominated by the first roll about table and objective placing and if you cant deploy three objectives you play an uphill battle. With just one leg. And blinded. Half of the ploys are kill-based (which can mess with an objective based play), some of the remaining can immediately denying your objective defense and just one or two can help you stand your ground for an activation, not the whole turn ...if they are in your hand in the right time. I hope the two coming warband's neutral cards will help somehow; if not, the Mighty Undying Skeletons will only scare the first timers...

Well there is a practical caveat to Orruks too. They can play like a piece of cake if your opponent allows it. What I mean by this is that it's a beginners mistake to just attack all Orruks and see how that 'fair' combat unfolds. When a good opponent forces Orruks to basically do nothing round 1 (by using the long board, pushing them or bait and go away with Illusory Fighter) they suddenly become extremely difficult to play and basically have a foot in the game. The Sepulchral Guard in many ways are the exact oppossite to that. "Doing nothing" means the game is going forward for them. 

I do however believe that pretty much every Warband has a reason to run Denial and Containment currently. The swings are massive and the route to scoring them isn't impossible. When both decks run these end-game cards you also basically get a sub-game to A. Clear your territory and/or B. Clear your neutral zone. Both these tasks arn't incredibly difficult to preform for any Warband because they do not require kills, just pushes.

[Biboune]

After few more games i felt that objective based deck can have some issues.

But their is different ways to play those kind of deck:

Have hold objective 1 too 4 both tactical supremacy and supremacy, with 1 or both keys. The problem here is the "damn you objective 5": you have 2 objectives thank to a lucky dice roll and here it is: objective 5.

Having every objective related objective card, and you forget that fighting the other band is a part of the game.

The last would be a deck that i ll try next time: hold 1-5, one tactical supremacy, supremacy and one key. One question is: does the key match the tactical supremacy? In french we say "ne pas mettre tous ses oeux dans le même panier"; don't put all you eggs in the same... thing that can carry other things (if the thing fall, all your eggs are broken together) = try to plan keeping in mind: if something goes wrong everything won't fall apart in the same time. With both tactical supremacy and both key; if you have objective 1 and 4, you don't know what way to go: shardcall the objective 2, get the 4 key and be sad for example. With tactical supremacy 1-2 and the 2 key, there is one option. With tactical supremacy 1-2 and the 4 key, there is two options, make your mind.

More over there is 2 other galls in every game: Being in the enemy territory to prevent denial or contained, killing someone to prevent Eternal or the orruk like card (Against the bloodreavers it is different but i have not played against them much). Preventing supremacy thanks to shardfall can be good too.

For the guard, having a starting hex close to the enemy territory and illusionary fighter, restless dead or/and sprint and confusion would be something i ll try.

[Sleboda]

12 hours ago, Killax said:

I do however believe that pretty much every Warband has a reason to run Denial and Containment currently. The swings are massive and the route to scoring them isn't impossible. When both decks run these end-game cards you also basically get a sub-game to A. Clear your territory and/or B. Clear your neutral zone. Both these tasks arn't incredibly difficult to preform for any Warband because they do not require kills, just pushes.

I am about to play another three games against orruks. My first thought about this is "Um, no.  Long boards=bad for undead. And yes, it is difficult to shift models out of your territory when they can send three or four of them 3 hexes (or more) deep into your zone."  But you know what? I'll try it.  I don't like to dismiss things without trying them, so I'll give it a shot.

Upgrades: I personally am not a huge fan of Flickering Image in this deck, the Harvester can be good with it but at the same time wants to be inside a group and this usually means the potential to do something good with it isn't that great. I also think that in non-Stormcast decks Soultrap is usually better as Undying and most of the time one Key is enough.
Ploys: Looks good to me in any context but would still likely not play Spectral Form. Most of the time I think there are better cards available. In an ever so slightly more aggressive Sepulchral Guard deck I think On Your Feet also remains a very good defensive mechanism to keep inspired Guard around or the Warden for that matter.

Some of the cards in my deck are totally superfluous. Spectral Form, Flickering Image.  A few others.  The only "untouchables" are the 5 Holds, the 2 keys, and the 3 Supremacies. I say untouchable because I totally disagree in a halfsies approach.  If you are going to play Objectives, take all the Objective stuff.  Diluting just weakens you chance of any of the "right" ones working out.

Very curious about your suggestion on Soultrap vs. Undying. One DOES make you more survivable, the other trusts to luck (which I hate).

Report to come later.  I am dubious that the suggestions so far will work, but I gotta try! Thanks for the input from everyone so far.

 

[Sleboda]

One game in.

I got long boards.  She got three objectives. I had denial. She pushed 3 orruks into my territory.  I could not kill them all, and she killed several of my 2-3 wound models as she advanced.

Totally easy win for Orruks.

It's not like you can line up a wall of bone to help with Denial.  They just kill 3 models along the way and get the points for them PLUS contain.

Kinda point and click/pointless, really.

 

A thought- What would counter the Easy-I-Win-Cuz-I-Killed-You would be if when the Warden returned a fighter to action, it earned a Glory.

[Red_Zeke]

I'm glad you're testing it out, but for the record, I don't think much of Denial in an objective based SG list.  I would think it'd be pretty hard to keep those brawlers out of your territory...

[Sleboda]

Agreed.  We are between turns 2 and 3 now and I am sleepwalking to a win.  She has asked "OMG, how can you possibly win with this?" She credited me for doing as well as I have. 

 

I am finding the Orruks to be suuuuuper easy mode vs Undead.

[Biboune]

You may be right: dropping Hold Objective 5 is what hurt me the most.

I played against an Orruk player who had HO 1-5, Supremacy, Plant a standard, Hard as iron and Denial. When he had 3 objectives to set; he almost did not enter in my territory (only few hexes; for plant a standard, and to try oneshot some of my model) then back to the no man's land (or in his territory thanks ton illusionary fighter).

My shardercaller helped him scoring his HO 1-5, sad.

When i got the right to set 3 objectives: it have been a ugly moment for me: he charged with his boss, one shot, upgraded +1 damage the other big orruk etc.

I have played against other orruk players less, or not at all, focus on objectives and the odds where better. I did not took the long board but bottleneck, i don't know if it helps. And i have been lucky with dices, had lethal lunge early etc.

But what i can really figure out is to win against an orruk who play safe like the first one.

[Sleboda]

Ok, well, my gf got blotto and could not finish.  That said, I had 8 Glory coming my way in Round 3.

Bottom line: Undead are fun but soooooooo not good for tournament play.

[Requizen]

I played Objective based Skellies against Orruks last night and went 1-1, the loss being quite close. 

I dunno, I don't think you can just dodge combat the whole time and just try to sit on objectives. Champion, Harvester, and Prince can all get in and brawl pretty decently, and the Warden is pretty beastly when he inspires, especially if you give him the Cleave upgrade.

[trustybroom]

I currently think that skellies are in a rough spot overall. They rely too much on luck with the current Objective cardpool. If you go objective-focused, you'll do great if you have 3 on your side and have a solid chance of losing if you only get two on your side. If you do get two, you'd better hope you pull shardcaller the first round. They are terrible at assaulting a strong, defensive team. Playing against a team that holds back, they can easily make it where the skeletons won't get into combat until turn 3. The guard does best when the enemy comes to them...but there is no good way to force it currently. With only a movement of two, they need to rely on their opponent coming to them.

One way I think the guard could really benefit is if there were more ways to kill your own units. I would GLADLY sacrifice a unit first turn to be able to pull out the upgraded version first turn. I love guard a lot and have most of my success with straight up assault decks...but I still think they're missing something. As it currently stands, I would never take them to a tournament.

[Killax]

10 hours ago, Sleboda said:

It's not like you can line up a wall of bone to help with Denial.  They just kill 3 models along the way and get the points for them PLUS contain.Kinda point and click/pointless, really.A thought- What would counter the Easy-I-Win-Cuz-I-Killed-You would be if when the Warden returned a fighter to action, it earned a Glory.

I say untouchable because I totally disagree in a halfsies approach.

Very curious about your suggestion on Soultrap vs. Undying. One DOES make you more survivable, the other trusts to luck (which I hate).

Well you can do this, negating Orruks their melee combats round 1 is respectfully easy the moment you use your Move Actions well from the start. If you only have 2 Objectives there is no reason to not move two Warriors out of melee combat reach round 1 activation 1. It can still lead to their demise but unlikely round 1.
I wouldn't say Denial and Containment are halfsies approaches. They are approaches who can score you 3 to 6 Glory round 3 when you ideally have spend enough time on hold Objectives.

Playing on Objectives is trusting to luck from the getgo, as you've realized not all games will start with you having 3 objectives on your side of the field. The prime reason as to why I significantly prefer Soultrap and/or On Your Feet over additional wounds is because it's an all or nothing. The difference is as follows: 
- Situation A. Your opponent has a guy swinging for 3 damage, you have Soultrap/On Your Feet and a 50/50 chance to completely ignore it's Attack action (this is better as relying on Dodge or Shield defences because your opponent cannot beat this roll)
- Situation B. Your opponent has a guy swinging for 3  damage, you have an additional wound but survive with 1 left meaning every other 1 damage dealing model now serves an additional melee purpose.

So for me the choice between Soultrap and/or one additional Wound is very simple. It's objectively better to have a 50/50 chance in ignoring all damage that would kill the model for each model that has 1 defence die. The moment you do have two defence dice or Upgrades or Abilities that interact with not being damaged (which only Stormcast have) the additional wound becomes better because you have a higher chance of succession. Better put, the 50/50 rolls are a whole lot less luck-dependant as succession from single die defences are.

Cheers,

 

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, Requizen said:

I don't think you can just dodge combat the whole time and just try to sit on objectives. Champion, Harvester, and Prince can all get in and brawl pretty decently, and the Warden is pretty beastly when he inspires, especially if you give him the Cleave upgrade.

I agree you shouldn't avoid all combat,  but man, you have to either be very picky or get the right hand of cards and hope for luck ... and I avoid ever having hope in any part of my life. Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. 

Besides,  some of those Orruks one-stop even the best undead. If you fail, you feed him Glory.

[freakshot3]

In my experience of 20+ games in the Orruk v. SG matchup, I think you guys are being a little dramatic. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that its a tough matchup, but certainly winnable with a bit of patience. If you intend to take your basic SG strategy, and try to fight Orruk toe-to-toe, of course you're going to get blown out.  There has to be adjustments made in all matchups, and this one is just a bit more of an intense adjustment. 

Again, from my experience, on both sides of this matchup board placement goes a long way. So even if you end up with only 2 objectives, you are in good shape. Selecting the proper board is incredibly powerful in this matchup. Bottlenecking the Orruk advances, and adding as much distance as possible for them to travel leads to some games where you wont even roll dice, which favors the SG. Strategically using ploys (ie. Shardfall, Illusory Fighter, etc.), you can constrict and even block pathways while you collect objective points.  

General matchup tips that I have found useful are things like abusing the Wardens attack range if they do breakthrough. Champion also has built in cleave, which of course is great against the Orruks. Agressively using Shardfall can mean that maybe they can only advance 1 model through a bottleneck each turn. Some tricky things also include, saving Illusory fighter, or a strategic resurrection to place a model on the closest starting point to the Orruks side of the board, and advancing it into their zone to deny end of game objectives.

These are things that experienced Orruk players will also know, so be prepared. However still, I  do not see this matchup as straightforward losing slugfest as it's described on these forums and others.

[Requizen]

53 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I agree you shouldn't avoid all combat,  but man, you have to either be very picky or get the right hand of cards and hope for luck ... and I avoid ever having hope in any part of my life. Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. 

Besides,  some of those Orruks one-stop even the best undead. If you fail, you feed him Glory.

I think the main thing is that Skeletons have way more things to activate. Remember that a model can only move once per turn, so unless they're burning both Sidestep and Distraction in one turn, you know exactly how far they can move (of course, they can hold onto a +1 Move Upgrade in secret, but you can track that with Glory). 

I found that my more successful turns came when my early Actions were spent positioning Petitioners and waiting for the Orruks to move. One Ironskull and Bonekutta move, you know you can fight against Basha and Hakka with little problem since their attacks are poor. If those two wait til the last two activations to move, then you can spend your activations on moving out of their range. 

But yeah, if the two big guys get to where they want to be, it's a problem. I think the matchup is very much a dance. Board and Objective placement play a big part (as they always do, but I think in this matchup more than others). 

 

The other thing I noticed is that, while you want to stick together for numbers, sending a model or two into enemy territory can be a good idea. Orruk decks are currently running Denial and Contained to capitalize on SG and SCE staying on their backfield. If you can send a couple models into their DZ (Movement cards, Sprint, and the Death one that gives +1 to move for a turn all help), they're forced to send back units to clear them out, and that's less threatening your board and objectives. But, depending on the board setup and how they deploy, it can be hard to break through... like I said I think it's very much a dance.

[freakshot3]

5 minutes ago, Requizen said:

But yeah, if the two big guys get to where they want to be, it's a problem. I think the matchup is very much a dance. Board and Objective placement play a big part (as they always do, but I think in this matchup more than others). 

I couldn't agree more with this. I think there is a lot of thinking, and strategy in this matchup that makes for really fun games.

[Sleboda]

How do folks recover from the card that destroys objectives? That card alone negates 3 of you objectives and one of your upgrades. 

When you have 25% of your objectives become unscorable, it's tough to earn enough Glory to win.

[Killax]

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

How do folks recover from the card that destroys objectives? 

For me, as above, have a melee orientated second plan and even if that plan is only supported by Denial and Containment it will most certainly be enough if you keep the plan B in mind and play perhaps more aggressively as usual.

As above luck can't be removed completely and considering your former posts I asumed you allready have a clear plan when you do not start with 2 Objectives. To me Sepulchral Guard can most certainly still hard enough, all that is required is a Harvester or Champion in good place and/or an early Inspire/Great Strenght/Lethal Lunge for the Warden.

[Sleboda]

14 hours ago, Killax said:

I wouldn't say Denial and Containment are halfsies approaches.

I was more saying that taking only 1 key, 1 Tactical Supremacy, and maybe not all 5 Holds is halvsies.  If you are playing Objectives, play Objectives.  If you go part way and don't get luck of the draw, then all cards are wasted to an extent.

 

Also, btw, gf and I just finished our game from the other night.  I won 9-2. The lesson for me was that Orruks are very forgiving.  I accidentally lost 3 Glory because I wasn't paying attention, but still stumbled into 3 more just because I was moving forward and killing.  Undead focusing on Objectives cannot do that.  One mistake and it's done.

That, from what I can see, is the overall issue with Objective-based play - one bad moment and it's over.