Imbalance in the Nightvault set?

[robinlvalentine]

I just recently got into Underworlds, and I've played four games now against a friend of mine. I've been playing the Cursebreakers and he's the Thorns, and so far I've won every time. We both really like the game so far, but every game basically ends with us agonising over how much his warband seems to suck compared to mine, and trying to work out if there was even a way he could have won.

At first we just used the premade starter decks, but they felt a bit... scattershot after our first game, so I looked up new ones online. I've posted them below, but basically my deck is roughly built around killing dudes and casting spells, and his is based around movement and objectives. He actually ended up changing some of his objectives around after the second game but it hasn't seemed to make much difference.

I think next time we'll try swapping, but it definitely feels like the Thorns are, at the very least, much more difficult and complicated than the Cursebreakers. Was this other people's experience too, or are we just doing something wrong? I've already ordered a couple more warbands to get a less frustrating experience (Spiteclaw's Swarm and the Sepulchral Guard) but just wanted to get the general opinion on the core set, because it seems weird to me that there would be this mismatch in what's supposed to be the beginner set. Did the old Shadespire box have the same problem?

Our decks are:

Stormsire's Cursebreakers

Objectives (12)

Denial, Conquest, Supremacy, Magical Supremacy, Measured Strike, Harness the Storm, Blessed Banishment, Devastating Blow, Heavily Armed, Purify the Earth, Hold Objective 1, Hold Objective 5

Gambits (10)

Sidestep, Confusion, Chain Lightning, Empathic Conduction, Cry of Thunder, Gather the Storm, Lightning Assault, Aetherwing Stance, Stormstrike, Safeguard Spirit

Upgrades (10)

Great Speed, Great Strength, Great Fortitude, Corposant Staff, Tempest’s Might, Eye of the Storm, Warding Blast, Lightning Whip, Disarming Blow, Hurricane Whip

 

Thorns Of The Briar Queen

Objectives (12)

Swarming Spirits, Annhilation, Take the City, Treacherous Foe, Death Sentence, Hold Objective 1, Hold Objective 2, Hold Objective 3, Hold Objective 4, Hold Objective 5, Supremacy, Denial

Gambits (10)

Drifting Advance, Endless Malice, Howling Vortex, Maddening Cackle, Spectral Parry, Spectral Touch, Sudden Appearance, Vengeful Curse, Confusion, Determined Effort

Upgrades (10)

Creeping Terror, Curse of Unbinding, Driven by Hatred, Face of Death, Inescapable Vengeance, Shacklegheist Chains, Strangling Coil, Great Fortitude, Great Speed, Great Strength

[Snivlem]

I am in the same boat as you (own Just the nightvault set, playing games with friends) 

Based on the handfull of games i have played with them so far, i dont think the stormsire kit is stronger than thorns at all. If anything it seems to me the other way around. 

I think you are right the thorns wb is more complicated to play, however. You cant just charge and hit stuff with them. 

I dont know what i should tell you to help improve your play with thorns, but atleast it could be helpful to know the percieved imbalance is not as bad as it seems?

 

 

[Twisted magpie]

I agree that the thorns are a much more complex warband to play effectively. 

I think that games workshops idea was to provide an alternative playstyle in the starter set than just combat. 

However it is very difficult to play an objective based team in this game. I do think that with the cards given in the starter set this isn't really that possible. 

Tactically you need to throw away models to distract your opponent as you gain your glory elsewhere

[KoganStyle]

I think the thing the Thorns player needs to realise/do is utilise Varclav's action to grab objectives on the first activation, and move Chainrasps away from the front line if they aren't needed to grab objectives. This sets up the Thorns player to draw power/objective cards for the remainder of the activation and react to Stormsire waggling his fingers while hopefully camping on the objectives to secure glory for upgrades. 

Then as the Cursebreakers come within range; push and surround them and try to score the more offensive based objectives.

At least that is what I have found when using the above decks too. 

[JackStreicher]

I usually get slaughtered against the thorns when using stormsire 🤷🏼‍♂️ Imo the Cursebreakers seem so much weaker than the thorns (with the Starter Decks)

[Snivlem]

Agree, Jack. 

Thorns actually have a decent starter deck with the nightvault box. Objectives in particular are awful for stormsires because you are terrible at grabbing objectives, so you have to rely on kills to win and end up throwing away half your objective cards. 

[Sleboda]

I have had far more success with the Thorns than I have had with pretty much any warband, army, team, etc. in any GW game. I think they just fit my style well.

To me, it's about having several small, easy, immediate objectives. Also, trying to hold Objectives is a very, very hard thing to do in the current game, and the only way to make it semi-work is to load up all the holds, which eats almost half of your deck and is still super unreliable.

I suggest removing all the Hold and anything having to do with trying to get the Objectives (I really wish GW didn't call the cards and the chits objectives).

 

[robinlvalentine]

9 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I have had far more success with the Thorns than I have had with pretty much any warband, army, team, etc. in any GW game. I think they just fit my style well.

To me, it's about having several small, easy, immediate objectives. Also, trying to hold Objectives is a very, very hard thing to do in the current game, and the only way to make it semi-work is to load up all the holds, which eats almost half of your deck and is still super unreliable.

I suggest removing all the Hold and anything having to do with trying to get the Objectives (I really wish GW didn't call the cards and the chits objectives).

 

If you drop all of those, what objective cards do you run instead? 

[Sleboda]

33 minutes ago, robinlvalentine said:

If you drop all of those, what objective cards do you run instead? 

I'm about to make a little adjustment, but from memory -

The one where you get multiple friends next to your leader

The one where you get three of your guys around a baddie

The one where you Move to guys through baddies

Keep Them Guessing

Superior Tactician

The one where you leader is inspired and alive

The one where you have an inspired fighter alive

The one where you have 3+ upgrades on a guy

The one where 3 upgrades get played

The one where you score for a ploy, upgrade, and objective

2 others?

[Skyeline]

23 hours ago, Sleboda said:

To me, it's about having several small, easy, immediate objectives. Also, trying to hold Objectives is a very, very hard thing to do in the current game, and the only way to make it semi-work is to load up all the holds, which eats almost half of your deck and is still super unreliable. 

Alternatively, you only utilize Supremacy and Our Only Way Out as objective related cards. Thorns are more than capable of scoring these high value objectives. You don't have to go all in on loading up the entire objective deck with cards related to holding objectives.

[Sleboda]

I think that's a better approach, but still too unreliable. You are 50% at getting three on your side, you are still counting on being able to get to all three even if they are in your side, and you are waiting to the end of the turn to try to claim them, and still crossing your fingers that the foe doesn't simply bump you off of one.

All the while you are likely sacrificing other opportunities.

It's just too much added up to make it work, whereas having several isolated easy immediates lets you score a steam of glory along the way while you do things you wanted to do anyway.

In other words, you play your game and just happen to pick up rewards.

In other other words, you stop letting your Objectives dictate your play, and just make good choices in the moment.

Keep Them Guessing is a perfect example of this. You will almost certainly want to make a Move, make an Attack, use Varklav's power, and either Charge or, if someone is at risk, go on Guard. You are "paid" for work you were going to do anyway.

[Skyeline]

As warbands outside of Thorns (and Zarbag's), yes-- you are probably sacrificing other opportunities by going for Supremacy. These warbands specifically however have the multi-movement flexibility to push for cards like supremacy without going "all in" on that one card. Supremacy and Our Only Way Out are powerful swings precisely because you don't have to load your deck up around them and thus your opponent may not be saving their cards and actions to counteract objective sitting (not to mention that you should have your own gambits readied up to help you get back on if you get pushed).

A great example of this is if you have Quick Advance in hand and two fighters sitting 1 hex away from objectives but not on them. A surprise quick advance played in the last power step can turn 1 fighter sitting on an objective by "happenstance" (at least your opponent may see it that way) into 3 fighters on objectives for a clean Supremacy.

Can your opponent play a push card to counteract yours? Yes, absolutely. But part of utilizing something like Supremacy is keeping track of what your opponent has played already and what gambits you think they're actually packing. By the end of a first match you'll probably have a sense of what pushes they're packing, which is invaluable to remember going into your next matches.

Ultimately I know you don't see Objectives as something worth pursuing, so this may simply be a case of agree to disagree. Speaking as somebody who has scored Supremacy and Our Only Way Out numerous times against competent players though (particularly with Zarbag's) I absolutely see these as highly viable cards depending on the warband.

[Sleboda]

I think of all warbands, Thorns have the best chance to make Supremacy work. I may give it another try.

My suspicion is that as Objectives are a limited resource (12 max!) including an objective that had the tradeoffs I've previously identified might have cascading effects on my ability to score the 'flow' of glory I've designed in my deck (frankly, even Superior Tactician is on the borderline in my current deck).

That said, I can definitely see the appeal of Supremacy and will reevaluate it.

[Skyeline]

I'll be interested to hear how it goes for you. It probably goes without saying, but I'd strongly recommend including the best movement shenanigans. Ready For Action, Hidden Paths, and Faneway Crystal can all open up ridiculous options to get onto objectives that are deep on your opponents side of the board. Bag of Tricks has potential if you toss it onto a random chainrasp. The flexibility of pulling the card you need exactly when you want it is amazing.

You might also be surprised at how effective Supremacy is for Zarbag's. I wasn't able to really wrap my head around it until I started using them myself. Depending on your board choice, it's not too difficult to setup big multi-moves with Scurry and a gambit. Particularly with movement 4, multi-scurries can set you up for a supremacy with one activation spent.

The sheer number of bodies that your opponent has to get through and the positioning/damage threat that Sourtongue represents can really present big issues for an opponent's ability to effectively stop a Supremacy.

[Sleboda]

Update to my objective list from a few posts back (just looked at the deck).

I also include the one where if you react you score. I miss key attacks all the time and use a reaction to go again, so that objective actually rewards me for failing, which takes some of the sting out of it. 😁

The other card is Loner. So easy to score. Like, super easy.

[riddlesworth]

Both Cursebreakers and Thorns are considered top tier with strong in faction cards and strong mechanics on the fighter cards. Cursebreakers are more straightforward to play, though given the starter decks I am surprised that Thorns aren't seeming to be the more powerful warband.

 

Take a look at underworldsdb for deck ideas. There's also various podcasts (Claim the City, Ready 4 Action, Battle for Salvation, What the Hex), YouTube content (Agents of Sigmar, The Battlecast) and blogs (Canyourollacrit, Steel City Shadespire) that can help with deck building and play.

 

Sepulchural Guard are not the warband I'd pick if I wanted a less frustrating experience though. Consider getting Magore's Fiends

[Sleboda]

Just to follow up on my list changes and with giving Supremacy a shot, I gotta say I'm having great luck.

With the new BaR list, I decided to make some adjustments, with the biggest one being swapping out Superior Tactician for Supremacy. I'm four games in now and have not only won them all, but have scored Supremacy in each game. It has not mattered if the boards are long or short, or who has won the placement roll.  It's still working fine.

Also, I am using the newest boards, and really like the one with three clustered dangerous hexes.

I still think it is a very bad idea to include other objective-based objectives, but Supremacy seems to be going well so far.

[Skyeline]

On 3/7/2019 at 2:52 AM, riddlesworth said:

Sepulchural Guard are not the warband I'd pick if I wanted a less frustrating experience though. Consider getting Magore's Fiends

I'm in full agreement on this. I'd rank the skellies as being one of the toughest warbands to play effectively (If not the toughest). Magore's Fiends on the other hand are much more plug and play whilst remaining very competitive.

 

@Sleboda awesome to hear that Supremacy has been a strong inclusion. I had another round of Zarbag games this weekend where Supremacy and Our Only Way out were scored with regular frequency, barring a game where my opponent managed to kill 5 of my fighters in turn 1... that was a pretty brutal sweep. Fully believe that both cards are viable in top level competitive play for specific warbands.

[robinlvalentine]

Well, update on this, we played a game where I was Sepulchral Guard and he was Spiteclaw's Swarm, and I won yet again, so maybe I'm just naturally brilliant at Underworlds  

Definitely a better experience with this match-up, it felt more even and he enjoyed playing much more than he did with the Thorns. In the end it was very close-fought - one glory point in it, and there was a point early on where I totally could have lost the Warden early on and flubbed the whole game. 

So yeah, I think for anyone picking up the starter set I'd recommend getting one or two other warbands too and mixing things up! 

[riddlesworth]

The imbalance was worse in the Shadespire set in the early days before Reavers got access to good universals