[Let's chat: Garrek's Reavers]

32 minutes ago, Killax said:

Because of our Movement 4 I usually don't pack my Objectives tightly as again it means our opponents in theory have to engage or go for the Objective. Doing both is much more possible and dangerous versus Orruks and Stormcast. Other than that I indeed usually try to bait out with Targor and Arnulf. As before we can put them in reverse if the bait isn't taken. 

 

You bring up a good point. My original line of thinking was clump objectives, less moving plus movement ploys might create greater activation efficiency and create more support opportunities. However, the difference between an attack and a charge is marginal unless Saek is upgraded AND survives to swing multiple times.

Do you find that long board deployments change the timing of engagement, or is it a subtle change of 1 or 2 hexes further between opposing deployments?

[Let's chat: Garrek's Reavers]

Lots of great discussion on cards. I want to pick your brains regarding deployment strategy. What game boards do you favor and why? What are your goals with objective placement? Do you place your models aggressively, or hang back as well as who do you put out front?

Right now I favor the Crypt or Blue/Statue boards. The blocked hexes on Wall or Staircase boards seem like they'd impede our mobility as well as limiting objective placement.

I've been experimenting with how tight I can pack 3 objectives. You can place them in a triangle, but 2 corners have to be 3 hexes apart. If you place them horizontally in a line you can keep them exactly 2 spaces apart. You can also slant the line if your opponent offsets the boards to create a chokepoint. The goal is to keep each objective just outside your opponents threat range, but close enough to collapse the warband in turn 2 for the fight.

As for deployment I'm trying to keep Garrek and possibly Targor in charge range of 1 enemy model. The hope is an Ork, Stormcast, or Reaver takes the bait and over commits. With 3 models on objectives while still being in charge range they can pounce turn 2 and start to do damage with upgrades and support bonuses.

I'm interested in any critique as well as hearing about your general game plans.

[Let's chat: Garrek's Reavers]

4 hours ago, Killax said:

Objective Placement
With the expansions I can give some more insight as to why I like them so much, something I really couldn't define just with the Core Set.
Garrek's Reavers remain to have the advantage of movement still and it means that we are actually more capable of placing Objectives just after the 2nd row from the Neutral where both Orruks and Stormcast are more forced to place them on or near the Neutral. Unlike them we can thus actively make a better choice to sit on them, whilst attacking in some cases, such as with Karsus.

You read my mind. With our primary advantage being speed, I think board choice, objective placement and model deployment are key to our success. Also, I've been thinking about activation efficiency. We have 5 models, 4 activations, and no special actions like the skeletons to increase activation efficiency. Can you arrange the board so that you can snag 2-3 objectives turn 1 without losing models? Can you do that just barely outside of your opponents threat range to pounce turn 2? Can you scatter turn 3 with your surviving models to snag position or hold objective based glory turn 3?

[Let's chat: Garrek's Reavers]

Has anyone been experimenting with the "guard" action? Models with "dodge" defense dice gain more from it than those with shield defense dice. Reavers will still die, but even if it saves a model or 2 from getting one shot then we gain some ability to make use of the Support bonuses. I think, deploying Garrek out front, put him on Guard, and see if your opponent takes the bait is an interesting opening.