I just beat an opponent who is 720 points higher rated than me in a brawl battle. And the reason comes down to one strategic choice: going top-heavy with two melee behemoths while my opponent spreads their mana evenly across a balanced lineup.
This ruleset combination favors melee-heavy strategies with high attack values. Armored Up gives everyone +2 armor, and Melee Mayhem lets melee attackers attack from any position. Finally, Stampede rewards high-damage units that can chain eliminations.
I spent 25 mana on my top three monsters, while my opponent opted for a balanced approach by spreading their mana across all 5 monsters. But under these rulesets, it turns out power matters more than a balanced distribution.
Molten Ogre with 12 health and demoralize absorbed the initial assault. My opponent's team dealt consistent damage, but demoralize reduced their melee attack by 1 across the board. That meant every attack they landed was weaker than expected. Behind Molten Ogre: Gorth with 6 base attack and bloodlust. Under Melee Mayhem, Gorth could attack from position 2 immediately, and every elimination triggered bloodlust, increasing his stats permanently. By round 5, Gorth was dealing 7 damage per attack, which is enough to one-shot most splinterlands monsters.
The key moment in battle is having another high-health unit in position, so when the opponent eliminated Molten Ogre, and once Gorth moved to the front position, my opponent couldn't generate enough damage to stop him. He tanked everything while dealing 6-7 damage per attack. Tatiana Blayde provided consistent ranged and melee pressure from position 3.
My opponent's lineup had solid monsters. Diemonshark with trample and enrage. Isgald Vorst with bloodlust and opportunity. Flying Squid with reach. Reasonable choices under these rulesets. Their damage was spread across multiple attackers instead of concentrated in one or two high-power threats.
Under Armored Up, where everyone gets +2 armor, medium damage struggles to break through defenses efficiently. My Gorth with 6 base attack could overcome armor. Their 3-4 attack monsters needed multiple rounds to accomplish the same thing. Going top-heavy is risky. If my opponent had deployed pierce or shatter abilities to counter armor, or if they'd focused all damage on Gorth before bloodlust stacked, my strategy fails. But they didn't. They built a balanced team that looked safe on paper but lacked the concentrated power to overcome my melee behemoths.
That's the lesson: Against higher-rated opponents, safe strategies often lose. You need to take calculated risks rather than executing an optimal gameplan. 720 rating points gap usually means better cards and higher-level monsters. My opponent had all of that. But rating doesn't account for ruleset-specific strategies. They played a balanced lineup and reasonable defensive coverage. I took a calculated risk with high-cost melee monsters to exploit the rulesets.
Next time you face a higher-rated opponent, don't play it safe. Identify the specific win condition the rulesets enable, then build entirely around that condition. Force them to respond to your strategy instead of executing theirs. My opponent saw the same rulesets and came to a different conclusion. That's why I won despite the 720-point rating gap. I saw a different opportunity and opted to deploy fewer, stronger monsters rather than more, weaker monsters. That's how you beat players who should be better than you.
Are you new to splinterlands and want to learn to play the game? Check out my Ultimate Guide to Splinterlands: A Collection of Articles and Guides. If you enjoy reading my splinterlands content, please follow and support me by signing up to play splinterlands through my affiliate link: https://splinterlands.com?ref=mercurial9.
Thank you for reading, and hope you have a good rest of the day!
Follow me on these other platforms where I also post my content: Publish0x || Hive || Medium || Twitter || Substack
