This user has no description yet

[Review] Analysis of ARC vs SJ in IBL in Infinity Kingdom

Guide Forum suggestion
Article Publish : 10/18/2026 12:11

Translate

Edited by fictions at 10/18/2026 13:36

💠Introduction

What’s up, folks? Welcome back to my Illusion Battlefield League (IBL) series, where I take a closer look at different matches. The IBL tournament differs from regular IB in that everyone constructs marches and skill builds using a fixed set of available skills. At different stages of the tournament, more Immortals and skills become available, but every player has access to the same options. Castle skins and Lord Talents do not affect the faster-paced battles of IBL, while relocation and marching speeds are also increased. The event is one of the most entertaining in Infinity Kingdom, with players often spectating matches almost like a sporting event. In this article, I’m going to take a closer look at the matchup between Server 73’s The Arcane (ARC) and Server 530’s Shadow Judgment (SJ).

💠Table of Contents

Overview
Starting Positions and Talents
Tower 1
Tower 4
Central Tower
Altars
Home Towers
Play-by-Play
Summary

💠Overview

ARC finished the Points Phase with a 7–1 record, losing only to the reigning champions, before cruising through the playoffs with convincing victories over HMB, HK, and AWG. In the Top 16, they continued their dominant run by defeating XY in the opening round to advance to the quarterfinals. SJ emerged as a dark horse after completing the Points Phase with a perfect 8–0 record. They defeated LS in the opening playoff round before suffering a crushing defeat against ARC’s sister alliance, BUNS. SJ then battled through the Silver Bracket, defeating LS, W2F, and NG+ to secure a Top 16 berth, where they dismantled CN to reach the quarterfinals. ARC should enter this matchup as the clear favorite, given their stronger performances against tougher opponents, better overall coordination, and the fact that SJ has already suffered a lopsided defeat against their sister alliance.

💠Starting Positions and Talents

ARC

Started with 25 players and ended with 30
14 Attack talents
8 Defense talents
2 Support talents

Started with 22 players and ended with 29
17 Attack talents
4 Defense talents
2 Support talents

ARC began with only a small three-player attendance advantage, and both teams eventually fielded nearly full rosters, so raw attendance was unlikely to decide the match by itself. SJ leaned more heavily into Attack talents, while ARC brought twice as many Defense talents, giving ARC a more balanced setup for prolonged objective fights. With the numbers relatively close, positioning, relocation denial, and how efficiently each team converted local advantages into tower control would be much more important than attendance alone.

💠Tower 1

At Tower 1, ARC opted to concede the objective as the top-sided team, prioritizing Tower 4 instead due to its closer proximity to their spawn. This was a sensible strategic decision, as it allowed ARC to concentrate its forces on more favorable objectives rather than spreading its players too thin across the map. SJ committed only four players to Tower 1, giving them an opportunity to capture the tower uncontested while preserving most of their roster for the battles elsewhere. With ARC conceding the objective, SJ should be able to secure an early capture without committing additional resources.

💠Tower 4

At Tower 4, ARC committed six players while SJ sent four, including one overlapping relocation. ARC positioned its players to block two of SJ’s incoming relocations, giving them an immediate advantage before the fighting even began. Even if SJ had assigned its closest players to contest those positions, ARC would still have won the relocation races due to Tower 4 being closer to their spawn. With three SJ relocations potentially blocked, ARC would effectively face only one opponent at the objective, allowing them to quickly eliminate the remaining defender and capture the tower with little resistance. This made Tower 4 a poor place for SJ to keep recommitting players if the opening relocations failed.

💠Central Tower

At the Central Tower, ARC committed 17 players with one overlapping relocation, while SJ sent 12 with two overlaps. Two additional SJ players attempted to relocate onto ARC’s side of the tower to block incoming relocations, but their positioning made them more likely to be blocked themselves. ARC spread its forces across much of the surrounding area, aiming to establish control of the tower and restrict SJ’s ability to reinforce. Meanwhile, SJ positioned several players on the wings without enough support behind them, leaving those players vulnerable to being isolated and zeroed. With a significant numbers advantage, better positioning, and stronger support across the battlefield, ARC should be able to overwhelm SJ’s opening formation and establish control of the Central Tower before SJ can bring in enough reinforcements to stabilize the area.

💠Altars

Neither team sent anyone to either altar, showing that both sides prioritized the major opening objectives rather than spreading players across lower-value areas. Given ARC’s heavy commitment to the Central Tower and SJ’s attempt to balance Tower 1 with the center, ignoring the altars was a reasonable decision for both teams during the opening phase.

💠Home Towers

ARC stationed one player at their home tower, while SJ assigned two defenders to theirs. Both teams maintained a defensive presence to protect against early invasions, although SJ committed an additional player who could have been used to reinforce the heavily contested Central Tower. ARC’s decision to leave only one guard maximized their available numbers elsewhere, but it also meant that defender needed to monitor incoming relocations carefully and call for reinforcements quickly if SJ attempted an early invasion.

💠Play-by-Play

At Tower 1, SJ canceled one of their relocations after realizing ARC had no intention of contesting the objective, allowing that player to reposition elsewhere much earlier. With no opposition in the area, the remaining SJ players immediately focused on sieging the tower and captured it without much difficulty just a few minutes into the match. This was efficient play from SJ, as they secured the free objective without overcommitting and preserved additional manpower for the more important fights elsewhere.

At Tower 4, ARC successfully blocked three SJ relocations and destroyed the only one that managed to reach the objective. With none of SJ’s players successfully completing their relocations, Tower 4 was effectively lost, and SJ should have immediately redirected those players to the Central Tower to reinforce the more important battle. Instead, two SJ players attempted to relocate back to Tower 4, only to have their relocations destroyed again, wasting valuable time and further delaying their ability to contribute elsewhere. With no opposition remaining, ARC easily captured Tower 4 just four minutes into the match. The repeated relocation failures were especially costly because they effectively reduced SJ’s active numbers at the exact moment ARC was building an advantage in the center.

At the Central Tower, ARC blocked two SJ relocations and destroyed another, while SJ managed to block only one of ARC’s. ARC immediately took the initiative by zeroing two SJ players on the south side of the tower before relocating forward to occupy their positions. They continued eliminating SJ players and gradually pushed the remaining defenders into a corner, with SJ struggling to inflict any meaningful damage in return. By the time the Central Tower opened, SJ had no players positioned next to the objective. ARC capitalized by activating Quick Occupy and stacking the tower, securing the capture at the 12-minute mark. SJ continued sending reinforcements into the area, but ARC maintained control of the surrounding space, keeping them at arm’s length and preventing them from getting close enough to threaten the tower. The difference was not simply ARC’s higher numbers, but how efficiently they turned relocation control into positional control around the objective.

Sixteen minutes into the match, an ARC player stationed at their home tower relocated toward SJ’s Tower 1, where only one guard was defending. The SJ defender should have immediately relocated next to the incoming relocation and destroyed it to prevent the invasion. Eight minutes later, three more ARC players teleported into the area and quickly zeroed the lone defender. ARC could have taken the initiative much earlier, while SJ should have sent additional reinforcements to protect the objective, but most of their forces were occupied fighting for the Central Tower. ARC eventually stole Tower 1 at the 27-minute mark, further extending their lead. For the remainder of the match, ARC successfully defended their objectives and maintained control of the battlefield despite SJ’s attempts to invade their home tower.

💠Summary

ARC defeated SJ 100,000 to 40,000, with Goatie earning MVP honors. SJ’s opening relocations at Tower 4 were disastrous, with three of their four relocations blocked and the remaining one destroyed, leaving them with no realistic chance of contesting the objective. Matters only worsened when several SJ players attempted to return to the already lost tower instead of reinforcing the Central Tower, where ARC was already building a positional and numerical advantage. ARC’s control of the center was the decisive factor, as superior relocation denial and positioning allowed them to push SJ away from the objective and secure the highest-value tower at the 12-minute mark. ARC’s later invasion and eventual capture of Tower 1 further extended the lead, although they could have exploited that opening earlier given their control elsewhere on the map. Ultimately, ARC’s superior positioning, relocation control, and ability to convert local advantages into objective control proved too much for SJ. ARC advances to face reigning champions AoW in the semifinals, while SJ is eliminated from the tournament.