Gorefist vs. Gorefist

[Sleboda]

Two fighters in the Fiends have Gorefists.

For some reason, the rules are for them are written differently, but they both end up being (as far as I can see) identical effects.

Anyone got any ideas one what the reason in "for some reason" might be? Am I missing something?

[Spinsane]

Way I read it, one is never driven back whereas the other is not driven back on a failed attack...

[Sleboda]

I saw that at first, too.

 

But.

 

The whole of the text is inside the Gorefist shaded area.  It's a function of the weapon as opposed to a basic rule for the model.  It's also under Reaction, with no other bolded text defining a new rule. It's all the rule for the Reaction attack of the Gorefist.

See what I'm saying?

[Smed1986]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I saw that at first, too.

 

But.

 

The whole of the text is inside the Gorefist shaded area.  It's a function of the weapon as opposed to a basic rule for the model.  It's also under Reaction, with no other bolded text defining a new rule. It's all the rule for the Reaction attack of the Gorefist.

See what I'm saying?

It's not the Gorefist shaded area but rather the area where rules go, some models (I.e. Warden) have more than one rule in the box separated by a line break, as Ghartok has, he can't be driven back as a rule so doesn't require it in the Gorefist sentence. The other guy (forgot his name) has the rule for Knockback instead of "can't be driven back" so needs it in the Gorefist rule or he'd only be able to use on a failed attack where he defence scored more (or attacker decides not to drive back on a draw)

[Sleboda]

The warden has two distinct rules in his 'rules box' as indicated by each having a bolded "Action" listed, making them two rules.  Ghartok does not.

 

If the Warden did not have two bolded Action items, he could, per your reading of Ghatok's rules box, spend one Action to bring a guy back and move two guys. That's not the case, though.  Ghartok's rules are all one thing under the Reaction.  The Warden's two Actions are two different things.

[Reggi]

There are three types of abilities so far:

1. Ability that refer to specific attack - it have then bold name of that attack above ability rules

2. Action ability - abilities that are used as actions (like attack, charge or move - they take activation to use it) - they have bolded "Action:" before ability rules

3. Passive ability - abilities that are working all the time - you have only ability rules in box

Every ability is separated by a line break.

Ghartok have reaction ability that refers to attack, so he have first type of ability and he have third type of ability (passive) that he can't be driven back.

Unless someone want to tell me that Riptooth can't have attack upgrades only on crits from his attack...

 

So Ghartok can never be driven back (and knockback is not working on him, cuz its part of drive back) and Zharkus can't be driven back on attack fails, cuz his ability is part of reaction ability (so, its matter only on draws).

If every diffirent ability had to have "Action:", then last ability of Riptooth just don't work at all. "Action:" means only that you need to use it as action. Warden have two "Action" abilities just cuz both of them are used like actions...

[Goblin-King]

He has two distinct special rules. One is his reaction. The other is that he can't be driven back - period.
The reason they only have one bolded headline is because they are in fact part of the same thing - the gorefist. It's a single special feature, but it does two different things.
Compare to Riptooth. He also has two unrelated rules packed into one bold headline.

As mentioned, the wording on the two gorefists makes it clear that one can't be driven back on failed attacks - the other can never be driven back at all.

That being said: I H.A.T.E. how they made two relative complicated rules so identical, but with just a tiny difference. I'd almost rather that they just both had Zhakarus' inferior wording, just to keep it a bit more simple.

[Killax]

As the others have said. The difference is that one ability is obtained only when an opponnent fails an attack. The other has a split ability that is a Reaction and a Passive ability.

This Warband has quite some Passive abilities and Reactions.

Passive:
- Riptooth cannot have upgrades which are (new) Attack actions.
- Gartok cannot be driven back.

Reaction: 
- Gartok can attack with his Gorefist if an opponent fails an attack action against him. It can only target the attacker (thus only works in range 1 combats).
- Zharkus can attack with his Gorefirst if an opponent fails an attack action against him AND cannot be driven back by failed attack actions. It can only target the attacker. 

If Zharkus could be driven back his Gorefist attack wouldn't do much most of the time as it would be out of range.  Which is still the case, but there is that small chance of succession. 

Do I agree that a bolded word to indicate Passive abilities would make it all a bit more clear? Certainly. But as mentioned elsewhere also I believe Shadespire is a large learning experience for it's designers also. Especially certain wording has just been too vague. Leading to require them to errata/faq it to make sence of certain cards. If I had to choose an ability bolded word for it it would be Permanent. Passive as an ability name to me would not really be in line with the 'flavour' of the game. 

26 minutes ago, Goblin-King said:

That being said: I H.A.T.E. how they made two relative complicated rules so identical, but with just a tiny difference. I'd almost rather that they just both had Zhakarus' inferior wording, just to keep it a bit more simple.

I totally agree. Plus I don't know why the design team has chosen for certain abilities to be named and bold. While others are text. What I mean by this is that a bolded word (for example) Steadfast, could also just simply mean, this fighter cannot be driven back. 

The more I also look into the Rulesbook the more I think it was finished before all the Warbands where for some reason. While ideally you finish the rules first and then present how they all work together with new cards and Warbands and all that.

Ah well, as before, I think the design team of Shadespire learned a lot... 

[Spinsane]

7 hours ago, Killax said:

The more I also look into the Rulesbook the more I think it was finished before all the Warbands where for some reason. While ideally you finish the rules first and then present how they all work together with new cards and Warbands and all that.

Ah well, as before, I think the design team of Shadespire learned a lot... 

Hopefully they have, but I have on my end started work on a "Player's edition" of the rulebook and cards, that I hope I can eventually send them as a commentary on how to improve their rules/wording. This is one such example, where a simple rule (Steadfast would be a nice name, btw) explained in the rulebook could be applied in multiple locations, instead of relying on inconsistent wording...

[Sleboda]

Thanks, all. I'm convinced!

Much appreciated.

[Killax]

3 hours ago, Spinsane said:

Hopefully they have, but I have on my end started work on a "Player's edition" of the rulebook and cards, that I hope I can eventually send them as a commentary on how to improve their rules/wording. This is one such example, where a simple rule (Steadfast would be a nice name, btw) explained in the rulebook could be applied in multiple locations, instead of relying on inconsistent wording...

Exact. Looking forward to your approach aswell! Cheers,

[Red_Zeke]

I'm going to be honest, when I clicked on this thread, I assumed it would be a humorous anecdote about a mirror match of Fiends with two fighters caught in a super long chain of missing each other with gorefist reactions to determine who would emerge inspired.

[Goblin-King]

On 4/19/2018 at 8:41 PM, Red_Zeke said:

I'm going to be honest, when I clicked on this thread, I assumed it would be a humorous anecdote about a mirror match of Fiends with two fighters caught in a super long chain of missing each other with gorefist reactions to determine who would emerge inspired.

I've tried this - except it wasn't really humorous. It was stupid and boring.
I'd wish they changed the rules for Gorefist so ping pong punches became impossible.

Reaction attacks can't trigger from another reaction attack perhaps? How much did I just break the game?