Jump to content
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

CanHammer-darren

Members
  • Content count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Lord Celestant

About CanHammer-darren

  • Rank
    Decimator
  1. Competitive viability and longevity of Warhammer Underworlds

    I think Shadespire is a safe bet. Unlike a lot of their other boardgames they have released (most of which were just model-selling vehicles), this game has its own website! Now that's not firm indication that they are invested in it, but more so than their other non-40k and non-AOS releases. Bloodbowl is the other game that comes to mind with its own website, and that's doing pretty well. I think Shadespire in a way has already outstripped bloodbowl. They have already had GW sponsored tournaments for Shadespire so that bodes well. Also, they are releasing their competitive tournament guide/ruleset whatever in January, so that's definitely a good indication. And if 40k is any indication, this is a new GW that listens to its players, they for the most part have been extremely responsive to the competitive 40k meta in making tweaks and changes and FAQs, so that only bodes well for Shadespire if they are as invested in it as it seems they are. I think actually that Shadespire will end up being bigger than Necromunda, but time will tell.
  2. Competitive viability and longevity of Warhammer Underworlds

    To be honest. You got time to just add this game. I work 60+ hours a week. I have a family with young children. And I run a YouTube channel. I plan and host events and tournaments. Yet I still find plenty of time for multiple games of shadespire since release. It literally is a game you can add on to your pile of hobbies
  3. Question about word "immediately"

    Yea but in my case he didn’t draw an objective card from scoring one. He used an activation to discard an objective and picked a new one up, which he then scored
  4. Question about word "immediately"

    Anyway until it’s FAQ people can argue words all they want. That is definitely no different from 40k haha
  5. Question about word "immediately"

    he didnt draw it as a result of scoring an objective, he drew it from activation. not sure if that makes difference, but i think intent is probably the same
  6. Question about word "immediately"

    well, there is that reply from the FB page...i know thats not an "official ruling" but i think they intended that to score something "immediately" means you have to have it in your hand when the condition is satisfied
  7. Question about word "immediately"

    that seems to be what GW defines immediately as....immediately. so I would say you have to have card in hand when the condition to score it just occurs
  8. Question about word "immediately"

    i dont have the card in front of me, but to me, immediately means immediately, not in the next activation, but then yes, the status of having made 3 charges in the turn is a standing constant. we did let him score it, i was just bringing it up for discussion
  9. Question about word "immediately"

    So stick with me here. My opponent plays his activation, by swapping out an objective card. The card he picks up, says "score this card immediately if you made 3 charges with friendly fighters this turn". He had, on the previous 3 activations, made charges. But can he score this now? the word immediately says to me that he has to have it in his hand at the time he finished his last charge....
  10. Sub forum for deck lists?

    Any possibility of a sub forum for posting deck lists and discussions?
  11. optimum deck size

    Plus you have to buy two packs of shadespire sleeves if you have more than 20
  12. optimum deck size

    Did they say they would enforce a max deck size?
  13. Let's chat: Sepulchral Guard

    only issue with Hold 1-5, is that 2-3 of them will be unachievable most of the time, and thats 2-3 cards i could have used for something else?
  14. optimum deck size

    hey everyone. So ive been building based on minimum 20 cards. Given it's a 3 turn game and you want to maximize what you pull during the game, seems sensible to have minimum necessary. But should this be the optimum deck size?
  15. Let's chat: Sepulchral Guard

    after a few more games, I think playing objective game is a trap for Sepulchral guard. You just don't move fast enough, and there will always be 2-3 objectives in the opponents territory. Splashing 1-2 objective type cards is fine (like the one that says hold 2-3 objectives, hold an objective for 2 turns, a great job for a petitioner), but yes, with all the support and ploys and upgrades, they are actually quite killy.....
×