Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Killax

Let's chat: Sepulchral Guard

Recommended Posts

On 25 March 2018 at 8:08 PM, Sleboda said:

 

I think the Stalkers have been bypassed as a viable tournament warband. 

In one of games against friends, they can still be ok. You just have to know you are not going against Orruks or Skaven ahead of time, as both of those matchups are extremely difficult.

Who are the stalkers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Carnelian said:

Who are the stalkers?

Sepulchral Guard. Sleboda, I think, was a big Tomb Kings player, which had Sepulchral Stalkers, thus the slip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm getting into shadespire more, and I love the death faction... But it seems the sepulchral guard are kind of bound to playing the objective game, rather than having an aggressive playstyle... Am I flat out wrong and can they be played very aggressively, or should I start focussing on another warband to tickle the aggression itch?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Elmir said:

So, I'm getting into shadespire more, and I love the death faction... But it seems the sepulchral guard are kind of bound to playing the objective game, rather than having an aggressive playstyle... Am I flat out wrong and can they be played very aggressively, or should I start focussing on another warband to tickle the aggression itch?

Sounds pretty right! Maby you want to use Ghouls as Orruks etc.

With Earthquake the offense of Sepulchral Guard can be better but still that Objective game is very solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all of these new cards could have use in an offensive deck and also are something to watch out for your opponent to play 

thumb_29792221_1673099776142725_2632378059784716288_n.jpg

thumb_29792466_1673099872809382_5099965732024745984_n.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also definitely going to run inspiration strikes in the hope of inspiring warden on turn 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Urbanus said:

Those two cards are gonna make The orruks even scarier!

Yep. Inspire the whole warband AND make an attack with all of them for free? Yikes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spoiled cards indeed boost high HP warbands even further. They furthermore make objective play even harder, due to Earthquake 2.0.

Orruks especially are getting extremely strong cards.

Unless there are several other cards boosting the Guard, they might just turn from bad to worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Yep. Inspire the whole warband AND make an attack with all of them for free? Yikes!

"My turn" only affects a single fighter though. "Them" is just instead of writing "it" or "him/her".
Still a great combo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that view, but (as is usually the case for me in these discussions) I can see a valid interpretation that all would get to Attack and can't see a definitive way to deny my Orruck opponents that reading of it.

 

I don't like to argue from "because I think so" when discussing rules. It's not fair of me to impose my opinion as fact.

Also, even if we accept that "them" refers to a single damaged fighter, that's not where I'm basing my interpretation.

My Turn is not a reaction to an action by the fighter, it's a reaction to the ploy. The ploy damaged 4 Orruks. My Turn would trigger, as a reaction to the damaging ploy, for each damaged fighter individually.

In other words, the effect the My Turn ploy itself (push, attack) is not relevant since that effect is not what is interacting. What is interacting is the combination of the two ploys themselves. You are entitled to use My Turn, to put it into play, as a response to the damaging ploy. Great. Now that that is establish, apply the effect. 

All 4 orrucks got hurt by the same initial ploy, and there was a reaction, that is in effect on the damaging ploy. I can see no reason that each damaged fighter (none of whom are the target of anything in the reaction - which, again, targets (reacts to) the initial ploy) would not meet the qualifications to push and Attack.

Edited by Sleboda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I understand that view, but (as is usually the case for me in these discussions) I can see a valid interpretation that all would get to Attack and can't see a definitive way to deny my Orruck opponents that reading of it.

Well, the card specifically says "... damages a friendly fighter." So, arguably, if the ploy damages more than one, My Turn couldn't even be played, unless of course that fighter was the last friendly fighter on the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I get that, but (no offense) that misses my point. You are focusing on what happens with the after the fact text. My point is that, yes, we are taking about one fighter ... but the application to each fighter is determined prior to that. 1, 2, 3 or 7 fighters ... Each resolution applies to the one fighter being handled, but since the interaction of ploy on ploy is "above" that, it doesn't matter that "a" fighter is damaged. Several "a" fighters are damaged . The reaction is to the damage, not to the fighter, so it triggers on each "a" damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

The reaction is to the damage, not to the fighter, so it triggers on each "a" damage.

So my Reaction ploy can trigger multiple times then? After I've used it on one fighter to respond to "a" damage he suffered it doesn' go in the discard pile and I just use it on the next fighter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I extremely disagree with Sleboda. Insist on doing this in a friendly match against me and you'd have an easy win - because I'd leave the table.
 but that being said...

I wouldn't be surprised if he will be proven right once it gets FAQ'd. These game "designers" seem to rule everything in the  absolute strongest way possible.
Earthquake allows for individual movement order.
Multi-hit attacks that gets gets a new chance if missing gets to hit all adjacent again.
Can't remember the name of the card - but Skaven that can deny glory on kill - AND can still be resurrected.

GW really need to pull their heads out of their ***** if they wanna keep this game competitive.
We are seeing some power creep - and certain combos that gives the first one to pull it of an enormous advantage.
Who gets to fire a nuke first? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goblin-King said:

I extremely disagree with Sleboda. Insist on doing this in a friendly match against me and you'd have an easy win - because I'd leave the table.
 but that being said...

I wouldn't be surprised if he will be proven right once it gets FAQ'd. These game "designers" seem to rule everything in the  absolute strongest way possible.
Earthquake allows for individual movement order.
Multi-hit attacks that gets gets a new chance if missing gets to hit all adjacent again.
Can't remember the name of the card - but Skaven that can deny glory on kill - AND can still be resurrected.

GW really need to pull their heads out of their ***** if they wanna keep this game competitive.
We are seeing some power creep - and certain combos that gives the first one to pull it of an enormous advantage.
Who gets to fire a nuke first? 

To be fair, the Expendable and Earthquake where not ruled by GW, but by judges at Adepticon.

But the attack action however is a perfect example for ****** written rules. The Necromancer Commands lets You just make the single attack action again (even though the Harvester has an AOE attack), but Tireless Assault lets Steelheart do his AOE attack all over again. Because attack actions and attack actions are two different things.... duh.

The rules are horribly written and balance was screwed over the last two waves. Immense powercreep and metashifts seems to be intentional (most likely as a sales strategy), as this is whats destrying the tournament scene in 40k right now. A lot of 40k players are therefore drawn to Star Wars Legion.

I really hope GW starts to put efford in their games, Shadespire was such a great game with a lot of tactical aspects. Now that hold-bojectives are unplayable and shoving offensive all-in warbands in the enemy's face is the go-to playstyle, the game has become dull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hesa_First said:

To be fair, the Expendable and Earthquake where not ruled by GW, but by judges at Adepticon.

I really hope GW starts to put efford in their games, Shadespire was such a great game with a lot of tactical aspects. Now that hold-bojectives are unplayable and shoving offensive all-in warbands in the enemy's face is the go-to playstyle, the game has become dull.

I know, but people keep saying some of the judges were the game designers, so it seems reasonable to think these rulings will go unaltered in the eventual FAQ.

I wouldn't say the game has become dull, but we are walking a dangerous line.
You know... at this point I almost hope season 2 will rotate all neutral cards out, and they'll start giving a **** about balance this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Goblin-King said:

I extremely disagree with Sleboda. Insist on doing this in a friendly match against me and you'd have an easy win - because I'd leave the table.
 but that being said...

I wouldn't be surprised if he will be proven right once it gets FAQ'd. These game "designers" seem to rule everything in the  absolute strongest way possible.

First - Don't worry, I won't be playing it that way. Like I said, I'm just looking to find a solid rules-based reason to explain to an opponent why he or she cannot do it. That said ...

Second - ... If GW does do as you say (and it would not surprise me), I would of course allow it and even do it myself since at that point, it's just the rules.

@Smed1986 The key  to understanding my opinion on this is to see that it's not really used on a fighter. It's used on a ploy. In this case, the ploy it is reacting to has done the "thing" it triggers multiple times, so the "thing" needs to be resolved fully.

It's like a MIRV. The missile got shot once, it reached the point in its flight path where it splits,  and now we need to resolve the impact of each boom.

Edited by Sleboda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at that a bit diffirent. It is triggered on damage of your fighters, so it indeed trigger for every fighter you have.

Let's say you have 3 fighters. All of them got damage in that same time. As that card say it is played as reaction to damage to a fighter (single). Then you have it that way:

Trigger 1: Fighter A

T2: Fighter B

T3; Fighter C

So you play it as reaction to Trigger 1, 2 or 3.

Wording in that card ("damages a friendly fighter") sugest that every damaged friendly fighter is separate trigger. So you cant make it as one (Trigger: Fighter A, B and C). And you have only one card, so you can only react to one trigger. So, even if card didn't say that you can pick only one fighter for this action, it indicate that every damaged fighter is separate  trigger that you can react to.

 

And i wouldn't panic yet about Orruks. Yes, its looks like they got great cards for them in this expansions, but we didn't even saw half of new cards and noone even tested new releases and some people already screaming that Orruks will be OP :)  Wait, test and then we will see if Orks are that good. Shardgale looks great for them, sure. But its another card (after Spoils of Battle) that is great at turn 1. Later that card will not always be great (like: your leader can be already on low wounds). It's like Earthquake. There was panic, "end of objective strategy". At least in my local meta, I don't see it. Earthquake are playing only objectives deck. Agressive decks don't like it, cuz its dead card against other agressive decks. And objective decks play earthquake to counter earthquake from other objective decks....

Edited by Reggi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Reggi said:

I look at that a bit diffirent. It is triggered on damage of your fighters, so it indeed trigger for every fighter you have.

Part of this is objectively wrong though: Play this after an attack action or ploy that damages A friendly fighter.

It is triggered by ONE fighter taking damage. One fighter is mentioned as part of the trigger - that fighter is the one who gains the benefit.
In my opinion it takes some mental gymnastics to go from that first line of text to assuming it must mean several fighters can be affected. 
Only one fighter is mentioned - assuming several fighters is something that is being added by the reader.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goblin-King said:

Part of this is objectively wrong though: Play this after an attack action or ploy that damages A friendly fighter.

It is triggered by ONE fighter taking damage. One fighter is mentioned as part of the trigger - that fighter is the one who gains the benefit.
In my opinion it takes some mental gymnastics to go from that first line of text to assuming it must mean several fighters can be affected. 
Only one fighter is mentioned - assuming several fighters is something that is being added by the reader.
 

Hmm... you should read my whole post, not only first sentance. I wrote that you can play it only on one fighter... but you can pick which one, if all fighters get damage. Unless you mean that if more than one fighter gets damage in that same time you can't play that reaction? Or that if you don't play it on first fighter that got damage, you cant play it anymore? If not, you dont agree with me, but you wrote what i wrote...

"Trigger" - situation that allow you to play something. You can use it to play it or not.

Ploy damage all fighters in that same time. Fighter A is damaged, it trigger. You can play reaction or not. Fighter B is damaged aswell, it trigger: you play reaction or not. FIghter C is damaged, it trigger, you can ploy or not. So you have trigger for every fighter damaged. You have one card so you can play it only once. Whats wrong about that conclusion?  

Edited by Reggi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goblin-King said:

Part of this is objectively wrong though: Play this after an attack action or ploy that damages A friendly fighter.

It is triggered by ONE fighter taking damage. One fighter is mentioned as part of the trigger - that fighter is the one who gains the benefit.

Would you then say that My Turn actually cannot trigger after Shardgale since more than one (not "a") fighter got damaged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reggi said:

Hmm... you should read my whole post, not only first sentance. I wrote that you can play it only on one fighter... but you can pick which one, if all fighters get damage.

Oh man! Sorry - I guess I rushed that post :-/

59 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Would you then say that My Turn actually cannot trigger after Shardgale since more than one (not "a") fighter got damaged?

I would not - After actually reading Reggi's post (sorry again!) I agree. Each damaged fighter is it's own individual trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Goblin-King said:

I know, but people keep saying some of the judges were the game designers, so it seems reasonable to think these rulings will go unaltered in the eventual FAQ.

I wouldn't say the game has become dull, but we are walking a dangerous line.
You know... at this point I almost hope season 2 will rotate all neutral cards out, and they'll start giving a **** about balance this time.

Official FAQ is up. https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/warhammer_underworlds_shadespire_en-2.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...