Shadespire community FAQ

[Keldaur]

Yeah that makes sense thx..

[Attackmack]

1 hour ago, Keldaur said:

Not really, doing an action is the same as activating the warrior (check it out in the little box "activations").

I have one question about "Slaughter fed" (however it is called in english, khorne exclusive, card 15. The one that gives a reaction "that if an action or power card would kill a warrior, a friendly warrior could perform an attack".

Does this include warriors that already charged ?

Hmmm, yes it does say so. And a charge (move+attack) is considered a single activation so the free push happens after the attack.

 

As for your question, I would consider the attack not applicable to a warrior with a charge token as the attack is still considered an action and, imo, should be considered as activating a warrior.

[Keldaur]

Not exactly. When you activate a model, you can perform an action. Charge is considered a single action. When you have performed the action, then the warrior ends its activation. 

Activation =/= action. Therefore a warrior would be eligible for the card because it doesn't say that you activate a warrior to perform an action (that's something you do in the activation phase), you just perform an action.

Yeah i guess activation/action is going to be somewhat tricky sometimes.

[Attackmack]

3 minutes ago, Keldaur said:

Not exactly. When you activate a model, you can perform an action. Charge is considered a single action. When you have performed the action, then the warrior ends its activation. 

Activation =/= action. Therefore a warrior would be eligible for the card because it doesn't say that you activate a warrior to perform an action (that's something you do in the activation phase), you just perform an action.

Yeah i guess activation/action is going to be somewhat tricky sometimes.

True and i guess RAW could go either way. But i believe its at least the intention that a warrior with acharge token cant do anything at all.

The quick start sheet isnt applicable of course since its grossly simplified from the rulebook but it might give a hint of the intentions of the rules, and when it describes the effect of a charge token it states that the warrior (in that case Angherad) "cant do anything for the rest of the round".

 

[Keldaur]

And the intention of the card is to allow a warrior to attack when it should not be able to. I don't trust too much intention since it's subjective, hence why i prefer RAW interpretations.

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

So let's say I kille the enemy leader in turn 1. If I get the "get 1 point if the enemy leader is dead" in turn 2, do I discard it or get a point?

[Attackmack]

 

1 minute ago, KillagoreFaceslasha said:

So let's say I kille the enemy leader in turn 1. If I get the "get 1 point if the enemy leader is dead" in turn 2, do I discard it or get a point?

 

If you mean the cards that say something like "If the enemy leader was killed in the preceeding action phase" then no because it applies only to the preceeding action phase, not previous rounds.

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

that brings me to another question,  If I had 2 hammers would i only have one success of my enemy had NO luck and zero shields/crits?

[ReynakZhen]

6 hours ago, KillagoreFaceslasha said:

that brings me to another question,  If I had 2 hammers would i only have one success of my enemy had NO luck and zero shields/crits?

Yes, you are either successful with your attack, or you're not successful. Multiple Successes from the same roll, does not constitute multiplying damage.

for example Angharad has 3 attacks, she does 2 damage on a success. If you roll 3 successful hits and your opponent fails all three defense rolls, Angharad does not do 6 damage, only 2 damage.

[Attackmack]

New one:

Does "Rebirth in Blood", if it triggers, allow that fighter to activate this turn, assuming the player still has activations to go?

The card says to remove all wound tokens but it says nothing about charge/move tokens.

[Changer]

Here’s one that popped up last night. An attack action that targets each enemy within 1 hits steelheart first. This attack fails and steelheart performs the fatal reposte reaction, killing the attacker.

Does this reaction (and death of the attacker) prevent the attacker from finishing his combat and hitting the rest of the opponents within 1 hex?

[Attackmack]

25 minutes ago, Changer said:

Here’s one that popped up last night. An attack action that targets each enemy within 1 hits steelheart first. This attack fails and steelheart performs the fatal reposte reaction, killing the attacker.

Does this reaction (and death of the attacker) prevent the attacker from finishing his combat and hitting the rest of the opponents within 1 hex?

I dont have the rulebook at hand but I think the initial attack still finishes. You roll the attack for each opponent but counts as a single action. So maybe the initial attack should be finished against all enemies first, then steelheart gets his riposte.

[Keldaur]

Its after the attack action has been resolved, therefore, after the other player has performed his attack against all enemys adyacent to him, then the fatal reposte resolves. 

Edited October 29, 2017 by Keldaur

[Rintrah56]

18 hours ago, Attackmack said:

I dont have the rulebook at hand but I think the initial attack still finishes. You roll the attack for each opponent but counts as a single action. So maybe the initial attack should be finished against all enemies first, then steelheart gets his riposte.

I’m not sure this is correct - page 21 of rule book re: attacking multiple targets says “each of these attacks is a separate action”, not a single action.

Reactions interrupt flow of play and page 24 says that once a reaction is resolved, play continues from the point where it was interrupted, unless the reaction has made that impossible. In this case, Severin’s reaction killing the attacker would make it impossible to continue.

But simple way to avoid this issue for the attacking player is to do the attacks against Severin last (attacker chooses order as per page 21).

just my thoughts ?

[Changer]

That’s how we played it on Friday. Steelheart killing the opponent before he swings against his allies was also cinematic.

[Rintrah56]

It occurs to me that the last bit I said about targeting Severin last may not be as straightforward as that. Sorry, I don’t have my cards with me at the moment to check whether fatal riposte is a ploy or upgrade. If it’s a ploy then obviously the attacker won’t know he has it so cant strategise targeting him last. But if it’s an upgrade that is already in play then the attacker should have the sense to go for him last,

[ReynakZhen]

1 hour ago, Rintrah56 said:

It occurs to me that the last bit I said about targeting Severin last may not be as straightforward as that. Sorry, I don’t have my cards with me at the moment to check whether fatal riposte is a ploy or upgrade. If it’s a ploy then obviously the attacker won’t know he has it so cant strategise targeting him last. But if it’s an upgrade that is already in play then the attacker should have the sense to go for him last,

I was thinking the same thing, because i'm fairly certain fatal riposte is an upgrade not a ploy.

 

[Changer]

12 minutes ago, ReynakZhen said:

I was thinking the same thing, because i'm fairly certain fatal riposte is an upgrade not a ploy.

 

It’s an upgrade that grants a reaction after an attack that has failed against steelheart.

[Killax]

Yeah Reactions in general can also be seen as "Interrupts" because of this in certain cases it can occur that a model that would otherwise attack multiple models can't "finish all attacks" because a Reaction to a(ny) Attack might thake the Warrior out. 

@Rintrah56 basically said it as I would rule it too.  So far, by other game comparison, Reactions are the only "Instants".

[PlasticCraic]

Brightshield has an upgrade that puts her and all friendly models adjacent to her on guard.

How does this work?  Is it like a pulse, putting them on guard, then if the friendly units step away from her they keep their on guard status (losing it if they charge away, as normal)?

Or is it always active like an aura, but only while they are adjacent to her (so if they step away, they lose it)?

And does Brightshield have permanent on guard status as long as she is upgraded, or does it just activate like a normal activation and she can lose it again like normal?

[Killax]

1 hour ago, PlasticCraic said:

Brightshield has an upgrade that puts her and all friendly models adjacent to her on guard.

How does this work?  Is it like a pulse, putting them on guard, then if the friendly units step away from her they keep their on guard status (losing it if they charge away, as normal)?

Or is it always active like an aura, but only while they are adjacent to her (so if they step away, they lose it)?

And does Brightshield have permanent on guard status as long as she is upgraded, or does it just activate like a normal activation and she can lose it again like normal?

Block does this for an Action, what this means is that all the effects thake up an Action and thus basically open another choice for Action (point) use.
If it is used she and any adjecent friendly warrior go on Guard. This means that one to two other models can be put on Guard for one Action. 

Any movements or effects that would remove the Guard token will also be still removed with this effect. So this doesn't mean Brightshield is permanent on Guard. It means you can put here and possibly more friendly warriors on Guard for one Action, where normally going on Guard thakes op one Action for one warrior.

Block is quite a situational Upgrade but Stormcast do have tons of options to putting models on Guard with Ploy cards too. 

[Killax]

Hi guys @Sedraxis and I had a question regarding Righteous Strike:



It seems this Reaction just continues against a leader. This would mean a guaranteed 2 damage, do you guys think this is correct? 

[Attackmack]

5 hours ago, Killax said:

Hi guys @Sedraxis and I had a question regarding Righteous Strike:



It seems this Reaction just continues against a leader. This would mean a guaranteed 2 damage, do you guys think this is correct? 

As written, maybe. As intended, absolutely not.

edited misread

Edited October 31, 2017 by Attackmack

[Changer]

21 minutes ago, Attackmack said:

As written, maybe. As intended, absolutely not.

edited misread

Not sure how this one could be misinterpreted to be honest. You choose to make this attack action. If it fails and the target was a leader, then you can make the attack again. I’m pretty sure there can only be one reaction per event. Plus the enemy gets the choice to react first. If you attacked steelheart and he had fatal reposte for example, he could react with the hat, thus preventing the reaction on this card from even occurring.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Changer

[Attackmack]

6 minutes ago, Changer said:

Not sure how this one could be misinterpreted to be honest. You choose to make this attack action. If it fails and the target was a leader, then you can make the attack again. I’m pretty sure there can only be one reaction per event. Plus the enemy gets the choice to react first. If you attacked steelheart and he had fatal reposte for example, he could react with the hat, thus preventing the reaction on this card from even occurring.

The question was if this reaction can be triggered by itself, in an ideal situation where no opposing player can react to stop it.

I cant imagine this to be the intention as it would be really bad design/writing, but as far as I can see there is nothing in the rules stopping it.