Shadespire community FAQ

[Goblin-King]

I can certainly see the utility, I was just surprised that you only get two chances to pull it off.
That made me doubt if I was reading it correctly - But I am it seems...

[Killax]

8 minutes ago, Goblin-King said:

I can certainly see the utility, I was just surprised that you only get two chances to pull it off.
That made me doubt if I was reading it correctly - But I am it seems...

Yep,I do think its best for 5+ fighter Warbands, youll have a dude spare and parking one on an Objective isnt bad plan if your deck is right

[Killax]

Another one, easy to see both views but the key is two different fighters, despite the card not extremely clearing stating as such.

[Wallack]

I posted on that thread on Facebook with a couple of jokes to understand:

- How many kids do you have?
- One.
- I thought you had three !
- Oh, you didn't ask for different kids !!

- How many players from your team did score last match?
- Three.
- I thought it was a hattrick (three goals from the same player)
- Oh, you didn't ask for different players !!

 

Honestly, to me, the card leaves no doubt and whoever wants to take advantage from resurrecting the same model twice is trying to bend the rules a lot. The card doesn't say two resurrect actions or when you have resurrected two times ... it says, resurrect two fighters. You resurrect the same model 3 times and I ask you, how many fighters did you resurrect? You need balls of steels to say three. Like really big balls of steel You did three resurrect actions but you resurrected one player. Is very simple and easy to see.

People argument that other cards specify "different" fighters but is because in that card it might make a difference with the wording. Here it doesn't matter to say two fighters or two different fighters. Actually specifying different in this card would create more issues because we have three Petitioners and people would say "hey, it says different, they all have the same name, why would they otherwise point the "different" word in the card huh?".

A lot of cards can be worded better and hell, English is not my language, I' from Spain, but I can never understand how can someone say that he resurrected three fighters when he actually resurrected the same model three times (thrice?).

Sorry for the long post but sometimes my blood boil a bit when people argue a lot for things that are really simple because to me it looks like they try to bend the rules.

Regards.

[SirSolomon]

I have a Question about March of the Dead that came up last night.

I had 7 skeletons on the field (First phase ), I moved 5 of them. At the end of the first phase I wanted to score 2 Glory points for March of the Dead. My opponent said that I could not because I had to move all 7 of my surviving fighters. Can someone tell me if this is correct. Do you need to move all your surviving fighters or just 5 out of your warband?

[warmus77]

1 hour ago, SirSolomon said:

I have a Question about March of the Dead that came up last night.

I had 7 skeletons on the field (First phase ), I moved 5 of them. At the end of the first phase I wanted to score 2 Glory points for March of the Dead. My opponent said that I could not because I had to move all 7 of my surviving fighters. Can someone tell me if this is correct. Do you need to move all your surviving fighters or just 5 out of your warband?

Your opponent is right. You mut move all your surviving fighters and at least you must have 5 remaining fighters. 

[Killax]

1 hour ago, SirSolomon said:

I have a Question about March of the Dead that came up last night.

I had 7 skeletons on the field (First phase ), I moved 5 of them. At the end of the first phase I wanted to score 2 Glory points for March of the Dead. My opponent said that I could not because I had to move all 7 of my surviving fighters. Can someone tell me if this is correct. Do you need to move all your surviving fighters or just 5 out of your warband?

I believe the intention is to move all if all are present. You can still score it up until 5 are left.

[Goblin-King]

I concur. It's worded something like:

"If all your surviving fighters (at least 5) made a move action in the preceding..."

"All of your surviving fighters" is very clear. It means ALL of your surviving fighters.
"At least 5" is a fail safe to prevent getting scoring unreasonably many points by just moving a single surviving fighter.
So if 3 of your 7 fighters are dead you can't score this anymore because there's not at least 5 on the board. Even if the first part of the score condition of "all surviving fighters made a move action".

Personal rant: These "all must do X (at least Y)" are terrible to new players. I wish they had worded them differently.

[SirSolomon]

Yeah it was a bit confusing. Thanks for all the help guys!

[Sleboda]

Is there a definition of an empty hex?

 

There is an undead card that lets you move through other fighters but stipulates you must end in an empty hex.  To me, this is just  a way to reiterate that you cannot end your move  sharing a hex with another fighter. Tokens and the like don't make a hex non-empty, right?

[Killax]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Is there a definition of an empty hex?

 

There is an undead card that lets you move through other fighters but stipulates you must end in an empty hex.  To me, this is just  a way to reiterate that you cannot end your move  sharing a hex with another fighter. Tokens and the like don't make a hex non-empty, right?

Unfortunatly not yet, just like an occupied hex is not clearly defined. This applies for the purpose of Shardfall, it's currently not known if the Shardfall token can be placed on an Objective or not (though I don't play it like that). 

Like unstoppable charge I believe the intention indeed is to not have a fighter end on a hex that contains another fighter. In addition it still can't move through blocked hexes. However I do believe that the intention is that you can end on a (non-empty) hex containing an Objective token. Otherwise the card would be extremely niche and it isn't too incredible anyway.

[Sleboda]

I am of of the same opinion.  I have won three games specifically because of that card - going through an enemy and landing on an objective.

If you could not end on an objective, I'd never include it.

[Choombatta]

10 hours ago, Killax said:

Unfortunatly not yet, just like an occupied hex is not clearly defined. This applies for the purpose of Shardfall, it's currently not known if the Shardfall token can be placed on an Objective or not (though I don't play it like that). 

Like unstoppable charge I believe the intention indeed is to not have a fighter end on a hex that contains another fighter. In addition it still can't move through blocked hexes. However I do believe that the intention is that you can end on a (non-empty) hex containing an Objective token. Otherwise the card would be extremely niche and it isn't too incredible anyway.

I will have to say, that is some weird logic there.

An objective does not count to see if a hex is empty, but you think an objective does count to see if a hex is occupied?

Occupied hex is clearly defined, yet empty hex is not.

[Big Ows]

Personally I think that “un-occupied” and “empty” hex are the same definition and as interpret it that is any hex which is NOT blocked and NOT containing a figure. My interpretation is that an obvective being on an objective does not make it occupied or “non-empty”. 

I think that this makes sense in relation to your undead card allowing a fighter to pass through other fighters. There is some disagreement regarding the interpretation of the rule for shadeglass tiles it in my opinion placing a sjadeglass tile on a hex with an objective is well within the rules and is a perfectly valid tactic for denying an opppnenee and objective or even keeping it clear to be claimed in the next round. 

[Killax]

FAQ Update!

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_underworlds_shadespire_en-1-2.pdf

[Killax]

Quite some strange and unexpected things in this FAQ, but it is what it is! 

(Didn't expect Total Offence to be ruled the way it did previously either)

Summery:
- Roll offs changed, half and full moon supports are checked after Critical (only for this roll)
- Decks are face up and open information that must be shared if asked for
- Half hexes on the board do not block Line of Sight
- Ever-Advancing allows you to push Garrek (like you want to, basically)
- Multiple model attacks are explained
- Shardfall Token can be placed onto Objective Token
- Shifting Shards can put Objective Tokens into Blocked Hexes
- Time Trap explained (note, a fighter who charged is actually even more limited, e.g. a fighter who charged cannot preform another attack action either)
- Swift Strike pushes before attacking (wether or not it has a legal target is irrelevant) so basically is hex push for an Action, this does make it a whole lot more interesting as it's now become an alternative to move further with a model who allready made a Move Action too

Interesting changes overall, didn't expect the Objectives to move to blocked hexes or Swift Strike to allow you to attack into nothing.

[Biboune]

I have a issue to understand why Tireless Assault and The Necromancer Commands are different regarding multiple model target attacks but... well

[Killax]

45 minutes ago, Biboune said:

I have a issue to understand why Tireless Assault and The Necromancer Commands are different regarding multiple model target attacks but... well

Its the same but one is talking about Mighty Swing (ploy) and Tireless Assault (ploy). While the other is talking about The Harvesters attack (Attack Action) and The Necromander Commands (ploy).

Its resolved the same way but basically explains that ploys can be midway interrupted like Attack actions.

Im still suprised about Mighty Swing but hey thats Army of One out of Stormcast and swinging for movement. Think Ill do it for Orruks too.

[Wallack]

I only got rights shardfalls on objective tokens !!

Also, multiple target attacks are easy if you think about it as an action that lets you make an attack action to each adjacent fighter, is not an action that targets all adjacents is an action that lets you make 1 for each so is easier to understand this way I'd say.

Total offence I'm pretty sure was included in the previous version? I remember something similar that said that could only be used on the first attack.

Surprised they didn't comment on the objective that asks you to hold all available objectives how would it behave if you remove one from the board. Is is still achievable ? or isn't because there are 4 and originally there were 5?

Anyways, happy to have a loooooot of things cleared up.

[Mournfang's mourning]

2 hours ago, Killax said:

- Swift Strike pushes before attacking (wether or not it has a legal target is irrelevant) so basically is hex push for an Action, this does make it a whole lot more interesting as it's now become an alternative to move further with a model who allready made a Move Action too

So does that mean that I can push my fighter one hex even if there is no target in range? Or do I need to be able to perform a viable attack to push the fighter ("the fighter must end the push in a hex in which they can make the Attack action")?

 

1 hour ago, Wallack said:

Surprised they didn't comment on the objective that asks you to hold all available objectives how would it behave if you remove one from the board.

How can you remove an objective from the board? By pushing it into a blocked hex? Can I push an objective over the edge of the board to remove it?

[Nico]

Quote

Time Trap explained (note, a fighter who charged is actually even more limited, e.g. a fighter who charged cannot preform another attack action either)

So you would now use Time Trap after a Move action to do an attack action (instead of just charging), with the view to doing yet another attack with the same fighter later in that phase (because you've not charged) for example.

Alternatively, you could attack with a fighter and then use Time Trap to do a charge - that might be the best way to use it now. Thoughts?

Edited December 4, 2017 by Nico

[Nico]

Does anyone else think they will introduce upgrades that require two (or more) Glory tokens to apply to a fighter? Seems like an obvious route they could explore.

[Xasz]

4 hours ago, Killax said:

Decks are face up and open information that must be shared if asked for

The discard pile, not the deck.

[Inquisitor Moloko]

1 hour ago, Mournfang's mourning said:

How can you remove an objective from the board? By pushing it into a blocked hex? Can I push an objective over the edge of the board to remove it?

It probably refers to the Desecrate ploy that removes a held Objective.

[Inquisitor Moloko]

15 minutes ago, Nico said:

Does anyone else think they will introduce upgrades that require two (or more) Glory tokens to apply to a fighter? Seems like an obvious route they could explore.

I'd like to see a card that grants a Glory, but it comes to you already face-down (can't be used to play an Upgrade). Thematically, it could represent shady tactics (I think Robbery should have been this way).