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

Shadespire community FAQ

Recommended Posts

Hello, i'd like to ask a couple of questions:

If I make an attack with a fight equipped with Total Offense and then play Time Trap in the power phase, can i activate the same fighter with it?

What about if I make an attack with a Total Offense equipped fighter with Demonic Weapon and react to my own attack with My turn? is the product of My Turn a viable attack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, tunaspire said:

Hello, i'd like to ask a couple of questions:

If I make an attack with a fight equipped with Total Offense and then play Time Trap in the power phase, can i activate the same fighter with it?

What about if I make an attack with a Total Offense equipped fighter with Demonic Weapon and react to my own attack with My turn? is the product of My Turn a viable attack?

The thing about Time Trap is that it doesn't let you activate a fighter; it grants an action. These two keywords are very different and important.
Charging with a fighter doesn't stop them from taking more actions, it only stops you from activating them again.
Of course most actions comes from activating fighters, so often it feels like the same thing.

So yes, you can attack with Total Offense, then use Time Trap to attack again.
Same goes for My Turn. It let's you take an Action, not an Activation. So both of your combos are absolutely legal! ??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I see,  thanks for the clarification, this game could really use way better wording imho.

 Anyway thanks for the fast answer, cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you still score perfect planning if models charge? No move action allowed by the card and a charge is a move and attack action so im guessing if you charge you dont score?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! I am in doubt of the Farstrider's card Zealous defender:

"This fighter is considered to have an additional supporting fighter when they are holding an objective."

I guess you can use it both attacking and defending, isn't it? Thanks!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that seems correct. So if a fighter with Zealous Defender is holding an objective and does not have any supporting fighters nearby, he is considered to have one supporting fighter; if he has one on the board, he is considered to have two; etc. Note that having an additional supporting fighter does not mean that the fighter will automatically be able to count single-support die rolls as successes. (For example, a fighter with Zealous Defender who is attacked by an enemy fighter with an enemy support will result in one supporting fighter for each side, which mean that support rolls will not count for either side.)

Hope this helps!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there is a clear text somewhere, I'm not so sure you get to count 1 defender of you have 0.

If the card reads "additional" then you have to start with one. You can't have an additional thing that you have none of to begin with.

None to one is not an additional one. It's just ... having one now.

Share this post


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

Unless there is a clear text somewhere, I'm not so sure you get to count 1 defender of you have 0.

If the card reads "additional" then you have to start with one. You can't have an additional thing that you have none of to begin with.

None to one is not an additional one. It's just ... having one now.

This is an excellent point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sleboda You’re reading something that isn’t there into the card. Logically, what you’re saying doesn’t add up. I’ll demonstrate:

”How many supporting fighters do you have?”

”None.”

“Well, this card says you get an additional fighter.”

”Guess I have one, then.”

If the card were intended as you’re suggesting, it almost certainly would have been written differently. For example:

“Zealous Defender: If this fighter is holding an objective and has at least one supporting fighter, this fighter is considered to have an additional supporting fighter.”

Heck, just look at the artwork. Angharard is alone, and she’s clearly the defender in question. This is a far better indicator of intent than your assertion, IMO. Zero is still a number, and adding one to zero still gives one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word "additional" in an of itself makes the need to phrase it so you've suggested redundant.

That's whole point. Nothing illogical about using the meaning of the word they choose.

You can't have an "additional" something until you have at least one of those things to begin with.

It's actually them writing a rule efficiently.

Now, they may not have intended to write what they did, but if the wording is what it says in this thread that it is, then, according to the word they chose, you need to have at least one defender present to be able to claim an "additional" one.

 

Yes, zero is a number, but it's a number that says you don't have any. One is also a number, and it says you do have some.

The difference between zero and all other numbers is a big deal mathematically, programmatically, and grammatically.

 

Also, the day art becomes rules is the day I get to start saying that you can only use cards on the races depicted in the art, even though the rules themselves make no mention of it.

You cannot, at all, use the art this way.

Edited by Sleboda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what you're saying were correct, A Destiny to Meet wouldn't work as everyone has played it thus far because you couldn't "gain 1 additional glory point" if you didn't first gain at least 1 glory point in this circumstance.

A Destiny to Meet: If this fighter is not out of action at the end of the third action phase, gain 1 additional glory point.

The combination of Danse Macabre and Bloodslick Ground also illustrates this point.

Danse Macabre: Any friendly fighters that make a Move action in the next activation can move one additional hex.

Bloodslick Ground: In the next activation, enemy fighters have -2 Move.

The rulebook states that a fighter who takes a Move action "can move in any direction, moving into an adjacent hex up to a number of times equal to their Move characteristic." According to your interpretation of "additional," a Move 2 fighter who has his Move reduced to 0 because of Bloodslick Ground can't use Danse Macabre to move at all because the fighter can't move an "additional" hex without first moving at least one hex. Clearly, though, the rulebook says the opposite: the fighter can move "up to a number of times equal to their Move characteristic," which would be 0 in this case, after which the fighter can use Danse Macabre to move "an additional hex."

I think these examples clearly illustrate that the word "additional" does not require a positive number before adding to whatever the value is. If the value is 0, granting an "additional 1" makes the value 1. There's no reason Zealous Defender shouldn't work the same way.

Edited by Tutenkharnage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2018 at 10:43 PM, Sleboda said:

Unless there is a clear text somewhere, I'm not so sure you get to count 1 defender of you have 0.

If the card reads "additional" then you have to start with one. You can't have an additional thing that you have none of to begin with.

None to one is not an additional one. It's just ... having one now.

Maybe I missed something in reading this through, but if it reads as this "This fighter is considered to have an additional supporting fighter when they are holding an objective" you  are not starting with 0 as the one fighter is holding an objective so therefor you have 1 fighter in play you get to add a "second". I read it as I get a additional fighter in a supporting role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase is "additional supporting fighter."

It isn't just "additional fighter."

If there is no supporting fighter at all, then you can't have an additional one.

Share this post


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

The phrase is "additional supporting fighter."

It isn't just "additional fighter."

If there is no supporting fighter at all, then you can't have an additional one.

My reply two posts above yours (and three posts above this one) provides strong evidence that this is not a correct interpretation (unless you think A Destiny to Meet can’t be scored at all, I suppose, because you can’t gain “an additional 1 glory” without first gaining another glory from another card).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going by English. GW may well mean something other than what they have printed on the card, but (other than words that have been (re)defined within the rules) words mean what they mean in the language in which they are printed out spoken.

?‍♂️

Edited by Sleboda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree that A Destiny to Meet awards no glory, and that Danse Macabre can’t be used if your opponent plays Bloodslick Ground even though the rules clearly state otherwise and do so in direct contradiction to what you’re claiming for Zealous Defender?

No, of course you’re not making those claims; they’re ridiculous. But your interpretation of this card isn’t any better. 

Look, I can’t say with 100% certainty that I’m right, but I can say with 100% certainty that what you’re proposing causes conflicts with other cards that go against what is written in the rule book, and what I’m proposing doesn’t. (When it comes to the English language, I have an English degree and have worked as an editor for nearly two decades, so I trust my own judgment there.) GW might eventually release a FAQ that requires a fighter to have at least one supporting fighter in order to benefit from Zealous Defender, but they’ll have to release a similar FAQ to clarify A Destiny to Meet in the opposite direction, and that’s clearly not the intent of that card even though your interpretation of “additional” would make that card worthless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says one additional because if it was worded in another way, "counts as having one supporting fighter" the reverse argument would be had. If I had a physical model someone would say to me I can't have 2 supporting fighters because the card states I have one. The intention of this card is very clear that if I have no supporting fighters I now have one. If the intention wasn't clear this would come up in tournament play and be in the faq.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! Regarding goblin fanatic Snirk’s inspired criteria, it says “after an activation.”

Does it have to be an activation specifically used for Snirk? Or any activation will do, including opponent ones?

Also, is the use of scurry to move him considered an activation?

Thanks in advance!

Share this post


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

Hello! Regarding goblin fanatic Snirk’s inspired criteria, it says “after an activation.”

Does it have to be an activation specifically used for Snirk? Or any activation will do, including opponent ones?

Also, is the use of scurry to move him considered an activation?

Thanks in advance!

Any activation, even opponents.

Share this post


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

You can inspire Snirk after any fighter's activation, but Scurry allows Snirk to make a Move action, not to take an activation.

Oh, and just to be clear, if you used Scurry after the Move portion of another friendly fighter’s Charge action as part of an activation, you could Scurry with Snirk, use Scurry with any other fighters you wanted to, take your Attack action as part of the Charge, and then inspire Snirk (because the first friendly fighter’s activation is now over). 

Whew! I’m going to get a headache for sure the first time I see these guys on the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2018 at 5:25 PM, Future said:

It says one additional because if it was worded in another way, "counts as having one supporting fighter" the reverse argument would be had. If I had a physical model someone would say to me I can't have 2 supporting fighters because the card states I have one. The intention of this card is very clear that if I have no supporting fighters I now have one. If the intention wasn't clear this would come up in tournament play and be in the faq.

There woukd be better ways to phrase it. Example : "Counts as having a supporting fighter. If he already has one or more supporting fighters, he counts as having one more."

Edited by Sleboda

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...