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

Shadespire community FAQ

Recommended Posts

On 10/30/2018 at 5:05 PM, PlasticCraic said:

Thanks guys!  Sloppy rulebook reading on my part there.  Appreciate the help.

No problem. I think this sequence is something a lot of people end up overlooking when they start off. I know I did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAW is it actually possible to score ‘The Harvest Begins’? The card text is:

‘Score this immediately if a friendly fighter makes an Attack Action that damages three or more enemy fighters’.

The rules for attacking multiple targets in the Nightvault rules (pg 21) say that an attack that targets multiple enemies is performed as separate attack actions. Therefore it would be impossible for an attack action to damage more than one enemy fighter as an attack action only ever targets one fighter.

The ‘Reaper’ objective has similar wording but refers to ‘an attack’ rather than an ‘attack action’. Does this work since the fighter is only using one attack even though it is multiple attack actions, or is each attack action considered a separate attack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ksym77 said:

RAW is it actually possible to score ‘The Harvest Begins’? The card text is:

‘Score this immediately if a friendly fighter makes an Attack Action that damages three or more enemy fighters’.

The rules for attacking multiple targets in the Nightvault rules (pg 21) say that an attack that targets multiple enemies is performed as separate attack actions. Therefore it would be impossible for an attack action to damage more than one enemy fighter as an attack action only ever targets one fighter.

The ‘Reaper’ objective has similar wording but refers to ‘an attack’ rather than an ‘attack action’. Does this work since the fighter is only using one attack even though it is multiple attack actions, or is each attack action considered a separate attack?

Yes.

You declare an attack action.

You are required to resolve separately so the rules don't get broken by reactions etc.

The requirement to resolve separately doesn't change the fact it is a single attack action to begin with.

The other option is... it's impossible to score. Which would mean GW invalidated a card intentionally. Which I very much doubt they would do, as doing it this soon would affect perception of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that has me confused is that the Nightvault  rulebook gives the example of ‘Determined Effort’ only adding +1 dice to the attack made against the first target, not to any others, because they are all separate attack actions. If it was considered to be one attack action then ‘Detrrmined Effort’ would apply to all of the other attacks as well, wouldn’t it? 

I looked in the Shadespire rulebook to see what the rules were before Nightvault but I couldn’t find any mention of it. I wonder if they wanted to clarify the rules for Nightvault but forgot about ‘The Harvest Begins’...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shadespire rulebook was errata’d to include that line from Nightvault. If you find the PDF, it’ll be there. 

 

An attack action that targets all surrounding enemies is an attack action with multiple attack actions, if that makes sense. So each individual attack is its own attack action, but it’s also all encompassed by the one attack action that triggered them all.

Like a charge is an action with multiple actions. If there was an objective that was “an enemy fighter was taken out in the first action of a round” charging someone and killing them would still score that objective, even if it’s a move action then an attack action. They are still part of the charge action.

Thats how you have to think of it as that’s the only way Endless Harvest could ever be scored. 

The various “first attack action in the next activation” buff abilities only work on the first attack because the errata in the shadespire book, and the rules in the Nightvault book specifically say so.

 

i hope that makes sense

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question that I couldn't find a answer to, can a player who's warband is taken out of action still play "environment" changing ploy's (like earthquake?) or does he need to have skin in the game to be able to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game keeps going even if your warband has been eliminated.  You still get to take activations (although without fighters on the board you'd only be able to draw cards) and play cards after in the power step, play cards as reactions, play cards during their power step, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, spazz said:

I have a question that I couldn't find a answer to, can a player who's warband is taken out of action still play "environment" changing ploy's (like earthquake?) or does he need to have skin in the game to be able to do so?

One of the coolest, yet hard to get your head around it you are a veteran wargamer, aspects of Underworlds is that the game is far from over when your last guy dies. The game goes on and you absolutely can win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the most basic Warband for an 8 year old boy?

I have Nightvault. I can go an get any Warband, and am thinking about buying a copy of Shadespire, plus the Echoes of Glory since there seems to be a consensus that I would need the Echoes cards to play the original two Warbands in Nightvault.

Please rank these in order of play-ability. I am thinking a lower model count would be better.

Briar Queen

Stormsire's

Garrek's Reavers

Steelheart's

Also, I am a brand new player. I almost always play Orks, but in Underworlds, I can't get in to them. I am leaning towards either Zarbag's or the 9.

Which sets would I have to go back and purchase to make a deck that would be competitive enough to not lose every time I went to the LGS. Lots of people say Echoes, Magores and Farstriders. Is this still true? Hopefulyl the FLGS has a Black Friday sale.

Please advise. Thanks in advance.

Share this post


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

Please rank these in order of play-ability. I am thinking a lower model count would be better.

Briar Queen
Stormsire's
Garrek's Reavers
Steelheart's

Briar Queen has lots of models but the weaker ones generally feel that you're not connecting with attacks often and, when you do, you're not causing much damage. Great for Objective strategies now that the bans have come in but an 8-year old is likely to want to smash face rather than play the strategic game they are better at. Beautiful minis though.

Garrek's Reavers is generally considered to be the worst band in the game because, for every strength they have, there's another band you could play that does that thing better.  Really needs their pick of cards across multiple releases to make a deck that doesn't feel like you're going into matches with an automatic disadvantage. Not difficult to play but your figs are squishy so can occasionally be a feel bad when you know that running in to attack will likely see your guy die on the riposte.

Stormsire's & Steelheart's are very similiar (good stats, small band count, can play defense or attack, hit hard) with Stormsire's being probably the more adaptable band of the 2. Magic just gives them an extra dimension that Steelheart's doesn't have and season 2 is all about spells & magic, so every new purchase will add good cards to the deck. Against that, you have Steelheart's inspired advantage of a second defense dice on shields, largely considered to be the best inspired advantage in the game so far.

So, if your son wants to smash in with shiny knights and not worry as much (statistically) about losing his guys, Steelheart's is the choice. If he wants a band that does the same, throws magic about & add the best new spells to his deck with each new purchase, (though a little more fragile), then it's Stormsire's. 

 

Just on Echoes of Glory, you don't *need* it. It's just the universal extra cards you would get in the box if you bought the Steelheart's / Reaver's in their new individual format rather than the core set. That said, there's a lot of good cards in the  box and I don't regret adding it to my collection.

 

I think the game is evolving and there will always be discussion about the best warbands. If you have access to all the cards and know the warband, your card deck & metagame very well, Farstriders is objectively the best warband. Behind them (and not too far behind either!) is a big clump of bands that are very good and can easily win in the hands of an experienced player: Stormsire, Steelheart, Orks, Magore, Skaven & even possibly Guard. It's all down to personal choice, playstyle, practice.

With so little to choose between them, my advice is to go with what you enjoy playing rather than searching for what other palyers think is the best deck. A very good example is the recent Danish Nationals Clash won by an innovative Guard deck, a band that most players considered to be the worst band in the game behind even Reavers. Put a player who knows how to get the best out of a strategy & a band and *any* of the bands can be good. Yes, there are bands that are better for objectives or better playing defensively or aggressively, so you'd obviously go for a band that matches your personal preference. You mentionned you have Orks but just can't Grok them. They are the quintessential aggressive band, if you're looking for some other strategy, maybe they are not for you.

 

For the choice between the 9 & the Gits, it's also a personal strategy preference. The 9 have a great magician who you absolutely have to protect, a very good fighter and an extremely irritating Blue Demon. The 2 acolytes are really only there to sit on objectives and run interference while you leverage the other 3 models (though I've occasionally seen their 3 range Zap attack to be decisive). I think the lines are very clear with the deck: Inspire & protect the 2 principals, give the Horror some Glory gaining upgrades and make sure he's around at the end of the game. You can be aggressive if necessary but it's generally a defensive or Objective band. Losing Vortemis is hard though because the deck leans so heavily on his magic.

The Gits are a much more technically difficult band because there are a huge number of figurines & choices and every game is different, requiring you to evaluate & adapt these choices constantly. They score well if you can keep them alive and organised together in the right groups, which is hard because they are all small & squishy. Zarbag is an excellent Wizard, the Squigs are great aggressive threats, the archers work fine when adjacent to each other and the Fanatic..... is.... yes, well, just dont count on him being your principal fighter! :) They have great in-band scoring objectives and really have to be completely massacred not to score a decent amount of Glory. If you like puzzles, multiple decision paths and leveraging your actions to maximise your objective cards (rather than just attacking blindly for kill-Glory), you'll enjoy playing the Gits. If you're still unsure of some of the rules, or cards or you don't do random, probably not the best band for you.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Zimagic said:

Garrek's Reavers is generally considered to be the worst band in the game because, for every strength they have, there's another band you could play that does that thing better.  Really needs their pick of cards across multiple releases to make a deck that doesn't feel like you're going into matches with an automatic disadvantage. Not difficult to play but your figs are squishy so can occasionally be a feel bad when you know that running in to attack will likely see your guy die on the riposte.

Heh, we can see diffirences in meta here. In my meta Reavers are consider one of strongest warband in game, at least before ban and restricted lists. High movement, high damage and great faction objectives. They have very low defensive stats. In my opinion: they are very strong, but they are not easy to play. You need to take some time with them to learn how to use thier strong sides.

Edited by Reggi
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Inescapable Vengeance count as a move?

"When this fighter makes a Move or Charge action, instead of moving them normally you can place them on any starting hex

It says "instead of moving them normally" so RAW I think it doesn't count as moving. Is "placing" defined anywhere in the rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i think that the question has already been answeared but I can't found where...

Do the Thorns of the Briar Queen consider fatal hexes as normal hexes only when they do an Movement Action or in any circumstances? In other words, do they takes damages when they are push on or through a letal hex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2018 at 2:20 PM, PJetski said:

Does Inescapable Vengeance count as a move?

"When this fighter makes a Move or Charge action, instead of moving them normally you can place them on any starting hex

It says "instead of moving them normally" so RAW I think it doesn't count as moving. Is "placing" defined anywhere in the rules?

The key is that you are making Move or Charge action.  It says so. "When this fighter..."

The "instead" part is not saying you don't make a Move or Charge action - just that instead of moving them, you can* put them on any starting hex.  The "instead" is in reference to the hex-to-hex movement of the model, not the actual action itself (so, you still place the token and can trigger reactions that rely on Move or Charge actions).

* Note that this is different from Faneway Crystal. That card is not optional.  If you put it on a fighter, when it makes a Move action, you must reposition it according to the rules on the card and not move it normally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to grand clash in a couple of weeks and really just want to clarify a few timings on certain cards before I go as to not look stupid or cause arguments.

Change of tactics - do you score as soon as you charge or after finishing the full attack sequence?

My turn - does the opponent get to push you back after damaging you with an attack before you move/attack or after or not at all?

Keep them guessing - does ready for action/my turn count for 1 of the 4 actions or hidden paths etc?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are considered the same fighter, and the transformation triggers “when this fighter would be taken out of action.” You don’t actually take the fighter out of action, so Abasoth’s Withering remains active until the Brimstone Horrors model is taken out of action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 4:42 PM, choppa6189 said:

Going to grand clash in a couple of weeks and really just want to clarify a few timings on certain cards before I go as to not look stupid or cause arguments.

Change of tactics - do you score as soon as you charge or after finishing the full attack sequence?

My turn - does the opponent get to push you back after damaging you with an attack before you move/attack or after or not at all?

Keep them guessing - does ready for action/my turn count for 1 of the 4 actions or hidden paths etc?

Thanks.

1. I score it as soon as I put the charge token down (generally after the move part of the action), as it just seems to flow better at this point.  After the attack there can be other reactions etc taking place so it just feels cleaner to do it here. It doesn't say anything to the effect of 'completes a charge action' so I believe this is correct but could be mistaken.

2. Yes they get to drive you back as part of their attack action, and then AFTER their attack action you react with this card

3. Yes because those cards say 'make a move/attack action' or 'are considered to have made a move action' on them. I'm not sure about ploys that 'put a fighter on guard' - I could see arguments either way, but lean towards no because it doesn't say make a guard action (but again, could be wrong).

Share this post


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

1. I score it as soon as I put the charge token down (generally after the move part of the action), as it just seems to flow better at this point.  After the attack there can be other reactions etc taking place so it just feels cleaner to do it here. It doesn't say anything to the effect of 'completes a charge action' so I believe this is correct but could be mistaken.

2. Yes they get to drive you back as part of their attack action, and then AFTER their attack action you react with this card

3. Yes because those cards say 'make a move/attack action' or 'are considered to have made a move action' on them. I'm not sure about ploys that 'put a fighter on guard' - I could see arguments either way, but lean towards no because it doesn't say make a guard action (but again, could be wrong).

Thanks for the feedback I do it exactly how you do it I just wanted confirmation as I didn't want to get called out for anything during a big tournament. I'm hoping guard works for keep them guessing as I'm taking inspired command and it makes it so easy for change of tactics aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is supposed to be scored after the Charge action is complete, and not before. Page 25 of the rulebook states:

Objective Cards in the Action Phase: Most objective cards will be scored in the end phase as described to the left. However, some objectives are scored "immediately" – for example, after any action, reaction or gambit – as long as the conditions on the objective card are met.

So let's check the text on Change of Tactics:

Change of Tactics: Score this immediately if a friendly fighter on Guard makes a Charge action.

It doesn't say "declares a Charge action" or "finishes a Move action as part of a charge"; the fighter has to "[make] a Charge action." So what does that mean? Well, according to page 20 of the rulebook:

Charge Actions: A Charge action is an action that lets you make a Move action with a fighter as described on page 17, then immediately make an Attack action with them. This is a single activation. To make a Charge action, you must follow all of the rules for Move and Attack actions (see pages 17-18), with the exception that you do not place a Move token next to the fighter after the Move action.

Now, I'm not arguing that the rulebook clearly states that you have to wait until the action is over, but I think it strongly implies it. And in order to "make a Charge action," you have to follow all of the rules for Move actions and Attack actions, which you clearly haven't done if you haven't completed your Attack action yet.

Contrast this to Cover Ground, which is scored "if a friendly fighter makes a Move action of six or more hexes." You can score this card in the middle of a Charge action, because a Charge action is explicitly a Move action followed by an Attack action—so you can declare your Charge action, finish the Move action, score Cover Ground, draw a new objective card, and make the Attack action. You can even score that card, because—again, according to page 25 of the rulebook—you have completed an action:

When an objective card is scored in this way, that player can immediately draw another objective card. Note that you cannot score any objective cards drawn this way until after a subsequent action, reaction or gambit — you cannot draw and immediately score an objective card, even if the conditions on the card have been met.

Anyway, that's my take. The four instances of the word "immediately" in the November 2018 Designer's Commentary don't help clarify this issue, but I think the rulebook offers just enough structure to suggest that you have to complete the Charge action in order to score Cover Ground.

My two cents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×