Jump to content

Shadespire community FAQ


zabbraxas

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mournfang's mourning said:

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")?

Yes to first, no to second. I initially assumed no to first and yes to second but this is not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nico said:

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?

Best way is to preform two charges with two fighters still. One is almost guaranteed supported.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Killax said:

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.

I am sorry but they speak about "[...]such as Severin Steelheart’s Mighty Swing?"

What i understand is that with Severin you can attack A, B and C. If you are successful with the attack targeting A, but if you fail against B, then you can interrupt and make another Attack action against B. It can be another mighty swing, targeting B, C and A . Then you finish to resolve the first attack and attack C.

The ploy Mighty Swing can be interrupt, but even with Tireless Assault the other attack you can make cannot be another Mighty Swing (ploy), The severin's Mighty Swing can me interrupt and the other attack can be another Mighty Swing ( Severin's attack action).

(OP.....)

With the Necromancer Commands, if you are succesful against, A, but you fail against B; you can interrupt the Harvester Attack attack B again nothing more, and then you attack C.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Killax said:

Best way is to preform two charges with two fighters still. One is almost guaranteed supported.

For sure. You want to use time trap to swing the game - take out one hearty fighter or two small ones if you can before your opponent has the chance to retaliate. It's pretty huge, especially when combined with cards that grant you an extra attack (orcs have one that allows you to attack after a move - that would mean move, attack, maybe another attack or a supported charge) 

Edited by muggins
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Biboune said:

I am sorry but they speak about "[...]such as Severin Steelheart’s Mighty Swing?"

What i understand is that with Severin you can attack A, B and C. If you are successful with the attack targeting A, but if you fail against B, then you can interrupt and make another Attack action against B. It can be another mighty swing, targeting B, C and A . Then you finish to resolve the first attack and attack C.

The ploy Mighty Swing can be interrupt, but even with Tireless Assault the other attack you can make cannot be another Mighty Swing (ploy), The severin's Mighty Swing can me interrupt and the other attack can be another Mighty Swing ( Severin's attack action).

Ah yes, well the whole different write up then comes from the fact that Severin has two different attacks and thus can opt to use the other as making (another) Attack action as the effect of Tireless Assault comes in. 

So what the design is (didn't have the FAQ on hand) that you can e.g. attack with Mighty Swing (Attack action), hit, hit, miss, use Tireless Assault (ploy) to either make another Attack action with a Mighty Swing (Attack action) OR Sigmarite Broadsword (Attack action). These two different Attack action options are exclusive to him, Harvester has only one attack, quite some models do.

Lastly and that's the key here; The Necromancer Commands specifically says to make the failed Attack action again, Tirless Assault says make another Attack action against the same fighter if the previous Attack action failed. So The Necromancer Commands has to be the same attack while Tireless Assault does not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mournfang's mourning said:

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")?

 

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?

Desecrate, a khorne card that allows you to remove an objective from the board if is held by you. I don't want to play against sepulchral and make them easy to score the "claim the city" objective card that requires you to hold all objectives. Not sure if would be easier (4 objectives on board as I removed one) or impossible (you cannot hold all, you can only hold all available ones) so that's why I thought it needed a FAQ.

16 hours ago, Nico said:

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?

Best is to charge with two fighters. The thing about this card is that you can switch the following order:

  • Opponent
  • You
  • Opponent
  • You
  • Opponent
  • You
  • Opponent
  • You

To:

  • Opponent
  • You
  • Opponent
  • You
  • Opponent
  • You
  • You
  • Opponent

Making that if you use it on the first or second phase (where most impact can be made) the opponent has only a 50% chance of getting a double turn (if they start first the next phase). If you play it on the third phase is a guaranteed swap that makes you the only one to play two turns in a row.

I still think the best is to just use it against Stormcasts and Ironjawz. Against SCs you could take one of their fighters and they suffer from losses even more. If you use it against IJ you could go after the weakest ones to wipe them to a 50% of their starting size if you can one shot them.

I think is an auto include.

16 hours 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 hope they also introduce powerful ploy cards that require to spend glory points as that would add more design space to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/12/2017 at 5:04 PM, Killax said:

Ah yes, well the whole different write up then comes from the fact that Severin has two different attacks and thus can opt to use the other as making (another) Attack action as the effect of Tireless Assault comes in. 

So what the design is (didn't have the FAQ on hand) that you can e.g. attack with Mighty Swing (Attack action), hit, hit, miss, use Tireless Assault (ploy) to either make another Attack action with a Mighty Swing (Attack action) OR Sigmarite Broadsword (Attack action). These two different Attack action options are exclusive to him, Harvester has only one attack, quite some models do.

Lastly and that's the key here; The Necromancer Commands specifically says to make the failed Attack action again, Tirless Assault says make another Attack action against the same fighter if the previous Attack action failed. So The Necromancer Commands has to be the same attack while Tireless Assault does not.

 

Thank you for clarifying the differences between The Necromancer Commands and Tireless Assault, as well as the difference between an attack type that already targets all adjacent enemy fighters vs a ploy-based Mighty Swing. I've been reading all your posts and they have been very helpful!

However I am still not clear on why FAQ 1.1 specifies Severin's ability to target all adjacent enemy fighters again with the use of Tireless Assault (essentially two rounds of Might Swing), while it doesn't do so for The Harvester when The Necromancer Commands is used (only retry the failed action against the fighter it failed on).  This seems to suggest differences in the interpretation of the card and Bilbourne lays out the suggested interpretation here:

On 05/12/2017 at 7:31 AM, Biboune said:

What i understand is that with Severin you can attack A, B and C. If you are successful with the attack targeting A, but if you fail against B, then you can interrupt and make another Attack action against B. It can be another mighty swing, targeting B, C and A . Then you finish to resolve the first attack and attack C.

With the Necromancer Commands, if you are succesful against, A, but you fail against B; you can interrupt the Harvester Attack attack B again nothing more, and then you attack C.

 

Are there any real differences intended in the cards or are they just worded differently with the same intention? I am confused because there "attack action" means two things and can lead to different interpretations of the The Necromancer Commands.

1. Attack Action (the action chosen): Whirling Scythe. When I declare an attack action and choose Whirling Scythe, it is an "attack action".

2. Attack Action (the actions carried out): the attack targets all adjacent enemy fighters and I roll for each. Each roll is a separate "attack action"

Which means the same term for two different things when it comes to Whirling Scythe or Might Swing:

[Attack action > (Attack action A) + (Attack action B) + (Attack Action C)...

 

Key question:

So does playing The Necromancer Commands mean that I can interrupt my Whirling Scythe on a failure (e.g. Attack action B1), and "Make the attack action again" (i.e. Whirling Scythe, which failed here and is an attack action), target all adjacent enemy fighters with Whirling Scythe (a la Severin and Tireless Assault: A2, B2, C2) then resume the first round of Whirling Scythe (e.g. Attack action C1...).

 

I don't see why the interpretation has to be different between The Necromancer Commands and tireless Assault other than the fact you pointed out that Tireless Assault allows choosing a different attack but The Necromancer Commands does not.

Edited by cainthebag
remove unintended curtness and to project intended gratitude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wording of the 2 cards are different. Tireless Assault (TA) says something like "make another attack action" the Necromancer Commands (NC) says "make the attack action again"

When you target everyone around, let's say 3 enemies, you make 3 attack actions; When you fail one with the NC, you do it again. When you fail one with TA, you don't it again: you do anther one and this one can target everyone around also. And yes, TA says that the new attack action should target the fighter missed by the first attack action and Severin card says that his special attack target everyone around so... it is not exactly what TA authorizes

English is not my native language but in FAQ it seems pretty clear :

-for TA: " This could be another Mighty Swing* (allowing you to target other fighters as well)" * they speak about inspired Severin's mighty swing, not the ploy.

-for NC: " The Necromancer Commands to make that single Attack action targeting the same fighter again."

So to be clear, Severin can target multiple targets, being successful against every one except one, play TA and being successful against everyone again. Thank to TA he can deal 6 damages to one model without any upgrade.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Biboune said:

English is not my native language but in FAQ it seems pretty clear :

-for TA: " This could be another Mighty Swing* (allowing you to target other fighters as well)" * they speak about inspired Severin's mighty swing, not the ploy.

-for NC: " The Necromancer Commands to make that single Attack action targeting the same fighter again."

So to be clear, Severin can target multiple targets, being successful against every one except one, play TA and being successful against everyone again. Thank to TA he can deal 6 damages to one model without any upgrade.

 

Thanks Bilbourne and I think you make your case quite clear. there is really no need for the bolded part though.

I do understand English and as I clearly pointed out in my question, the confusion stems from choosing the attack type (i.e. attacking with Whirling Scythe, Boneshiver Spear, etc) as well as the individual attacks (in a multi-target attack) both being termed "attack action". I can buy your argument but as long as the terminology is not clear, the ambiguity is always going to be there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, i did not mean to be rude just to be clear. May be i sounded sharp but it is because I found the FAQ quite stupid: the 2 cards should do the same thing.

The time trap's question has a very weird answer, it fells like they just nerfed the card and did not say that the wording was bad. Then for TA and NC, they explain the same thing about multiple targets attacks and give 2 opposite answers just because the 2 card are not written exactly the same way. Severin is not swinging his sword but turning himself in a helicopter.

This is designed to be a competitive game, and I don't believe that they thought it would balanced the game if Severin should be able to one shot an unarmed orruk leader just with one ploy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Biboune said:

Sorry, i did not mean to be rude just to be clear. May be i sounded sharp but it is because I found the FAQ quite stupid: the 2 cards should do the same thing.

The time trap's question has a very weird answer, it fells like they just nerfed the card and did not say that the wording was bad. Then for TA and NC, they explain the same thing about multiple targets attacks and give 2 opposite answers just because the 2 card are not written exactly the same way. Severin is not swinging his sword but turning himself in a helicopter.

This is designed to be a competitive game, and I don't believe that they thought it would balanced the game if Severin should be able to one shot an unarmed orruk leader just with one ploy.

No problem. And yes, I agree with you completely. I often look at how cards, additional rules and FAQs affect the fundamentals of a game and I am concerned about Shadespire's rules with regard to future competition play. I, too, identified some of the issues you have listed.

1. What an attack action is, and how to identify if a card is referring to the attack action (attack executed) or the attack action (individual rolls for multiple target attack actions)

2. FAQ 1.1 ruling that Time Trap does not allow one to make an action that would otherwise be impossible (e.g. attack after a charge) clashes with the "cards trump rules" clause in the rulebook (see below). If this is the design intention for TT, then the FAQ should release an erratum level and nerf the card's text and not as an FAQ (which suggests a general rule in interpreting existing rules/text).

For reference: "Some cards allow you to do things that you normally wouldn't be allowed to do by the rules printed in this book. Whenever a card contradicts the rules printed in this book, the card takes precedence."

3.  There is no consistent underlying logic in the existing rules or wording that makes Total Offence exclusive to only the first attack action in a multi-target attack. We just have to apply it because FAQ says so, but it seems that we need some fundamental underlying rule or structure for this. Already, I have been asked if Great Strength only applies to the first attack roll/action of a multi-target Mighty Swing. It seems a silly question to ask, but it becomes reasonable in the light of the Total Offence FAQ.

 

My other concerns are game-design / competition related:

1. Rolling-off to see whose ploys resolve first introduces more luck and randomness that suggest that Shadespire is not meant for serious competitive play if we compare it to Stack, Last-in-First-out (LIFO) or Last-in-Last-out (LILO) mechanics in other games. This is in spite of the fact that Shadespire is an excellent game that can easily be made for serious competitive play. The designers may wish to reconsider their choice of this mechanism for solving timing and resolution of effects, or competition play may really boil down to roll-off against key ploys/effects.

2. Allowing Shifting Shards to be used to shift a Shard onto a blocked hex makes blocked hexes seem like arbitrary conditions rather than terrain effects (flavour ruined!). It also allows anti-competitive play (which is different from Desecrate because that is far more difficult to achieve and may even make objectives like Claim the City easier to achieve).

3. Unnecessary ambiguity in writing: FAQ 1.1 for Shattering Terrain states that" In a two-player game, when a player's fighter is taken out of action their opponent gains a glory point." The ruling that states that if my own fighter is taken out by my own Shattering Terrain "no one gains a glory point" is parked under a different signal marker -- "In a three- or four- player game". I doubt their intention for a two-player game is to have kamikaze fighters killed by their own Shattering Terrain or Demonic Weapon give glory points to the opponent, but clarity in writing and clarity of rules are often interlinked.

4. The general rule for Sprint that states that "multiplications and divisions come before additions and subtractions" may be mathematically sound, but doesn't quite make sense when an upgrade already boosts (adds) to the fighter's stats and yet ploys that come after only multiply base stats. I foresee this fundamental rule that eschews timing /effect resolution order leading to many more complications in future.

 

I love this game and I really hope that the game fundamentals can be made clearer and improved through rule updates and FAQs. So far, some rulings seem specific to some cards and clash fundamentally with way other rules/cards work in the game.

Edited by cainthebag
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2017 at 10:54 PM, cainthebag said:

 

I love this game and I really hope that the game fundamentals can be made clearer and improved through rule updates and FAQs. So far, some rulings seem specific to some cards and clash fundamentally with way other rules/cards work in the game.

Amen.

The game is so darn cool, but (as much as I am appreciative of timely FAQing) these latest answers really do seem either poorly tbought out or a stealth attempt at rule changes - either is bad in the long run.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13-12-2017 at 5:54 AM, cainthebag said:

My other concerns are game-design / competition related:

1. Rolling-off to see whose ploys resolve first introduces more luck and randomness that suggest that Shadespire is not meant for serious competitive play if we compare it to Stack, Last-in-First-out (LIFO) or Last-in-Last-out (LILO) mechanics in other games. This is in spite of the fact that Shadespire is an excellent game that can easily be made for serious competitive play. The designers may wish to reconsider their choice of this mechanism for solving timing and resolution of effects, or competition play may really boil down to roll-off against key ploys/effects.

2. Allowing Shifting Shards to be used to shift a Shard onto a blocked hex makes blocked hexes seem like arbitrary conditions rather than terrain effects (flavour ruined!). It also allows anti-competitive play (which is different from Desecrate because that is far more difficult to achieve and may even make objectives like Claim the City easier to achieve).

3. Unnecessary ambiguity in writing: FAQ 1.1 for Shattering Terrain states that" In a two-player game, when a player's fighter is taken out of action their opponent gains a glory point." The ruling that states that if my own fighter is taken out by my own Shattering Terrain "no one gains a glory point" is parked under a different signal marker -- "In a three- or four- player game". I doubt their intention for a two-player game is to have kamikaze fighters killed by their own Shattering Terrain or Demonic Weapon give glory points to the opponent, but clarity in writing and clarity of rules are often interlinked.

4. The general rule for Sprint that states that "multiplications and divisions come before additions and subtractions" may be mathematically sound, but doesn't quite make sense when an upgrade already boosts (adds) to the fighter's stats and yet ploys that come after only multiply base stats. I foresee this fundamental rule that eschews timing /effect resolution order leading to many more complications in future.

 

I love this game and I really hope that the game fundamentals can be made clearer and improved through rule updates and FAQs. So far, some rulings seem specific to some cards and clash fundamentally with way other rules/cards work in the game.

Yeah first things first, there is certainly some rules changing going on, the roll off being the most relevant example. As it suddenly changes the way the game is started. I don't really mind it that much but if this is what they intended I hope that they will consider redoing a Rulesbook too as that is really a change to core rules as far as Im concerned.

As for your points:
1. Yes, though it doesn't happen too often. It's up to the game designer to also ensure it doesn't happen because as you mention it then would require a redo of ruling.
2. I agree, I also think that putting Tokens on Tokens from a visual perspective is confusing and can easily lead to misplacement of one of the two tokens. E.g. remove Shard token from Objective token and push the tokens onto another hex accidently. 
3. Personally I'm okay with this rule, there are most certainly several rewards in the game currently that can reward killing your own models too however. Many of them are found in Garrek's Reavers objectives and that of the Sepulchral Guard.
4. Again I completely agree.

Same as you and Sleboda I also think that clearity is of the utmost importance and Ive even read some FB chatter of it being "impossible to put it all on a card" and that's the thing, it really isn't. Games Workshop is really designing great games these days but their wording quite often is vague. Vaguer as is required and both Swift Strike and Time Trap are massive examples of how to get vague rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Not sure, if it is the right place to ask, but what stuff is actually needed to start playing shadowspire?  And how much, on avarge of course, does it cost to start playing on a semi serious level. Doesn't have to be some World Championship list level, but something that can win local events and doesn't cost too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

Not sure, if it is the right place to ask, but what stuff is actually needed to start playing shadowspire?  And how much, on avarge of course, does it cost to start playing on a semi serious level. Doesn't have to be some World Championship list level, but something that can win local events and doesn't cost too much.

Well for 1 player buying the starter and the two other Warbands cover all cards and is €100 I believe? 

Add sleeves for €8 and your capable to win tournaments if you play well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That €100 quote is for everything currently out for Shadespire.  That's not a bad entry point in my opinion, but I'd argue you can get started, even at a local level for a lot less.

For  €40 you can get the core set.  That includes two warbands, the tokens, boards and dice you need, plus enough cards to get started with either warband and a few extra cards to experiment with customizing your deck. 

The two expansions cost €17.50, and each gives you a new warband to play with and new neutral cards that any warband can use. There are some strong cards in them, but they're not required to play either of the core set warbands. 

If your local scene allows for it, theoretically you could get by with one expansion, although you'd have a very limited deck and have to borrow someones board, dice and tokens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, someone help me out here. More time trap discussion! Specifically when compared to fueled by slaughter and ceaseless attacks. 

Time Trap FAQ says for you to take an action, but not something you'd normally be able to do and they say with their example, if you've moved, you cannot move again. So I'd assume that if you've charged, you cannot make a normal attack with that model using time trap. 

 

However, with fueled by slaughter and ceaseless attacks, I've read multiple places that you are able to make that attack action even if the model has charged, because ploys override the normal rules. 

 

If what I've written above is correct (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there seems to be a discrepancy in wording. The cards are basically worded the same (ie. Take an action) yet one action must follow normal rules and the other does not.  

 

If this is all the case, why not just have time trap say take an ACTIVATION immediately? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, that makes sense (specified vs unspecified). 

Is there a rules reference somewhere to show a stubborn opponent that fueled by slaughter or ceaseless attacks allow you to attack with a model that had charged? I could see someone trying to make the case comparing it to time trap? 

Or is the rules reference simply that some ploys override regular game rules, but time trap specifically does not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is that GW is not good at making clear rules, without loopholes , using clear and specific wording.

Specific or unspecific actions... may be but i don't think the answear is that complex. The FAQ regarding Time Trap clearly goes against the rulebook, why? 1/ Time trap was OP and got nerf 2/ the card wording was bad.

To show your stubborn opponent how fueled by slaugher like cards work:  page 21 of the rulebook

To know how Time Trap works: the FAQ.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CodFather said:

Is there a rules reference somewhere to show a stubborn opponent that fueled by slaughter or ceaseless attacks allow you to attack with a model that had charged?

Page 23

"Some ploy cards allow you to make Move or Attack actions with your fighters - you can do this even if normally they would not be able to (e.g. because they have made a Charge action)."

 

Edited by Sleboda
Link to comment
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...