Shardfall on Hexes with an objective Token?

[the_prophecy]

Is it allowed to put a shardfall token on a hex with an objective token ? Because I don't find the clarification of an "unoccupied hex" in the rules

[Kamose]

I was thinking about this as well and I think it is allowed because an 'occupied hex' means specifically a hex that has a fighter in it...though I will admit I couldn't tell you where that is in the rules because it is 6am and I just woke up.  

[Killax]

I think the intention is to not have this happen, but it isn't given as a specific example which makes it hard.

What I believe is that Objective Tokens actually do count as occupied hexes, however as mentioned by Objective Tokens they do not block movement or line of sight. Meaning for most rules (other than Shardfall) they ignore regular occupied rules. Because these tokens do not block line or sight or movementt giving the suggestion that others (like Shardfall) do. While fighters also do block movement and line of sight when they occupy a hex.

Lastly the thing remains, if Objective Tokens didn't count as occupied they might as well have just stated that so the whole line of sight and block movement part didn't need to be written...

So far all games played I've played it like the above. Meaning it cannot be placed on a Objective token as technically the hex is occupied.
Still love Shardfall and think it's one of the best cards around for anyone. It's a lot like sidestep because when played well it can force an opponent to have to move +1 and in addition to that it's protection for possible attackers and/or follow up assistance. Lastly it even helps with making auto-hits thanks to it blocking a hex behind a fighter whih in some cases mean it cannot be driven back so a draw also counts as a succesful hit.

[the_prophecy]

I just found it in the rules. Occupied only means hexes with miniatures , blocked means the white bordered hexes. So you can put it on tiles with objectives because under objectives it says they don't hinder movement and don't count as occupied or blocked 

[Killax]

@the_prophecyPage?

Because as far as Ive read no mention of not counting as occupied is there for Objectives. What it does say is that it can be moved over and doesn't block line of sight, indicating to me that it actually does count as a form of occupated hex.

[ReynakZhen]

I actually like that Shardfall tokens can be placed on objective tokens, so, in game if I see my opponent really trying to get onto a particular objective, i can push him off then drop a shardfall on that objective, denying him from scoring that objective for the turn.

[Choombatta]

I think the answer lies on page 18, where it defines occupied hexes as "hexes that contain other fighters".

Unless another fighter is on the objective, it is not occupied.

[Killax]

20 minutes ago, Choombatta said:

I think the answer lies on page 18, where it defines occupied hexes as "hexes that contain other fighters".

Unless another fighter is on the objective, it is not occupied.

First I'm cool with either but Page 18 doesn't define anything as such either.

What that page simple states is:
- They cannot move through occupied Hexes (Objectives specifically allow for this)
- They cannot move through other fighters
- They cannot move through blocked Hexes (which are currently printed on board and Shardfall token itself)

46 minutes ago, ReynakZhen said:

I actually like that Shardfall tokens can be placed on objective tokens, so, in game if I see my opponent really trying to get onto a particular objective, i can push him off then drop a shardfall on that objective, denying him from scoring that objective for the turn.

I still feel the easiest and logical awnser leads to:
An occupied hex is a hex with something on it. Keep in mind Objectives specifically can be moved over and do not block line of sight. It feels very redundant to mention that if it would simply count as an unocupied hex.

Page 18 does say:
 

Quote

Note that nothing can move a fighter into or through a hex that is blocked or occupied, unless specified otherwise.

Objective tokens have specified (otherwise) that movement and line of sight are not blocked by them. Where a Shardfall token does do this, suggesting as normal occupation.

[Carnelian]

I disagree with your interpretation and think that they are simply clarifying how objectives work rather than suggesting that objectives count as occupy spaces.

But maybe this is one for the community faq - before this thread starts going round and round in circles!

[Choombatta]

3 hours ago, Killax said:

First I'm cool with either but Page 18 doesn't define anything as such either.

What that page simple states is:
- They cannot move through occupied Hexes (Objectives specifically allow for this)
- They cannot move through other fighters
- They cannot move through blocked Hexes (which are currently printed on board and Shardfall token itself)

That actually is not what it says.

The "hexes that contain fighters" portion of that information on page 18 is just defining what an "occupied hex" is, hence the use of a "-" instead of a ",".

So an occupied hex is any hex that contains a fighter.

[Killax]

10 minutes ago, Choombatta said:

That actually is not what it says.

The "hexes that contain fighters" portion of that information on page 18 is just defining what an "occupied hex" is, hence the use of a "-" instead of a ",".

So an occupied hex is any hex that contains a fighter.

I would say grab the rulesbook and read what it states, as usual I wouldn't start reading in the middle of the sentence for some reason:



Sum up remains:
- They cannot move through occupied Hexes
- They cannot move through other fighters
- They cannot move through blocked Hexes (which are currently printed on board and Shardfall token itself)

In addition note that nothing can move a fighter into or through a hex that is blocked or occupied unless specified otherwise. An Objective token is specified to be able to move over and not block line of sight. If it didn't occupy a hex (which it also physically does) why bother mentioning it multiple times?

[Choombatta]

My point is, if they were listing 3 different things, there would be commas separating the 3 things.

Since they use the hyphens, it means the hyphenated phrase is describing the first item listed out of 2 things.

The statement under "Pushes and other Exceptions" also further supports this, as it only lists the 2 actual things involved, blocked or occupied.

It does not mention "hexes that contain other fighters" because it is indeed a definition of what an occupied hex is.

Also,  it does not define what a blocked hex is in either of these statements because a blocked hex had already been defined in an early portion of the rules.

[Killax]

The question then proceeds to why to make the difference at all and again mention at all that you can move over Objectives and mention that they do not block line of sight.

If fighters are the only pieces being able to occupy hexes all that additional information would be irrelevant to mention. They could simply state, fighters cannot be moved through and block line of sight and so do blocked hexes.

The fact that they talk about occupied hexes and not hexes with a fighter on them again suggests any token does in fact occupy a hex. Objective tokens however can be moved over and do not block line of sight as regular occupied hexes would.

[Choombatta]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

The question then proceeds to why to make the difference at all and again mention at all that you can move over Objectives and mention that they do not block line of sight.

The need to make a distinction is because objectives are not covered by the blocked hex or occupied hex rules.

The only thing that occupied hex covers, is any hex that contains a fighter.

The only thing blocked hex covers are the spaces defined by "blocked hex".

Objectives are not either of those things, so needs definition as to what rules cover objectives (i.e. Objectives can be moved over and do not block line of sight).

This does not make objectives  fighters, and therefor covered under the "occupied hex" rules.

[Xasz]

6 hours ago, Choombatta said:

The need to make a distinction is because objectives are not covered by the blocked hex or occupied hex rules.

The only thing that occupied hex covers, is any hex that contains a fighter.

The only thing blocked hex covers are the spaces defined by "blocked hex".

Objectives are not either of those things, so needs definition as to what rules cover objectives (i.e. Objectives can be moved over and do not block line of sight).

This does not make objectives  fighters, and therefor covered under the "occupied hex" rules.

Exactly.

[Wallack]

The rules says something like "you cannot move through occupied hexes". You can move through objectives hence I deduct that objectives are not occupied hexes so you should be able.

By default I'd say, with the rules on hand, that you can, as the shardfall specified unoccupied hexes and if is occupied you cannot move through it.

[BobbyB]

Based on what killax posted, I would say it's clear that an occupied hex is defined as a hex with a fighter in

[Killax]

Based on the above, if only a hex can be occupied by a fighter the whole note on Objectives being able to move over and not blocking line of sight would then be completely irrelevant information. 

We will see where it leads, I hope it gets covered in a FAQ and if anyone has information on how it was ruled on Blood and Glory that information would be very welcome too.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the intended design isn't always clear. E.g. Total Offence is now FAQ'd to be only effective at the first attack action while the card itself doesn't mention that at all. Here we have a clear example of a fighter occupying a hex but if hey are only capable of occupying a hex what's the point in calling it an occupied hex versus a hex with a fighter on it. The first gives an indication that a hex can be occupied by something other than a fighter.

[Wallack]

I think the clarification in objectives not blocking line of sight is because objectives are a very specific thing.

I think it will get faqd but meaning that yes, you can block objectives with it.

[Choombatta]

46 minutes ago, Killax said:

Based on the above, if only a hex can be occupied by a fighter the whole note on Objectives being able to move over and not blocking line of sight would then be completely irrelevant information.

It is not irrelevant because Objectives are not defined anywhere else, so they need to state that it does not block line of sight or movement.

In Shadespire, an "occupied hex" is only defined by a fighter model being present or not.

In real world terms, the space on the game board may indeed by occupied by models,tokens, or both, but only a fighter model matters when it comes to the Shadespire term of "occupied hex".

[Killax]

Not official just an indication.

[Wallack]

Yes, they answered the same to me, and also the question that if a skeleton gets resurrected and already moved/charged can't move/charge again but that they will send it for clarification. Also asked about the objective card of the sepulchral that requries you to hold all objectives how behaves if one has been removed from the game.

I think they will have to do more faqs to be honest. I think we will play like you can block an objective to add more strategy for now.

[the_prophecy]

On 6.11.2017 at 4:53 PM, Wallack said:

Yes, they answered the same to me, and also the question that if a skeleton gets resurrected and already moved/charged can't move/charge again but that they will send it for clarification. Also asked about the objective card of the sepulchral that requries you to hold all objectives how behaves if one has been removed from the game.

I think they will have to do more faqs to be honest. I think we will play like you can block an objective to add more strategy for now.

yes we will play it the same way until a FAQ is coming

[Gaz Taylor]

On 11/6/2017 at 3:53 PM, Wallack said:

Yes, they answered the same to me, and also the question that if a skeleton gets resurrected and already moved/charged can't move/charge again but that they will send it for clarification.

Personally I  disagree with that as they return to a starting point on the SG players board  and it's like they are starting again. I can see why some players think they can't move/charge but they give up a Glory Point for the trade, so I think it's fair.

[Wallack]

4 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

Personally I  disagree with that as they return to a starting point on the SG players board  and it's like they are starting again. I can see why some players think they can't move/charge but they give up a Glory Point for the trade, so I think it's fair.

Is not about what's fair or not is about what the rules states right now.

Right now the rulebook says that a model that a model that charged or moved cannot charge or move again.

The card that returns them to life doesn't specify that they can move or charge again. To me that is enough to know that they can.

My point is:

If a card doesn't specify that you CAN do something that you normally cannot, then you cannot do it.

If a card doesn't specify that you DON'T do something that you normally do, then you still do it.