Jump to content

Adepticon Judges FAQ


Klak

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

By it's nature, it does, as Time Thingie did. That's how these work. 

You had a perfectly applicable way to play as worded on the cards. Now they tell you, in a more recent ruling, to play it differently. 

You have to go with the more recent words or there is no reason for them to exist.

This isn't an errata, it's an FAQ. It doesn't change how any card is being played, just clarifies its use...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. It clarifies that the choice of direction is on a model by model basis.

At a minimum it creates a conflict with the wording on the card, just as their first "FAQ" did on Time Thingie (which they realized, and then changed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also got the Last Chance / Necromancer Commands ruling wrong, by the words.

Last chance lets you ignore damage. You can't ignore a thing that want there to be ignored. You did damage. The Attack succeeded. The Last Chance just ignores the damage.

If they want to rule that the Attack has failed, then they need to change the wording of Last Chance.

Seriously, confidence fading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering how pessimistic you've been on this section over the last few months, I didn't know there was much left. Sometimes I feel like you're being argumentative just for the sake of it.

Seriously, a measure of common sense is required in the game. The Time Trap FAQ was clarifying how to "Take An Action" for Time Trap when it's not a specified Action, the Earthquake FAQ is clarifying how to order the pushes. If you nitpick grammar in every single situation, you're kind of missing the point of the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, in a tournament-focused system deliberately designed and marketed as a competitive experience, not parsing the grammar is the mistake.

You can't have interpretation in these games. You can't fall back on the myth of common sense, which is anything but and determined by far too many localized factors to be truly common.

I'm not pessimistic about Shadespire. I'm enjoying it more than any GW game since Man O War.

I do have concerns about the viability of Slayers and Undead at the tournament level, and feel Orruks and Skaven are clearly a cut above the others (interestingly, for two very different reasons!), but for sheer enjoyment, playability, and accessibility, it's awesome.

I'm just worried about GW's ability to do what it takes to realize the dream, so to speak.

I never recall, for example, a M:tG ruling that said "let the players decide each time how they want it to go." 

That's very concerning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

That aside, I'm even more concerned with the fact that at GW's own event they told players to agree, on a case by case basis, how to play Expendible.

Really?

That's a worrying development for a system that is billed as competition-focused.

It's sort of ok for something like AoS that's not built to be tight, but for them to tell players that they can decide what a card means each time it's played indicates that they have not adopted the right mindset for this kind of game, and that undermines confidence that they can write balanced rules.

Well I told them before the event started and they didn't realise about the wording of the card till I highlighted it. I explained both sides to the card to them and that is what I was told. I expect now it will be FAQd ASAP.

 

With everything else they had a clear ruling for however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick question Sleboda.

I know Shadespire had been presented as Competitive Play Ready, but can't we give Games Workshop some time?

Were M:TG rules rasor-sharp and clear cut the first time around? Not quite. Until at least 3rd edition, there remained some cases with wording that could be left to interpretation (haven't played since, so I won't comment on 4th and later).

Few games manage to be fool-proof the first time 'round, especially when their rules are aimed at a competitive level. I'm a huge Guild Ball fan, and their rules ARE meant to leave as little room for interpretation as possible, but there's still a pages and pages long FAQ plus innumerable official rulings to deal with...

 

Games Workshop is known to be a shoddy rules writer. Sure, there are a few cases in Shadespire where the designers could have been more careful in their wording, but we're already miles ahead when we compare to 40k or AoS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Spinsane 

Yes, I agree with your thoughts very much. Time and understanding are useful, especially given GW's history.

Where my recent b concern comes from is a perceived back slide. Skaven do appear to be genuinely a clear step up and the FAQ rulings quirks and card phrasings feel like a step toward shoddiness, not away from it.

Lastly, the global anecdotes about how GW stores are (or are not) stocking it have me worried that GW may be in a model of "Well, this isn't going well, so let's not worry so much about getting things right since it won't be around much longer."

No hard evidence for that last bit, just a little reading of tea leaves.

No panic button here, just concern for a really great game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sleboda

Well, the Skaven cards were written at the same time as the rest of them, and we still have two more sets of cards that were in the initial sets of cards that haven't been released yet, judging by card numbers:  Reavers are 1 to 29, Liberators 30 to 58, Guard is 59 to 87, then Orruks, Dwarves, Skaven is 145 to 174, then two more sets will be 175 to 203 and 204 to 232...

But then we can see that we have cards 233 and 234 still missing, considering Alone in the Darkness is 235. This means that every card, including those for the first two Season 2 sets, have all already been written.

It's not a step back, we're still in the same spot we were when the game was released. Just wait for the next series of cards, please, before you jump to such conclusions :)

 

+ Edit: Stupid editor wouldn't take my keystrokes anymore, hit enter by accident as I was getting pissed at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your thought process on the cards, but do we know that the numbers prove contemporary authorship? They could have easily just laid out a basic plan for card breakdown, and then filled in the text on some cards later. 

Things like the Keys and the Artifacts fill in some numbers with no text variation, but other cards may well have had text finalized afterward.

For example, maybe they knew they wanted "a Skaven card to let you pull a guy out of a fight" initially, but didn't do the words for Expendible until much later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's perfectly justified to have concerns. It feels like the game is "contained" enough to be able to get it right.  I'd like to think the Acon FAQ is released as a "here's something, but we might need to think it over a bit more before it goes gamewide official".

 

And as Sleboda has said, having concerns does not necessarily mean thinking the game is hot garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the least, they had already chosen card names, which means they had already decided on the cards' purpose, so why not write the cards in full already if they knew what ithey'd do?

Considering how cards usually get printed, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet to assume everything was printed at once. Plus it helps cut costs down by limiting the number of print runs :

We currently have 476 cards in the set (437 basic cards, 3 promos to date (Healing Potion, Suppremacy, Shardfall)*, 8 promo Liberator/Reaver model cards, plus 28 standard model cards). If GW uses the same kind of card stocks as MTG (which are printed on 11x11 sheets), 4 sheets would net us a total of 484 cards, which leaves room for 8 more cards for the remaining two warband models. My assumption is therefore that the two will have 4 members each. (Ugh, how did this conversation end up going there?)

* Unless there are promo cards I'm unaware of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, yep.  All makes sense. I'm just saying we don't actually know any of that, and the increased number of sketchy (for lack of a better term) issues with Skaven (so good!), Slayers (so not good!), and wording is a counter indicator to the idea of a single, completely written set.

Either way, it's just guesses and ultimately not going to matter. We have what we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think @Sleboda hate the game. However, I do believe he has an aggressively pessimistic view on most things in the past few days of posting. 

 

I think for the most part the Faqs are how I've been playing them, and they technically aren't officially and potentially aren't GWs?? So doesn't seem worth getting upset over.  Just seems reasonable out side some very dramatic interpretations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

I don't think @Sleboda hate the game. However, I do believe he has an aggressively pessimistic view on most things in the past few days of posting. 

You may be right. I've had a dramatically awful week or two, hitting a real low a few days ago with news that means I cannot attend Adepticon and have wasted months of building a team army and playing Shadespire in an effort to be able to compete.

It's pretty damn depressing, tbh.

Maybe that had had an impact. Maybe I'll step back and chill for a bit to get some perspective.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Sleboda said:

You may be right. I've had a dramatically awful week or two, hitting a real low a few days ago with news that means I cannot attend Adepticon and have wasted months of building a team army and playing Shadespire in an effort to be able to compete.

It's pretty damn depressing, tbh.

Maybe that had had an impact. Maybe I'll step back and chill for a bit to get some perspective.

 

Sorry to hear that man. had a similar LVO issue so i can get behind that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...