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

NeverEasy

Members
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NeverEasy

  1. Nice work! How did you paint the armor and what colors did you use for it?
  2. Okay, but then why mention "in whatever order you choose" and then directly after that reiterate that fighters that can't be pushed are not pushed (something mentioned on the card itself)?
  3. By the way, to what extent are Grand Clash and Adepticon judges affiliated with GW?
  4. I hope the final ruling on Earthquake will be that they move simultaneously. Separate movement is less intuitive and Earthquake is good enough with simultaneous movement.
  5. Yes I can understand why the ambiguity can be frustrating, although I might not share your levels of frustration with it (after all, it is their first game of this type, so I'm ready to cut them some slack) I do hope that when/if a new core set for WH Underworlds comes out, GW will have learned from their mistakes, understand how important it is to stick to keywords defined in the rulebook, and rewrite the rulebook with this in mind, adding proper keywords and definitions for stuff like "remove from the battlefield". If the same types of mistakes continue in season 2, then I will start getting considerably more annoyed.
  6. This is actually how we have been playing Expendable. The reason why Expendable doesn't grant glory points is because the rat didn't die from taking damage (this bit I interpreted from FAQ 1.2). Also I think it's a very fitting card for Skaven Just one more rat forced on a suicide mission, doesn't matter in the least to Skritch if it dies. Zapp Brannigan would approve.
  7. Yes, I agree. Well, yes and no. Drive Back needs less specification in the rules than Knockback because it only pushes the fighter one hex (meaning no need to specify that all pushes need to be in the same direction). On Knockback, page 22, the rulebook says "... the target can be driven back a number of additional hexes equal to X" and then continues on about the terms/rules of those additional Drive Back hexes. Mainly that part makes me think it should be treated as a buff for Drive Back (or modification of it) and not something that happens separately. It's not an airtight argument, but this is how I would play it. Yes, absolutely. Those are separate events. Just to be 100% clear, I wasn't saying it couldn't trigger several times.
  8. ... Also, Shattering Terrain specifies the conditions as move action, pushed or driven back. So even if Knockback was a separate thing from Drive Back, you could argue it wouldn't trigger Shattering Terrain because Knockback is not mentioned on the card.
  9. I guess it would depend on what the reaction card does. If it adds Knockback, I would say no (see bottom of this reply). If it lets you push the target, I would say yes. My interpretation would be that Knockback does not cause additional damage. The way the rulebook talks about Knockback makes it seem like a buff to Drive Back and not a separate event. So Knockback wouldn't cause extra damage, just like a fighter moving with Sprint (double movement value for the next movement action) would not take extra damage from sprinting.
  10. Do you think defensive support has an effect when rolling to see if Last Chance succeeds? What about if the attacker has cleave (and you have shield defense)? So for example if my fighter is being attacked and about to be taken out of action and I have one defensive support, will it reduce the chances of succeeding at Last Chance, or should "not normally be a success for this fighter" be read as if you rolled a dice with no outside modifiers (support, cleave...)? My guess would be that support/cleave does affect Last Chance.
  11. I got a couple of questions Reggi: What do you think should happen if you kill your opponent's warband and want score Contained, but then he shows Conquest and claims all his fighters are in your territory? Do you think you should both be able to score your respective cards or neither should be able to? Are all his fighters in his and your territory at the same time? What if both your and your opponent's warbands are eliminated (it could happen because of final blow for example) - should you both be able to score Contained and Conquest? What if you killed your opponent and want to score Denial but your opponent wants to score Conquest? How can there be no enemy fighters and all enemy fighters in your territory at the same time? What if you killed your opponent, want to score Contained and use the logic that his surviving fighters = 0 and fighters in his territory = 0, but he counters by saying that all his fighters are not in his territory because he has an equal amount of fighters in your territory, no man's land, and his territory (0/0/0)? All these weird questions get resolved if it is deemed that there has to be at least one fighter left to score Contained/Conquest. From a game designer's point of view it is clearly the most logical and least confusing way to resolve the issue.
  12. I found this video pretty useful when I started playing Shadespire. The video only talks about Reavers vs Liberators, but it also gives a general insight into how important deployment and board selection is.
  13. While the other stuff you said is true, I disagree with this part. Time Trap does not change the order of activations. Time Trap does two things: it gives a fighter an immediate action and it forces you to choose pass during your next activation. Time Trap does not say "immediately take another activation" or something like that, it gives a fighter an action. You could not for example use Time Trap to draw a Power card. The only difference in wording between Ready for Action and Time Trap is Ready for Action specifies the action (move or attack) and Time Trap does not (just an "action"). It is also slightly odd that in FAQ 1.1 the part about Time Trap said "You cannot use this action to do something you could not normally do (e.g. make an Attack action with a fighter that has already made a Charge action in this phase)" but in FAQ 1.2 they changed the example part to "e.g. make a Charge action with a fighter that has already made a Move action in this phase)". Why did they feel the need to change that? To further complicate stuff, CodFather wrote this on page 6 of the community FAQ thread: "Just an FYI on Time Trap as even after reading all this and the FAQ I still had it wrong. I was at the LVO this weekend, and the game designer, David Sanders, was running the event. Time Trap was ruled to allow you to take any actions, as long as that action is not a move action on a model that has already moved. For example, I can charge Brightshield in and swing on the Warden, do 2 damage, then play time trap. Then swing on him again with Brightshield (even tho she had already charged) and finish him off. " Personally I can see were both sides are coming from.
  14. Yes it is activated. I doesn't need to say it on the card because the rulebook states that doing a charge action gives a fighter a move and an attack action.
  15. Yup. By the way I agree on what you said about there being two kinds of cards. There are cards that do something on a roll (usually 50/50%) and there are cards that improve your odds of succeeding at something. I also tend to dislike the "50/50" cards but since Shadespire is mostly a game about maximizing odds (in my mind), I very much like the second kind of cards.
  16. I just checked and I dont have a single "score at the end of round 3" card in my Reavers deck. Well, except maybe for Annihilation since it's rare to score it before the third round. People usually don't like Annihilation, but I find it useful against Stormcast, Orruks and Fyreslayers. But yeah, I don't like running cards like Conquest or Denial with the Reavers. Against defensive Stormcast (and defensive Fyreslayers too I guess) they would be good, otherwise meh. Sepulchral Guard are easy enough for Reavers even without those cards. I had a look at the Blood for the Blood God deck in the library, and it has some weird Power card choices as well. Mainly Confusion and Wicked Blade.
  17. That is a totally valid argument against Mighty Swing, but it not quite that simple. When using Mighty Swing, your chances to hit a specific fighter (if you want to kill a specific guy) will drop, but the overall chances of scoring at least one successful attack with your fighter increases quite a lot. For example, uninspired Saek uses Mighty Swing against two Liberators: Normally Saek would have 54% chance of a successul attack against any specific, uninspired Liberator. Due to the one support the Liberator gets, the chance to hit that one specific Liberator drops to 48%. However, instead of just the normal one attack action, Saek now gets two attack rolls against two different Liberators, meaning he has a 73% chance of hitting at least one of the target Liberators And if your first Mighty Swing attack happens to be a tie or a success, you can push/kill the Liberator and now the second Liberator doesn't have support anymore. Still, if it's very important to hit a specific enemy fighter, then Mighty Swing makes it harder, yes. Mighty Swing also tends to leave your fighter in a vulnerable spot and might inspire Liberators. But personally I have had good success with Mighty Swing. By the way, our decks look very similar! The percentages I got from here, it takes critical symbols into account: https://boardgamegeek.com/image/3828459/karl69?size=large (there seems to be something wonky about how he calculated "Draw & DB" but otherwise I think it's correct) How to read the table: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1880966/odds-success-table
  18. I forgot to mention Insensate. Of course I also have Insensate. It is the single most powerful card in the Reaver arsenal, in my opinion.
  19. I have found the board in the image to be the most reliable choice for the Reavers. Of course your opponent's board pick and warband might be factors, but when in doubt go with this one. Usually I rely on Garrek, Saek and Karsus to do most of the work, so against Stormcast and Orruks I most often put them in the back and Targor and Arnulf in the front. Because of how the boards are designed, Reavers basically always have to offer up one fighter to be attacked in the first activation (when palying against an aggressive opponent). Targor usually gets the short stick. If you have cards that give you more dice for an attack, Arnulf can sometimes actually be pretty potent in the first round, so I rather Targor dies first. Great cards to have in your opening hand are Final Blow, Death Throes and/or Last Chance. If you have Final Blow AND Death Throes, then oh boy! Because one triggers during an attack and the other after an attack, if/when Targor bites the dust you can use both cards to deal 2 damage! (yes I'm sure ) Last Chance is also great, it gives a Reaver a 66% chance of surviving a fatal attack. You can also go for other survival ploy cards like Rebound and/or On Your Feet, although at this moment I'm only using Last Chance. For survival related upgrades I have Soultrap, Great Fortitude and Acrobatic. Btw Last Chance combos nicely with Light Armour. Generally you want to keep all your guys in a pretty tight formation and always have every fighter within charge range of at least one enemy fighter. Saek is your most important weapon against Stormcast - keep him safe until you are sure you can kill a Stormcast with one attack from him (you want to have support/extra dice/inspired and ideally also a survival card before you use him). Use Karsus, Targor or Arnulf to soften up enemy fighters so Saek or possibly Garrek can go in for the kill. If you get two Stromcast softened up and have Mighty Swing, then Saek is probably going to have a good time. I have Garrek's Grisly Trophy in my deck, so sometimes it can be very rewarding to get Garrek to do the killing instead of Saek. Against Orruks you need to focus down their heavy hitters first and not inspire Basha or Hakka. Against Sepulchral Guard or Skaven you can put Garrek, Saek and Karsus in the front line, since they shouldn't get easily one-shotted. Also just a general observation: not having to think about holding objectives is very freeing when playing with the Reavers. Hope this helps!
×
×
  • Create New...