cainthebag

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.

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.

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: 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.