Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
And that would definitely be misleading.

Calling Underworlds a skirmish game puts it in a category with games like Infinity, Frostgrave, and Mordheim. And it has nothing in common with those games. I'd agree with thekingofkings that Underworlds doesn't scratch the skirmish itch, no more so than Magic or Pandemic or ... well, any other game that isn't a skirmish game.

I find your position completely off base. What do you think those two warbands are doing exactly? Shadespire is very much a skirmish game, having a deck of cards is completely irrelevant. Battletech uses a board just like shadespire does.

There are some.... bizarrely hostile responses going on here. The game is clearly trying to appeal to a variety of styles, so maybe we don't need to rigidly define which one it fits in? I mean, its interesting to argue the specifics I guess, but we can be quite a bit more polite about it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

But, not a fan of the card issue. I'm waiting to see if it's as bad as X-Wing in that regard. If the cards in other warbands are merely 'useful', not so bad. I could be persuaded. But, if the cards in other warbands are 'near compulsory', I'll leave it well alone. Not a fan of 'victory to he with the deepest pockets'.

I picked the Orks because I wanted the Orks but I was actually a little surprised at how I felt about the card issue after picking up the expansion. Mostly, I was rather surprised at just how many cards it added to work with in general. I didn't get the feeling like with X-Wing where I felt like I was paying for a figure to get a card; the card pack itself felt like a pretty substantial expansion on its own merits.

Ultimately, my opinion is that it feels like you won't be able to get away with just the cards provided with the figures you play (exceptionally true of the Core set warbands). It feels like you will have to buy a Warband you don't necessarily want for cards, but it doesn't take much to expand your cardpool to the point where you've got plenty to work with; particularly given that any new cards a competing for a slot in a full deck's worth of faction specific cards.

I ended up picking up the Skeletons, but not for any of the reasons I expected to. I got some cool models and I'll run them a few times, but it wasn't a model purchase. I didn't buy it for a specific card either. The purchase ended up feeling more like an LCG expansion, which at the moment feels like a substantial addition to the game. In another year will decks become cutthroat enough that each new expansion is really only worth that one card? Maybe? At the moment though its just creating the opportunity for different deck archetypes, but ultimately I think most warbands will be plenty capable of fielding a competitive deck with just one additional expansion.

There's no need to "rigidly define" what kind of game Underworlds is. That's a separate question. The question to hand is, whether it's reasonable for Underworlds to be evaluated as a good or bad game compared to games like Infinity, Frostgrave, Mordheim, Necromunda, This Is Not A Test, Lion Rampant, Rogue Stars, Pulp Alley, Saga, etc., etc. In fact, such a comparison makes no sense at all. I mean, it is technically correct to say that, for example, 40k doesn't "scratch the deckbuilding itch" but the larger question is, why would anyone expect that it would?

To the subject of whether this is a "must buy everything" product line: the real issue is, you have to buy the core at this point, there is no alternative set of purchases that will get you what you need to play the game. Given that, let's re-consider the word "expansion" - what does that mean? The way FFG has used it, I think the word has lost a lot of meaning. What it really means is, content that you do not need to play the game but that will increase the variety of gameplay. GW seems to be using that definition of expansion.

So, yes, you have to buy the core game. Now do you have to buy every expansion? Not if you just want to play the game. If you want to win local and regional tournaments then yes you are going to want all the tournament legal options available. But if that is your goal then that's your goal, as opposed to having the goal of spending as little as possible.

It's definitely most similar to say, Netrunner in terms of its release structure I feel.

If I want to play a card game, I'll play a card game. If I want to play a minis game, I'll play a minis game. A game based on artificically capped actions per turn with noncustomizable minis does not scratch my itch for either type of game.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
If I want to play a card game, I'll play a card game. If I want to play a minis game, I'll play a minis game. A game based on artificically capped actions per turn with noncustomizable minis does not scratch my itch for either type of game.

I mean, you're allowed to dislike whatever you want, but every game has somewhat capped actions and you can totally customize the minis. I've seen more kitbashes for Shadespire in the last 2 weeks than I've seen in AoS in months, tbh.

I think MagicJuggler may be referring to the fact that there is no warband building/customization.

 Manchu wrote:
I think MagicJuggler may be referring to the fact that there is no warband building/customization.

^

The "your dudes" factor is missing. Same reason I avoided Warmahordes. Now, if Shadespire did equipment loadouts, had "sell shadeglass", let your guys take advances...or there's Mordheim.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think MagicJuggler may be referring to the fact that there is no warband building/customization.

^

The "your dudes" factor

Goes against a game intended to be purely competitive in nature, really. The moment one starts thinking more in roleplaying terms and less in "how-do-I-murder-them-mercilessly-and-ruthlessly-with-the-utmost-efficiency" terms, the farther away he gets from competitive terrain.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think MagicJuggler may be referring to the fact that there is no warband building/customization.

^

The "your dudes" factor

Goes against a game intended to be purely competitive in nature, really. The moment one starts thinking more in roleplaying terms and less in "how-do-I-murder-them-mercilessly-and-ruthlessly-with-the-utmost-efficiency" terms, the farther away he gets from competitive terrain.

False dichotomy. Your dudes and competitive are not innately opposed. Bad internal balance between options is another issue altogether. A competitive game should also be about player skill, and not just "muh matchup."

Still trying to figure out what’s with all the hostility?

Same. 0.o

 LunarSol wrote:
Still trying to figure out what’s with all the hostility?

Passionate subject combined with no inflections or other expression in typing, usually makes thing sounds harsher than they really would be face to face.

Yeah and the fact that Shadespire is actually kind of filling a weird niche and the history of GW games makes people want to try and classify it along previous lines.

The back and forth over whether it is a skirmish game is a good example. By a more general consideration I think it is definitely a skirmish game but in comparison to what is out in the market right now and what was released in the past as "skirmish" games, well maybe not.

If you consider Warmahordes skirmish then I don't really think Shadespire hits that mark. Necromunda and Mordhiem are skirmish games? Well, then Sharespire is something slightly different. All comes down to expectation.

Not really sure what I would classify Sharespire as, maybe miniature squad combat with deck building aspects? Regardless it is fun, has a very inexpensive entry point, and if you think you might be interested most people would recommend that you give it a try it seems like.

Warmahordes is definitely not skirmish anymore. They’ve slowly raised the scale of that game up and it’s more of a war game now. Id put it in the same category as your typical 40k or AoS, though still on the smaller end of that spectrum.

Malifaux And Infinity are both skirmish games and they play completely differently. Entirely different mechanics. Shadespire is the same way. It’s a skirmish sized game using different mechanics. It’s Also a deck building game. It can be both.

I don't even think either such game is a good analogy. Perhaps the closest two analogies IMO would be Knightmare Chess, or a modded version of Frag! where you control multiple "players."

You know, games where there are a relatively fixed set of available moves, but wirh cards to spice things up.

Every game has a relatively fixed set of moves. Heck, Infinity even lets you use those moves on the same model repeatedly to the neglect of your others like Shadespire does.

 AduroT wrote:
Every game has a relatively fixed set of moves. Heck, Infinity even lets you use those moves on the same model repeatedly to the neglect of your others like Shadespire does.

Infinity is a hacky game: TAGs and Cheerleaders, and quadratically scaling AROs that functionally make the game somehow *more* unplayable on open terrain compared to even 40k's IGOUGO.

I Am looking forward to Aristeia coming out as well. Get to play with those sweet Infinity models (although a little less sweet because pvc plastic) but much simpler and quicker rules. Also you know, card building skirmish game with a fixed number of moves.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Every game has a relatively fixed set of moves. Heck, Infinity even lets you use those moves on the same model repeatedly to the neglect of your others like Shadespire does.

Infinity is a hacky game: TAGs and Cheerleaders, and quadratically scaling AROs that functionally make the game somehow *more* unplayable on open terrain compared to even 40k's IGOUGO.

The unplayability on open terrain IS largely the point though. Infinity is a weird game in general. I originally believed it to be a game that broke so many things it somehow stumbled around back to playability. Having played a lot more skirmish games lately, I've come to realize that its more that the rules are primarily focused on enabling interaction with significant terrain. As I tried out other terrain heavy games, I've increasingly noticed that the issues I run into with table configurations in those games are largely resolved via some of Infinity's quirkier rule decisions.

Played it a couple of times with some people at my local club. It's a fun little game but I won't be buying in due to the whole 'deck building' aspect.

I really dislike the whole 'buy all the expansions in order to get get the cards you need to play effectively' nonsense. It was the main reason that I stopped playing x-wing. It became less about skill and more about keeping up with the 'meta'.

I find it to be a really cynical way to market a game and I'm disappointed to see more companies following FFGs example. I realise that I'm going to be in the minority with this but I consider it to be a toxic trend in tabletop gaming.

In my opinion, if you look at this as a deck building game, you'll probably be disappointed. Even with the starter and both additional warbands, there are not a lot of viable options. You can't just build a deck and use it with any warband. When compared to other deck building games, it falls short.

If you look at this as a skirmish game, you'll probably be disappointed. Lack of customization, small unit size, and simple rules. When compared to other skirmish games, it falls short.

If you look at this as a board game with cool miniatures and a deck building element.......you might be happy with it.

I think it's a matter of perspective and expectations.

I view it as a hybrid skirmish/deck building game. The warband customization comes from the deck.

Played the game a few times, painted the figures, so far I like it.

The deck building aspect is not for everyone, (primary reason is the added expense of staying competitive i think). But i kind of like it because your miniatures stay the same game to game, while your strategy and deckbuilding might change all the time. So i can put some effort into painting/modelling and know that i won't need to paint up something completely new next month to stay competitive. I might need to get my hands on the cards though.

The games I've had all seemed to be well balanced, with plenty of give and take. Of course eventually someone on the internet might break this game but at least it's not broken out of the box. The multiplicity of objective cards (and thus, ways to win) make the game a little more interesting than your standard deathmatch. I forsee a few issues, like for example when you have two decks face off each other that are efficiently designed to stay on their own side of the board on the objectives and not fight anyone? might be boring but I haven't seen it actually happen yet.

Also this game is probably the best candidate so far out of GW for breaking into the board gaming crowd and maybe converting some folks.

From a model prespective yeah 100% SS is fantastic. gives you a hand full of miniatures to paint and you are on your way to the races

the deck building is intresting though i kinda like and dont like the pay wall they made.

by chucking some of the cards into other army boxes you kinda force people to spend more money on things they dont need which is bad

but at the same time the models are cool and easy to build so anyone that does get them may be enticed into playing that faction eventually. which is a good way to get people to expand.

imho i dont mind because i love models and at the price point i dont mind.

i just remembered isnt this what FFG did with xwings?

 Desubot wrote:


i just remembered isnt this what FFG did with xwings?

Arguably, FFG is far worse with X-Wing's model, since you get a single ship and several cards in a booster for at least $15 USD. Add in the fact that often you might want one card in that booster, and you might want 2-4 of those cards, but not any of the others or even the ship, and it quickly becomes a bigger potential money sink than Shadespire. Sure, you might not be interested in playing Orruks, but you would never need to buy more than one copy of that expansion since every card in Shadespire is unique--you don't need to buy multiple copies of each expansion just to stay competitive. Given the much lower number of expansions, and this "need only one" fact, quickly becomes less expensive and chasy than X-Wing.

Sure, it is still a bit annoying that you might want a card or two in a warband box that you're not terribly interested in, but worst case you can probably flip the models on eBay and recover a decent portion. Or, heck, have something different to paint (or not), and let a friend play with you.

Yeah it's a bit annoying that they split the cards, but the secondary market is strong and imho there are no cards that are so strong you can't build a deck without them... yet. Still time to be proven wrong on that one.

Like yes, Time Trap is super good, and having two +1 Move cards in a deck is nice, but you can easily make a competitive deck without those.

Either way, the pricing is relatively cheap for what you're getting - a squad of very nice models for about the price you'd pay for that many in a regular GW kit, plus the cards.

Bought into Shadespire due to life commitments biting into my free time for wargaming. This is all sadly part of adult life, as we age our free time shrinks, so best adapt to this.

This is where Shadespire comes in for me. It is quick, in the time it takes to set up a standard (1,500pts -2,000pts) game of 40k (Tyranid Player here) I can feasibly have a game of Shadespire completed. What is also nice to see is that the quickness doesn't reduce the level of fun and challenge I have had while playing Shadespire. The mechanics are simple, which allows there to be very little grey area to creep in and confuse the game. Seeing as the game is a Hybrid between, miniature combat/area control and a deckbuilder is something that for me personally hitrs a lot of sweet spots.

One point that I haven't seen talked about is the ease of accessibility the game has, some people who may like the idea of miniature gaming are put off by the notion of having to build terrain and use a tape measure. The hex tiles with blocked off areas work a treat. On several FB groups I have seen people make terrain to fill those, they arn't needed, but they sure do help to make the game look very pleasing on the eyes.

Sure it may seem a little annoying having to buy an entire warband expansion to have a full collection of cards, but given that I am not just buying the cards, but a full Warband that is usable out of the box, I fail to see how that it such a bad thing. The price is for a GW product very reasonable. The extra Warbands are a way to help entice other players into what is a great game.

What I hope is that the game is seen as a success, and GW explore the idea further, there is a general notion that the game is going to be a series, and Shadespire is but the first in that series. I honestly hope so, given that with the arrival of AoS there is a lot more ground to cover in regards to lost cities and the like, we could see an all new setting and have more factions.

The only negative point I have heard is that the game doesn't hold up too well to being a multiplayer game. This I can not say from experience as I have yet to try that game mode.

In closing I will say that Shadespire for me is a better game than 40k, less open to abuse due to the cards being restricted to one of a kind, closer, quick, fun, more tactical options, and an all round better experience.

I found it boring as hell after a very short time, but would consider it a medium to below average game, good for some times, bad for others. wouldnt recommend it, but wouldnt steer folks away.

I'm waiting for the Skaven team to be released before I buy in.