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.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, but some Objective cards in the expansions are duplicates of Core Objective cards, but just re-titled (so able to be used as de facto "duplicates"), but no Power Cards in the expansions are like that, correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, I'm sorry, some Power Cards are just re-titled duplicates, iirc.

There's definitely some duplicates. I'd really like to piece together the full set list to get an idea what maps with what.

Is there any sort of visual spoiler, or card database for this game? A dedicated forum?

It seems to be lacking a visible online presence

There's a bit on BoardGameGeek, but there's a definite lack of discussion. Maybe Facebook?

Just to note: Orruks and Skellies do NOT have basic hold the objective X -cards at all, so IMO they seem to lack a reasonably-sure-way of scoring glory first turn.

Timmon

WUWU wrote:
Is there any sort of visual spoiler, or card database for this game? A dedicated forum?

It seems to be lacking a visible online presence

This site has a lot of articles and a (text only) card database, for forums though you'd want TGA.

http://shadeglass.co.uk/

Timmon

Hold Objective X cards are neutral. So if you own the core set, you can just use those cards in your Ironskullz or Sepulchral Guard decks.

 Mymearan wrote:

WUWU wrote:
Is there any sort of visual spoiler, or card database for this game? A dedicated forum?

It seems to be lacking a visible online presence

This site has a lot of articles and a (text only) card database, for forums though you'd want TGA.

http://shadeglass.co.uk/

Argh! Had my hopes up. But it's just another database w/o the card ability info (unless I'm not seeing something). I've seen a couple like that. I'm presuming it has to do something w/ GW being GW...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, maybe someone can/should create a file on Army Builder? That'd be neat.

Of course, I'd do it myself, but I don't have all the cards nor the coding skills.

Warhammer announced an upcoming official card library via FB today. So if you can wait a little bit, you'll have exactly what you need from GW itself.

I've only played a couple times but just a few thoughts on the structure of the game:

Pros : The miniatures, and the fact that they basically give access to build and play with the entire line of GW products
- The number of factions- can probably end up as a very high number if this game becomes successful. Not only that but they can keep on making different types of warbands for years.
- Objective based victory.... i think is slightly better than a deathmatch because it gives the meta a little more agility to adapt and counter whatever seems to be the strongest strategy at the time. Also, it breaks up the tendency of units to clump up in a dogpile in the middle or need to travel in formations, because you also might win the game by being all over the map. Of course some support from GW developers is required...
- Hex based gameplay that uses positioning... can lead to a very large number of strategies and that makes for a competitively engaging game.
- Breakup of 'initiative'... the game seems to be the polar opposite of UGOIGO, and even includes reactions. It doesn't seem to be a game where one piece can go around willy-nilly after all the other pieces move, or particularly powerful alpha strikes can dominate. Of course, the glory points and objectives may come into play here...

Cons : Doubtful about GW's ability to balance a competitive game and be on top of all the support that's required, coming out regularly with FAQ's and being a solid presence in sanctioned tournaments...
- Lacking the ability to really customize the characters in your warband, might lead to the game becoming stale. Out of the gates it seems you are always playing with the same characters over and over.
- Terrain elements are a little unengaging, coming from a wargaming background... but i will reserve some judgement if it turns out placing the focus on the actual miniatures is solid. After all i love Xwing and it's just a mat with asteroids for terrain. This game at least has the objectives, impassible tiles and variations in board configurations for variety.
- Dice and card draw mechanics have the potential for the game to be very luck-dependent, but that is nothing new and you have a few mitigating factors, like 3 separate rounds, mulligans and such. Will have to wait and see what the depth of strategy is on the positioning/deck building front.

Timmon wrote:
Just to note: Orruks and Skellies do NOT have basic hold the objective X -cards at all, so IMO they seem to lack a reasonably-sure-way of scoring glory first turn.

Timmon

Those cards are neutral, they can use them just the same. You need to get them from the core box of course but im assuming anyone playing Shadespire will own a core box.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I find that the how AOS and things based on AOS are treated and received much more warmly over in the UK than they are in the States...

really hoping for more boards.

More boards would definitely go a long way.

More boards would be cool from an aesthetic point of view, but I really doubt anyway has explored all the different combinations and tactics behind all of the possible board layouts.

I'm no math wizard, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but for each board set down first there are... I think 32 different possible layouts to play on

Assuming a 2-player game, with each player having a full set to choose from, there are 4 boards the second player could choose x 4 sides he can position it against, x 2 orientations for each of those sides = 32. But then you 've got all the different ways you can line them up, too. The boards are 7 x 5 hexes, and you need at least three full hexes lined up. That gives you 8 legal positions along each long edge and three along each short edge, so
4 2nd boards x ((2 long sides x 2 orientations x 8 positions) + (2 short sides x 2 orientations x 3 positions))

is 88 ways to place the second board. With 4 possible 1st boards, that makes 352 possible layouts. Before you place the objectives.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Assuming a 2-player game, with each player having a full set to choose from, there are 4 boards the second player could choose x 4 sides he can position it against, x 2 orientations for each of those sides = 32. But then you 've got all the different ways you can line them up, too. The boards are 7 x 5 hexes, and you need at least three full hexes lined up. That gives you 8 legal positions along each long edge and three along each short edge, so
4 2nd boards x ((2 long sides x 2 orientations x 8 positions) + (2 short sides x 2 orientations x 3 positions))

is 88 ways to place the second board. With 4 possible 1st boards, that makes 352 possible layouts. Before you place the objectives.

It is a lot of options indeed but many are so similar I wouldnt count it as variations.

I wonder if there will be loose pieces of terrain being placed at some point though.

After our first game, we were already trying to figure out the pros and cons to deployment spaces on certain boards. I'm not sure how much strategy there is to it - maybe someone with more games under their belt can comment?

Mostly its just a matter of how far away from your opponent you want to deploy. The spaces tend to be clustered in certain areas so you can arrange very close first turns or very very far setups.