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.

so after reading the 30 something page news thread it seems to be all positive but i realize that the topic of the thread might be biased towards the good

what is the general consensus on it?
is it fun and worth picking up?

i'm not looking for anything competitive but rather just a quick and easy way to push around some really cool minis.

does anyone else get a really strong bloodbowl vibe from it? reading the quickstart guide just reminded me a lot of it.

It really appeals to deck builder people that love magic and it really appeals to people that don't want to build armies and only want to build five or six models and play tons of games in a short amount of time.

I think as a game that its fun. I have also been burnt on way too many board games from GW and other companies that sit languishing on my shelf not played because no one wants to.

Now that being said, shadespire is ssupposed to be following the FFG World Championship model with continuous support and world championship tournaments which is drawing in a ton of people.

In a year if its still widely played I'll look into it.

CONS - you have to... like xwing... buy all of the factions to get all of the cards, even if you are not using those factions.

It is also serving in my small AOS community as a form of divider that is dividing up the already small community as a lot of people don't want to spend their attention on more than one thing so are picking and choosing one or the other.

I don't like it simply because of that.

I really like it. The best part is my girlfriend also likes it. She loves board games, but wouldn't touch wargames with a ten-foot pole.
It's a fun game we can quickly play during a week night. I really see it as a good board game that is played with GW minis, and therefore completely unlike AoS or 40K.

It's a really solid, clever little game that lets you play with great models at a pretty modest investment. I'm pretty smitten.

 auticus wrote:
It really appeals to deck builder people that love magic and it really appeals to people that don't want to build armies and only want to build five or six models and play tons of games in a short amount of time.

I think as a game that its fun. I have also been burnt on way too many board games from GW and other companies that sit languishing on my shelf not played because no one wants to.

Now that being said, shadespire is ssupposed to be following the FFG World Championship model with continuous support and world championship tournaments which is drawing in a ton of people.

In a year if its still widely played I'll look into it.

CONS - you have to... like xwing... buy all of the factions to get all of the cards, even if you are not using those factions.

It is also serving in my small AOS community as a form of divider that is dividing up the already small community as a lot of people don't want to spend their attention on more than one thing so are picking and choosing one or the other.

I don't like it simply because of that.

I agree with what you said, but not your conclusions. Yes, you do kind of need to buy all the faction to get all the cards if you want to play competitive. However, unlike Xwing, the models are actually sweet and there is a real market for people only interested in the models or only interested in the cards. It doesn't seem to be dividing up AoS to me, it seems to be doing the opposite. It is like a gateway drug into AoS. People get the faction they love and paint the minis because a full force is "only" 3-7 models. They now have a partial AoS army that they have already painted and can move into something like Skirmish.

Shadespire is definitely a stealth gateway into AoS simply because people who would never otherwise get into actual mini gaming might be interested in getting into Shadespire. That said, the point of Shadespire is not to recruit for AoS. It is its own thing.

Shadespire is definitely worth it. There is a lot of fun just in the core box so you can get that and just treat it as a stand alone board game like Gorechosen.

Please keep in mind that this is a game with expansions. Whether you have to get it all is really up to you and what you want to accomplish. If you want to play at the leading edge of competitiveness, sure you are going to need to stay on top of the releases. Playing at this level means you don't commit to one warband - you have to be willing to play with whatever is the most competitive warband at a given moment. I think a lot of people forget this element when complaining about "having to buy everything."

It doesn't seem to be dividing up AoS to me, it seems to be doing the opposite

Where I am, given the choice between painting 6 models or a full army, a large swathe are going with 6 models.

The new players being pulled into AOS also 100% here (as of now) don't care about tabletop wargaming and aren't interested in going beyond the 6 models or whatever needed for shadespire.

I found it to be a pretty mediocre game, I dont like khorne or stormcast, so my opinion there really doesnt matter. I would say though that it is billed as a "competitive" game so if you are not looking for that, I would not recommend it, at all. I would however say go for silver tower and hammerfal. with that game getting expansions it can scratch the same itch, but be the casual trip you are looking for. Shadespire is really about 2 bands fighting it out, whereas silver tower is about finishing quests. cost wise, I think that initially silver tower will cost you more, but the upside is you are getting what you paid for. When I bought Shadespire (grudgingly initially because how much I loathe stormcast and khorne) it was knowing that to make the game interesting over the longer term I would be buying more warbands and eventually that will drive its costs up, but to be honest even with 6 or 8 warbands I dont think it will match the quality and replayability of the warhammer quest series. I have already gotten bored to tears with shadespire. Locally what Auticus said is spot on though. It pretty much killed what miniscule interest there was lingering on AoS, we dropped AoS and went for it like a dog chasing a squirrel. But we can still gladly go back to fidgeting with warhammer quest (we have both boxes) and it still can be quick and casual or long and involved.

 thekingofkings wrote:
I found it to be a pretty mediocre game, I dont like khorne or stormcast, so my opinion there really doesnt matter. I would say though that it is billed as a "competitive" game so if you are not looking for that, I would not recommend it, at all. I would however say go for silver tower and hammerfal. with that game getting expansions it can scratch the same itch, but be the casual trip you are looking for. Shadespire is really about 2 bands fighting it out, whereas silver tower is about finishing quests. cost wise, I think that initially silver tower will cost you more, but the upside is you are getting what you paid for. When I bought Shadespire (grudgingly initially because how much I loathe stormcast and khorne) it was knowing that to make the game interesting over the longer term I would be buying more warbands and eventually that will drive its costs up, but to be honest even with 6 or 8 warbands I dont think it will match the quality and replayability of the warhammer quest series. I have already gotten bored to tears with shadespire. Locally what Auticus said is spot on though. It pretty much killed what miniscule interest there was lingering on AoS, we dropped AoS and went for it like a dog chasing a squirrel. But we can still gladly go back to fidgeting with warhammer quest (we have both boxes) and it still can be quick and casual or long and involved.

You really enjoy replaying WHQ often? Most people I've talked to don't seem to play it much after the new game smell is over.

Mugaaz wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I found it to be a pretty mediocre game, I dont like khorne or stormcast, so my opinion there really doesnt matter. I would say though that it is billed as a "competitive" game so if you are not looking for that, I would not recommend it, at all. I would however say go for silver tower and hammerfal. with that game getting expansions it can scratch the same itch, but be the casual trip you are looking for. Shadespire is really about 2 bands fighting it out, whereas silver tower is about finishing quests. cost wise, I think that initially silver tower will cost you more, but the upside is you are getting what you paid for. When I bought Shadespire (grudgingly initially because how much I loathe stormcast and khorne) it was knowing that to make the game interesting over the longer term I would be buying more warbands and eventually that will drive its costs up, but to be honest even with 6 or 8 warbands I dont think it will match the quality and replayability of the warhammer quest series. I have already gotten bored to tears with shadespire. Locally what Auticus said is spot on though. It pretty much killed what miniscule interest there was lingering on AoS, we dropped AoS and went for it like a dog chasing a squirrel. But we can still gladly go back to fidgeting with warhammer quest (we have both boxes) and it still can be quick and casual or long and involved.

You really enjoy replaying WHQ often? Most people I've talked to don't seem to play it much after the new game smell is over.

yeah and there is some pretty good mix and match available.

 auticus wrote:

It doesn't seem to be dividing up AoS to me, it seems to be doing the opposite

Where I am, given the choice between painting 6 models or a full army, a large swathe are going with 6 models.

The new players being pulled into AOS also 100% here (as of now) don't care about tabletop wargaming and aren't interested in going beyond the 6 models or whatever needed for shadespire.

Eh, sounds like those people probably wouldn't become AoS regulars anyway, so unless it's making people quit AoS and play Shadespire full time instead, it doesn't sound like it's dividing so much as it is getting people into the store who otherwise wouldn't be, they're just not playing the same game.

Yeah, it's hard to see how people would be choosing between AoS and Underworlds. They are completely different kinds of games,

Poll is at 90% yes, that pretty unprecedented on Dakka!

As Lunar above posted, I'm smitten . With limited time to play, I've been craving a game like this. I think it's the tightest ruleset GW has ever put out, and the replay value for $120 for all game content (starter + 2 expansions) is just nuts. I'm all in, and hadn't previously been interested in much GW was doing lately! But it's a 9/10 or better for me

The only people I've seen say they just absolutely hate Shadespire are the guys who complain about a GW game that came with ice cream and a free tummy rub. Shadespire isn't perfect, but it's fun, affordable, and easily learned.

Most of the people I see locally talk down on Shadespire are ones more interested in CB’s Aristeia, usually in that they feel Shadespire is a dumbed down version of that game.

 AduroT wrote:
Most of the people I see locally talk down on Shadespire are ones more interested in CB’s Aristeia, usually in that they feel Shadespire is a dumbed down version of that game.

I am not impressed with shadespire because I find it a mediocre game with limited replay appeal. Bought it, played it and it got boring fast. it has a gimmick but it gets old fast. It did not scratch the skirmish itch for me at all.

 AduroT wrote:
Most of the people I see locally talk down on Shadespire are ones more interested in CB’s Aristeia, usually in that they feel Shadespire is a dumbed down version of that game.

Haven't heard much of it (having tried Infinity and given it a pass recently), but "dumbed down" isn't always a bad thing. Streamlining is not necessarily making things worse, in fact I think the tight ruleset makes it easy to pick up and quick to play without needing to memorize too much. Haven't had anyone around here complain about it being too simple or anything like that.

Hadn't heard of Aristeia so I went away and watched an unboxing and a gameplay demo. It looks interesting but for the love of God why did they have to include red, green and orange dice? Don't they know there are millions of colour blind people out there? Also €10 euros more than Shadespire for 8 PVC minis and fewer cards seems a bit pricey.

Shadespire is a hit at my FLGS. Its actually getting attention from the mini players and card flippers. My shop is on the smaller side so this is a great game to get the competitive juices flowing and still able to host a decent size group of players for tourneys. I've been demoing/playing it weekly since its release and its really taking off. A local meta of defensive objective camping decks is already forming with the release of the skeletons.

 Hückleberry wrote:
Shadespire is a hit at my FLGS. Its actually getting attention from the mini players and card flippers. My shop is on the smaller side so this is a great game to get the competitive juices flowing and still able to host a decent size group of players for tourneys. I've been demoing/playing it weekly since its release and its really taking off. A local meta of defensive objective camping decks is already forming with the release of the skeletons.

After reading the various comments that the successful meta has been ignoring Objectives the first deck I’ve build is focused entirely on them, using the skeletons. Haven’t had a chance to play it yet, but will do so this coming evening.

 thekingofkings wrote:
It did not scratch the skirmish itch for me at all.

Why would it?

This kind of comment is so misleading. Underworlds is not a miniatures skirmish game so why would anyone evaluate it as one? Confusion, I guess.

Well, to folks reading this thread - do not make the same mistake as this user. Underworlds is a tactical combat board game with a strong hand management flavor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AduroT wrote:
After reading the various comments that the successful meta has been ignoring Objectives

got to play Ironskullz this weekend with decks made entirely from what came in their expansion box. It was really frustrating. I had a huge amount of trouble getting any glory from the objective deck. Against, for example, Stormcast, the orcs are slow but inferior tanks so it is tough to get glory there, either. I saw that the 3rd place at WHW was an orc warband that didn't use a hold objectives themed deck. But the WHC article also mentioned the deck was built on out-of-sequence attacks, which seems pretty advanced (and I imagine it also depends on having enemies willing to close in on you, something Stormcast avoid).

 Manchu wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
It did not scratch the skirmish itch for me at all.

Why would it?

This kind of comment is so misleading. Underworlds is not a miniatures skirmish game so why would anyone evaluate it as one? Confusion, I guess.

Well, to folks reading this thread - do not make the same mistake as this user. Underworlds is a tactical combat board game with a strong hand management flavor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AduroT wrote:
After reading the various comments that the successful meta has been ignoring Objectives

got to play Ironskullz this weekend with decks made entirely from what came in their expansion box. It was really frustrating. I had a huge amount of trouble getting any glory from the objective deck. Against, for example, Stormcast, the orcs are slow but inferior tanks so it is tough to get glory there, either. I saw that the 3rd place at WHW was an orc warband that didn't use a hold objectives themed deck. But the WHC article also mentioned the deck was built on out-of-sequence attacks, which seems pretty advanced (and I imagine it also depends on having enemies willing to close in on you, something Stormcast avoid).[/quote

could you be more condescending? yeah it is a skirmish, 2 small groups fighting, doesnt matter if its a board like battletech or a table top. There is nothing misleading about it.

Played and won three games tonight with my all Objective Token based Objective Deck using Skeletons. Went 16-14 vs an Orc shove and kill deck. 10-5 vs a Khorne Objective and kill deck. 17-9 vs a Sigmar Objective and kill deck. We’re all pretty new so there’s still some learning curves to climb, but the Objective game and all the movement shenanigans I put into it was fun. Definitely some luck involved with where the Objectives end up, but I’ve taken speed and cards to try mitigate that. Definitely want to keep playing that and learn it more.

 thekingofkings wrote:
could you be more condescending? yeah it is a skirmish, 2 small groups fighting, doesnt matter if its a board like battletech or a table top. There is nothing misleading about it.

Yeah saying Underworlds doesn't scratch the "skirmish" itch is like saying Necromunda doesn't scratch the deckbuilding itch. Sorry you find pointing this out condescending - I'd rather your strange standards not give other posters the wrong impression of this game.

I’d definitely call Shadespire a small skirmish game.

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.

Hmm, so what category would you put it under? Tactical? (Honest question)

@AduroT
Great job!

After playing a couple demo games, I went all in on Shadespire.

The main selling points for me were ;

(1) it's a fast game. It took maybe 30 minutes to complete the match.
(2) warbands were $30 USD, which made it somewhat affordable.
(3) the minis are awesome
(4) it's a "small" game in terms of number of models

Downsides;

(1) customization at this point is only through the decks and not which fighters you can bring
(2) it's based on AoS fluff
(3) if Necromunda is any good, I might not have anyone to play against

Right now my FLGS has a tourney scheduled, so it looks like it's taking off.......

Jury is out for me.

Nothing against the game, and haven't played it.

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'.

As for the Tournament side? Seems to be off to a good start, certainly haven't noticed much grumbling about it (if indeed any). But, early doors. Time yet for GW to get bored and wander off....

DoctorEvil wrote:

Downsides;

(1) customization at this point is only through the decks and not which fighters you can bring
(2) it's based on AoS fluff
(3) if Necromunda is any good, I might not have anyone to play against

Right now my FLGS has a tourney scheduled, so it looks like it's taking off.......

Right there you haven't listed any downsides. Shadespire is a deckbuilding-heavy game and you end up playing entirely different styles based on deck.