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.

The official thread for Warhammer Underworlds: Shadespire!
Here is the place for general discussion, as well as tactics, deck building and painting tips for Games Workshops latest tabletop game.

Official Warhammer Underworlds Facebook page.
Games Workshop has their own, official Facebook page for the game. All major updates, news etc will be posted there first.

Latest Shadespire FAQ here.
This is the latest FAQ released for the game. I will keep this updated for ease of use.

News and rumour thread here.
We can discuss news here as well, but for more info you can also check out this thread.

WarhammerTV playlist on Youtube.
Assembly and painting tutorials from Duncan of Games Workshop, the Lord of Layers himself.

Update 2018-05-15:
A new FAQ/beta rules has been released, regarding Katophrane decks. These relics will now cost 2 Glory to equip, instead of 1. The Spoils of Battle ploy will work to equip a fighter. Note that these are beta rules only at the moment, so play test away!

Latest teaser:

Skellingtons with objectives (and, of course, sharDcaller) and sppeed upgrades are nasty.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Skellingtons with objectives (and, of course, sharDcaller) and sppeed upgrades are nasty.

They sure are. I was at my locals Games Workshops first official Shadespire tournament this weekend, and both the first and second place winners played objective marker focused Sepulchral Guard. Third place was the same strategy, but for Stormcasts instead.

My poor Orruks didn't stand a chance..

 alleus wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Skellingtons with objectives (and, of course, sharDcaller) and sppeed upgrades are nasty.

They sure are. I was at my locals Games Workshops first official Shadespire tournament this weekend, and both the first and second place winners played objective marker focused Sepulchral Guard. Third place was the same strategy, but for Stormcasts instead.

My poor Orruks didn't stand a chance..

Grab the dangerous terrain card (the one that causes one dmg if you move/get pushed.) and use swirling strike ploy in combination. Best tarpit cleaner. Also, gak like shardcaller o playing with the board layout are key too.

The skeleton objection game was the first deck I went into after reading on dakka that the meta was forming around everyone completely ignoring the objectives. Have only played three games with it so far, but won each of them.

The next deck I'm building is an objective focused Stormcast deck. The skellies might do better at it, but I like having fewer models.

That dangerous terrain card sounds like a great idea though Kragan! Will def put that in my Ork deck.

I've played every warband at least a couple times now. Thoughts so far:

Orruks seem the strongest from a first glance. They're hard to kill, more models than SCE, and have amazing Ploys and Objectives. Ironskull himself can run rampage across a whole warband if he gets lucky, with Damage 3 (easy to get to 4) and 5 wounds (potentially up to 6), if you don't have a good Cleave attack or two he's basically a monster. And Bonekutta is just as strong once Inspired.

Sepulchral Guard feel probably the most finesse-ful at the moment. You really need to make every action quite deliberately and play for the board. Most people try to hide the Warden super hard, but once he Inspires or you upgrade him with the Damage 3 Cleave upgrade, he's fairly powerful. I tried playing him more aggresively while using the rest of the force for screening/objectives, worked pretty well.

I'm not sure how to play Khorne to be honest. With the speed and relatively high body count I want to play them objective focused, but they die pretty fast and can't come back like Skellies can, so trying to score in the third phase can sometimes be really difficult. Karsus/Saek/Garrek are all pretty killy once Inspired, so I think a more aggressive deck might work better, but only Saek has Cleave so Orruks and SCE can be hard to play that against. Still, they have good Objectives and Karsus is really useful with an AoE attack and also a ranged attack.

SCE is very interesting in my book. With only 3 models, they can sometimes feel a bit difficult to play since you'll "run out" of actions more than any other warband. Like Skeletons, you have to make very deliberate actions and have some sort of contingency if you fail. Charging is almost always a bad decision since you don't have a lot of models to follow up with if it fails, and the low mobility means you can often be shut out of objectives. However, they have the best statlines in the game (other than Ironskull) so I think a Brawling type deck that uses a lot of Defensive Power Cards and focuses on denying could be interesting.


One of the things I've noticed is every Orruk playing putting Denial and Contained into their decks. Since Stormcast and Skeletons are currently playing very defensively in the meta, a lot of Orruks will just rush in, force them back, and then swing 6 Glory in the third end phase unless you try to sneak past. It's really interesting to see the meta develop.

Yeah, I have had great success with Denial and Contained in my Orruks deck. When I played the tournament at my local GW, that won me the games that I won. The rest of the games I lost even though I scored those objectives, mostly because of the insane number of glory that good, "objective secured" style decks can pull off, especially the skeletons.

I was also on the receiving end of a buffed up Harvester that killed my leader and put two of my other orks down to 1 health each. Truly brutal.

So I tried out my new "objective secured" Stormcast deck yesterday, and I had great success with it. The person I played hadn't played much before, so it might now have been the most fun game for him, with me just staying back and holding objectives the whole game.

I did charge him in the third round for some easy last-turn glory when I had scored all my "hold" objectives. Killed two skeletons which got me even more glory. Finished with 12 glory, with 3 of them coming from Eternals. Eternals is a really great objective if you play passively. I had taken some wounds on Severin (who charged), but no one died, so that was some easy glory to. Oh, and Daylight Robbery is even better on this deck than any other I've played. Since you are so passive, just stealing a glory without having to do anything (not even waste an activation) is fantastic.

The objective deck is definitely quite strong. In general I'm not entirely sure how healthy the skelly cards are for the game. I am a little worried that objective placement favors putting them all in the back and turtling up without a lot of reason to interact with your opponent. The game is quick enough that retreating to objectives in the back row can be enough to completely remove combat from the game.

At best only 3/5 objectives will be in their back row, though. If you can even fit three along a single row.

Objective decks don't get all 5 objectives; they rely on getting their points from the what they have in their back row.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
The objective deck is definitely quite strong. In general I'm not entirely sure how healthy the skelly cards are for the game. I am a little worried that objective placement favors putting them all in the back and turtling up without a lot of reason to interact with your opponent. The game is quick enough that retreating to objectives in the back row can be enough to completely remove combat from the game.

Not really. There's a good handful of ways to outright disrupt objective holding, ranging from shardcaller to pushing the objective/holder or destroying the first. Plus moving around 3-4 spaces a turn, warbands that like hitting do not have issue at all with horizontal boards.

Lord Kragan wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
The objective deck is definitely quite strong. In general I'm not entirely sure how healthy the skelly cards are for the game. I am a little worried that objective placement favors putting them all in the back and turtling up without a lot of reason to interact with your opponent. The game is quick enough that retreating to objectives in the back row can be enough to completely remove combat from the game.

Not really. There's a good handful of ways to outright disrupt objective holding, ranging from shardcaller to pushing the objective/holder or destroying the first. Plus moving around 3-4 spaces a turn, warbands that like hitting do not have issue at all with horizontal boards.

There are definitely counters. I suppose more specifically my concern is those counters feel very card/deck based rather than having enough to do with model placement on the board. The core appeal of the game for me is the model interactions being augmented with the deck. The objective deck games feel like the models just ignore each other and cards are thrown around to determine who wins. It's just less exciting for me overall.

The lack of combat can be a problem. When I tried the deck out, I only charged in the last turn , with my last few activations, in order to get some easy glory to top the game off. Before that I turtled up in the back with my objectives, using Shardcaller to get the ones I needed. Sure, you can only do this twice if you manage to get the upgrade early, but that's two more objectives done.

Since I was up against a similar style of warband (skellies) I'm not so sure how well you can ignore combat against a more combat focused warband. I imagine if you get to place the boards and chose to put the the long way, the orks and Khorne warbands might not get into combat until late turn 2 or even 3.

While this is the point of the whole deck, it might not be healthy for the game in general, and it's sure not fun for the opponent just walking up the board. I might play the deck in tournaments or other serious games, but for casual fun games I most likely won't. Too little action, especially if I'm showcasing the game to a new player.

 LunarSol wrote:
Objective decks don't get all 5 objectives; they rely on getting their points from the what they have in their back row.

So, two or three VPs at most? You'll need to explain the trick, because I'm clearly being a little slow. If I know you prefer that style of play, I'm going to add in the cards that push you, and score the objectives for things like having no enemies in my board, or not taking any damage. And since the game doesn't last long, I can go and play someone more interesting.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Objective decks don't get all 5 objectives; they rely on getting their points from the what they have in their back row.

So, two or three VPs at most? You'll need to explain the trick, because I'm clearly being a little slow. If I know you prefer that style of play, I'm going to add in the cards that push you, and score the objectives for things like having no enemies in my board, or not taking any damage. And since the game doesn't last long, I can go and play someone more interesting.

I've played Objective Based for both Stormcast and Skellies. Just my $0.02

The "Hold Objective X" cards aren't what get you the big Glory swings that win the game. I often mulligan the ones I don't think I can score in Turn 1, even if I think I can get to them in 2. You want the Hold cards for Turn 1 glory, and then you get your upgrades for T2, while having denied your opponent from getting much glory on their own. Big Glory swings come from the Keys (which you need Glory to upgrade, and maybe Shardcaller as well), Tactical Supremacy (also nice with Shardcaller), and Eternals. Mainly you also just want to stop the opponent from scoring as well. Lots of Orruk cards are about fighting, charging, etc, so if you can prevent them from doing those, you'll incrementally win. For instance, if you only present them with one target to charge, they can't score the "3 fighters charge a different target each", while still putting them in a position that you can potentially capitalize on.

Yes, it's not terribly exciting to play against, since action is the thing people want to see, but it can make for some really tactical games. Honestly I think Khorne is gonna get a lot of steam against these types of decks since they can really punish people playing far back with their speed, able to get in quicker than most warbands, and can also play the objective game.

Here are the painted models from my core set: http://adventuresinminiaturegaming.blogspot.com/2017/12/warhammer-underworlds-shadespire.html

I'm working on a kind of step-by-step tutorial for Garrek's Reavers. Here's Garrek.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Here are the painted models from my core set: http://adventuresinminiaturegaming.blogspot.com/2017/12/warhammer-underworlds-shadespire.html

I'm working on a kind of step-by-step tutorial for Garrek's Reavers. Here's Garrek.

These look great! Nice job. I haven't painted my Bloodreavers yet, haven't even played them in fact. The Orruks were the first I painted, and them my Stormcasts. The Stormcasts I'm not super happy about (I have no pictures at the moment) so I've ordered another squad. The new squad I'm going to convert a little bit, make them my own. I did this for the Orruks, and it's really fun having something that differs a bit from the crowd

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Here are the painted models from my core set: http://adventuresinminiaturegaming.blogspot.com/2017/12/warhammer-underworlds-shadespire.html

I'm working on a kind of step-by-step tutorial for Garrek's Reavers. Here's Garrek.

Looks dope. I can't paint skin worth diddly so I'm always impressed with well done fleshtones like that.

Anyone else find that there are gaps in the models that are really visible on Garrek's Reavers? For the other warbands if there's a slight seam it looks fine (lines up fine on armor and bones have small gaps between anyway), but there are some spaces on Saek and Arnulf for example that cut right through the muscle.

Requizen wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Here are the painted models from my core set: http://adventuresinminiaturegaming.blogspot.com/2017/12/warhammer-underworlds-shadespire.html

I'm working on a kind of step-by-step tutorial for Garrek's Reavers. Here's Garrek.

Looks dope. I can't paint skin worth diddly so I'm always impressed with well done fleshtones like that.

Anyone else find that there are gaps in the models that are really visible on Garrek's Reavers? For the other warbands if there's a slight seam it looks fine (lines up fine on armor and bones have small gaps between anyway), but there are some spaces on Saek and Arnulf for example that cut right through the muscle.

Thanks. The flesh wasn't that hard. For Garrek (and Targor) it was basecoat of Tallarn Flesh (the old foundation paint) over a white undercoat. Then wet brush with Elf flesh (leaving the darker color in the recesses and at the edges), then a heavy dry brush with some lighter color (bleached bone maybe?) then a light drybrush focusing on the top edges with Skull White. Then a light wash with Reikland Fleshshade. Those are the old paint names, but that's the general process. It's several steps, but they are pretty easy to do. You don't have to be too careful or anything, and in fact with flesh I find it looks better to have some random variations in tone.

And yes, I had some gaps. The worst for me were right down the middle of Saek's chest, and Targor where his chest meets his shoulders. I tried to fill them in with greenstuff, but the gaps were so small it didn't work too well. Maybe their liquid greenstuff would work, but I don't have any. I also had one right across one of Angharad's shoulder pads, but it's not too noticeable once painted.

Hey guys, in turns 2 and 3, who goes first? Is it the person that went 1st during turn 1?

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
Hey guys, in turns 2 and 3, who goes first? Is it the person that went 1st during turn 1?

You roll off at the beginning of each round, winner decides who goes first. No bonuses like there are at the beginning, just a straight rolloff.

Remember the new rolloff mechanics in the FAQ! Makes it much faster.

Requizen wrote:

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
Hey guys, in turns 2 and 3, who goes first? Is it the person that went 1st during turn 1?

You roll off at the beginning of each round, winner decides who goes first. No bonuses like there are at the beginning, just a straight rolloff.

Remember the new rolloff mechanics in the FAQ! Makes it much faster.

Well.... I've been doing that wrong... thanks!

How are you guys doing with Shadespire? I’ve been having fun with my Board Orks deck, mostly against my roomie’s Aggro/Tempo Reavers. We are mostly even in wins and losses, which I think goes to hom the most because I tend to be really lucky xD

What are you guys playing? Are you seeing any deck types appearing?

EDIT: I took some pictures of our Warbands as well:

https://imgur.com/zFrPd0H

https://imgur.com/AK99rxe

https://imgur.com/oRlBul6

Ive played about a dozen games with orruks and reavers, faced stormcast, reavers and skellies.

Orruks seem fairly straightforward with some very strong cards. Been avoiding the character specific named upgrades especially since there's so many good non named ones on top of not liking the named ones in case the model dies so I dont have dead cards. Daemon weapon feels like a must have since it auto inspires your guy on top of being able to provide some huge damage when needed. That on top of the bonus damage cards you could even one shot stormcast models. Gone about 65% winrate with them focusing on just invading the enemy territory and charge face. Dont think I'll try objective based games w them

Reavers have been super feast or famine. They either do amazing with lots of strong upgrades early on to crush, or get totally snuffed out without being able to get much traction and unable to get points to upgrade. I've lost more than I've won, about 40% winrate with them. I think in a 3 or 4 man game they'd be significantly better when everyone else can kill each other which makes all the reavers inspired without needing to take losses. Have tried full aggro and objective based and still not too sure which is better yet. Obj based feels at mercy of the deck and which faction you face, while hard aggro relies a lot on dice rolls especially in the beginning.

My guys too. Stormcast went for a WC3 pally inspired coloring

Reavers, especially Garrek D3 barb inspired

Orruks just wanted a dark beat up yellow (pic a bit too bright though)

My new-to-town Nerd Shop is looking to run Shadespire game, and I'm kind of tempted to partake.

But, I have a single concern about the game. Do I have to buy each of the Warbands in order for my preferred one to be effective?

I've got no issues with the cost/models etc, but if I find myself having to constantly buy, buy, buy, that's a business model I don't want to endorse.

YMMV, which is why this is just a question.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My new-to-town Nerd Shop is looking to run Shadespire game, and I'm kind of tempted to partake.

But, I have a single concern about the game. Do I have to buy each of the Warbands in order for my preferred one to be effective?

I've got no issues with the cost/models etc, but if I find myself having to constantly buy, buy, buy, that's a business model I don't want to endorse.

YMMV, which is why this is just a question.

At the very least you'll need the core set and another box. I'd say that buying the four first set may be enough and that's more due to the fact that each set contains cards for different playstyles (if memory serves right, gurzag's move has about 3-6 cards focused purely on objective holding, for example) and thus if you want to focus on a strategy you will welcome those cards. I think you can do well with a single set, bar with skellies (though with them you need to get the core, which solves the issue), but you will be a bit of an hybrid and thus your strategy will be a bit more finickier.

You are encouraged to buy all expansions, yes. That's the one annoyance, since there are strong Neutral cards in each set.

You can make a winning deck out of just the Starter Set, especially if you understand your deck well and play it well (I personally think Reavers do better out of the box), but if you want to be tip top you'll want to pick up everything.

As long as it's not veering into the X-Wing territory of 'need to buy Ship X to ensure Ship Y isn't rubbish'.....

But I guess that remains to be seen.