Hello! Welcome to a Shadespire blog that will almost certainly see no more than two posts in its lifetime, left to wither and rot in the digital wasteland the second drama school swallows me back up in a month.
I'm Seb, and I've very very recently gotten into Shadespire, and I'm slightly in love with the system, so much so that I actually gave GW some money for the first time in about eight years, breaking several sworn oaths along the way.
I just thought I'd do a very quick rundown of my experience with the game so far, both pros and cons, mostly because it's a bank holiday so I don't get to play tonight and I'm itching to for that Shadespire fix. I've played 9 games (one of which was a three player, which sadly didn't quite finish), so I've progressed just far enough to have developed my own opinions and not quite far enough for them to be at all grounded in practical experience. Read on at your peril:
Pros:
Core Gameplay:
This is just a huuuuuuge thumbs up from me, hex based removes arguments on distances as well as making it easy to see what's in range and what isn't, and a mix of wargame and deck-construction is something I've wanted to play with for a long time
The Objective Deck
I come from a background in skirmish games, and a huge part of what has always made those more fun for me was asymmetrical scoring, and the ability to choose how you wanted to win. Shadespire takes that to a whole new level with the objective deck, really allowing me to feel like I can adjust my win-cons just as much as I can adjust my playstyle, and I'm a particular fan of the massive discrepancy between the difficult to pull-off cards and the easy scores. I may tend towards favouring the fast pace that easy-score cards can provide, but I'm excited to build a deck centred on achieving a handful of major objectives alongside some score immediately cards.
I also imagine, that if the design team stays on top of it, objective cards will provide a significantly easier way to rebalance lower-tier warbands as the game progresses. I haven't seen this employed yet, but I hope to soon.
Theory-craft
I'm notorious for this in other wargames and Shadespire looks to exacerbate the habit beyond all reckoning. For such a young game there are a LOT of cards to look at, and the highly malleable win-cons allows me to put together a huge number of concepts, utilising as many fancy tricks as I can think of. Invariably these will all be thrown aside as I work out the most efficient way to kill things, because once I hit the table I am incapable of doing anything else in any game, but the thought is nice.
Convenience
Ah not so many years ago the length of time it took to play a game and the space it consumed were utterly irrelevant concepts to me. Then adulthood hit me like a fucking freight train and I discovered that the world requires my attention more often than it doesn't, especially since I started training on a course with days running 9am-9pm. Being able to sneak a trio of games in an hour or less is astounding, especially given I'm a glacial player when it comes to play speed, and I really think I might genuinely manage to get some games whilst term is on (retraction of statement in 5...4...3...). It's also great to see 10-12 people playing over just three tables, given the propensity of my local store to book up.
Personality
There's a reason I stopped playing other formats when I discovered Commander in Magic (for those not in the know, Commander decks are made up entirely of single copies of cards, centred around a specific creature you choose to lead it), and Shadespire hits exactly the same note. I get to play MY way, and to a certain extent I don't have to worry about the meta anymore than I want to, which for me means worrying about it just enough that I can feel competitive against the top-tier, but without compromising what I want to do. I'm sure it's not reinventing the wheel, but Slayers were always my favourite of the dwarf concepts back when I used to play Fantasy, and I remember them being frenzied warriors in search of a good death, so that's how I play them, none of this hold objectives nonsense (also I have never been able to play objectives anyway). Shadespire facilitates and rewards that.
Cons:
Please take these with a very large pinch of salt given my inexperience.
High Dice Variance
This is a bugbear for me, and I think that might come from being out of GW games for some time and playing two games (Guildball and Malifaux) that are fantastic at dealing with variance (particularly Malifaux, although that's impossible to imitate without switching to a card system). You roll very few dice in Shadespire, and with that comes a huge lack of predictability when it comes to actions, not to mention a vast number of upgrades involve just rolling a single die with a 33% or 50% chance to massively alter the game flow. Evidently it's a game of dice, I don't wish to see the luck element removed, but I do feel more could be done to mitigate just how reliant on luck the game can be at times. Blood Offering is a fantastic example of this, as is Light Armour, and I'd like to see a few more cards like that.
I wonder about potentially adding a universal action like 'aim' which grants one bonus die on the next attack the character makes? This is of course the musing of a total novice, but the tradeoff of action efficiency and telegraphing a move for accuracy seems like an interesting dynamic to play with. I personally find myself running practically every card I can which helps me deal with the variance issue, but there really aren't that many in the grand scheme of things. The variance is a complaint, but not a major one, that does however lead to my next problem...
Crits
This might seem like it should be covered under variance, but honestly, I feel it's a separate issue, and the only one that prevents the game from being pure enjoyment for me. I should point out I LOVE the abilities that confer bonuses when a crit is rolled, it reminds me of 'triggers' in Malifaux that offer bonuses when a specific suit is flipped, and allows for some interesting build theories (like giving Mad Maegrim concealed weapon when he's inspired in the vague hope of making him do something).
My issue is simply that crits naturally trump everything else. It creates really feel bad moments in the game where a stray crit (usually on a single defence die) trumps all of the work you put into making an attack accurate. I imagine this is the opposite of what GW wants to achieve with crits, but seeing an opponent see two crits show up on an attack and put their defence die down with a sigh and say "there's no point" is not a great experience for either player, especially since you know you did nothing to make that happen beyond bathe your dice in the blood of a few goats to increase their luck.
Honestly, I think my fix for this in whatever edition comes next would be to entirely remove the 'crits are better than successes' aspect, and double down on the additional effects granted by rolling that crit symbol. Beating an opponent in a straight roll-off with nothing more than luck (even if the odds are ever so slightly in your favour) is not fun, but crossing your fingers for a crit with a Hail-Mary shadeglass attack really is. At the moment I think the high-value of the crit symbol is probably restricting design space more than helping it, although I'd be interested to hear what other people think on the matter.
-----
I am aware I spent considerably more time on those two cons, but really, they are comparatively minor niggles in a game that feels great to play 99% of the time, and is huge amounts of fun to try and get creative with. I did leave out my pathological hatred for all things Stormcast, because I'll grant it's highly irrational.
I am also aware that making suggestions of rules changes is a bit (well... perhaps more than a bit) presumptuous of a player a mere 9 games in, but I thought I'd get it out there and see how my opinion changes as my experience grows. If you have counter-arguments to anything in this, please do lay them on me, I'd be fascinated to hear from more experienced players about their feelings on the topics.
See you in the mirrored city.
(They probably shouldn't have let a self-proclaimed narcissist into a city made of mirrors)
Seb
I'm Seb, and I've very very recently gotten into Shadespire, and I'm slightly in love with the system, so much so that I actually gave GW some money for the first time in about eight years, breaking several sworn oaths along the way.
I just thought I'd do a very quick rundown of my experience with the game so far, both pros and cons, mostly because it's a bank holiday so I don't get to play tonight and I'm itching to for that Shadespire fix. I've played 9 games (one of which was a three player, which sadly didn't quite finish), so I've progressed just far enough to have developed my own opinions and not quite far enough for them to be at all grounded in practical experience. Read on at your peril:
Pros:
Core Gameplay:
This is just a huuuuuuge thumbs up from me, hex based removes arguments on distances as well as making it easy to see what's in range and what isn't, and a mix of wargame and deck-construction is something I've wanted to play with for a long time
The Objective Deck
I come from a background in skirmish games, and a huge part of what has always made those more fun for me was asymmetrical scoring, and the ability to choose how you wanted to win. Shadespire takes that to a whole new level with the objective deck, really allowing me to feel like I can adjust my win-cons just as much as I can adjust my playstyle, and I'm a particular fan of the massive discrepancy between the difficult to pull-off cards and the easy scores. I may tend towards favouring the fast pace that easy-score cards can provide, but I'm excited to build a deck centred on achieving a handful of major objectives alongside some score immediately cards.
I also imagine, that if the design team stays on top of it, objective cards will provide a significantly easier way to rebalance lower-tier warbands as the game progresses. I haven't seen this employed yet, but I hope to soon.
Theory-craft
I'm notorious for this in other wargames and Shadespire looks to exacerbate the habit beyond all reckoning. For such a young game there are a LOT of cards to look at, and the highly malleable win-cons allows me to put together a huge number of concepts, utilising as many fancy tricks as I can think of. Invariably these will all be thrown aside as I work out the most efficient way to kill things, because once I hit the table I am incapable of doing anything else in any game, but the thought is nice.
Convenience
Ah not so many years ago the length of time it took to play a game and the space it consumed were utterly irrelevant concepts to me. Then adulthood hit me like a fucking freight train and I discovered that the world requires my attention more often than it doesn't, especially since I started training on a course with days running 9am-9pm. Being able to sneak a trio of games in an hour or less is astounding, especially given I'm a glacial player when it comes to play speed, and I really think I might genuinely manage to get some games whilst term is on (retraction of statement in 5...4...3...). It's also great to see 10-12 people playing over just three tables, given the propensity of my local store to book up.
Personality
There's a reason I stopped playing other formats when I discovered Commander in Magic (for those not in the know, Commander decks are made up entirely of single copies of cards, centred around a specific creature you choose to lead it), and Shadespire hits exactly the same note. I get to play MY way, and to a certain extent I don't have to worry about the meta anymore than I want to, which for me means worrying about it just enough that I can feel competitive against the top-tier, but without compromising what I want to do. I'm sure it's not reinventing the wheel, but Slayers were always my favourite of the dwarf concepts back when I used to play Fantasy, and I remember them being frenzied warriors in search of a good death, so that's how I play them, none of this hold objectives nonsense (also I have never been able to play objectives anyway). Shadespire facilitates and rewards that.
Cons:
Please take these with a very large pinch of salt given my inexperience.
High Dice Variance
This is a bugbear for me, and I think that might come from being out of GW games for some time and playing two games (Guildball and Malifaux) that are fantastic at dealing with variance (particularly Malifaux, although that's impossible to imitate without switching to a card system). You roll very few dice in Shadespire, and with that comes a huge lack of predictability when it comes to actions, not to mention a vast number of upgrades involve just rolling a single die with a 33% or 50% chance to massively alter the game flow. Evidently it's a game of dice, I don't wish to see the luck element removed, but I do feel more could be done to mitigate just how reliant on luck the game can be at times. Blood Offering is a fantastic example of this, as is Light Armour, and I'd like to see a few more cards like that.
I wonder about potentially adding a universal action like 'aim' which grants one bonus die on the next attack the character makes? This is of course the musing of a total novice, but the tradeoff of action efficiency and telegraphing a move for accuracy seems like an interesting dynamic to play with. I personally find myself running practically every card I can which helps me deal with the variance issue, but there really aren't that many in the grand scheme of things. The variance is a complaint, but not a major one, that does however lead to my next problem...
Crits
This might seem like it should be covered under variance, but honestly, I feel it's a separate issue, and the only one that prevents the game from being pure enjoyment for me. I should point out I LOVE the abilities that confer bonuses when a crit is rolled, it reminds me of 'triggers' in Malifaux that offer bonuses when a specific suit is flipped, and allows for some interesting build theories (like giving Mad Maegrim concealed weapon when he's inspired in the vague hope of making him do something).
My issue is simply that crits naturally trump everything else. It creates really feel bad moments in the game where a stray crit (usually on a single defence die) trumps all of the work you put into making an attack accurate. I imagine this is the opposite of what GW wants to achieve with crits, but seeing an opponent see two crits show up on an attack and put their defence die down with a sigh and say "there's no point" is not a great experience for either player, especially since you know you did nothing to make that happen beyond bathe your dice in the blood of a few goats to increase their luck.
Honestly, I think my fix for this in whatever edition comes next would be to entirely remove the 'crits are better than successes' aspect, and double down on the additional effects granted by rolling that crit symbol. Beating an opponent in a straight roll-off with nothing more than luck (even if the odds are ever so slightly in your favour) is not fun, but crossing your fingers for a crit with a Hail-Mary shadeglass attack really is. At the moment I think the high-value of the crit symbol is probably restricting design space more than helping it, although I'd be interested to hear what other people think on the matter.
-----
I am aware I spent considerably more time on those two cons, but really, they are comparatively minor niggles in a game that feels great to play 99% of the time, and is huge amounts of fun to try and get creative with. I did leave out my pathological hatred for all things Stormcast, because I'll grant it's highly irrational.
I am also aware that making suggestions of rules changes is a bit (well... perhaps more than a bit) presumptuous of a player a mere 9 games in, but I thought I'd get it out there and see how my opinion changes as my experience grows. If you have counter-arguments to anything in this, please do lay them on me, I'd be fascinated to hear from more experienced players about their feelings on the topics.
See you in the mirrored city.
(They probably shouldn't have let a self-proclaimed narcissist into a city made of mirrors)
Seb
Comments
Post a Comment