Shadow Walker wrote: Question about their latest post on their FB (see below) - is anyone familiar with these paints? If yes, do you recommend them or not, and why?
I havent but a local player has. He used them to paint his Infinity models. said they are similar to GSW Chameleon paints. Cant see any flecks in the metallics so leave pretty smooth finish. Also recommeds for best effect to paint them over a gloss black basecoat. The gloss is what brings out the best colourshift effect.
I love GSW paints but I have to get the chameleon paints imported where I am so its a winner if I can get these from my LFGS... and Ive got a load of Dweghom bilt and ready to paint
Shadow Walker wrote: Question about their latest post on their FB (see below) - is anyone familiar with these paints? If yes, do you recommend them or not, and why?
I havent but a local player has. He used them to paint his Infinity models. said they are similar to GSW Chameleon paints. Cant see any flecks in the metallics so leave pretty smooth finish. Also recommeds for best effect to paint them over a gloss black basecoat. The gloss is what brings out the best colourshift effect.
I love GSW paints but I have to get the chameleon paints imported where I am so its a winner if I can get these from my LFGS... and Ive got a load of Dweghom bilt and ready to paint
Trolls also look better than I expected. I wish they had more bare heads, but there might be options on the sprue.
It looks like at least some hair and masks may be a separate pieces so I think it would be possible to make a full bare headed unit (which I also would like to be able to do).
Bowsen look pretty sweet, the trolls not so much imo. I thought they were ice-zombies or something at first glance; the disjointed posing but almost entirely human looking body brought that aesthetic to mind.
I think Trolls look less good in that pic. Perhaps it is the painting and how they rank up because the old pic where they are have warmer colours and loose formation is quite awesome.
Edit: Plus they didn't change at all, so probably an "old" kit per PB standards. Unlike other "old" previewed models like Longbows or the Drake that did get changes.
Almost thought with the new (to me, at least) head it would build both variants! Maybe it would be a simple enough conversion, though. No idea what the ironclad is supposed to look like.
Also, I have to say the following, after trying the alfa rules (got permission to talk about them).
If you hope w'adrun to be like orcs'n'goblins/ironjawz/bonesplitters you will be sorely disappointed. This army will be more involved, more rewarding, and more complex than those three, and will not involve merely rushing ahead and smashing up things.
Also, I have to say the following, after trying the alfa rules (got permission to talk about them).
If you hope w'adrun to be like orcs'n'goblins/ironjawz/bonesplitters you will be sorely disappointed. This army will be more involved, more rewarding, and more complex than those three, and will not involve merely rushing ahead and smashing up things.
Exactly, they will play according to the tunes of the drums
Kroem wrote: So which faction in this game is the simplest one? I like to follow the words of Lord Nelson "Never mind the maneuvers, just go straight at them"!
Nords. Dual blooded ferried by trolls and smack people.
Kroem wrote: So which faction in this game is the simplest one? I like to follow the words of Lord Nelson "Never mind the maneuvers, just go straight at them"!
Nords. Dual blooded ferried by trolls and smack people.
Interesting, I'm not that keen on the look of Nords to be honest!
Are the 100 Kingdoms particularly complex? They have nice lore and models.
Kroem wrote: So which faction in this game is the simplest one? I like to follow the words of Lord Nelson "Never mind the maneuvers, just go straight at them"!
Nords. Dual blooded ferried by trolls and smack people.
Interesting, I'm not that keen on the look of Nords to be honest!
Are the 100 Kingdoms particularly complex? They have nice lore and models.
I would say so. With Conquest, there are always layers of complexities that you can add with every faction depending on your particular play style, but you can also keep it pretty simple.
100 Kingdoms currently have the typical 'Jack of all trades' drawbacks. The Knights and Steel Legion can be tricky to use, but if you use them correctly they can hit like a ton of bricks and really do damage.
If you like the lore and the models for the hundred kingdoms, go for it! It'll take a few games to start figuring out the direction you want to take them, but you can successfully play them however you'd like!
We don't know for now but it's possible that Weavers also use organic constructs (with Life-Bonding instead of Biomancy).
As for the artwork, I guess that's just the way some of the alien-elves look like. Long skinny arms and legs. Biomancers/Pheromancers have a similar appearance.
I must say that the new alt sculpt of the Dwarfen King (or "Dweghom Hold Raegh" - Artrisan series), is just WOW!
I finally broke down and tossed in an order for some Conquest goodies. Dammit! But then again, some headswaps and minior conversion works on the Hold Warriors and I would be thrilled to amass a horde of them!
And that Dweg character on fire? I could easily have him with some automatas for laughs!
Some things for March: Hundred Kingdoms Servite and Hunter Cadre/Longbowmen dual kit, Dweghom Flame Beserkers Rage X Fire (see pic below), Army Support Packs v2 (see pics below).
Are there any product pics for the not-orc Dino rider? I have resisted conquest because I'm not a war gamer persay, and the scale is wrong for my RPG collection, but if that Rex is near a decent scale for 28-30mm-32 gaming... I might just get one...
Only riders shown are the female orcs raptor riders. As to the size of a not T-Rex, if you base it on the size of the Conquest minis compared to the other ranges then I would guess it will be at least a third bigger than a 28/32 sized T-Rex.
I wonder what is the content of those army support packs, since we already have some with spells/objectives.
Would be great if they were command cards. I'd buy a few since I converted a few units (missing cards...).
Also, Order of the Crimson Tower on the 100K box
VBS wrote: I wonder what is the content of those army support packs, since we already have some with spells/objectives.
Would be great if they were command cards. I'd buy a few since I converted a few units (missing cards...).
New packs are updated (some wording updates) old cards plus additional command cards bonus. New packs were made because the old one were sold out = your old cards are still perfectly valid.
Oi! You! Yeah, YOU! You take your level head and you GIT OUT!
I thought it was a strange pose too, so I'm interested to see the unit. With that said, I accept a certain amount of strange poses as an occupational hazard with any rank and file game.
*looks at the crazy hell-donkeys for the Slaves to Darkness in AoS*
Dam those are really cool. Wish they were 28mm, would get some to use in other games.
In other news, actually got to reading the rules. A very high quality design to them, still simple and straightforward but also effective. But the explanation is horrid. It's as if the writer is trying to intentionally make it difficult to understand. And then the shooting section has one version of a rule written, then a different version depicted in the diagram! And the whole thing is littered with typos to boot, legitimacy surprised and disappointed.
NinthMusketeer wrote: But the explanation is horrid. It's as if the writer is trying to intentionally make it difficult to understand. And then the shooting section has one version of a rule written, then a different version depicted in the diagram! And the whole thing is littered with typos to boot, legitimacy surprised and disappointed.
Could you please point to page/s where those things are present, and also do you mean Conquest or First Blood rules?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Off the top of my head I remember figure 3.17, determining what shooting attacks are obscured, depicts different rules from those written.
So you mean Conquest rules, still I cannot see there any error, it is explainded as in the rules = Stands that can trace a clear line from their centre get full shots, others are either obscured or cannot shoot at all.
The rules say that if you can draw an unobstructed line that is a clear shot, if the line is obstructed it is obscured. Obscured fires half shots.
The diagram has three stands drawing unobstructed lines, but says one of them is obscured (with no reason given) and says the stand with an interrupted line cannot fire at all (as opposed to the rules which say it would just be obscured).
NinthMusketeer wrote: The rules say that if you can draw an unobstructed line that is a clear shot, if the line is obstructed it is obscured. Obscured fires half shots.
The diagram has three stands drawing unobstructed lines, but says one of them is obscured (with no reason given) and says the stand with an interrupted line cannot fire at all (as opposed to the rules which say it would just be obscured).
''...trace a straight line from the centre of that Stand to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment....'' , and the 3,17 shows that only 2 Stands have it = have clear shots,
''If one or more Regiments and/or Obscuring Terrain break that line, the Stand’s Volley is an Obscured Shot.', and 1 Stand that is on the left is obscured,
''If you cannot trace an unbroken line from at least one Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment, the Target is not a legal one as it is outside of Line of Sight.'' , and 1 Stand on the right cannot see anything = cannot shoot.
I can't bring myself to read the original rulebook. Not enough pretty pictures and fluffy lore pieces for me, and I can't find the companion for a reasonable price anymore.
At least I've got one of the first blood starters showing up this weekend to occupy me over a three day weekend.
Guess I can bring both books with me to read while I wait in line for my vaccine!
highlord tamburlaine wrote: I can't bring myself to read the original rulebook. Not enough pretty pictures and fluffy lore pieces for me, and I can't find the companion for a reasonable price anymore.
At least I've got one of the first blood starters showing up this weekend to occupy me over a three day weekend.
Guess I can bring both books with me to read while I wait in line for my vaccine!
Next time I'm at Miniature Market I can look to see if they have any more of the dinged copies of the companion. I think I got mine for $20 or $30 the week it came out and they had quite a few that had minor blemishes. Unfortunately they put a sticker right on the cover which is a pain to get off, but still was a deal.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The rules say that if you can draw an unobstructed line that is a clear shot, if the line is obstructed it is obscured. Obscured fires half shots.
The diagram has three stands drawing unobstructed lines, but says one of them is obscured (with no reason given) and says the stand with an interrupted line cannot fire at all (as opposed to the rules which say it would just be obscured).
''...trace a straight line from the centre of that Stand to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment....'' , and the 3,17 shows that only 2 Stands have it = have clear shots,
The diagram clearly throws three unobstructed lines.
"If one or more Regiments and/or Obscuring Terrain break that line, the Stand’s Volley is an Obscured Shot.', and 1 Stand that is on the left is obscured,
No, because nothing breaks the line. However the stand on the right falls into this category, with the regiment in front of it breaking its line. So by the rules it should have an obscured shot.
''If you cannot trace an unbroken line from at least one Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment, the Target is not a legal one as it is outside of Line of Sight.'' , and 1 Stand on the right cannot see anything = cannot shoot.
Emphasis mine. On a stand-by-stand basis line of sight doesn't matter.
I know this sounds impolite but please read what I am saying and read what the rules actually say (RAW not RAI) before responding like this. The situation is frustrating enough as it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I will add; if someone can come in and humiliate me by pointing out some obvious thing I am missing PLEASE do so. I would much rather this be just a stupid mistake on my part than be witnessing a company that did the hard part (rules design) so well flop this hard on just writing them down.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Dam those are really cool. Wish they were 28mm, would get some to use in other games.
Yeah, it's not like Dragon rampant, Erewhon and plenty other games are scale agnostic. Oh wait... they are scale agnostic. I am sorry if I sound harsh here but if you think these are not taylor made for aos/fantasy, you are free to do so, no need to dilly dally. Not that it's an actual impediment as I've yet to see anyone raise an eyebrow at me using mercenary crossbows as freeguilders. Tbh it is a bit annoying that in a thread about a specific game people feel the need to go "damn, I wish this was also for that other game!"
And I will add; if someone can come in and humiliate me by pointing out some obvious thing I am missing PLEASE do so. I would much rather this be just a stupid mistake on my part than be witnessing a company that did the hard part (rules design) so well flop this hard on just writing them down.
It seems less a typo and more a gaffe by the paint app or whatever they used to draw the diagram. The line, rather than go through the center, is on the corner of the stand. If you were to draw it from the center of the stand you'd see the other regiment clips the line, making an obstructed line and therefore making them fire an obstructed shot.
EDIT: aaaaand shadow walker found the correct explanation. At least I didn't stray to far off hahahaha!
@NinthMusketeer
You wrote:
''The diagram clearly throws three unobstructed lines.'' - it is not true. The rules say ''...trace a straight line from the CENTRE of that Stand...'', and the diagram shows that only 2 Stands in the middle can do that = the diagram shows 2 unobstructed lines and 1 obstructed (Stand on the left).
''No, because nothing breaks the line.'' - again untrue. The line for the Stand on the left is broken because it cannot be traced ''from the CENTRE of that Stand''.
Stand on the right cannot trace the unbroken line ''from the CENTRE of that Stand'' at all = cannot shoot.
This is all shown on the diagram. I base my answers on the rules downloaded from the website = the latest version.
Yeah, it's not like Dragon rampant, Erewhon and plenty other games are scale agnostic. Oh wait... they are scale agnostic. I am sorry if I sound harsh here but if you think these are not taylor made for aos/fantasy, you are free to do so, no need to dilly dally. Not that it's an actual impediment as I've yet to see anyone raise an eyebrow at me using mercenary crossbows as freeguilders. Tbh it is a bit annoying that in a thread about a specific game people feel the need to go "damn, I wish this was also for that other game!"
From my experience, when people say "they can't be used in other games" or anything similar, they actually mean that they don't fit well for their personal specific usecase. There is just need to extrapolate it as a universal truth (we've seen this in other places... "cargad" comes to mind).
I tested out WoE and KoW rules using Conquest minis and no problem. Some of the models even blend in perfectly with 28mm (ex: Dragonslayers look very good as Ogres, just like people use Stormcasts for the same purpose).
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). An almost irrelevant issue considering the rules are clear regarding obscuring (ie. with common sense you can understand the point of the diagram). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
Ok, you have the point, I stand corrected
Good! That'll learn you! ;-)
I love Conquest, and I've loved the gameplay since the first time I demoed it at Adepticon in 2018.
With that said, I'm willing to forgive a lot because I recognize that this is a first game from a small and new company that has some really bold ideas about rank 'n file wargaming in an original fantasy universe. I HIGHLY recommend you pick up the starter box and give it a go. I've played many games and I've yet to run into any rules issue that wasn't immediately solved by a quick chat with my opponent, which is far more than I can say for many other games I've played which seem to require you to set an extra 30 minutes aside each game to rummage through the rulebook. If you find a serious problem, jump on the Conquest Discord channel and ask the rules writers to clarify it for you. They will. Seriously. And they'll thank you for bringing it to their attention! Don't let a few typos rob you of a great game like this!
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
Ok, you have the point, I stand corrected
Good! That'll learn you! ;-)
I love Conquest, and I've loved the gameplay since the first time I demoed it at Adepticon in 2018.
With that said, I'm willing to forgive a lot because I recognize that this is a first game from a small and new company that has some really bold ideas about rank 'n file wargaming in an original fantasy universe. I HIGHLY recommend you pick up the starter box and give it a go. I've played many games and I've yet to run into any rules issue that wasn't immediately solved by a quick chat with my opponent, which is far more than I can say for many other games I've played which seem to require you to set an extra 30 minutes aside each game to rummage through the rulebook. If you find a serious problem, jump on the Conquest Discord channel and ask the rules writers to clarify it for you. They will. Seriously. And they'll thank you for bringing it to their attention! Don't let a few typos rob you of a great game like this!
I guess I was not meant to be the recipient of this (I have no issues with the ruleset and also I am 'together' with the Conquest since the first website was set online.) Did you meant @NinthMusketeer instead?
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
Ok, you have the point, I stand corrected
Good! That'll learn you! ;-)
I love Conquest, and I've loved the gameplay since the first time I demoed it at Adepticon in 2018.
With that said, I'm willing to forgive a lot because I recognize that this is a first game from a small and new company that has some really bold ideas about rank 'n file wargaming in an original fantasy universe. I HIGHLY recommend you pick up the starter box and give it a go. I've played many games and I've yet to run into any rules issue that wasn't immediately solved by a quick chat with my opponent, which is far more than I can say for many other games I've played which seem to require you to set an extra 30 minutes aside each game to rummage through the rulebook. If you find a serious problem, jump on the Conquest Discord channel and ask the rules writers to clarify it for you. They will. Seriously. And they'll thank you for bringing it to their attention! Don't let a few typos rob you of a great game like this!
I guess I was not meant to be the recipient of this (I have no issues with the ruleset and also I am 'together' with the Conquest since the first website was set online.) Did you meant @NinthMusketeer instead?
Yeesh. Yes, I meant @NinthMusketeer. This is what I get when I don't get my beauty sleep and then try to contribute to a conversation!
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
Ok, you have the point, I stand corrected
Good! That'll learn you! ;-)
I love Conquest, and I've loved the gameplay since the first time I demoed it at Adepticon in 2018.
With that said, I'm willing to forgive a lot because I recognize that this is a first game from a small and new company that has some really bold ideas about rank 'n file wargaming in an original fantasy universe. I HIGHLY recommend you pick up the starter box and give it a go. I've played many games and I've yet to run into any rules issue that wasn't immediately solved by a quick chat with my opponent, which is far more than I can say for many other games I've played which seem to require you to set an extra 30 minutes aside each game to rummage through the rulebook. If you find a serious problem, jump on the Conquest Discord channel and ask the rules writers to clarify it for you. They will. Seriously. And they'll thank you for bringing it to their attention! Don't let a few typos rob you of a great game like this!
I guess I was not meant to be the recipient of this (I have no issues with the ruleset and also I am 'together' with the Conquest since the first website was set online.) Did you meant @NinthMusketeer instead?
Yeesh. Yes, I meant @NinthMusketeer. This is what I get when I don't get my beauty sleep and then try to contribute to a conversation!
Beauty sleep is very important. Here have some W'adrhun banner to help you sleep to the tunes of the drums
Shadow Walker wrote: @NinthMusketeer
You wrote:
''The diagram clearly throws three unobstructed lines.'' - it is not true. The rules say ''...trace a straight line from the CENTRE of that Stand...'', and the diagram shows that only 2 Stands in the middle can do that = the diagram shows 2 unobstructed lines and 1 obstructed (Stand on the left).
''No, because nothing breaks the line.'' - again untrue. The line for the Stand on the left is broken because it cannot be traced ''from the CENTRE of that Stand''.
Stand on the right cannot trace the unbroken line ''from the CENTRE of that Stand'' at all = cannot shoot.
This is all shown on the diagram. I base my answers on the rules downloaded from the website = the latest version.
I got out a ruler and checked the line on the left. It clearly runs from the center of that stand to the center of the other. There is nothing obstructing it.
The stand on the right IS obstructed, but the rules say that if it is obstructed it can still shoot. The rules are quite clear that if one stand can draw line of sight, all the stands in that regiment can shoot. They may be obscured, but there is no rule written detailing that some stands would be unable to; either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.
This whole thing makes me concerned, because it demonstrates a certain apathy to writing. Did no one proof read this? Why are there so many obvious typos? Why are so many rules written in such an obtuse way? It's like they came up with this great ruleset but then half-assed things when it came to the tedious work. I roll my eyes when GW does it, and they get away with it thanks to being the biggest game in town. But Para Bellum needs to do better than this, and it is a double shame because the ruleset they are explaining is so good.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I will have to check the discord though, I didn't know they had one.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I got out a ruler and checked the line on the left. It clearly runs from the center of that stand to the center of the other. There is nothing obstructing it.
The rules are quite clear that if one stand can draw line of sight, all the stands in that regiment can shoot. They may be obscured, but there is no rule written detailing that some stands would be unable to; either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.
a) I did the same with the ruler: there are 5 Stands in the enemy Regiment A, and only for 1 enemy Stand (second from the right) you could draw a line according to the rules, and even then it touches the corner of the Regiment B = it is obstructed.
b) The rules do not say ''either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.'. They say ''If you cannot trace an unbroken line from at least one Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment, the Target is not a legal one as it is outside of Line of Sight.'' = you need just 1 Stand to be able to have an unobstructed line = the line traced from Stand's centre = it is possible for some Stands to not be able to fire at all so long as at least 1 is able to do this unobstructed.
Side info: the rules are by Alessio Cavatore, one of the best in the industry.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I got out a ruler and checked the line on the left. It clearly runs from the center of that stand to the center of the other. There is nothing obstructing it.
The rules are quite clear that if one stand can draw line of sight, all the stands in that regiment can shoot. They may be obscured, but there is no rule written detailing that some stands would be unable to; either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.
a) I did the same with the ruler: there are 5 Stands in the enemy Regiment A, and only for 1 enemy Stand (second from the right) you could draw a line according to the rules, and even then it touches the corner of the Regiment B = it is obstructed.
b) The rules do not say ''either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.'. They say ''If you cannot trace an unbroken line from at least one Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment, the Target is not a legal one as it is outside of Line of Sight.'' = you need just 1 Stand to be able to have an unobstructed line = the line traced from Stand's centre = it is possible for some Stands to not be able to fire at all so long as at least 1 is able to do this unobstructed.
Side info: the rules are by Alessio Cavatore, one of the best in the industry.
The discord was actually very helpful (thank you for suggesting it @Godswildcard). They confirmed that the diagram does not depict the rules, and should be ignored. But I'll take a picture to show you if you want concrete proof.
The rules themselves are high quality, as I have explained before. It is the description of those rules that are convoluted and riddled with typos. I could do better myself, a company producing this as part of their product line definitely should.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I got out a ruler and checked the line on the left. It clearly runs from the center of that stand to the center of the other. There is nothing obstructing it.
The rules are quite clear that if one stand can draw line of sight, all the stands in that regiment can shoot. They may be obscured, but there is no rule written detailing that some stands would be unable to; either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.
a) I did the same with the ruler: there are 5 Stands in the enemy Regiment A, and only for 1 enemy Stand (second from the right) you could draw a line according to the rules, and even then it touches the corner of the Regiment B = it is obstructed.
b) The rules do not say ''either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.'. They say ''If you cannot trace an unbroken line from at least one Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment, the Target is not a legal one as it is outside of Line of Sight.'' = you need just 1 Stand to be able to have an unobstructed line = the line traced from Stand's centre = it is possible for some Stands to not be able to fire at all so long as at least 1 is able to do this unobstructed.
Side info: the rules are by Alessio Cavatore, one of the best in the industry.
The discord was actually very helpful (thank you for suggesting it @Godswildcard). They confirmed that the diagram does not depict the rules, and should be ignored. But I'll take a picture to show you if you want concrete proof.
The rules themselves are high quality, as I have explained before. It is the description of those rules that are convoluted and riddled with typos. I could do better myself, a company producing this as part of their product line definitely should.
a) I would like to know who, by name, gave this answer because there are like 3 people from PBW that could make such a statement an official one.
b) Even then, it still does not changes that the diagram works fine, and probably only needs, as per @VBS suggestion, a minor adjustment to avoid arguing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I don't really want to argue about it anymore. But the discord is open to everyone, you can go check it out for yourself if you like.
So I should make a discord account just to get an answer you could write here? Either it is an official ruling by PBW or you were given an answer from some random guy who claims to speak for them.
I am gonna be a bit of a pedant here and ask: since when is a person a whole community!?
It takes two sides to argue, unless your in a Monty Python sketch.
Except... ninth is not part of the conquest community? He is looking to join it, or rather considering to. But... okay, I guess you wanted to be backhanded and get some sort of high ground with those one liners?
I am gonna be a bit of a pedant here and ask: since when is a person a whole community!?
It takes two sides to argue, unless your in a Monty Python sketch.
Except... ninth is not part of the conquest community? He is looking to join it, or rather considering to. But... okay, I guess you wanted to be backhanded and get some sort of high ground with those one liners?
No.
It was not an attempt at a backhand or to gain high ground. I also looked into Conquest. Dropped a few hundred dollars on Dweghom, started assembling and watching the threads. People ask questions, point out flaws, and generally try to get involved and are met with the above. Simple statement of what I have seen. But any time someone disapproves of something they become the enemy. It’s not a healthy community attitude. It won’t grow the game if others cannot voice their opinion. Any further purchases of PBW and Conquest are on hold for me. It hasn’t gotten the traction in the community around me that it needs to become a player. Some nice models, rules so far look good to me, but if I can’t find players it’s not worthwhile to me.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If you want the answer that badly then yeah, you should. I'm not your personal messenger.
To quote your own words:
''But I'll take a picture to show you if you want concrete proof.''
I changed my mind when I saw how toxic it was getting, but fine.
Spoiler:
First off, the rules for taking the action with a unit:
To take a Volley Action, you must first choose a legal target enemy Regiment. The target must be in range of the Barrage special rule you wish the Regiment to use. The target must also lie within the Regiment’s front arc and also be within Line of Sight.
This is the restriction for the unit one is shooting with to take the action. The whole unit takes the action or the whole unit does not.
Then the rules for checking if individual stands within the unit are obscured:
For each Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment that is in range of the Target, trace a straight line from the centre of that Stand to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment. If no Regiments or Obscuring Terrain break this line, that Stand’s Volley is a Clear Shot. If one or more Regiments and/or Obscuring Terrain break that line, the Stand’s Volley is an Obscured Shot.
This is very simple stand-by-stand checking. If an unobstructed line can be drawn it is clear, if it cannot be drawn it is obscured.
Then there is this paragraph:
If you cannot trace an unbroken line from at least one Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment, the Target is not a legal one as it is outside of Line of Sight. The Regiment must choose another Action or another Target. Note that a Regiment can be targeted if it is in base contact with an enemy, although this will often mean the Volley of one or more Stands might be Obscured.
Emphasis mine. This paragraph is reiterating at least one stand in the unit must have a clear shot or the whole unit cannot perform the action. If at least one stand can draw that line, then all of the stands shoot; there is nothing here saying individual stands without line of sight cannot shoot.
Those rules are quite clear. What becomes an issue is the diagram associated with them:
And the text that goes with it:
Regiment D Targets Regiment A with its Volley. However, because of the presence of Regiments B and C, only two of the Stands have clear Shots. One Stand is Obscured and halves its Shots whilst the last Stand cannot fire its shots at all.
I added the red line to show that the stand on the left does have, objectively and with no ambiguity, a clear shot by the rules described. The stand on the right is obscured, but there is no rule saying that obscured stands cannot shoot. There is no rule anywhere saying that when a unit shoots some of its stands may be unable to; it is all of them or none of them. The diagram does not fit the rules.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If you want the answer that badly then yeah, you should. I'm not your personal messenger.
To quote your own words:
''But I'll take a picture to show you if you want concrete proof.''
I changed my mind when I saw how toxic it was getting, but fine.
Spoiler:
First off, the rules for taking the action with a unit:
To take a Volley Action, you must first choose a legal target enemy Regiment. The target must be in range of the Barrage special rule you wish the Regiment to use. The target must also lie within the Regiment’s front arc and also be within Line of Sight.
This is the restriction for the unit one is shooting with to take the action. The whole unit takes the action or the whole unit does not.
Then the rules for checking if individual stands within the unit are obscured:
For each Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment that is in range of the Target, trace a straight line from the centre of that Stand to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment. If no Regiments or Obscuring Terrain break this line, that Stand’s Volley is a Clear Shot. If one or more Regiments and/or Obscuring Terrain break that line, the Stand’s Volley is an Obscured Shot.
This is very simple stand-by-stand checking. If an unobstructed line can be drawn it is clear, if it cannot be drawn it is obscured.
Then there is this paragraph:
If you cannot trace an unbroken line from at least one Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment, the Target is not a legal one as it is outside of Line of Sight. The Regiment must choose another Action or another Target. Note that a Regiment can be targeted if it is in base contact with an enemy, although this will often mean the Volley of one or more Stands might be Obscured.
Emphasis mine. This paragraph is reiterating at least one stand in the unit must have a clear shot or the whole unit cannot perform the action. If at least one stand can draw that line, then all of the stands shoot; there is nothing here saying individual stands without line of sight cannot shoot.
Those rules are quite clear. What becomes an issue is the diagram associated with them:
And the text that goes with it:
Regiment D Targets Regiment A with its Volley. However, because of the presence of Regiments B and C, only two of the Stands have clear Shots. One Stand is Obscured and halves its Shots whilst the last Stand cannot fire its shots at all.
I added the red line to show that the stand on the left does have, objectively and with no ambiguity, a clear shot by the rules described. The stand on the right is obscured, but there is no rule saying that obscured stands cannot shoot. There is no rule anywhere saying that when a unit shoots some of its stands may be unable to; it is all of them or none of them. The diagram does not fit the rules.
You misunderstood me. I did ask for a proof that you had an official confirmation about the diagram on discord from a PBW. I too have no wish to repeat the rules conversation again.
I guess that at this point we both must agree that we disagree on this matter.
Disagree? The only thing up for discussion is if the diagram is right or the written rules are right. To which my stance is 'I asked the discord community and they said to ignore the diagram' so unless you are trying to say that did not occur, there is no disagreement at hand. Was it official? If I thought so I definitely would have said as such. Maybe one of the multiple people who gave me that response was official, but I doubt it--they just seemed like community members. All I ever wanted was an answer to if I was missing something or if there was an established interpretation to make the volley rules work.
Meanwhile, that the diagram does not match up with the rules is objective fact. Trying to sweep this all under 'well agree to disagree' after I laid out proof you were objectively wrong is simply disrespectful, both to me and to you.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Disagree? The only thing up for discussion is if the diagram is right or the written rules are right. To which my stance is 'I asked the discord community and they said to ignore the diagram' so unless you are trying to say that did not occur, there is no disagreement at hand. Was it official? If I thought so I definitely would have said as such. Maybe one of the multiple people who gave me that response was official, but I doubt it--they just seemed like community members. All I ever wanted was an answer to if I was missing something or if there was an established interpretation to make the volley rules work.
Meanwhile, that the diagram does not match up with the rules is objective fact. Trying to sweep this all under 'well agree to disagree' after I laid out proof you were objectively wrong is simply disrespectful, both to me and to you.
1) Discord - No official ruling. Case solved.
2) No one wants to disrespect you. We have a conversation that leads to both of us being adamant in that we are correct.
3) After seeing how you draw that red line on the diagram it is clear for me from where steps your confusion about the diagram. You simply took the words ''from the centre of the stand'' too literally. The line should never be traced like that. Imagine how it would ''work'' on a battlefield with the actual minis, especially in the rank&file game. There is a reason that the lines on such diagrams in wargames are traced from ''base to base'' or stand to stand in this case.
4) As to other points I did already answer them during our talk, and we have a disagreement there.
To close it finally. Even if you do not agree with me let it not prevent you from enjoying the game. Conquest (both versions) is a great experience, and our differences should not be a detriment to having fun
Shadow Walker wrote: @NinthMusketeer
You wrote:
''The diagram clearly throws three unobstructed lines.'' - it is not true. The rules say ''...trace a straight line from the CENTRE of that Stand...'', and the diagram shows that only 2 Stands in the middle can do that = the diagram shows 2 unobstructed lines and 1 obstructed (Stand on the left).
''No, because nothing breaks the line.'' - again untrue. The line for the Stand on the left is broken because it cannot be traced ''from the CENTRE of that Stand''.
Stand on the right cannot trace the unbroken line ''from the CENTRE of that Stand'' at all = cannot shoot.
This is all shown on the diagram. I base my answers on the rules downloaded from the website = the latest version.
I got out a ruler and checked the line on the left. It clearly runs from the center of that stand to the center of the other. There is nothing obstructing it.
The stand on the right IS obstructed, but the rules say that if it is obstructed it can still shoot. The rules are quite clear that if one stand can draw line of sight, all the stands in that regiment can shoot. They may be obscured, but there is no rule written detailing that some stands would be unable to; either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.
This whole thing makes me concerned, because it demonstrates a certain apathy to writing. Did no one proof read this? Why are there so many obvious typos? Why are so many rules written in such an obtuse way? It's like they came up with this great ruleset but then half-assed things when it came to the tedious work. I roll my eyes when GW does it, and they get away with it thanks to being the biggest game in town. But Para Bellum needs to do better than this, and it is a double shame because the ruleset they are explaining is so good.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I will have to check the discord though, I didn't know they had one.
The rules have been getting cleaned up over the past couple of years. There are still some issues that we discuss in the rules channel on discord... and PB knows about them and makes good efforts at correcting.
That being said, I will take this ruleset and several of its current blunders over anything by GW any time of the day. The game is miles ahead of where other games are *for what I am looking for* and has brought me incredible experiences that have not been the type of experiences that AOS has given me from 2015-2019 before I got fed up with it and had to drop it.
Check out underspire.net for articles and battle reports. There is also a link to the discord there.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Disagree? The only thing up for discussion is if the diagram is right or the written rules are right. To which my stance is 'I asked the discord community and they said to ignore the diagram' so unless you are trying to say that did not occur, there is no disagreement at hand. Was it official? If I thought so I definitely would have said as such. Maybe one of the multiple people who gave me that response was official, but I doubt it--they just seemed like community members. All I ever wanted was an answer to if I was missing something or if there was an established interpretation to make the volley rules work.
Meanwhile, that the diagram does not match up with the rules is objective fact. Trying to sweep this all under 'well agree to disagree' after I laid out proof you were objectively wrong is simply disrespectful, both to me and to you.
1) Discord - No official ruling. Case solved.
2) No one wants to disrespect you. We have a conversation that leads to both of us being adamant in that we are correct.
3) After seeing how you draw that red line on the diagram it is clear for me from where steps your confusion about the diagram. You simply took the words ''from the centre of the stand'' too literally. The line should never be traced like that. Imagine how it would ''work'' on a battlefield with the actual minis, especially in the rank&file game. There is a reason that the lines on such diagrams in wargames are traced from ''base to base'' or stand to stand in this case.
4) As to other points I did already answer them during our talk, and we have a disagreement there.
To close it finally. Even if you do not agree with me let it not prevent you from enjoying the game. Conquest (both versions) is a great experience, and our differences should not be a detriment to having fun
Apologies if I gave the impression there was an official ruling--even if a developer had responded it would still just be discord chat and not official so I assumed that was a given. The rules say from the center of one stand to the center of another, do they not? Can you clarify exactly how I did it wrong, because that is rather important. And where is the rule that says the stand on the right can't shoot (like what page number)? Again, that is very important to actually playing the game.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Disagree? The only thing up for discussion is if the diagram is right or the written rules are right. To which my stance is 'I asked the discord community and they said to ignore the diagram' so unless you are trying to say that did not occur, there is no disagreement at hand. Was it official? If I thought so I definitely would have said as such. Maybe one of the multiple people who gave me that response was official, but I doubt it--they just seemed like community members. All I ever wanted was an answer to if I was missing something or if there was an established interpretation to make the volley rules work.
Meanwhile, that the diagram does not match up with the rules is objective fact. Trying to sweep this all under 'well agree to disagree' after I laid out proof you were objectively wrong is simply disrespectful, both to me and to you.
1) Discord - No official ruling. Case solved.
2) No one wants to disrespect you. We have a conversation that leads to both of us being adamant in that we are correct.
3) After seeing how you draw that red line on the diagram it is clear for me from where steps your confusion about the diagram. You simply took the words ''from the centre of the stand'' too literally. The line should never be traced like that. Imagine how it would ''work'' on a battlefield with the actual minis, especially in the rank&file game. There is a reason that the lines on such diagrams in wargames are traced from ''base to base'' or stand to stand in this case.
4) As to other points I did already answer them during our talk, and we have a disagreement there.
To close it finally. Even if you do not agree with me let it not prevent you from enjoying the game. Conquest (both versions) is a great experience, and our differences should not be a detriment to having fun
Apologies if I gave the impression there was an official ruling--even if a developer had responded it would still just be discord chat and not official so I assumed that was a given. The rules say from the center of one stand to the center of another, do they not? Can you clarify exactly how I did it wrong, because that is rather important. And where is the rule that says the stand on the right can't shoot (like what page number)? Again, that is very important to actually playing the game.
1) Measuring: Yes the rules say that but if you take them literally, like you did drawing that red line on the diagram, then you will get into troubles during the game. For example, you would need to either remove minis from the stand to properly measure it from its literall centre or you would need to measure from above the stand with minis which would also be rather weird method. Please bear in mind that in the rulebook there are no diagrams that would suggest that you should measure from the literall centre of the stand. As to wording, I assume it was written like that because it would otherwise require a weird phrasing like ''trace the line from the centre of the front of the stand''. I believe that an author simply assumed that like in most/every? wargame, the line is always traced from the front of the base/stand, and it does not need a farther explanation. In short, every time you will measure a distance simply trace the line for each stand starting with the centre of its front. This way you will be sure that it is properly measured.
2) Stand on the right: P. 156 (download version of the rulebook) ''Check for the Obscuration'' subsection has the line that says ''If you cannot trace an unbroken line from at least one Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment, the Target is not a legal one as it is outside of Line of Sight.'' = you need just 1 Stand to be able to have an unobstructed line = the line traced from Stand's centre = it is possible for some Stands to not be able to fire at all so long as at least 1 is able to do this unobstructed.
I hope it helps I also recommend to watch some battle reports (our fellow dakkanaut @auticus made some) on YT to see how the game plays. It all will became more clear than perhaps I could explain here with my own words.
1 - "Take it literally" as in... follow the rules. Your 'interpretation' relies on reading the thing and assuming it means something else.
2 - That rule doesn't say that stands without line of sight can't shoot; it says that if no stands have los the regiment cannot shoot. Again, you are referencing rules that do not exist.
You have been running me in circles for days based on rules that only exist in your head. You have made up your own version and claimed it as fact. That is was I mean when I talk about disrespect. Just admit that you were wrong, the diagram does not follow the written rules, and quit trying to play like what I posted is subjective. I spent quite a while very confused before finally realizing you were misleading me.
And FYI, Auticus is one of the people on discord agreeing with me and saying you are wrong.
NinthMusketeer wrote: 1 - "Take it literally" as in... follow the rules. Your 'interpretation' relies on reading the thing and assuming it means something else.
2 - That rule doesn't say that stands without line of sight can't shoot; it says that if no stands have los the regiment cannot shoot. Again, you are referencing rules that do not exist.
You have been running me in circles for days based on rules that only exist in your head. You have made up your own version and claimed it as fact. That is was I mean when I talk about disrespect. Just admit that you were wrong, the diagram does not follow the written rules, and quit trying to play like what I posted is subjective.
And FYI, Auticus is one of the people on discord agreeing with me and saying you are wrong.
You can call it my interpretation if you wish, for me it is what comes from reading the rules. Others are free to voice their opinion but as long as there is no official ruling their voice has the same weight as mine.
Just roll a die each and the lower is right (it's Conquest, after all ). GW rule design may look not as complex, but sometimes complexity isn't what you need.
Anyway, back to the news, this exclusive W’adrhŭn miniature looks nice. I'm keeping an eye for the full release of the new faction (we need more dinosaur riders female orcs in this world).
NinthMusketeer wrote: 1 - "Take it literally" as in... follow the rules. Your 'interpretation' relies on reading the thing and assuming it means something else.
2 - That rule doesn't say that stands without line of sight can't shoot; it says that if no stands have los the regiment cannot shoot. Again, you are referencing rules that do not exist.
You have been running me in circles for days based on rules that only exist in your head. You have made up your own version and claimed it as fact. That is was I mean when I talk about disrespect. Just admit that you were wrong, the diagram does not follow the written rules, and quit trying to play like what I posted is subjective.
And FYI, Auticus is one of the people on discord agreeing with me and saying you are wrong.
You can call it my interpretation if you wish, for me it is what comes from reading the rules. Others are free to voice their opinion but as long as there is no official ruling their voice has the same weight as mine.
You are literally saying to do something different than what the rules say to do. And lying about the diagrams to boot, even when there is a picture of one in this thread! For someone trying to learn said rules that is confusing and irritating in equal measure.
So I'll take my 'opinion' that 2+2=4, you keep your 'equal weight opinion' that 2+2=5 and we can agree to disagree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sarouan wrote: Just roll a die each and the lower is right (it's Conquest, after all ). GW rule design may look not as complex, but sometimes complexity isn't what you need.
Anyway, back to the news, this exclusive W’adrhŭn miniature looks nice. I'm keeping an eye for the full release of the new faction (we need more dinosaur riders female orcs in this world).
I really want to see the W'adrhun in color, as I just don't feel like I'm getting the best sense of them yet. And they already look pretty cool.
Having been playtesting them, they are pretty cool and have a neat unique mechanic in their warchants. And the all raptor cavalry army will be a thing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: 1 - "Take it literally" as in... follow the rules. Your 'interpretation' relies on reading the thing and assuming it means something else.
2 - That rule doesn't say that stands without line of sight can't shoot; it says that if no stands have los the regiment cannot shoot. Again, you are referencing rules that do not exist.
You have been running me in circles for days based on rules that only exist in your head. You have made up your own version and claimed it as fact. That is was I mean when I talk about disrespect. Just admit that you were wrong, the diagram does not follow the written rules, and quit trying to play like what I posted is subjective.
And FYI, Auticus is one of the people on discord agreeing with me and saying you are wrong.
You can call it my interpretation if you wish, for me it is what comes from reading the rules. Others are free to voice their opinion but as long as there is no official ruling their voice has the same weight as mine.
You are literally saying to do something different than what the rules say to do. And lying about the diagrams to boot, even when there is a picture of one in this thread! For someone trying to learn said rules that is confusing and irritating in equal measure.
So I'll take my 'opinion' that 2+2=4, you keep your 'equal weight opinion' that 2+2=5 and we can agree to disagree.
When this conversation started, all I wanted was to help a new and confused player, just to be called a liar a few days later. I should have known better. Oh well, lesson learnt. Good luck finding nonexistent holes in a basic diagrams coming from a simple, and easy to learn system. I am sure you will also have plenty of fun measuring like you did with that red line on the real board full of minis.
Sarouan wrote: sometimes complexity isn't what you need.
Indeed, but I'd not look at GW as an example of rules writing (unless we are talking about WHU) either. At all. A third of this forum's posts can attest to this statement!
Edit: Nevermind. I had to step back for a second, and realize I was trying to converse with someone who doesn't understand what the center of a square is.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Edit: Nevermind. I had to step back for a second, and realize I was trying to converse with someone who doesn't understand what the center of a square is.
Apparently Alessio, when writing the ruleset, had never thought that there would be someone who would translate a ''centre of a stand'' as a literal centre for measuring instead using the centre of a front of that stand, like any wargamer would do.
Sarouan wrote: sometimes complexity isn't what you need.
Indeed, but I'd not look at GW as an example of rules writing (unless we are talking about WHU) either. At all. A third of this forum's posts can attest to this statement!
Alessio was part of GW rule design team, you know. And all of his creations once he worked for other companies aren't perfect as well. See first version of KoW.
The truth is : the more complex your game system is, the higher chances are that people interpret things differently from what the creators have thought. Conquest isn't any different here. They may be more proactive and follow their community because they can at this scale (let's face it : Conquest fanbase is still small in comparison to the other behemoths on the market), but they aren't exempt from making mistakes. Humans are still behind the process (thankfully !).
Anyway, I'm glad that you can bring more dinosaur rider female orcs in your army, but I tend not to like specialized forces. Playtest doesn't show all that is bad and good (playtesters have also their own bias), there are things that can only be revealed on a bigger scale. You may despise GW's work all you want, you can't escape the fact that they still have a lot of means at their service on that field...way, way more than Conquest can even hope to attain.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Edit: Nevermind. I had to step back for a second, and realize I was trying to converse with someone who doesn't understand what the center of a square is.
Apparently Alessio, when writing the ruleset, had never thought that there would be someone who would translate a ''centre of a stand'' as a literal centre for measuring instead using the centre of a front of that stand, like any wargamer would do.
I wouldn't, And I have been gaming for almost 40 years, so cut the hyperbole. A few extra words for clarification make a world of difference. It is seen in lots of situations. Rules as written versus rules as Interpreted will always be an issue in any system.
At this point I think everyone needs to take a step back, breathe and look at this as an attempt to improve the game rather than an attack against one another.
If you love the game as much as you say, or want to improve it then take an outsiders perspective at what it looks like when they come into this thread and see the potential damage that is being done to it's brand.
If you love the game as much as you say, or want to improve it then take an outsiders perspective at what it looks like when they come into this thread and see the potential damage that is being done to it's brand.
Come on, it's not that bad. It's normal to have different views on rules, especially when they are rich like Conquest. Makes me remember the days of WFB, which is a good thing to me : it means people are passionate about the game and its rules.
If you love the game as much as you say, or want to improve it then take an outsiders perspective at what it looks like when they come into this thread and see the potential damage that is being done to it's brand.
Come on, it's not that bad. It's normal to have different views on rules, especially when they are rich like Conquest. Makes me remember the days of WFB, which is a good thing to me : it means people are passionate about the game and its rules.
There's the fine line between passion and Righteousness. We've trampled on it recently here. I loved old editions of Warhammer and 40K where my chums and I could argue rules and both be right because of the constant updating from GW, but that was friendly. This has turned for the worst.
I have written rules before; house rules, fan updates, etc. When I write a rule it is because that's what I mean it to be. I do not write a rule with the intent that people will read it and assume it means something different. I would just write the thing I mean in the first place!
This is because while writing rules may be an art form, they are not meant to be interpreted as one would do with a poem.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I have written rules before; house rules, fan updates, etc. When I write a rule it is because that's what I mean it to be. I do not write a rule with the intent that people will read it and assume it means something different. I would just write the thing I mean in the first place!
This is because while writing rules may be an art form, they are not meant to be interpreted as one would do with a poem.
In a perfect and ideal world, yes it would be that way.
(Un)fortunately, we're living in a imperfect world, with a lot of humans with different points of view and you can't think about everything when writing your rules - especially when they're complex and meant for a very large group of people.
There's a difference when you write rules for your group of friends (who know each other and tend to lean to easily find a common ground) and yourself, and when you write rules for a game you're selling to complete strangers. Conquest makes no exception here.
Exactly; that is what makes it so important to write rules as literally as possible, because people could have different interpretations. It also makes it important as players to take things as literally as we can, because once we veer into interpretation territory we lose the common ground required to play the game.
For example, Shadow interprets "the center of the stand" to mean "the center of the front edge of the stand". What if someone else things it means "the center of any edge of the stand"? Or thinks that a stand changes dimensions as models are lost? Or thinks that the rule means just one stand can be measured then its LoS used for all stands? One might say 'well obviously THAT doesn't make sense' but for different people with different perspectives it isn't so simple. For the game to function players need to be on the same page, thus why game rules are written literally.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Exactly; that is what makes it so important to write rules as literally as possible, because people could have different interpretations. It also makes it important as players to take things as literally as we can, because once we veer into interpretation territory we lose the common ground required to play the game.
For example, Shadow interprets "the center of the stand" to mean "the center of the front edge of the stand". What if someone else things it means "the center of any edge of the stand"? Or thinks that a stand changes dimensions as models are lost? Or thinks that the rule means just one stand can be measured then its LoS used for all stands? One might say 'well obviously THAT doesn't make sense' but for different people with different perspectives it isn't so simple. For the game to function players need to be on the same page, thus why game rules are written literally.
I’ve never read the rules for this game (I just come for the pretty models).
However, to me if it said center of the stand (to which I assume a stand is basically a base or a tray), that would mean the middle of it.
Center Of The front, would make sense for line of sight if that’s what it is? But if it doesn’t say front, I’d read it literal, as in the very middle?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Main thing though.
That scion looks cool..
Oh yeah, once painted the miniature really comes to life. I definitely want to see painted versions of the other upcoming models because that guy looks great.
streetsamurai wrote: Are these in plastic? If so they look as good, even better, than what gw kits. Impressive if its the case
Yes, regiments are plastic.
Characters (and a few very selected regiments, 1 per faction) are resin.
Tbh, PB has improved a lot their material quality since the core box. The newer stuff ain't that different from GW. And their resin is waaay better than FW.
The fact they can produce it in USA/Greece without getting too ridiculous on the price is also quite positive.
Some regiments are resin. Regardless the quality has skyrocketed in the last year. If it weren't for the scale one might see a new release and think it was a different company from the starter set stuff.
So for the First Blood starter box it is a mix of Braves/Blooded and Slingers/Hunters dual kits. Add a box of Raptor Riders and/or Warbred and you have a nice FB force.
Looks like the lack of rider fitting I was concerned about when we saw the preview designs made it to the physical product. Shame, because they are gorgeous miniatures otherwise. This whole faction is looking quite good, definitely want to see them from more angles to get a full idea.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Some regiments are resin. Regardless the quality has skyrocketed in the last year. If it weren't for the scale one might see a new release and think it was a different company from the starter set stuff.
I’ve been pretty hard on the company since I was disappointed with the starter set. I found the Dweghom to be good quality in design and casting but very limited in terms of posing. Are the newer kits easier to work with for someone who prefers minis not to rank up?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Some regiments are resin. Regardless the quality has skyrocketed in the last year. If it weren't for the scale one might see a new release and think it was a different company from the starter set stuff.
I’ve been pretty hard on the company since I was disappointed with the starter set. I found the Dweghom to be good quality in design and casting but very limited in terms of posing. Are the newer kits easier to work with for someone who prefers minis not to rank up?
I will say that their recent releases, were it not for the unique scale, could be passed off as being from a different company. The increase in quality is that dramatic.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Some regiments are resin. Regardless the quality has skyrocketed in the last year. If it weren't for the scale one might see a new release and think it was a different company from the starter set stuff.
I’ve been pretty hard on the company since I was disappointed with the starter set. I found the Dweghom to be good quality in design and casting but very limited in terms of posing. Are the newer kits easier to work with for someone who prefers minis not to rank up?
I will say that their recent releases, were it not for the unique scale, could be passed off as being from a different company. The increase in quality is that dramatic.
I can also confirm that, in just two years they have come a very long way. Some of their resin characters knock GW stuff out of the park in quality. I can't wait to see what they come up with next.
I hope the Wadhrun teach it to roar with its diaphragm instead of its throat before it damages its vocal cords. I can only imagine a field of raptors that all sound like Harvey Fierstein with strep throat.
I hope the Wadhrun teach it to roar with its diaphragm instead of its throat before it damages its vocal cords. I can only imagine a field of raptors that all sound like Harvey Fierstein with strep throat.
I had to check who he is but now I cannot unhear these raptors using his voice
Carlovonsexron wrote: I rather like him! Hopefully the city states will be the ones who get to be the next faction as I might at least get some models.
Old Dominion is next faction.
Then City States then Weavers.
If you consider that they sold so much of a 70euro 12 model resin regiment that they had to stop production and change it to plastic then yes it is popular
Depends on what you mean by "popular". The game is definitely growing.
Keep in mind Conquest has mostly lived in Covid times (started to get release traction in early 2020), which makes the situation very different compared to other already established games.
If you consider that they sold so much of a 70euro 12 model resin regiment that they had to stop production and change it to plastic then yes it is popular
Are you saying that the Bow-Chosen gonna be a plastic kit?
If you consider that they sold so much of a 70euro 12 model resin regiment that they had to stop production and change it to plastic then yes it is popular
Are you saying that the Bow-Chosen gonna be a plastic kit?
Yeah, they underestimated the demand and the pressure it put their production line so they are re-making them in plastic.
If you consider that they sold so much of a 70euro 12 model resin regiment that they had to stop production and change it to plastic then yes it is popular
Are you saying that the Bow-Chosen gonna be a plastic kit?
Yeah, they underestimated the demand and the pressure it put their production line so they are re-making them in plastic.
Looks great, although I was a bit taken aback at how 'human' the face is. Guessing the paint job'll make the undead side show through, plus the embalming/mummification (I forget the exact lore) will have done it's thing to preserve them I guess.
This faction is looking really appealing. Is there any discussion of the game's rules anywhere on the site here? I've never seen chatter or battle reports, nor have I really looked, but these new lads are sparking my interest!
Wehrkind wrote: This faction is looking really appealing. Is there any discussion of the game's rules anywhere on the site here? I've never seen chatter or battle reports, nor have I really looked, but these new lads are sparking my interest!
I wonder if battle reports would be appropriate to post there? Not sure how the "smaller" games work on Dakkadakka (the ones which don't have forum sections of their own). I could/should start doing that if it wouldn't just annoy other conquesters...
Wehrkind wrote: This faction is looking really appealing. Is there any discussion of the game's rules anywhere on the site here? I've never seen chatter or battle reports, nor have I really looked, but these new lads are sparking my interest!
I wonder if battle reports would be appropriate to post there? Not sure how the "smaller" games work on Dakkadakka (the ones which don't have forum sections of their own). I could/should start doing that if it wouldn't just annoy other conquesters...
The link you posted is dedicated to all Conquest discussion so posting a battle report there would not be a problem I guess.
I dunno...it's a bit hard to read as a miniature. I think it's because it feels overcharged. I thought at first he was wielding some kind of flesh banner, then it looks like a bone shield ? Face is so hidden with no neck I didn't see it well at first.
Wehrkind wrote: This faction is looking really appealing. Is there any discussion of the game's rules anywhere on the site here? I've never seen chatter or battle reports, nor have I really looked, but these new lads are sparking my interest!
I wonder if battle reports would be appropriate to post there? Not sure how the "smaller" games work on Dakkadakka (the ones which don't have forum sections of their own). I could/should start doing that if it wouldn't just annoy other conquesters...
highlord tamburlaine wrote: The Squires are nice and all, but I'm still waiting on those Spire cavalry units who were previewed forever ago as well...
Yeah, The Centaur Avatara were supposed to hit the retail on march year ago. Something happened, maybe some sprue problems,who knows? Anyway Incarnate Sentinels will be released before them.
When they get to 10 different factions I’ll probably commit to buying an army (orcs or dwarves). I just can’t get into a game where I’ll be playing the same 2-3 factions every single game.
Jjohnso11 wrote: When they get to 10 different factions I’ll probably commit to buying an army (orcs or dwarves). I just can’t get into a game where I’ll be playing the same 2-3 factions every single game.
It may take a few years then, actually 5 because we now have 5 factions and 6th (undead) is coming Q1 next year. So if there will not be some speedup of factions release then you will wait a bit
NinthMusketeer wrote: PB has gone above and beyond here, actually showing us in miniature form how characters always have cinematic tactical rocks to stand on!
But seriously, they look like really nice sculpts.
He is writing the names of the enemies he killed by crushing the rock on their head xD
That's a lovely piece, very tempted to pick that up. Have the starter box sitting unopened and some of the newer models are tempting me to jump in fully to a faction!
Jjohnso11 wrote: When they get to 10 different factions I’ll probably commit to buying an army (orcs or dwarves). I just can’t get into a game where I’ll be playing the same 2-3 factions every single game.
Alternative Lineage Highborn, representing what a very elder Noble would look like when going to battle. It's the Spire's Founder's Exclusive for this year. Incredible mini.
.....and we actually are getting Murder Fish Gnomes! All 12!!! a Christmas gift meme magick is real. Hilarious and totally getting a box.
If it's the Founder's Exclusive I'd assume resin at around the £100 RRP? The Spire Founder's model was a bit cheaper than the Retinues last time, presumably as it was a single model.
The Apex Predator is supposed to be on a monster- sized base, right? He barely fits on it!
I also fear the price if the final model ends up in resin!
Good to see those Spire cavalry with their gingerbread men breastplates making another appearance too!
That new Spire guy gives off some serious Dirz vibe. I dig it.
Is he another Founder's model or perhaps something like the artisan series where we got the multipart Dweghom character?
For a single model I hope his cost is more in line with the Lineage Highborne, as opposed to the Founder's Spire model.
highlord tamburlaine wrote: The Apex Predator is supposed to be on a monster- sized base, right? He barely fits on it!
I also fear the price if the final model ends up in resin!
Is he another Founder's model or perhaps something like the artisan series where we got the multipart Dweghom character?
For a single model I hope his cost is more in line with the Lineage Highborne, as opposed to the Founder's Spire model.
Yeah, the Apex is on a monster base. Seems a bit bigger than the Abomination! It is suppose to be in plastic, the pic is only the end prototype in resin. Maybe around 100$? That's what the Dweghom Drake costs.
The Highborn is confirmed to be a Founder's Exclusive. So around 90€/$ and resin.
I don't quite get the distinction between Founder's and Artisan, besides the more limited aspect of the former. Though both seem similarly expensive, the Dweghom Artisan is 40 bucks compared to 24 for regular. So an Artisan Highborn should be around 80 (as the regular is 48), if we ever get one.
We are going to break PB's resin printer if we all buy Murder Fish Gnomes. They already struggle to keep up with the Bow Chosen (Bowsen?) demand....
I don't quite get the distinction between Founder's and Artisan, besides the more limited aspect of the former. Though both seem similarly expensive, the Dweghom Artisan is 40 bucks compared to 24 for regular. So an Artisan Highborn should be around 80 (as the regular is 48), if we ever get one.
Founder's are limited, one-print runs whilst Artisan's aren't is my understanding?
The left and the right designs look really fun. The middle is muddled or something—I can’t tell what is happening with that mini. Hopefully it will make more sense from different angles.
I definitely like him even more now that I see more angles. Definitely a good RPG character model for a heavily armed and armored fighter/paladin type.
I've just seen a number of assembled but unpainted minis and I am suddenly interested in the game. I'm sure there are some who will disagree, but I am convinced that Para-Bellums painting and photography is holding back the success of this game. The miniatures actually looked better to me unpainted when I could see the incredible detail and quality of the plastics, versus the photography of the painted minis which seem to somehow make them appear less detailed than they actually are.
Is there a resource out there that gives a good indicator of what faction playstyles are like and what a proper army list looks like at the standard points levels (seems 2000pts is the "standard" game size)? Having a remarkably hard time finding anything via google and the scant videos I've been able to find on the topic don't seem to cover any of the info I'd hope for.
I'm leaning Dweghom (Para-bellum has gone and done it and made me interested in Dwarves - never thought I'd see the day) while I wait for Old Dominion and City States to release, but I'm intrigued by the sounds of the unreleased knightly orders for Hunred Kingdoms, as well as the Cantaur Avatara photos I saw a few pages back for Spires.
Would be nice if I could have a better idea of what I'm getting into before I go out and drop some cash on minis or commit to something (i'm almost definitely treating myself to the Artisan Series Hold Raegh come payday though). Since I mostly make these decisions based on visual appeal Id also love to know if theres artwork of the various unreleased units for the different factions that I've seen in the Army Builder.
In terms of listbuilding, I'm having a hard time figuring out how many warbands I should have in my army, how many points I should be setting aside for character and/or unit upgrades, as well as whether I should be taking more than minimum unit sizes, etc.
chaos0xomega wrote: Is there a resource out there that gives a good indicator of what faction playstyles are like and what a proper army list looks like at the standard points levels (seems 2000pts is the "standard" game size)? Having a remarkably hard time finding anything via google and the scant videos I've been able to find on the topic don't seem to cover any of the info I'd hope for.
I'm leaning Dweghom (Para-bellum has gone and done it and made me interested in Dwarves - never thought I'd see the day) while I wait for Old Dominion and City States to release, but I'm intrigued by the sounds of the unreleased knightly orders for Hunred Kingdoms, as well as the Cantaur Avatara photos I saw a few pages back for Spires.
Would be nice if I could have a better idea of what I'm getting into before I go out and drop some cash on minis or commit to something (i'm almost definitely treating myself to the Artisan Series Hold Raegh come payday though). Since I mostly make these decisions based on visual appeal Id also love to know if theres artwork of the various unreleased units for the different factions that I've seen in the Army Builder.
In terms of listbuilding, I'm having a hard time figuring out how many warbands I should have in my army, how many points I should be setting aside for character and/or unit upgrades, as well as whether I should be taking more than minimum unit sizes, etc.
Dweghom have extremely durable infantry with powerful heroes. You decide where to stand and challenge your enemies to come and get you. If they don't come get you, they're confronted by your powerful spells and decent shooting.
100 Kingdoms can make a powerful hero but are mostly about whittling you down with a dozen crappy units. This changes when the orders models come out, with each Orders unit being an elite fighting force unto itself.
Spires throw crappy force grown drones at you well also causing your units to decay with not-magic, and backed up with some real meaty brutes and monsters. They also have incredibly deadly archers and infiltrators.
Nords tend to be able to surround you with reinforcements manipulation and have some fairly durable units (trolls) that can hide extremely killy heroes (Blooded). Bow-chosen let them play some ranged game and everything besides the trolls tend to be paper thin defenses but decent offenses.
W'adrhun have a weird battlecry minigame where activation order becomes extremely important. If you game it right, you get 1-2 key extremely powerful activations but it requires very careful planning to maximize the effect or else you end up chanting the battlecry and basically whiffing it's power. They also have the deadly shock cavalry in raptor riders. Basically all of their infantry can stand on their own.
Warband # will vary in a 2000 point list. I (W'adrhun) generally tend to have 3, sometimes even only 2. 100 Kingdoms I think will have more than that, I think as high as 5. I don't know much about Spires, but I imagine that depending on how elite you go with Avatara, etc you can go 3-5. Nord will probably have 3-4 a lot of the time, and so will Dweghom.
In general, Dweghom and Nords like to spend points on their characters, and Spires and100 Kingdoms like to spend it on their units. W'adrhun, in my experience, tend to spend more equally. (Note that I don't mean spending equal points on heroes and regiments, more like... Dweghom/Nords don't suffer when they spend a lot of points on heroes, where Spires and 100 Kingdoms I have seen sputter out without units. W'adrhun can afford some meaty heroes but still want to spend on units)
Ontabletop have a series of videos going over all the factions as they make a slow grow league. First video for the Dweghom:
Army lists really depend. 2k is suppose to be "the standard" but some people settle for different points (I like 1500). As for how many heroes or stands, it is completely up to you. Though an average would be one warband every 500-750 points depending on how costly the character is and if you go msu or big regiments. As Rihgu said, the faction also influences this decision (Dweghom tend to be very elite, so comparatively less units).
chaos0xomega wrote: Is there a resource out there that gives a good indicator of what faction playstyles are like and what a proper army list looks like at the standard points levels (seems 2000pts is the "standard" game size)? Having a remarkably hard time finding anything via google and the scant videos I've been able to find on the topic don't seem to cover any of the info I'd hope for.
I'm leaning Dweghom (Para-bellum has gone and done it and made me interested in Dwarves - never thought I'd see the day) while I wait for Old Dominion and City States to release, but I'm intrigued by the sounds of the unreleased knightly orders for Hunred Kingdoms, as well as the Cantaur Avatara photos I saw a few pages back for Spires.
Would be nice if I could have a better idea of what I'm getting into before I go out and drop some cash on minis or commit to something (i'm almost definitely treating myself to the Artisan Series Hold Raegh come payday though). Since I mostly make these decisions based on visual appeal Id also love to know if theres artwork of the various unreleased units for the different factions that I've seen in the Army Builder.
In terms of listbuilding, I'm having a hard time figuring out how many warbands I should have in my army, how many points I should be setting aside for character and/or unit upgrades, as well as whether I should be taking more than minimum unit sizes, etc.
Dweghom have extremely durable infantry with powerful heroes. You decide where to stand and challenge your enemies to come and get you. If they don't come get you, they're confronted by your powerful spells and decent shooting.
100 Kingdoms can make a powerful hero but are mostly about whittling you down with a dozen crappy units. This changes when the orders models come out, with each Orders unit being an elite fighting force unto itself.
Spires throw crappy force grown drones at you well also causing your units to decay with not-magic, and backed up with some real meaty brutes and monsters. They also have incredibly deadly archers and infiltrators.
Nords tend to be able to surround you with reinforcements manipulation and have some fairly durable units (trolls) that can hide extremely killy heroes (Blooded). Bow-chosen let them play some ranged game and everything besides the trolls tend to be paper thin defenses but decent offenses.
W'adrhun have a weird battlecry minigame where activation order becomes extremely important. If you game it right, you get 1-2 key extremely powerful activations but it requires very careful planning to maximize the effect or else you end up chanting the battlecry and basically whiffing it's power. They also have the deadly shock cavalry in raptor riders. Basically all of their infantry can stand on their own.
Warband # will vary in a 2000 point list. I (W'adrhun) generally tend to have 3, sometimes even only 2. 100 Kingdoms I think will have more than that, I think as high as 5. I don't know much about Spires, but I imagine that depending on how elite you go with Avatara, etc you can go 3-5. Nord will probably have 3-4 a lot of the time, and so will Dweghom.
In general, Dweghom and Nords like to spend points on their characters, and Spires and100 Kingdoms like to spend it on their units. W'adrhun, in my experience, tend to spend more equally. (Note that I don't mean spending equal points on heroes and regiments, more like... Dweghom/Nords don't suffer when they spend a lot of points on heroes, where Spires and 100 Kingdoms I have seen sputter out without units. W'adrhun can afford some meaty heroes but still want to spend on units)
Hope that helps?
It definitely helps - its a lot more info than I had or was able to find yesterday. A few people elsewhere directed me to a website called The Underspire which was said to be a good resource but it seems that its down. Shame there isn't a good strong resource detailing faction/unit breakdowns, strategies, tips, etc. as the lack of good info online seems to be holding the game back. Would be great if there was a resource like Battle College for Warmachine/Hordes that breaks down rules and abilities and the various interactions/synergies/combos down into laymans terms to give newer players a better more practical understanding of which options and abilities are worthwhile, etc.
VBS wrote: Ontabletop have a series of videos going over all the factions as they make a slow grow league. First video for the Dweghom:
Army lists really depend. 2k is suppose to be "the standard" but some people settle for different points (I like 1500). As for how many heroes or stands, it is completely up to you. Though an average would be one warband every 500-750 points depending on how costly the character is and if you go msu or big regiments. As Rihgu said, the faction also influences this decision (Dweghom tend to be very elite, so comparatively less units).
Yeah, I spent yesterday watching/trying to watch a lot of the OTT videos, but I didn't find them particularly helpful. A lot of meandering discussion about fluff and various other topics and very little oriented towards the information I am actually looking for. In general, I just don't enjoy watching videos though, I would much rather read a concise article with a specific focus in mind than watch a 20-90 minute long video hoping to find the 30 seconds of insightful content that I am looking for buried somewhere within it.
Shame there isn't a good strong resource detailing faction/unit breakdowns, strategies, tips, etc. as the lack of good info online seems to be holding the game back. Would be great if there was a resource like Battle College for Warmachine/Hordes that breaks down rules and abilities and the various interactions/synergies/combos down into laymans terms to give newer players a better more practical understanding of which options and abilities are worthwhile, etc.
So, fellow dakka-ite Auticus (who ran Underspire) has some Youtube videos analyzing some (but not all) released units. Mostly new releases like Trolls, Bow-chosen, Longbowmen, and W'adrhun.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Auticusx/videos
These are some of the most useful videos I've found, in some of them he goes into the math of how he determined whether a unit is "good", "bad", or "great".
edit: just saw that you don't like watching videos. Sorry, I don't know of any resources with articles!
Improved plastics just in time for the city states faction? IDK if I'll ever play the game, but it seems likelly I'll at least pick up some of those hoplites...
Well, City States are still at least a year and half away (fingers crossed they don't accumulate further delays). By that time, the plastic will be inconceivably perfect
VBS wrote: Well, City States are still at least a year and half away (fingers crossed they don't accumulate further delays). By that time, the plastic will be inconceivably perfect
That is exactly what I am counting on. My perfect not Spartaaaaaaaa!
Seafaring Dino-orcs artwork. Possible option for subfaction plans in the future. Bet the pic will be in the Campaign book (with lots of wadhrun background).
Campaign book is said to include also the background for the 3 factions we voted for so I hope we will have more info not included during the voting time.
VBS wrote: Seafaring Dino-orcs artwork. Possible option for subfaction plans in the future. Bet the pic will be in the Campaign book (with lots of wadhrun background).
Spoiler:
Friday will bring us more news about the sea orcs.
''Ezimdala, the Fallen King
For generations, the Ukunfazane had King Consorts ruling by her side. Ezimdala’s treachery put a stop to that. Eight decades later, he has carved a new kingdom for himself; one of salt, water and ships.
Coming this Friday on the Living World, a new hero for the W’adrhŭn.''
I have to say that they seem to be putting on their own spin (for better or worse) on some fantasy wargaming tropes of they're coming out with sea orcs.
VBS wrote: Seafaring Dino-orcs artwork. Possible option for subfaction plans in the future. Bet the pic will be in the Campaign book (with lots of wadhrun background).
Spoiler:
Friday will bring us more news about the sea orcs.
''Ezimdala, the Fallen King
For generations, the Ukunfazane had King Consorts ruling by her side. Ezimdala’s treachery put a stop to that. Eight decades later, he has carved a new kingdom for himself; one of salt, water and ships.
Coming this Friday on the Living World, a new hero for the W’adrhŭn.''
Thanos really has let himself go since getting kicked by the Avengers
Nice looking, and these guys are really drawing me back towards the game. I felt really burnt(no pun intended) by buying a bunch of Dwegholm and being let down by their casts.
Has anyone else ever been curious about the company (Para Bellum) behind this game? I only first heard about them last year and they have a ton of models both resin and plastic for such a relatively young company (the earliest reference I found with a very brief search is 2017 when their Twitter was started). Usually you see such a big and fleshed out new IP from an established company though it's not unheard of admittedly (like Dust). You always hear first hand accounts about how expensive it is to launch products which is why crowd funding is so popular with regard to start up costs. No conspiracies here but I was genuinely curious if there was a rich (from another industry of course) gamer funding this as a business hobby or what and checked them out.
We have come a long way, since then. Today, Para Bellum Wargames Ltd is a game developer, headquartered in Cyprus with offices in Greece and the USA and are part of substantial conglomerate with interests in shipping, real estate, agriculture and technology. We operate on a global basis and are led by a seasoned team of gaming professionals with deep industry know-how, who draw on the extensive corporate, legal and financial resources of our wider group.
I think that's nifty! We as gamers get a ton of new product and the company doesn't have to worry about closing it's door suddenly after a bad year or two (like Spartan did... Halo rip.).
There's no conspiracy, injection modling is just two orders of magnitude less expensive than what the industry claims. Okay, that sounded contradictory. I mean to say there's no need for a rich shadowbacker. Para Bellum is just banking on growing a massive customer base selling at a small margin rather than fleecing us like most do.
lord_blackfang wrote: There's no conspiracy, injection modling is just two orders of magnitude less expensive than what the industry claims. Okay, that sounded contradictory. I mean to say there's no need for a rich shadowbacker. Para Bellum is just banking on growing a massive customer base selling at a small margin rather than fleecing us like most do.
Just in case you missed it, I literally said there are "no conspiracies here". As for a rich shadow backer, they said they rely on the financial backing of the wider corporate group. I'm totally ok with other industries subsidizing start up costs in the gaming industry.
PB did say that on a long term, when all lists have their models, they would look into adding new units and resculpting some older models.
I'm ok with early designs but the updated plastic would be nice for quality.
Likewise, some of the more recent spires minis and the previewed stuff looks fantastic. Then I look at the core minis for the faction that I'm more or less obligated to take if I want to play the army and I say "nah".
I still maintain that the abomination looks like a bargain bin plastic toy. It's plastic rat ogre level. Slap it next to something PB put out this year and it isn't even recognizable as the same company because the improvement is so dramatic.
warboss wrote: Has anyone else ever been curious about the company (Para Bellum) behind this game? I only first heard about them last year and they have a ton of models both resin and plastic for such a relatively young company (the earliest reference I found with a very brief search is 2017 when their Twitter was started). Usually you see such a big and fleshed out new IP from an established company though it's not unheard of admittedly (like Dust). You always hear first hand accounts about how expensive it is to launch products which is why crowd funding is so popular with regard to start up costs. No conspiracies here but I was genuinely curious if there was a rich (from another industry of course) gamer funding this as a business hobby or what and checked them out.
We have come a long way, since then. Today, Para Bellum Wargames Ltd is a game developer, headquartered in Cyprus with offices in Greece and the USA and are part of substantial conglomerate with interests in shipping, real estate, agriculture and technology. We operate on a global basis and are led by a seasoned team of gaming professionals with deep industry know-how, who draw on the extensive corporate, legal and financial resources of our wider group.
I think that's nifty! We as gamers get a ton of new product and the company doesn't have to worry about closing it's door suddenly after a bad year or two (like Spartan did... Halo rip.).
As someone close to the comany, I can tell you that the founders of PB have been lifelong friends. They have always shared a love for wargaming and roleplay. Whilst there rofessional lives lead them to biuld bisnesses in global shipping, logistics and manufactre. They already had a conglomerate of buisnesses before Stavros dragged them into a room and made the first steps in haing a lifelong dream a reality. For them, they already have sccessful bisnesses. Conquest is litterally their baby, hobby and passion.
As someone close to the comany, I can tell you that the founders of PB have been lifelong friends. They have always shared a love for wargaming and roleplay. Whilst there rofessional lives lead them to biuld bisnesses in global shipping, logistics and manufactre. They already had a conglomerate of buisnesses before Stavros dragged them into a room and made the first steps in haing a lifelong dream a reality. For them, they already have sccessful bisnesses. Conquest is litterally their baby, hobby and passion.
The perfect storm is how Koni described it.
Thanks for the info and that's great to hear. It sounds like a gamer's dream come true!
Today, Para Bellum Wargames Ltd is a game developer, headquartered in Cyprus with offices in Greece and the USA and are part of substantial conglomerate with interests in shipping, real estate, agriculture and technology.
Target Games flashbacks.
Here's hoping real estate markets stay strong, eh?
Today, Para Bellum Wargames Ltd is a game developer, headquartered in Cyprus with offices in Greece and the USA and are part of substantial conglomerate with interests in shipping, real estate, agriculture and technology.
Target Games flashbacks.
Here's hoping real estate markets stay strong, eh?
They were there long before PBW so not the same as some risky investments made by Target. Stavros family runs it, and one day his brother told him something like that ''why not pursue what you really enjoy'', and the PBW idea started with it.
No.
