Skald is my favourite. I never understood that armor on the ice jotnar's legs. Why would he need it there and not on the other body parts? Also I think it was written in fluff that the jotnars never mastered the forging of metals.
Shadow Walker wrote: Skald is my favourite. I never understand the armor on the ice jotnar's legs. Why would he need it there and not on the other body parts? Also I think it was written in fluff that the jotnars never mastered the forging of metals.
Well, when you're tall enough that 99% of your enemy's attacks are going to be hitting your knees or below...
Shadow Walker wrote: Skald is my favourite. I never understand the armor on the ice jotnar's legs. Why would he need it there and not on the other body parts? Also I think it was written in fluff that the jotnars never mastered the forging of metals.
Well, when you're tall enough that 99% of your enemy's attacks are going to be hitting your knees or below...
Not liking those strix. They suffer badly from wings-too-small syndrome and it is couple with bodies that do not at all look like they were engineered for flight.
Nordstrom stuff though, really nice. Love how the giant is well armoured on the lower half, it makes a lot of sense and looks cool to boot. Skald is awesome and reminds me how much I wish conquest were 28mm so I could reccomend the minis to D&D players. That is a nicer bard than anything Nolzur's has.
warboss wrote: Is there word of a sylvan/fey type faction with woodland creatures both real and mythical like dryads, treemen, satyrs, etc?
Sort of. One of the Exile factions will be the "wood elves" of Conquest. Called the Weaver Courts.
Based off celtic tradition, so a sylvan/fey-type approach revolving around the 4 seasons theme. Since they are aliens (like all Exiles), expect some weird stuff. Fluff mentions they "merge" with nature, adopting animal traits and stuff.
The Campaign book that will be released in July should have info about them.
I wouldn't expect regular warhammer fantasy type faction, with dryads/treemen, etc... But we don't know yet! That's the cool thing about Conquest, expect the unexpected
Satyrs are actually present in Conquest, as part of the City-States faction.
Edit: The City-States will have a lot of mythical creatures in their ranks, like Sphinx or Minotaurs.
City-States are like a cross of Greek city-states (complete with relevant mythological creatures) and a more Victorian level of technological advancement. Sort of.
Thats how I feel about most of the Conquest miniature range. The official photos for their minis actively repulsed me by displaying what appeared to be poorly sculpted and poorly detailed blobs which if you squinted looked kind of like a miniature.
It wasn't until I wandered into a local shop while some of the regulars were playing with their mostly mostly unpainted minis that I realized how awesome the sculpts for this game are and thats what got me to buy in,
And it isn't even that the painters are bad, per se, its just that their color choices (and possibly understanding of color theory in general) and painting style are not conducive to showcasing miniatures. They are washing out all the fine details in the minis with their drab color choices and muddied painting style and creating visual chaos where your eye can't find a focal point to settle on - I *think* as a result of the extreme edge highlighting coupled with not properly accenting/trimming sections of the mini to break it up into more recognizable forms.
It might work well for single miniature photography, but as almost all of their official product showcase photos are of ranked up units its a nightmare to look at as everything kind of meshes with everything else.
And the photos aren't making it any better - between the really busy photo backgrounds which distract the eye from the minis and enhance general visual confusion,the lack of proper focus/tendency of the photos to blur away from the unit centers (leaving more than half of the minis in the unit relatively indistinct and fuzzy), what appears to be harsh lighting washing out areas of the minis in natural light/shadow and/or possibly post-processing which is washing out colors and muting contrast, etc. the photos are often just eyesores to look at. And then i think the worst offender is that it seems most of their minis are being photographed using the same/similar awful camera angle from slightly above that is unflattering to the minis themselves and often results in the minis faces (which would otherwise be a natural focal point of reference for the viewers eyes to settle on) being visually shortened or obscured by things like helmets and headgear, etc. - or in the case of the Household Knights, hidden completely behind a banner:
This photo should never have been authorized for publication. To be honest I'm not even sure anyone even really looked at it all that closely. Let me tell you - it took me a LOOOOOOOONG time to realize that the handguard for the banner was not a really awkwardly shaped helmet. And on top of that, instead of being shown the front-side of the shield, which I assume is painted with a cool heraldic device or something, you're treated to the bland boring undetailed backsides. IMO, the unit *really* should have been photographed from the opposite angle instead of using the same angle that they have used for basically everything else.
The single character minis are much better photographed - taken from an angle much closer to level or possibly slightly below level which is much more flattering to the miniatures, although a lot of them still suffer from a lack of appropriate angles to showcase the sculpt, take for example this guy:
I have no idea what it is I'm looking at in his right hand (or is that his hand?) Is it a big triangular shield like the background artwork implies? Or is it a long narrow futuristic looking railgun type of thing? It almost looks like it could be a weird metal pincer claw type thing too. The background artwork also causes a lot of trouble here as its hard to tell whats background artwork and what model, particularly in the area of his right armpit/below his arm/in between his pincer railgun shield and body, etc.
Another good example:
Presumably, thats a pretty wicked polearm type weapon being held over their left shoulder, presumably angled back and downward with the point protruding out past the miniatures right kneecap - but feth me if I have any idea what it looks like. In general the entire upper half of the mini in this photo is absolute chaos - presumably they are holding their right arm across their torso and up to grip the handle of their weapon but between the paint style, color choices, and sculpt itself its really hard to tell whats arm and whats torso or wtf is even going on. This is a mini that would have benefited immensely from being photographed at another angle (or better yet a variety of angles).
I'd argue some need a full on 360 video on the site, especially with models like the Highborn lineage where you can't really see anything that's going on with it.
The steelshaper is just a weird model. I had to get one just to see what was going on there under his shield. I also just realized I haven't painted him yet. Whoops.
100K Null Mage - Command upgrade for the Hunter Cadre. For some reason you can only see it when you click on 1 of the pre-orders, and only at the bottom of the site, hence the small print screen pic only. Probably it waits to be announced soon.
godswildcard wrote: Geez that Ice Jotnar is sweet! If it looks anything like artwork/ 3D render it will be the best looking giant out there!
Sadly, it seldom does.
That's a recurring issue I noticed with Conquest - the art direction is amazing, but their modeling could use a little more work.
Hopefully it will improve over time.
chaos0xomega wrote: I stand by my previous statements that the modeling isn't the issue - its the studio painting/photography thats the problem.
Probably. It's honestly hard to tell if it's the model or the paint job. They look like cheap toys as they are. Is there a non-studio painted model as a point of comparison?
Only the ones you buy or what you can find online. My realization that these minis are actually good came from seeing assembled but unpainted minis at a local store, followed by buying some of my own.
EDIT - Mind you, some of them are decisively not good, with the exception of a couple sculpts I'm not big on the Spires range of minis, but that might be an aesthetic thing more than a quality thing.
A part of it is that their early plastics really aren't that good. Soft details, awkward posing, they just don't hold up to the rest of the market.
However, the company has had a massive amount of improvement in a relatively short period of time. I've never seen a company improve their sculpt quality so much inside of two years. The newest plastics could pass as being from a different company entirely, the difference is that dramatic. They certainly have plenty more room to improve but their efforts at such so far have been quite successful.
Also they must put unicorn blood in their resin or something because that stuff is just fantastic.
V1.5 is going to bring a lot of changes to the balance in a positive way At least many of the more "meh" units are going to be considerably more appealing.
Hm, not a fan of the mage. I feel like they tried to have the model showing off too many different things and it ends up with none of them looking good.
Shield is a bit big for my tastes on the Heral of Stoned, but I can understand having it that way for practical stability. And other than that, totally dig it, Might get to use in RPGs even though I don't run any in Conquest.
I don't like the crown on the Null Mage, looks silly.
Agreed. Without it this model would look much better. Fortunately it is an easy fix.
Won't removing it create a bald spot though?
It is possible, depending how deep into the head the crown goes. It could be fixed with some green stuff etc. method, and even bald spot will look better than that crown
I think they head your feedback about the pictures
These pics are 10,000x better. I can actually see what I'm looking at and they have spotlighted details to clarify things that might otherwise be missed or misunderstood. Bravo, huge improvement.
VBS wrote: They have an in-house painter. Probably spent more time than usual on this one.
Them big doggos are really nice minis.
Yeah the more recent sculpts and paintjobs are a lot better than earlier showings. They've greatly improved. I hope they keep those techniques for City States and Dominion, because those are the factions I'm interested in.
Especially the City States.
VBS wrote: They have an in-house painter. Probably spent more time than usual on this one.
Them big doggos are really nice minis.
Yeah the more recent sculpts and paintjobs are a lot better than earlier showings. They've greatly improved. I hope they keep those techniques for City States and Dominion, because those are the factions I'm interested in.
Especially the City States.
I've never seen a company improve so much in such a short period, it's astounding. That Jotnar is fantastic.
Still some duds though. Strix just really don't work for me.
VBS wrote: They have an in-house painter. Probably spent more time than usual on this one.
Them big doggos are really nice minis.
Yeah the more recent sculpts and paintjobs are a lot better than earlier showings. They've greatly improved. I hope they keep those techniques for City States and Dominion, because those are the factions I'm interested in.
Especially the City States.
I've never seen a company improve so much in such a short period, it's astounding. That Jotnar is fantastic.
Still some duds though. Strix just really don't work for me.
I don't remember where but a dev said that the Stryx along with 2-3 other releases are old sculpts that were delayed for various reasons.
The ground, rocks and background looks really weird.
Like they too a photo of the guy with his rocks, but then just added in the ground so it looks like he's sort of floating a bit and added the guys behind him in such a way that the focus doesn't seem quite right.
If it's not a photoshop then it's an impressively bad photo.
The ground, rocks and background looks really weird.
Like they too a photo of the guy with his rocks, but then just added in the ground so it looks like he's sort of floating a bit and added the guys behind him in such a way that the focus doesn't seem quite right.
If it's not a photoshop then it's an impressively bad photo.
I think it's a playmat. They often have that 'uncanny' look to them when put against 3D terrain.
The ground, rocks and background looks really weird.
Like they too a photo of the guy with his rocks, but then just added in the ground so it looks like he's sort of floating a bit and added the guys behind him in such a way that the focus doesn't seem quite right.
If it's not a photoshop then it's an impressively bad photo.
I think it's a playmat. They often have that 'uncanny' look to them when put against 3D terrain.
The ground, rocks and background looks really weird.
Like they too a photo of the guy with his rocks, but then just added in the ground so it looks like he's sort of floating a bit and added the guys behind him in such a way that the focus doesn't seem quite right.
If it's not a photoshop then it's an impressively bad photo.
I think it's a playmat. They often have that 'uncanny' look to them when put against 3D terrain.
Ah maybe, it does look really odd.
eeeeeeh. I am not seeing the weirdness, but not gonna drag this further out.
The Stryx look a lot better fully painted up. Mind you their faces/heads aren't good and suffer the same issue as much of the Spires range does of having indistinct weirdly/poorly sculpted blob-faces (yes, I know they are going for that unintelligible inhuman alien look, but I don't think its working well, theres not enough definition and detail in a lot of the sculpts to recognize them as really being anything other than a misshapen lump).
Were the First Blood rules updated in any substantial way?
Obviously the army stats and points were adjusted for the main game, but I have not had much free time this week at all to even start to peruse the new stuff.
Love the idea of the Konungyr and his Huskarl best buds just wading through the opposition.
The v1.5 brings lots of good stuff for everyone. Some of the "weaker" options can now be really good. Though a few things were a head scratcher, like regiments that were "going to have a buff/nerf" and the contrary happened.
Adding tons of special rules do add variety, if a bit bloaty. I really hope PB don't push further down that path (I think they are...).
The playtesters have a very heavy age of sigmar playtesters vibe to them.
So ... yeah I'd see them further going down bloat and other things that people that love AOS love. Speaking from someone that was a playtester and was in the conversations.
If you love AOS - you will likely love the direction that the playtesters are influencing.
I'm curious to know what is the "aosification" of the game?
Is it that there are more "super special special rules" or that tactics have devolved or what?
Is it the subfaction rules Dweghom, 100k, and Spires got?
Until now I had yet to encounter anyone, anywhere in the community that was not happy with the rules update.
There was nothing that was stated that had anything to do with being happy or unhappy with the rules update. You can draw pessimism because you know I hate AOS but in terms of the statement it simply states if you like AOS you will like the direction that the rules play testers have been wanting to push the game in.
It was in direct response to this:
Adding tons of special rules do add variety, if a bit bloaty. I really hope PB don't push further down that path (I think they are...).
I don't think bringing up personal grievances is the way to go.
There were no personal grievances brought up. Stating that a lot of the playtesters want to push the game closer to what AOS is is not a personal attack on me and has nothing to do with me personally. Me not liking a direction a project is taking is not a personal grievance. Its just me not liking the direction a project is taking.
I'm curious to know what is the "aosification" of the game?
With the current system it could simply mean bloating the rules so that each faction has a lot of unique special rules.
I actually reviewed the rule changes to be positive. It makes the 100 kingdoms not be chumps anymore. All in all this latest rules change is mostly positive, if I still played the game. You are drawing conclusions that were never there in the first place.
I was never fully against army specific rules. I was only against army specific rules if the balance was shattered by them. Ding 1 for the playtest group in my opinion is that their opinion of balance is identical to the AOS group's opinion on balance. That being... not that important. Just ask your opponent to not be a dick and it'll be fine levels in playtesting balance. If anyone knows me they know that balance is my #1 priority in any game that I play and that if I ever have to litigate with my opponent to please not play tournament cheese so I can enjoy my campaign army - I'm done.
Every army has special rules in every game. Yep. Some games go to extremes (AOS). AOSifying conquest in the context of army specific rules would be to start cranking army specific rules up to 50. It can be legit said that adding more army specific rules is moving towards AOS.
For some people that is a step too far. I know a number of people that dropped Conquest because they were sensitive to that and they are back playing older warhammer or kings of war or oathmark. Did they do that here? Subjective. To me? Its not that bad. To some others - its bad enough to drop the game. For others - its not even close to being bad.
There are a moderate number of other things in the playtester chat that I'm referring to that may see the light of day that is far more AOSifying than the army special rules of 1.5 and having to fight them tooth and nail became more than I wanted to do which is a solid reason why I dropped the game altogether this past spring (I discussed all of this in my youtube chat on why I don't play conquest anymore - not going to go into the finer bullet points but the direction of the game as being pushed by a large number of the folks in the playtest group was eerily similar to my experience in the aos playtesting back in 2015); I'm tired of arguing with people and have no interest in having to fight to keep a rank and file game from becoming a glorified spreadsheeting exercise and I want a rank and file game to be rank and file...
Whether the things I am referring to come to light - who knows. I'm no longer a part of those conversations so I couldn't tell you what they were moving toward. I know from the guy that took my place in Louisville and from hearing some other people I know that are big time involved that some of the things that repel me strongly are likely to come to light and are definitely very much inspired by and intenteded to draw AOS fans in. I know that because at the time I was high enough level vanguard to be involved in actual phone calls / skype calls with the rules designers to discuss these things. The level 3 vanguards had regular direct talks with the design studio via skype.
In the end I hope Conquest is successful and I hope people enjoy playing it because the market needs a solid rank and file game for people that love rank and file games. The art is magnificent. The lore is pretty awesome. The models have become superb in my opinion. The core of the game of Conquest is still one of my favorite systems. The main rules developer loves world building like I do and he had a lot of really cool ideas for expanding the game.
I am not playing it right now because I don't want to invest heavily into a game that has a lot of push from the community to make it like a game I hate, and that push repels me in general. There were other more "personal" reasons that I talked about on my youtube that don't have a place to be posted here. For now I am playing Oathmark because it ticks all my boxes and the community so far is not trying to introduce elements that make me want to burn all my books
One line saying it's positive followed by five paragraphs of negativity--yeah, I can see where your position is just fine. I see someone who has spent so long fighting a monster they have lost sight of how much they've come to resemble it.
At this point, make your own wargame. You clearly won't be happy with anything else.
I am not playing it right now because I don't want to invest heavily into a game that has a lot of push from the community to make it like a game I hate, and that push repels me in general.
Yes, listening to the community can be a double-edged sword.
On the other hand...Conquest's fanbase is already small, they have to do something to keep it invested and draw new players.
Looking for balance above everything isn't a good seller, to me. People want to have fun, in the end. Balance at all costs tends to get in the way of that.
Looks like Conquest is just another wargame like the others, in the end.
It is sad that the Conquest crew always touted that this was their vision and passion, now they seem to be allowing others to usurp that vision. Hopefully they are listening to the community, but still insisting on some certain boundaries or areas that must not change.
Tbh, adding faction rules has always been in their plans. We've known about it for a long time. Just that it got implemented now.
I personally dont mind them, quite fun actually.
I'm less of a fan of the torrent of special rules/draw events (30+ between 1.3 and 1.5), especially as some seem redundant and unecessary. And I am sure that with each new faction, an extra batch is going to be added to "make them unique" instead of working with what is already an exhaustive list.
VBS wrote: Tbh, adding faction rules has always been in their plans. We've known about it for a long time. Just that it got implemented now.
I personally dont mind them, quite fun actually.
I'm less of a fan of the torrent of special rules/draw events (30+ between 1.3 and 1.5), especially as some seem redundant and unecessary. And I am sure that with each new faction, an extra batch is going to be added to "make them unique" instead of working with what is already an exhaustive list.
Tbh, they could do with some trimming/unification, yeah. I personally think covering *some* extra aspects is good, provided we don't see an excess of redundancy and stop talking the same language based on the army.
NinthMusketeer wrote: One line saying it's positive followed by five paragraphs of negativity--yeah, I can see where your position is just fine. I see someone who has spent so long fighting a monster they have lost sight of how much they've come to resemble it.
At this point, make your own wargame. You clearly won't be happy with anything else.
At this point you are arguing just to argue for whatever reason you want to argue. If you have any points of mine you'd like to argue/debate, cool - do that. If not - use the ignore feature. Your comments make no sense as I was not criticizing the game itself so "making my own wargame" really has no bearing or place in this conversation.
Yes, listening to the community can be a double-edged sword.
On the other hand...Conquest's fanbase is already small, they have to do something to keep it invested and draw new players.
Looking for balance above everything isn't a good seller, to me. People want to have fun, in the end. Balance at all costs tends to get in the way of that.
Looks like Conquest is just another wargame like the others, in the end.
They have a good starting vision and could really do something special. But in the end they are also trying to make a commercially successful product, and the things that the overall community wants that would make it a commercially successful product often will resemble other commercially successful products on the market. (which is why our entertainment these days be it movies or games or whatever often rehash the same old things over and over).
It is sad that the Conquest crew always touted that this was their vision and passion, now they seem to be allowing others to usurp that vision.
They are businessmen. Thats why I dont believe in trying to silence the people criticizing things. When everyone holds hands and hums about how great everything is and the ones criticizing are told to be quiet you will get a product in the end shaped by the loudest or the majority. But maybe thats the point and thats how it should be? I dont honestly know because I see the benefits of both sides.
I'd be strange to shape a game without listening to the majority. Perfect way to alienate your customers With 1.5 they are continuing what they originally wanted to do (faction rules were always planned), no shift in course (big magic update with more extra rules and subfaction stuff probably next).
The internal testing with Vanguards, as you well know, is precisely there to criticize and bring different opinions.I sure did mention things I didnt like and no one told me to be quiet, nor anyone else on the testing channel also disagreeing (there quite a few rule debates for v1.5, but all very reasonable).
In 1.4 there were a few moments of escalated comments, one of which involved one of their moderators (a vanguard) that got escalated to the community manager and they had to have some offline talks with some people because there were a few instances of not appropriate comments turning personal because of disagreements during that playtesting period.
I'm glad that the 1.5 testing didn't involve that.
But in the end they are also trying to make a commercially successful product, and the things that the overall community wants that would make it a commercially successful product often will resemble other commercially successful products on the market. (which is why our entertainment these days be it movies or games or whatever often rehash the same old things over and over).
...
They are businessmen. Thats why I dont believe in trying to silence the people criticizing things. When everyone holds hands and hums about how great everything is and the ones criticizing are told to be quiet you will get a product in the end shaped by the loudest or the majority. But maybe thats the point and thats how it should be? I dont honestly know because I see the benefits of both sides.
I saw your video explaining why and I can understand your reasons. Sadly, Vanguard programs for wargames tend to be indeed considered as unpaid advertisers for their products, I saw that as well with the games I promoted (and died since) when I was younger.
Can't really blame Para Bellum for wanting to be successful, but yeah, I don't like as well to lie to competitive people about an army that's not great on the competitive scene because it would paint a 'negative picture' of Conquest. Sounds more like they don't want to admit they're not the Savior against Evil GW or something like that.
I dont see them in any negative light. They just didn't want vanguards posting about competitive power of units in a negative light because other vanguards were complaining they couldn't get players to want to play the armies that were weaker and wanted us to spin the positives of the weaker armies. I was doing an entire video series on that subject and I think the company liked it at first but then after a few vanguards started complaining a lot that it was impacting their ability to get players interested because they liked some of the weaker armies, they had to reprimand and ultimately revoke my status. From a business / sales standpoint thats 100% reasonable (and also why I'm 100% never going to be a salesman lol)
If asked directly about competitive power though I won't lie.
I'm glad to see 1.5 upped the 100 kingdoms because they were in a really bad spot from a competitive standpoint. After running numbers on 1.5 they are a lot more evened out so kudos to the design team for getting that balance a little tighter.
However it is everyone's duty to do their due diligence before investing a lot of money into an army. The vanguards are all different individually, but no different than the outriders of GW yore back in the day that sold me a 40k dark angels army in 3rd edition 40k that was utter garbage but was told they'd be just fine.
Not every vanguard will do that but players should never take anyone's word for it, especially in a system that is created competitively like the vanguard program where you rise in ranks similarly to commission in sales.
Its a great tool for selling, but you have to go into it as a player knowing that many vanguards will not tell you the negative things about your choice because they dont want to run you off or risk losing you as a player.
That same behavior can be seen even here in the player forums where negative commentary is not welcome by a lot of people for similar reasons.
My opinion on 1.5 right now is that all of the factions are in pretty good shape and you can make a good army regardless of your faction choice, and thats ace in my book.
It's a pity to hear that the Conquest team are seemingly of the 'AoS design mindset'. One of the most common topics of concern I remember was how Conquest would hold up when The Old World launches and inevitably a large chunk of Conquest's player pie go running back into GW's waiting arms. I don't think anybody would be surprised if TOW, being a GW game, would follow similar beats to 40k and AoS when it comes to 'WOAH DUDE AWESOME' design principals with internal and external balance sacrificed at the altar.
The miniatures are good, the fluff is decent, but if the quality of the rules and balance is on par with TOW then the vast, vast, vast majority of people are going to take TOW's mega-popularity (by comparison to Conquest and other rank and file games) every time.
Conquest is far from the "AoS design mindset". I think v1.5 is proof enough (bulk update for the better for all factions, more balance), no matter how hard some folks try to discredit it.
As someone interested in TOW, I wish the game has some resemblance of quality rules and balance but we all know that ain't happening
Arbitrator wrote: It's a pity to hear that the Conquest team are seemingly of the 'AoS design mindset'. One of the most common topics of concern I remember was how Conquest would hold up when The Old World launches and inevitably a large chunk of Conquest's player pie go running back into GW's waiting arms. I don't think anybody would be surprised if TOW, being a GW game, would follow similar beats to 40k and AoS when it comes to 'WOAH DUDE AWESOME' design principals with internal and external balance sacrificed at the altar.
The miniatures are good, the fluff is decent, but if the quality of the rules and balance is on par with TOW then the vast, vast, vast majority of people are going to take TOW's mega-popularity (by comparison to Conquest and other rank and file games) every time.
The rules are free online, just a quick look and you will immediately understand why is that not the case (not even close). Also unlike others they lister to the community and respond the feedback in a refreshing way compared to what ive seen from other companies.
The conquest team itself is not of the AOS design mindset. The community has a lot of requests that stem from the AOS design mindset.
Now SOME of the items being considered are straight up to pull AOS fans in.
THings like being able to take a hero that makes things like an all monster / giant army possible (I dont know if thats a thing yet but that was one thing being heavily considered and requested) and then the game mats and scenarios going to GW standard (that weird 60x44 size) were another example.
The game mats were backed off and they said they'd include traditional table sizes but there was some minorly heated discussion on that in the playtest group because larger tables were deemed unnecessary and the movement phase in general is not fun and they wanted smaller tables to allow for combat to begin right away (like in AOS).
I don't recall any conversations about making an all monster army. When was that? Anything specific mentioned? It would require quite a few fundamental changes to the rules (not only "X character can have monster as mainstay") to not suck.
Tournament rules mention 4x6 table for tlaok and 4x4 for fb so.... whatever
Fantasy wargames with dice, special rules and stuff will inevitably have similarities. It doesnt mean that X is trying to copy Y at all cost, unless you have a fixation for a certain game and see it everywhere
It was mentioned a few times in vanguard chat during whadrun testing (the all monsters and the all raptor armies being desired) and it was discussed on a skype call back in February among a list of other things during the monthly tier 3 vanguard chat we had.
It wouldn't require a fundamental change to the rules. It would basically be "take this hero. Now any of these monsters count as mainstay under that hero"
It was even playtested a few times on tabletop simulator to get a feel for what it would be like.
I left before tournament rules were published officially. In the underspire tournament, which was an official tournament, the 60x44 table size scenarios were given to us by the design team to run. So if they changed that - great.
auticus wrote: It was mentioned a few times in vanguard chat during whadrun testing (the all monsters and the all raptor armies being desired) and it was discussed on a skype call back in February among a list of other things during the monthly tier 3 vanguard chat we had.
It wouldn't require a fundamental change to the rules. It would basically be "take this hero. Now any of these monsters count as mainstay under that hero"
Most monsters are heavy, which doesn't make it particularly viable for an army. Only Wadrhun seem to have variety. Heroes would have to have the Rider rule implemented if only taking monsters (Konungyr on top of Ice Jotnar lel).
For scenarios, if your army consists of 8 or 9 stands in total (monster only count as one), you ain't going too far in terms of capturing objectives.
It would be best for an all monster army to change more than "hero gets mainstay monster", unless it's for some narrative fun thing.
auticus wrote: It was mentioned a few times in vanguard chat during whadrun testing (the all monsters and the all raptor armies being desired) and it was discussed on a skype call back in February among a list of other things during the monthly tier 3 vanguard chat we had.
It wouldn't require a fundamental change to the rules. It would basically be "take this hero. Now any of these monsters count as mainstay under that hero"
Most monsters are heavy, which doesn't make it particularly viable for an army. Only Wadrhun seem to have variety. Heroes would have to have the Rider rule implemented if only taking monsters (Konungyr on top of Ice Jotnar lel).
For scenarios, if your army consists of 8 or 9 stands in total (monster only count as one), you ain't going too far in terms of capturing objectives.
It would be best for an all monster army to change more than "hero gets mainstay monster", unless it's for some narrative fun thing.
You aren't wrong. Except that monsters being mainstay weren't the only changes that were being looked at to make that viable (the heavy, medium, etc thing has been scrutinized to see how it can be made better for over a year). The counter argument to all of this from a few of us was that all monster armies break that rank and file feel that a lot of us play the game for. That was argued back and forth (that being a reason to not do it vs is that important enough to adhere to). That was one of the reasons I stepped back for a bit.
the scrutinizing of heavy, medium, light didn't just cover monsters, though. As I said a year ago, there was little incentive to ruin heavy units in conquest, bar abominations and blooded jotnars.
Lord Kragan wrote: the scrutinizing of heavy, medium, light didn't just cover monsters, though. As I said a year ago, there was little incentive to ruin heavy units in conquest, bar abominations and blooded jotnars.
Right. It doesn't just cover monsters. I'm saying that the whole push for letting people take all monsters or all cavalry or all whatever-you-want was being looked at, and that the thought that all-monster armies wouldn't be good because most are heavy only applies to the rules as they are today - and part of letting you take all-monster armies would come in conjunction with refactoring the light-medium-heavy rules so that all-monster armies work just as well as normal armies.
I'm also going to reiterate for clarity that this was something being looked at, not 100% going to be implemented, based on a large number of the community wanting it. I clarify that so that people understand I'm not saying its 100% going to happen, but a lot of the AOS-minded community (and double clarity for stating that the whole of the conquest community is not aos-minded, but there is a very strong aos design mindset present in said community - as someone above said - the industry leader that has the lion's share of paying customers so makes sense to try to appeal to them) pushing for it was making that a legit looked at change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sasorijap wrote: The Legends Campaign Rules are free on the website:
It was. Plus the fact was more "do we adapt to the market leader?" and they chose not to after... 4 months of consideration or so?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arbitrator wrote: It's a pity to hear that the Conquest team are seemingly of the 'AoS design mindset'..
They really are not.
I did do some digging recently as a response to that assertion. Everything I found overwhelmingly pointed to a reality that no, they are not in line with the AoS mindset at all. The closest thing I can think of is how the armies remind me of 6th edition WHFB army books a little.
Really, they have their own mindset and it's the same vision they had at the start. Doesn't mean the ruleset is inherently good, bad, or for everyone. Some people may not like it, that's cool. What isn't is making invalid criticisms as to why.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Kragan wrote: the scrutinizing of heavy, medium, light didn't just cover monsters, though. As I said a year ago, there was little incentive to ruin heavy units in conquest, bar abominations and blooded jotnars.
Yeah there are heavy units I want to run but they just get on the board so late. I don't want to pay for a unit that misses half the battle. Though part of that is also the 'default' objective scenarios in the core rules being largely broken by the 8-VP threshold. I talked with the playtesters and it seems they have been using the tourney scenarios which have a 12-VP threshold.
It would have been really easy in their position to forget about changing that number in the core scenarios, and I'd bet that is what happened. RAI seems to be using 12 instead of 8, which does wonders for heavies since the games last longer.
Going to a bigger picture I feel that is the sort of typo/wording error that I feel is the biggest hindrance of Conquest right now. There are multiple instances where RAI must be applied over RAW and that RAI is not always clear. While it is absolutely fantastic that I can go on the discord and get an answer within minutes, it is equally bad that doing so is almost a necessity.
Not a fan of how they have the shield held, looks awkward for a kite shield to be 'buckler style'. Really like the four arms approach for lance + sidearms, seems very plausible for spires to combine weaponry like that. It always bugs me how many knight-type models have these huge lances and nothing else; do they just punch people after the first charge?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Not a fan of how they have the shield held, looks awkward for a kite shield to be 'buckler style'. Really like the four arms approach for lance + sidearms, seems very plausible for spires to combine weaponry like that. It always bugs me how many knight-type models have these huge lances and nothing else; do they just punch people after the first charge?
Unless they changed the model from the preview a year back then the shield is infused with their hand. They also have extra hands with swords if you didn't notice them
NinthMusketeer wrote: Not a fan of how they have the shield held, looks awkward for a kite shield to be 'buckler style'. Really like the four arms approach for lance + sidearms, seems very plausible for spires to combine weaponry like that. It always bugs me how many knight-type models have these huge lances and nothing else; do they just punch people after the first charge?
Unless they changed the model from the preview a year back then the shield is infused with their hand. They also have extra hands with swords if you didn't notice them
I assumed it was, but it just doesn't look good. And yes I did see the swords; that's why I commented on how much I liked the four arms approach...
Crimson Tower got pushed back (Q1 22, I think) as they noticed some details on the sprues could be improved.
Drake also got pushed back a while ago, there was an incident at their factory and were forced to postpone production.
I agree, it is to me better than forge world and any other resin I've worked wtih.
Seconded. It's wonderful. I'd also put Modiphius and whatever the Greeblood stuff Greebo Games use in that bracket but Para Bellum's sculpt style and scale are just accentuated so well by the material and makes for some very 'clean' looking results.
I really really love how thoughtfully designed the model is, with tethers to hold the rider on and reins with a strap to hold the monsters mouth shut when needed, etc.
Those little details and thoughtfulness really sell the model to me.
Gallahad wrote: I really really love how thoughtfully designed the model is, with tethers to hold the rider on and reins with a strap to hold the monsters mouth shut when needed, etc.
Those little details and thoughtfulness really sell the model to me.
It makes suspension of disbelief so much easier.
Are you trying to say that an Orc riding a T Rex somehow doesn't seem realistic on its own?!?!
Gallahad wrote: I really really love how thoughtfully designed the model is, with tethers to hold the rider on and reins with a strap to hold the monsters mouth shut when needed, etc.
Those little details and thoughtfulness really sell the model to me.
It makes suspension of disbelief so much easier.
Huge overhang to make lining up in combat annoying, and a huge thin spear polking above the model.
The thought into how the model works, I agree is top notch, but the first thing I thought was 'Without magnets how do I transport this?'.
What a great model! The thing I like best is that aside from it's larger scale, there isnt going to be too much that cements it as belonging to any particular setting - it's prefect for all sorts of dinosaur riders.
Gallahad wrote: I really really love how thoughtfully designed the model is, with tethers to hold the rider on and reins with a strap to hold the monsters mouth shut when needed, etc.
Those little details and thoughtfulness really sell the model to me.
It makes suspension of disbelief so much easier.
Huge overhang to make lining up in combat annoying, and a huge thin spear polking above the model.
The thought into how the model works, I agree is top notch, but the first thing I thought was 'Without magnets how do I transport this?'.
Due to its height the overhang will put it above most models in the game, even cavalry and monstrous infantry. So it is only an occasional issue from the practical level. As for transport, separating the rider is both common and not unreasonable to ask. Especially given the context; another upcoming character release (on foot) is designed such that she can be swapped out to ride the t rex.
It's a cool looking model but not for my personal tastes. As I get older and older, the big impressive models appeal to me less and less compared with player character or smaller monster models.
We're going to give First Blood a try locally next year. I've painted a few of my Nords and 100 Kingdoms models, they are a joy to work on and feel quite different at a slighly larger scale.
I hope we like the skirmish version, I don't have the bandwidth or time for the full rank and file game.
Shrapnelsmile wrote: We're going to give First Blood a try locally next year. I've painted a few of my Nords and 100 Kingdoms models, they are a joy to work on and feel quite different at a slighly larger scale.
I hope we like the skirmish version, I don't have the bandwidth or time for the full rank and file game.
They are in the process of updated the rules for it so even if you don't like some stuff from the current version you might love the new one.
So, ummm... I'm guessing that since nobody posted anything about it, you all haven't realized that the Founders Exclusives are available on the e-shop?
There will be a Wadrhun and Nord Founder's available afterwards (maybe January).
Price is indeed pretty high.... the PB folks said their resin product got 50% more expensive and make less profit even with the price hike. Guess it is like that everywhere.
I got all three, personally. Dweghom are my main project, but I told myself that I would start a Spires army if I could get my hands on the Founders Exclusive, so I guess I'm committed there now. And 100K were my second choice after Dweghom so thats an impulse buy I guess, but I may end up throwing it on ebay in 6+ months if I decide not to pursue that project.
Really looking forward to Old Dominion, City States, and Weaver Courts though. If the minis look as good as the artwork I will be all over them.
VBS wrote: There will be a Wadrhun and Nord Founder's available afterwards (maybe January).
Price is indeed pretty high.... the PB folks said their resin product got 50% more expensive and make less profit even with the price hike. Guess it is like that everywhere.
Quick question: isn’t the T-Red plastic, not resin?
I wonder if raising the prices on the showstopper mini that sells the whole army is a good idea. Maybe if they soon place it in a start collecting box with two “almost free” plastic kits for only a slightly higher price.
Quick question: isn’t the T-Red plastic, not resin?
I wonder if raising the prices on the showstopper mini that sells the whole army is a good idea. Maybe if they soon place it in a start collecting box with two “almost free” plastic kits for only a slightly higher price.
It is plastic.
I was refering to founder's exclusive, which are resin, and went up in price compared to last year.
Shadow Walker wrote: Dweghom minis look great but I cannot unsee that 4 dwarfs are lifting, each with only 1 arm, so much weight like it would be nothing.
Shadow Walker wrote: Dweghom minis look great but I cannot unsee that 4 dwarfs are lifting, each with only 1 arm, so much weight like it would be nothing.
Shadow Walker wrote: Dweghom minis look great but I cannot unsee that 4 dwarfs are lifting, each with only 1 arm, so much weight like it would be nothing.
I just can't help thinking of the Coffin Dance looking at them.
Im tempted to get into the game, but it is 32mm scale right?
And whats the recommended point value/ community decided one?
I did notice the kits whilst most are nice are pretty pricy and don't look like they'd blend in with any other models in my collection for other war games which kills my enthusiasm a bit.
Seems like the old companion (genesis stuff / faction lore on the website) + faction lore that was on the living world/campaign book. Not worth it if you are already familiar/read the lore somewhere else.
Sort of a mess up on their part to list it on the estore as 250 pages of lore, when it really is 150 pages all of which is already published in other books.
Agree. I asked them a few weeks ago to change the e-shop description if it was not the case. Seems like they forgot.
Not the first time it happens, the previous Companion was advertised as "300 pages of history of Ea", when it barely has a third.
Attention to detail isnt their strength. Hope they catch up though.
Sasorijap wrote: And new updated rules, i think called it 1.5 edition makes it pretty clear, i don't understand why people got confused
You misunderstood. We talked about the lore only = if you have old book plus campaign one then the new companion is only good if you prefer to have the lore in one place.
I was a bit meh on this one before, but seeing it painted up really brings it to life. Gorgeous. And two separate characters in game so that's pretty cool.
I mean, how else would you do it? Like i know there are other ways, but hey are all significantly more complicated and time consuming and generally less flexible. A big part of the shift towards 3d sculpting is that you don't need to sculpt a bunch of minis in unique poses like was done in the past, you sculpt it once and repose it as you need to.
Definitely going to nab two boxes of those guys, Will also need 4 boxes of regular avatara... I'm doing an entire avatara army led by 3 lineage highborn (including the founders exclusive one). Can't wait to see the Leonine Avatara.
Just finished building an Apex Predator, one of the best kits ive had the pleasure of assembling, if this is a sign of the current state of Para Bellums capability then I am really looking forward to Old Dominion.
Just saw the Apex Predator on the miniaturemarket.com site in case people are trying to get one. RRP $100, their price $80. Looks fantastic, especially for the size of it compared to GW prices.
auticus wrote: It is a tremendous model. The PB team knocked that one out of the park.
I agree. I still feel burned (no pun) by the Dweghom that I bought into. The models did not live up to the artwork in my eyes and quickly killed my enthusiasm for the game. I'm waiting on the city states to see if that rekindles my desire for the game.
.
