The legionaries and KDM-ish Archimandrite are my favorites. The Praetorian guard look pretty decent, although maybe not for their most likely price. Everything else in the range looks goofy or old hat.
I am pretty happy with the heroes, the cavalry and the infantry (minus the moroi). Now, I need to see the golems up close and painted, because i really disliked the brutes in the catalogue but quite liked them in the flesh.
Two new command upgrades for the Dweghom and 100 Kingdoms, i hear rumors that in the new version of First Blood command upgrades will play a bigger role.
I don't know if it's the FW-MESBG paint job on the face, but the Mnemancer looks pretty horrid and it's surprising when most of their recent Dweghom sculpts have been great.
Arbitrator wrote: I don't know if it's the FW-MESBG paint job on the face, but the Mnemancer looks pretty horrid and it's surprising when most of their recent Dweghom sculpts have been great.
The "crazy old coot" face is what kills it for me. Sort of expected a young and regal dwarf considering the distinguished position Mnemancers play in Dwarf society.
Arbitrator wrote: I don't know if it's the FW-MESBG paint job on the face, but the Mnemancer looks pretty horrid and it's surprising when most of their recent Dweghom sculpts have been great.
The "crazy old coot" face is what kills it for me. Sort of expected a young and regal dwarf considering the distinguished position Mnemancers play in Dwarf society.
My main issue is how he's setting such an unrealistic body standard with that thigh gap. In all seriousness I do understand how Dweghom look but this seems incongruous with the rest of the line.
That said I still like the mini overall. Face a bit off maybe; I'd have to see it in person. My favorite part is actually that cool obelisk he's chiseling.
Here's one of the battle reports on my channel. This one follows a more photo play by play as opposed to live playing (due to covid and not having opponents to play against at the time)
Had my very first three games Yesterday.Won 1,drew the next one and lost the third.
Liking the game so far and loads to learn and remember.
I was playing against the Vanguard for the event who had two giants.One Mountain and one Ice.I managed to kill the Mountain one.
I saw someone say somewhere (either facebook or discord IIRC) that one of the lead designers, etc. hates the idea of them and doesnt want to add them to the game or something. Maybe that person is slow-rolling it or put a stop to it entirely and is hoping that by not mentioning them people will forget?
I saw someone say somewhere (either facebook or discord IIRC) that one of the lead designers, etc. hates the idea of them and doesnt want to add them to the game or something. Maybe that person is slow-rolling it or put a stop to it entirely and is hoping that by not mentioning them people will forget?
It was Stavros, the founder of PBW. So yeah, if he really does not want them then they will never happen.
I saw someone say somewhere (either facebook or discord IIRC) that one of the lead designers, etc. hates the idea of them and doesnt want to add them to the game or something. Maybe that person is slow-rolling it or put a stop to it entirely and is hoping that by not mentioning them people will forget?
It was Stavros, the founder of PBW. So yeah, if he really does not want them then they will never happen.
Time to vote with our wallets! Quick, somebody design some third party MFG models so we can all buy them!
They have plans to add them as retinue models for your characters.
You characters in Last Argument of Kings can buy as an upgrade up to 3 tiers of retinues (Combat, Tactical and Magical) so you can add up to 3 models in his stand to represent them.
Sasorijap wrote: They have plans to add them as retinue models for your characters.
You characters in Last Argument of Kings can buy as an upgrade up to 3 tiers of retinues (Combat, Tactical and Magical) so you can add up to 3 models in his stand to represent them.
The fish gnomes are going to be a retinue upgrade??
Sasorijap wrote: They have plans to add them as retinue models for your characters.
Huge disappointment then. I think most of people would like at least a Regiment of them or even an army. Having few minis running with a character is not what I expected. Waste of potential.
Fish gnomes are what convinced me to take Conquest seriously/ They have that vaguely cute look to them that belies the fact that they are cold-blooded murderous monstrosities. Its the right level of "silly" that indicates the IP doesn't take itself too seriously to the point that the whole thing is a wet blanket, etc. I'm 100% on board with them, and making them the gloomspite gitz of the setting seems like it would be a terrific move that would instantly become a fan favorite as well as just being a legendary miniatures range amongst tabletop wargamers. As Shadow Walker said, nothing prevents them from doing the lovecraftian super-serious grimderp race of deep ones later.
Huh. Aren't those just the Founders diorama without the basing and Imperial officer?
I thought the novelty (and price) of the Founders stuff was being entirely unique sculpts, but apparently not.
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah, pretty sure playtesters were aware, seem to recall Reece of FLG discussing that they had playtested the smaller game sizes extensively and were in favor of them. They also announced preorders for GW sized versions of their playmats within a few days of GW disclosing the new table sizes (which I remember because it seemed unethical/a conflict of interest on their/GWs part to give them preferential treatment/access to this information which they could then immediately spin to their own financial gain).
My understanding of the playmat situation was that pretty much every single game mat maker they'd approached was defaulting to the GW standard, rather than PB actually wanting to go with a smaller board by default.
It's just all the stuff revealed at the happy hour/vendor packet. My guess is since they got the packet and they know this stuff will come out eventually they're just putting it up for pre-order to know how much to order when it ACTUALLY goes up for pre-order.
Huh. Aren't those just the Founders diorama without the basing and Imperial officer?
I knew they looked familiar
Yup, and the magic retinue from the Dweghom diorama will also be released. For both the actual character as well as the diorama itself are still exclusive, which I find fair since those are the centerpieces. Releasing the support staff separately to give proper models for retinue is a great move IMO (and I say this as someone who did buy the whole thing).
They did say originally they planned on releasing all the special edition stuff in plastic eventually, particularly the retinues... so if you missed anything you will soon get your chance at them.
highlord tamburlaine wrote: I noticed all the Old Dominion heroes are plastic kits. No resin stuff. Interesting.
I believe that there is going to be a limited pre-release sculpt of 1 or some or all of those heroes, like the W'adrhun had the limited pre-release Scion of Conquest, but then there will be a mainline release of the plastic versions.
Yeah, the resins are otherworldly quality. If every resin kit was as good as ParaBellums, I would never want to work in any other material.
Whats the deal with the Brood of Omgorah? Is that a normal sized Wadrhun riding a small Apex Predator/raptor looking thing, or is that a extra large sized Wadrhun riding a normal sized apex predator?
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah, the resins are otherworldly quality. If every resin kit was as good as ParaBellums, I would never want to work in any other material.
Whats the deal with the Brood of Omgorah? Is that a normal sized Wadrhun riding a small Apex Predator/raptor looking thing, or is that a extra large sized Wadrhun riding a normal sized apex predator?
Normal Sized W'adrhun riding a bigger-than-raptor sized thing. It's a special mount that makes a character Cavalry, so it's not too crazy size-wise.
I own several of the resin pieces (pretty much every resin released up to this point) and will confirm that the resin they produce is the best I've worked with to date spanning back to early forge world days.
It is truly astounding to witness the amount of quality increase over just a couple years. The initial starter set models are, quite frankly, not good. The details are soft as all hell to say nothing of the posing on certain items--abomination even makes my personal list of most comically bad sculpts released by wargame companies, landing it with such exalted items as the razorgor.
The modern sculpts, on the other hand, are more or less unrecognizable. The rapidity of improvement is insane.
highlord tamburlaine wrote: I noticed all the Old Dominion heroes are plastic kits. No resin stuff. Interesting.
Hopefully it will be a new standard for all future releases.
I kinda disagree on that, but only because their resins are so bloody good.
They are transitioning to full plastic, as the increasing costs of resin are making it unsustainable outside of limited collectors stuff. I agree it is a shame since their resin is something else, but that's the world sometimes.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is truly astounding to witness the amount of quality increase over just a couple years.
I think their weakest line is the human stuff, particularly whatever they call the Empire looking faction(s). The arms almost always seem too skinny or too long for the rest of the model, like its a different scale.
With that said, their dino's and other animals are usually amazing. Getting a Grinch Stole Christmas(Jim Carrey's version) vibe from the raptor rider's face on the previous page though.
I really like those undead legionaries.
On one hand I don't want another undead army (Necrons), but on the other hand that Eastern Roman Empire aesthetic looks great and unique.
Bone golems look goofy, imo, they're like budget dreadnaughts. The Dominion characters are fine and the ghosts look neat.
Helldrake looks too much like a fisher price toy, sorry :/
The paint schemes are getting better at least.
The Magic Retinue are basically Pillar Men, which made me chuckle.
Apply gloss varnish to them to get the well oiled abs look.
The Brood looks really nice. I think it's a good sculpt.
That's a pretty awesome giant. It would make for a great rpgpc barbarian as well shrunk down (obviously with a different paint scheme unless of course you're playing a swole papa smurf whose been hitting the juice!). Not really possible with traditional kits vs 3d printing but regardless that is very nicely done.
Ice Giant was done by M. Kontraros - also available on his website (limited, actually cheaper :-))
The sculpt is triple A+, but not much is giving away that it is a giant.
A lot on him is “his” size (skulls etc). There are some smaller skulls on the other hip that give it away.
The ice crystals do make him magical, but if shrunk down to 38mm, he’d still ‘work’.
Would love to see some heroes (Einherjer anyone) from this sculptor though.
Like his muscles and proportions; a lot better than on most of the Nord sculpts imo.
Seneca_42 wrote: Ice Giant was done by M. Kontraros - also available on his website (limited, actually cheaper :-))
The sculpt is triple A+, but not much is giving away that it is a giant.
A lot on him is “his” size (skulls etc). There are some smaller skulls on the other hip that give it away.
The ice crystals do make him magical, but if shrunk down to 38mm, he’d still ‘work’.
Would love to see some heroes (Einherjer anyone) from this sculptor though.
Like his muscles and proportions; a lot better than on most of the Nord sculpts imo.
Its cheaper because it is in a different scale. The Conquest one is 15cm tall!
I don't mind the Abomination much myself. Some of the early plastics in general though are pretty dire in comparison to what they've produced since; the 100 Kingdoms stuff in the starter set is a pain to build, has some rough, rough posing and mould lines for days (the Household Knights are an exception IMO). Some of the Nords and Dweghom have similar issues, especially when it comes to the posing. Genuinely wouldn't mind them taking another pass at stuff like the Men at Arms given how good their later kits have been.
Sasorijap wrote: Here are all the monsters they have released from oldest to newest.
You can really tell that their sculpts have been improving.
Even the helldrake has some nice detail on it, even though the overall design isn't great.
The Apex and the Frost Giant looks great though. I'm warming up to the Wa'ah drun, those dinos are nice.
I hope the Helldrake is as much of a joy to build as the Apex Predator was. I built one for a local stores demo army with no intention of ever playing Wadrhun myself, but ever since building the Predator I've been wanting to start my own Wadrhun force just as an excuse to build a few more of those dinos.
IMO, the problem with the abomination is principally that its a pain in the ass to assemble, the plastic itself is awful cheap crap, and the details are soft, muddy, and indistinct (meaning you got to do a lot of work in painting to make it look good). Yes, the posing is a bit stiff and awkward, but its forgiveable and not something you'll notice unless you're looking for it.
An interesting theory but it's all the same plastic from the same manufacturer. The detail and construction of the models has definitely improved exponentially though.
I write like the old Abom though. It's the fact thag it's all ball joint makes it a pain. You have to be very patient and not try to glue it all together in one go as it sags under its own weight. A few lines at a time though and you can get some ace poses.
Err... its actually not the same plastic from the same manufacturer. Para Bellum has worked with several different plastics manufacturing partners since they launched, thats why the runners have evolved from being circular to trapezoidal over time, as well as the fact that the density of the plastic has changed as well. Also why early kits (like Abominations) said "Made in the USA" while more recent kits (like the Apex Pred) say "Made in Poland - EU" - plastic mixes are usually proprietary, in this case its two completely different plastics factories on two completely different continents.
Sasorijap wrote: Here are all the monsters they have released from oldest to newest.
There is a bit of a mix-up, as the Hellbringer sculpt was actually done before the Ice Jotnar, but was delayed due to some factory troubles. So while the release date order is correct the design order would put the drake after the mountain Jotnar.
Sculpt being done doesn't necessarily correlate to the tooling engineering process though. In large part, the problem with older kits isn't a result of poor sculpting, its a problem with poor tooling engineering. So depending on circumstances, while the Heldrake may have been sculpted prior to the ice jotnar (which is resin anyway IIRC? if so it would have a faster manufacturing turnaround time), it may not have gone into tooling until after the apex predator did.
I've been looking at Conquest stuff for a while now. The comments on resin quality here pushed me over the edge and I bought The Brood of Omgorah.
I will eventually pick up an Apex Predator as well, and then I'll probably try and figure out what I need to actually play. The most important thing for now is that I'm getting dinosaur cavalry.
Incidentally: are the rules going through some sort of an update? All the First Blood boxes have disappeared - as have most of the warband boxes.
Not sure how drawn out the fish gnomes were/are. They were an April Fools joke and the staff has never seemed very keen on the idea of actually making them. The community keeps it alive because a lot of people really like the idea but that's pretty much it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just checked and the earliest reference I saw here in thread to the fish gnomes was late May. Were we just late to the party on Dakka?
lord_blackfang wrote: The guns on the dwarf monster are godawful, they're proportioned like real-firing nerf missiles on action figure tanks.
So the fish gnomes... that was just a drawn out troll?
To be fair, that proportioning fits right in with the Dweghom's whole aesthetic and their psyche being utterly infused with conflict; those lads have dragons to fight and with the size of those things in Conquest's lore, the size of those guns isn't remotely problematic.
The fish gnomes always felt like an in-joke and haven't ever really been presented as anything else.
Actually they use drakes and other lesser draco forms. Dragons are either dead, hiding, or in one instance kept by a Raegh and tortured.
I'm aware of that (especially given one of those things is the very model I'm referring to...). Just pointing out what a lot of their weapons were designed for.
Maybe you should pop into the discord and say that in a place where the devs can see it.
Honestly, they have a ton of potential, to the point that if I had money and an IP to slot them into I would pay them for the rights to the concept art and make it a thing.
chaos0xomega wrote: Maybe you should pop into the discord and say that in a place where the devs can see it.
Honestly, they have a ton of potential, to the point that if I had money and an IP to slot them into I would pay them for the rights to the concept art and make it a thing.
This seems to be the one that the trail of links on their website ultimately leads to.
I can 3d sculpt them well enough myself. It would be unethical to steal someone elses work, regardless of whether or not they own the idea of "fish gnomes" they do own the specific expression as shown in the concept artwork. As a smaller publisher they also more than deserve the opportunity to profit off the idea without the unfair competition of a plagiarist cutting into their margins.
Yes, clearly not the exact sketches. Would be silly tho if nobody ever did fish gnomes because one company's fanboys made it a meme despite the company wanting nothing to do with it.
auticus wrote: They have 18 factions total planned. Its going to be an awful long time before they get everything done to introduce fish people as #19 lol.
Really? Already 18? That's a lot.
Do we know what they are?
We know Dominion, Kingdoms, Dweghom, Wahrdun, Spires, Weavers, Nords and city states, but what are the other 12? Could one of those be fish people?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sasorijap wrote: New rider for the Hellbringer Drake and Old Dominion Character from last night's livestream.
I like the new rider, I think he would be good as a stand alone character.
The Dominion guy looks nice as well.
auticus wrote: They have 18 factions total planned. Its going to be an awful long time before they get everything done to introduce fish people as #19 lol.
Really? Already 18? That's a lot.
Do we know what they are?
We know Dominion, Kingdoms, Dweghom, Wahrdun, Spires, Weavers, Nords and city states, but what are the other 12? Could one of those be fish people?
.
The Quiet (the other 'elf' faction) are surely going to be another.
auticus wrote: They have 18 factions total planned. Its going to be an awful long time before they get everything done to introduce fish people as #19 lol.
Really? Already 18? That's a lot.
Do we know what they are?
We know Dominion, Kingdoms, Dweghom, Wahrdun, Spires, Weavers, Nords and city states, but what are the other 12? Could one of those be fish people?
.
The Quiet (the other 'elf' faction) are surely going to be another.
Oh that's right, there is a third flavor of elf. I just now remembered that they mentioned a not-Chinese faction too.
Ok so that's 8 known, what about the other 10? Surely they can't be rehashes of the previous factions?
That's what 40k does and it's a bit lame.
I guess there might be an Egypt faction? There's an Eastern Roman Empire faction, a Greek faction and Medieval Europe faction, so Egypt would be a logical choice, especially when other fantasy systems have it.
Not sure how they would go about though. Making it undead would just be copying tomb kings and tread on the Dominion's toes.
Animal people / demi gods, maybe?
auticus wrote: They have 18 factions total planned. Its going to be an awful long time before they get everything done to introduce fish people as #19 lol.
Really? Already 18? That's a lot.
Do we know what they are?
We know Dominion, Kingdoms, Dweghom, Wahrdun, Spires, Weavers, Nords and city states, but what are the other 12? Could one of those be fish people?
.
The Quiet (the other 'elf' faction) are surely going to be another.
Oh that's right, there is a third flavor of elf. I just now remembered that they mentioned a not-Chinese faction too.
Ok so that's 8 known, what about the other 10? Surely they can't be rehashes of the previous factions?
That's what 40k does and it's a bit lame.
I guess there might be an Egypt faction? There's an Eastern Roman Empire faction, a Greek faction and Medieval Europe faction, so Egypt would be a logical choice, especially when other fantasy systems have it.
Not sure how they would go about though. Making it undead would just be copying tomb kings and tread on the Dominion's toes.
Animal people / demi gods, maybe?
As well as the larger islands dotted on the outskirts of the map, there's possibly (even likely) landmasses we haven't seen yet, otherwise I'm not sure where another major nation-faction would currently fit; not without a development of the narrative. There's the other human tribes that could be folded into the Hundred Kingdoms (I know they've mentioned wanting to do alternative models for the different styles within the 100K) but outside of the Quiet, I can't think of another faction that's been explicitly mentioned (and we don't even know where they are). There could feasibly be anything appearing from the Wastes in the East; the Spires were busy messing with creation and there's more than the Old Dominion lingering out there from the aftermath of the Fall (some Dweghom went missing so maybe some different flavour of those). Swear I've seen mention of Halfling type folks but I don't think they'd be major players. Always scope for some shard of a Primordial to pop up out of nowhere.
Ok, there is a surprisingly substantial list of future factions that have been teased or openly discussed as concepts:
The Quiet
'Dwarves' (the Dweghom who didn't go full Dweghom with War)
Chinese, Maori, Arabic & Egyptian style factions in Conquest form.
Some manner of Lovecraftian Fish Horrors linked to Famine (not Gnomes...)
Apocrypha (possibly linked to the Celestial Hosts of Conquest/Creation)
High Asgard/Hel (so...sort of another flavour of Exile/Elf assuming they're still around?)
Scalios & Umbra; The Dragons who retained their full strength.
Keltonni; Druidic humans with links to the Weavers.
The Living Dead (apparently not Old Dominion - more like ghouls and zombies).
The Abyssal Host (totally not demons...) are mentioned in the lore but haven't necessarily been mentioned as a potential faction.
High Asgard sounds like a rehash of Nords, Dwarfs are a flavor of dweghom, Keltonni should be merged with Weavers and Living Dead sound like boring Dominion.
Not too thrilled about those, tbh. Sounds like the rehashes and faction bloat I was worried about.
Not sure how they're going to make the dragons into a complete faction, unless they're bringing out Dragonkin or something. Which would be unique I guess.
Good point about Famine, I do now recall reading that too.
Abyssal Host, Apocrypha, Chinese, Egypt, Maori and Arabs do sound like proper factions though, so that's +7 factions. I'm curious as to what the Maori are going to be like. That's something you don't see often.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: High Asgard sounds like a rehash of Nords, Dwarfs are a flavor of dweghom, Keltonni should be merged with Weavers and Living Dead sound like boring Dominion.
Not too thrilled about those, tbh. Sounds like the rehashes and faction bloat I was worried about.
Not sure how they're going to make the dragons into a complete faction, unless they're bringing out Dragonkin or something. Which would be unique I guess.
Good point about Famine, I do now recall reading that too.
Abyssal Host, Apocrypha, Chinese, Egypt, Maori and Arabs do sound like proper factions though, so that's +7 factions.
I'm curious as to what the Maori are going to be like. That's something you don't see often.
To be honest I'm almost the reverse; I prefer the intertwined stories of each faction rather than just 'real life civilization through a Conquest lens'.
I think it's fairer to say that the Dweghom are more another flavour of Dwarf (or Crafter) but there's a very clear cultural divide between them so I don't mind. The Keltonni are pretty distinct as well; they're not like the Weavers at all beyond 'nature something something' as far as we know and presumably don't have anything like the same relationship or knowledge of life binding (so you won't be getting the pseudo-beast/elf hybrids). The two Dragons; no idea. They're currently beyond mortal comprehension.
High Asgard/Hel sounds... interesting. Especially given I'd have through they're kind of not around anymore. I'm very curious about them if only because it might shed a bit more light on what precisely happened during the Northern campaign and the Nord 'gods' managing to be destroyed but also cripple the Dominion (and what exactly they were in the first place beyond a very unique Spire).
I understand what you mean, its just from a game design perspective trying to create a fully fledged faction out of a footnote is going to be really hard and the end product may be unsatisfying.
Yes, there would be a clear cultural divide between dwarfs and dweghom, but dwarfs are really minor power, aren't they? Like, aren't they more or less extinct? How are they going to compete with the likes of major factions like 100 Kingdoms or Dweghom? Now, if the Dwarfs were part of a larger faction, I'd get it. Maybe that's where the dragons come in; the dwarfs and other dragon servants are part of a larger faction. But a standalone faction in a game where every other faction is a political and military powerhouse? That's just silly.
That's what GW did with their half-baked mini factions and it wasn't great. Remember how silly it was to see harlequins, knights or custodes as stand alone faction with their whopping roster of...less than 7 units? And it really just came down to GW wanting to sell more rule books? That's what I don't want to see.
Yeah there's really not much info about The Quiet, just a mention of them in the Spires background section. They were the Spires worker and soldier castes who serm to have basically had a socialist rebellion against Spires society and fled the continent never to be seen/heard from again.
In one of the talks in 2020 that I had transcripted on the Underspire before I let that expire they talked about the Quiet a little bit more. Essentially they are based off of the high elves and created their own civilization / nobility.
They even had some images of concept art (they were going all of the first ten or so factions in that discussion that they had planned).
I would expect another survey in a year or two about which faction to go after next.
The weavers were very far behind old dominion and the city states in votes, but I expect to see the Quiet in the new batch along with whatever else they are hankering to put out.
But I dont' expect such a survey until the end of 2023 at the earliest because we are just now going to start getting Old Dominion and City States I see sometime next year which still leaves Weaver Courts.
Yeah I think 1 faction per year is the target, which makes the idea of 18 factions somewhat absurd considering theyll still be releasing new ones 12+ years from now
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah I think 1 faction per year is the target, which makes the idea of 18 factions somewhat absurd considering theyll still be releasing new ones 12+ years from now
I mean, Warhammer 40k has been around for 30+ years, and we still are getting new factions from time to time.
yes, but at least both the already released factions and the new ones have complete model ranges. Meanwhile the original 2 factions are still missing models for more than half of their units 3 years post release, and that assumes para bellum doesn't intend to expand them further
Electro-priests just came out a couple years ago, but they had stats back in 3rd edition. There are plenty of examples, GW can crank out a new faction and has the backing to do a full range refresh in a year or two. Conquest is still in it’s infancy, give them time, they could be a contender. Hopefully the owners still have the desire in a few years and their investment pays off.
I spent a good amount on Dwegholm, all at once before I saw the models in person, I was disappointed with the quality between art and sculpts. I look forward to the city states, hopefully they get better sculpts, the artwork is fantastic.
Looking back on rogue trader sculpts and old marines I see a very similar growth.
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah I think 1 faction per year is the target, which makes the idea of 18 factions somewhat absurd considering theyll still be releasing new ones 12+ years from now
I mean, Warhammer 40k has been around for 30+ years, and we still are getting new factions from time to time.
Warhammer 40k didn't have any true rivals 30 years ago, did they?
A glacial release schedule in today's market is not feasible, especially for a fledgling company that has to compete against GW and video games.
I think theyd be better served by cutting the faction count in half and focusing on supporting those before continuing to expand it further. The Dweghom interpretation of dwarves is good enough, don't need more "traditional" dwarves too. Old Dominion is great as an undead faction, we don't also need a separate "wet undead" faction. I dont see any reason why Keltonni shouldn't just be part of the Weavers or why Asgard shouldn't be part of Nords, etc etc etc.
If you're going to add factions you need to be able to support them long term (otherwise you risk losing established players who lose interest when their own factions go too long without a new release), and im not convinced that Conquest will ever grow enough that they can maintain a regular enough release schedule to support 18+ factions simultaneously and consistently.
chaos0xomega wrote: I think theyd be better served by cutting the faction count in half and focusing on supporting those before continuing to expand it further. The Dweghom interpretation of dwarves is good enough, don't need more "traditional" dwarves too. Old Dominion is great as an undead faction, we don't also need a separate "wet undead" faction. I dont see any reason why Keltonni shouldn't just be part of the Weavers or why Asgard shouldn't be part of Nords, etc etc etc.
If you're going to add factions you need to be able to support them long term (otherwise you risk losing established players who lose interest when their own factions go too long without a new release), and im not convinced that Conquest will ever grow enough that they can maintain a regular enough release schedule to support 18+ factions simultaneously and consistently.
What your saying is exactly what I see wrong with most game systems now. They keep adding more and more to every faction where factions loser their identities because their special unit just got duplicated in one or more rival armies.
Black Templar’s had the Emperors champion, now everyone’s got one.
Blood angels had their stormhawk (or whatever stupid plane that carries a dreadnought), then everyone got one.
Imperial Guard got the huge f tank, then everyone got a huge tank
Lords of war everywhere
What do you do when though have the full army list....start a second, third or eight army. If you have everything that is available, work with your game group to develop something new between you. You won’t be able to use it in a tournament, but perhaps you create something you can share online and eventually the game designers will pick it up. It’s happened in other systems.
chaos0xomega wrote: I think theyd be better served by cutting the faction count in half and focusing on supporting those before continuing to expand it further. The Dweghom interpretation of dwarves is good enough, don't need more "traditional" dwarves too. Old Dominion is great as an undead faction, we don't also need a separate "wet undead" faction. I dont see any reason why Keltonni shouldn't just be part of the Weavers or why Asgard shouldn't be part of Nords, etc etc etc.
If you're going to add factions you need to be able to support them long term (otherwise you risk losing established players who lose interest when their own factions go too long without a new release), and im not convinced that Conquest will ever grow enough that they can maintain a regular enough release schedule to support 18+ factions simultaneously and consistently.
What your saying is exactly what I see wrong with most game systems now. They keep adding more and more to every faction where factions loser their identities because their special unit just got duplicated in one or more rival armies.
Black Templar’s had the Emperors champion, now everyone’s got one.
Blood angels had their stormhawk (or whatever stupid plane that carries a dreadnought), then everyone got one.
Imperial Guard got the huge f tank, then everyone got a huge tank
Lords of war everywhere
What do you do when though have the full army list....start a second, third or eight army. If you have everything that is available, work with your game group to develop something new between you. You won’t be able to use it in a tournament, but perhaps you create something you can share online and eventually the game designers will pick it up. It’s happened in other systems.
Don't blame the designers, blame the consumers. If this was a video game, what you would eventually get is a "complete game" where all the factions are fully fleshed out with content and further development is no longer needed. At that point, the devs would stop supporting the game and launch something else - maybe a sequel, maybe an entirely new game - which many fans of the previous game would buy into and continue playing even though they are starting from square 1 and their previous investments into other games by the same publisher are meaningless, essentially knocking them back to square 1. This is how board games generally work (if a game receives expansions... eventually it stops getting them and the company moves on to publishing new board games, and the fans continue buying products for other games from the same publisher, etc.), this is how video games generally work (look how many Final Fantasy or Megaman or Call of Duty or Battlefield games there are, etc.) - sure every once in a while you get a game like Eve Online or World of Warcraft that runs continuously for ~20+ years, but those are the exception rather than the rule. Card games *almost* work this way - Magic is kicking after what 30 years? But they have set rotation, and many of the cars released 10 years ago are no longer playable.
But miniatures? You can't do that. Look at the outrage that set in when WHFB had more or less run its course as a viable product line and was sunset in favor of a new game. There is still a lot of bad blood over that and I think many of us know people personally who have quit GW games entirely as a result of that move. If you were active in Warmachine a few years back (right around the time they were launching Mk3) there was a lot of theorizing that Privateer Press might introduce set rotation where certain minis would sunset out of playin order to clear design space for new minis, and just the mere discussion of that generated a *lot* of negative feedback. Also look at the wailing that results whenever a faction goes too long without an update - if you've been a 40k fan for a while, you might have an idea of what it was like to be a Necron, Dark Eldar, or Sisters of Battle player who each went about a decade between updates and revisions. If you played WHFB you might know the pain of Bretonnian players. Look at the feelsbadman today that players of some factions are experiencing because they are ~18 months into 9th edition and still haven't received a new codex. Look at the feelsbadman that results when GW does update a faction and all what they get is a single new hero model instead of a resculpt of half the factions model range or a half dozen new kits for them.
Theres a lot of resources time and money sunk into collecting factions for a miniatures game, and the people who do so don't like to feel all of that is wasted if you rotate stuff out of play or if you stop supporting their faction in order to focus on other newer ones, etc. The problem you illustrated in terms of overstepping design space is a real one, but unless you're willing to risk alienating your existing customers or closing up business entirely then you don't really have much choice as you need to be able to keep feeding the beast that is your customer base and community - and they have a voracious appetite.
chaos0xomega wrote: I think theyd be better served by cutting the faction count in half and focusing on supporting those before continuing to expand it further. The Dweghom interpretation of dwarves is good enough, don't need more "traditional" dwarves too. Old Dominion is great as an undead faction, we don't also need a separate "wet undead" faction. I dont see any reason why Keltonni shouldn't just be part of the Weavers or why Asgard shouldn't be part of Nords, etc etc etc.
If you're going to add factions you need to be able to support them long term (otherwise you risk losing established players who lose interest when their own factions go too long without a new release), and im not convinced that Conquest will ever grow enough that they can maintain a regular enough release schedule to support 18+ factions simultaneously and consistently.
What your saying is exactly what I see wrong with most game systems now. They keep adding more and more to every faction where factions loser their identities because their special unit just got duplicated in one or more rival armies.
Black Templar’s had the Emperors champion, now everyone’s got one.
Blood angels had their stormhawk (or whatever stupid plane that carries a dreadnought), then everyone got one.
Imperial Guard got the huge f tank, then everyone got a huge tank
Lords of war everywhere
What do you do when though have the full army list....start a second, third or eight army. If you have everything that is available, work with your game group to develop something new between you. You won’t be able to use it in a tournament, but perhaps you create something you can share online and eventually the game designers will pick it up. It’s happened in other systems.
Don't blame the designers, blame the consumers. If this was a video game, what you would eventually get is a "complete game" where all the factions are fully fleshed out with content and further development is no longer needed. At that point, the devs would stop supporting the game and launch something else - maybe a sequel, maybe an entirely new game - which many fans of the previous game would buy into and continue playing even though they are starting from square 1 and their previous investments into other games by the same publisher are meaningless, essentially knocking them back to square 1. This is how board games generally work (if a game receives expansions... eventually it stops getting them and the company moves on to publishing new board games, and the fans continue buying products for other games from the same publisher, etc.), this is how video games generally work (look how many Final Fantasy or Megaman or Call of Duty or Battlefield games there are, etc.) - sure every once in a while you get a game like Eve Online or World of Warcraft that runs continuously for ~20+ years, but those are the exception rather than the rule. Card games *almost* work this way - Magic is kicking after what 30 years? But they have set rotation, and many of the cars released 10 years ago are no longer playable.
But miniatures? You can't do that. Look at the outrage that set in when WHFB had more or less run its course as a viable product line and was sunset in favor of a new game. There is still a lot of bad blood over that and I think many of us know people personally who have quit GW games entirely as a result of that move. If you were active in Warmachine a few years back (right around the time they were launching Mk3) there was a lot of theorizing that Privateer Press might introduce set rotation where certain minis would sunset out of playin order to clear design space for new minis, and just the mere discussion of that generated a *lot* of negative feedback. Also look at the wailing that results whenever a faction goes too long without an update - if you've been a 40k fan for a while, you might have an idea of what it was like to be a Necron, Dark Eldar, or Sisters of Battle player who each went about a decade between updates and revisions. If you played WHFB you might know the pain of Bretonnian players. Look at the feelsbadman today that players of some factions are experiencing because they are ~18 months into 9th edition and still haven't received a new codex. Look at the feelsbadman that results when GW does update a faction and all what they get is a single new hero model instead of a resculpt of half the factions model range or a half dozen new kits for them.
Video Games are a one-time purchase of 30-60$, Tabletop Games cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars over the course of many years.
WHFB had not even come close to running its course. Otherwise there would be no Cathay or Kislev expansion soon. WHFB had a ton of creative space to explore, but it was crippled by the idea that every faction had to be filled out before anything interesting enough to attract new players could be added, that perfect was the enemy of good, and also by the huge barriers to entry that were the rules and the prices. They also chose never to address complaints with core miniatures when some new unit could drop for twice the price.
A WHFB with refreshed core units and a variety of new factions might have survived the rules and the prices.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: WHFB had not even come close to running its course. Otherwise there would be no Cathay or Kislev expansion soon. WHFB had a ton of creative space to explore, but it was crippled by the idea that every faction had to be filled out before anything interesting enough to attract new players could be added, that perfect was the enemy of good, and also by the huge barriers to entry that were the rules and the prices. They also chose never to address complaints with core miniatures when some new unit could drop for twice the price.
A WHFB with refreshed core units and a variety of new factions might have survived the rules and the prices.
It’s why Mantic and Kings of War took of so well. People had armies already and the rules were cheap with one rulebook to govern everything. I was about to pick up the Space Marine Codex yesterday to go with my Dark Angels Codex . $50 is ludicrous, even with the 15% discount from the shop it’s still more than I find acceptable, even after buying the Dark Angels codex a few months ago.
Conquest is doing it the correct way, it may not be GWs current way, but it’s what worked for them a long time ago. The dual build kits work out great to help increase coverage in the short term as well.
I do not like the cards though , that’s one aspect of modern gaming that could disappear without bothering me. I get it’s use, and easy way to update, but I dislike having to buy frequent updates such as those.
What cards do you have to buy frequent updates for? The cards are really nothing more than unit portraits and you use them to set the order of your activation in a way that can't really be cheated as opposed to marking it on your roster.
auticus wrote: What cards do you have to buy frequent updates for? The cards are really nothing more than unit portraits and you use them to set the order of your activation in a way that can't really be cheated as opposed to marking it on your roster.
I hadn’t paid too much attention to what the card says were, more just kept seeing new small boxes with some cards and a token or two come out every so often. I thought it was another marketing gimmick. If it actually aids gameplay, then great. I’m just tired of seeing new games go the collectible card route, or like Warhammer Underworlds where you have to constantly buy all the warbands to have the full collection.
There are deckboxes that they sell that are optional. They now have cards I am told for all of the units, not just the ones sold.
They also contain spell cards.
However you don't need any of that. The only thing you need really are the cards that come with your box and those are just unit portraits that you use in game to delineate your activation sequence
Don't blame the designers, blame the consumers. If this was a video game, what you would eventually get is a "complete game" where all the factions are fully fleshed out with content and further development is no longer needed. At that point, the devs would stop supporting the game and launch something else - maybe a sequel, maybe an entirely new game - which many fans of the previous game would buy into and continue playing even though they are starting from square 1 and their previous investments into other games by the same publisher are meaningless, essentially knocking them back to square 1. This is how board games generally work (if a game receives expansions... eventually it stops getting them and the company moves on to publishing new board games, and the fans continue buying products for other games from the same publisher, etc.), this is how video games generally work (look how many Final Fantasy or Megaman or Call of Duty or Battlefield games there are, etc.) - sure every once in a while you get a game like Eve Online or World of Warcraft that runs continuously for ~20+ years, but those are the exception rather than the rule. Card games *almost* work this way - Magic is kicking after what 30 years? But they have set rotation, and many of the cars released 10 years ago are no longer playable.
But miniatures? You can't do that. Look at the outrage that set in when WHFB had more or less run its course as a viable product line and was sunset in favor of a new game. There is still a lot of bad blood over that and I think many of us know people personally who have quit GW games entirely as a result of that move. If you were active in Warmachine a few years back (right around the time they were launching Mk3) there was a lot of theorizing that Privateer Press might introduce set rotation where certain minis would sunset out of playin order to clear design space for new minis, and just the mere discussion of that generated a *lot* of negative feedback. Also look at the wailing that results whenever a faction goes too long without an update - if you've been a 40k fan for a while, you might have an idea of what it was like to be a Necron, Dark Eldar, or Sisters of Battle player who each went about a decade between updates and revisions. If you played WHFB you might know the pain of Bretonnian players. Look at the feelsbadman today that players of some factions are experiencing because they are ~18 months into 9th edition and still haven't received a new codex. Look at the feelsbadman that results when GW does update a faction and all what they get is a single new hero model instead of a resculpt of half the factions model range or a half dozen new kits for them.
Theres a lot of resources time and money sunk into collecting factions for a miniatures game, and the people who do so don't like to feel all of that is wasted if you rotate stuff out of play or if you stop supporting their faction in order to focus on other newer ones, etc. The problem you illustrated in terms of overstepping design space is a real one, but unless you're willing to risk alienating your existing customers or closing up business entirely then you don't really have much choice as you need to be able to keep feeding the beast that is your customer base and community - and they have a voracious appetite.
I agree with a lot of this and have thought for a while now that both players and designers should come to terms with miniature games being perceived more as subscription-based experiences, where eventually it's done and you start something new. Every game reaches a point where furter additions make it worse, not better, and it should be allowed to die then. GW is really the only one who can successfully get away with just jamming more and more stupid gak into their games ad nauseam and not get punished for it.
I dunno, updated kits for old units do really well. And multiple similar options can be consolidated into single ones, something I think a lot of us would like to see GW do more of instead of treating releases like it's a race to get the highest dataslate count.
Sadly (or joyfully depending on your stance) I see the push for all mounted armies is getting stronger with the squires now getting pushed to mainstay.
There was also a push for all monster / brute armies which was only a matter of time.
In a game where capping objectives is paramount, giving all mounted armies a build seems a bit brainless. If history has taught us anything with warhammer and AOS, those types of builds easily can become the predominant build.
And in a rank and file game that kind of really sucks when infantry starts being seen less and less.
auticus wrote: Sadly (or joyfully depending on your stance) I see the push for all mounted armies is getting stronger with the squires now getting pushed to mainstay.
There was also a push for all monster / brute armies which was only a matter of time.
In a game where capping objectives is paramount, giving all mounted armies a build seems a bit brainless. If history has taught us anything with warhammer and AOS, those types of builds easily can become the predominant build.
And in a rank and file game that kind of really sucks when infantry starts being seen less and less.
Yeah that is worrying. Sounds like what Fantasy turned into.
Cav should probably have a hard cap on them or something, or have movement/combat rules that actually represent how cavalry fights instead of just staying in combat.
It was actually a really bad idea for cavalry to engage in melee for a prolonged period of time because they will get surrounded and unhorsed.
So they should actually have a disengage rule and deal most of their damage on the charge, but are really easy to hit and damage in combat to represent their size and how dangerous it is for the rider to be unhorsed.
I mean, horses are big, and monsters are even bigger. It should be really easy to hit them in both melee and ranged.
auticus wrote: Sadly (or joyfully depending on your stance) I see the push for all mounted armies is getting stronger with the squires now getting pushed to mainstay.
There was also a push for all monster / brute armies which was only a matter of time.
In a game where capping objectives is paramount, giving all mounted armies a build seems a bit brainless. If history has taught us anything with warhammer and AOS, those types of builds easily can become the predominant build.
And in a rank and file game that kind of really sucks when infantry starts being seen less and less.
Yeah that is worrying. Sounds like what Fantasy turned into.
Cav should probably have a hard cap on them or something, or have movement/combat rules that actually represent how cavalry fights instead of just staying in combat.
It was actually a really bad idea for cavalry to engage in melee for a prolonged period of time because they will get surrounded and unhorsed.
So they should actually have a disengage rule and deal most of their damage on the charge, but are really easy to hit and damage in combat to represent their size and how dangerous it is for the rider to be unhorsed.
I mean, horses are big, and monsters are even bigger. It should be really easy to hit them in both melee and ranged.
For the most part, most cavalry has Brutal Impact which means it's really only effective on the charge. Order of the Ashen Dawn, Raptors, and Thunder Riders, are, off the top of my head, the only cavalry which are "really" effective in prolonged engagements in the game.
The big part is that if you are running infantry, and your opponent is running most / all cavalry:
* Your opponent is picking what is being charged. You have to have a solid anvil list or reactive list or you are going to have a hard time.
* Your opponent is much faster than you and has greater board control. Obviously this means they can get where they need to faster than you and in a game that is mostly capping objectives (sadly - it started where scenarios would have multiple win conditions but they seem to be doubling down on objectives for most of their scenarios) that speed is quite decisive. I can't help but feel they are trying to dip more into the AOS fan base for sales here but thats just my own cynicism.
* Your opponent is overall operating at a greater efficiency in terms of dice. When infantry lose models, they lose attacks. When cav and brutes and monsters take wounds, they are still operating at 100% until the model is removed.
It is true cav does better on the charge, but medium household knights are D4 to the front. Medium men at arms infantry are D3 to the front, and D4 if they have bastion or vet upgrade. They are just as durable if not more so than their medium infantry counterparts in prolonged engagements and they are fighting better because if I kill a couple men-at-arms you lose a couple attacks, but if you do two wounds to my knight, I still get ALL my attacks. Im just not doing impact hits on top of my normal hits after the charge... but neither was the infantry EVER getting impact hits so I don't see this as a downside and its not like cavalry is weaker at sticking around than their infantry counterparts. They have just as good if not better Defensive stats.
Back in the beginning days of covid when I had tabletop simulator league running on the underspire, we saw a few of those builds and that was one of the things brought up in playtesting.
I added a houserule for spears / pikes / long pointy things to offset cavalry to give them a decent counter (which of course as a houserule went over as you would expect) - but without a proper counter to the above... history has shown us multiple times that infantry starts to disappear off the table unless your army simply only has infantry (dwarfs in warhammer 7th edition for example had no cav options in an edition that was dominated by all-cav style armies)
In a rank and file game ... losing infantry off the table is a big disappointment.
FALLEN DIVINITY
Surrounded by Fear and Dead Men: A Fallen Divinity must always be the Warlord. A Fallen Divinity is considered to be a Regiment by itself in addition of it also being a Character Stand and therefore uses all the relevant Regiment rules as if it was a Monster Regiment.
A Fallen Divinity Activates as if it was a Regiment, performs two Actions per Activation and has access to all Out-of-Combat and In-Combat Actions a Regiment has. In addition, the Fallen Divinity may also use the Duel Action and may not refuse a Duel from an enemy Character Stand. However, the Fallen Divinity is not affected by the effects of the Dark Power Pool.
The Fallen Divinity may not join another Regiment and does not need to include a Monster Regiment in its Warband to enter the battlefield. The Fallen Divinity does not need to include any other Regiments in its Warband. If a Rule affects any Regiments in the Fallen Divinity’s Warband, and there are no Regiments in its Warband, then it would also affect the Fallen Divinity.
Characters without Warbands, when Warbands were barely putting actual restrictions into army construction in the first place? Interesting choice.
If the W'adrhun community bands together, I'm sure we can either make Apex Master not require a Warband or unlock Apexes as Mainstay
Apex Master character needs an Apex Pred in its warband to be riding. They are still two separate unit entries with their own cards.
All-brute and all-cav armies have already been available for some time. They aren't dominating. All it is is the company wanting to give people more options for how to build the army. Just like going heavy on characters or light on characters are both valid builds (Auticus also claimed that characters were going to be dominating the scene like hero-hammer, yet to play out). People confuse GW not considering the ramifications of just throwing options in with, ya know, competent balancing.
A real problem is the continued lack of finesse when it comes to actually writing rules down. I already see holes in just those previews and for something that has been extensively playtested there really shouldn't be flaws evident just from a first read.
Post-Edit: I am adding this in response to subsequent posts by Auticus attempting to label my claims as ad-hominem attacks, to provide specific evidence as to my above statement regarding his opinion on character strength: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plCVLomM3t8&t=1011s at 16:30 is when he begins speaking on the topic.
auticus wrote: Armies of Apex and Raptors was something the playtesters were pushing for as an option...
They pushed it hard enough to make it come true
I would say "lucky these Fallen Divinities are only one per army" but can't make that call with just the rules we have. "A Fallen Divinity must always be the Warlord" seems a bit ambiguous but I hope the intent is that there can only be one and it is always the Warlord.
(Auticus also claimed that characters were going to be dominating the scene like hero-hammer, yet to play out).
Tbf I don't think there's a scene for it to play out in, yet.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Apex Master character needs an Apex Pred in its warband to be riding. They are still two separate unit entries with their own cards.
All-brute and all-cav armies have already been available for some time. They aren't dominating. All it is is the company wanting to give people more options for how to build the army. Just like going heavy on characters or light on characters are both valid builds (Auticus also claimed that characters were going to be dominating the scene like hero-hammer, yet to play out). People confuse GW not considering the ramifications of just throwing options in with, ya know, competent balancing.
A real problem is the continued lack of finesse when it comes to actually writing rules down. I already see holes in just those previews and for something that has been extensively playtested there really shouldn't be flaws evident just from a first read.
Auticus said that things like Blooded were a little top heavy and most of my nord games are against nothing but Blooded and that I questioned hero hammer being a direction at the time, not that all characters were going to be dominating the scene like hero-hammer. If you're going to try to cut me down at least get the context correct. That entire round and round in playtesting chat (which you were not a part of at that time) was about how hero hammer was fine and some people like it and that a pair of Blooded or whatever doing almost half the kills was fine because thats a valid playstyle. That was the part I was arguing against specifically.
During playtest, when I made those comments, Blooded were responsible for on average 40% of the overall kills in the game, and the Spires Executor with his decay bomb was around the same level, which is why I made those comments in the first place because to me that was obscenely high.
When you say "they aren't dominating" and I look at the Adepticon lists being submitted for this year and notice the heavy cavalry/brute trend, I have to disagree with you. I am not sure what your context is for "not dominating" but they certainly are a VERY popular choice and seem to be a pattern emerging. Also "they aren't dominating" - there is no hardcore tournament scene yet. So "they aren't dominating" doesn't really have any data to back that up at the moment.
When you say "they aren't dominating" and I look at the Adepticon lists being submitted for this year and notice the heavy cavalry/brute trend, I have to disagree with you. I am not sure what your context is for "not dominating" but they certainly are a VERY popular choice.
Where can one find these lists? Are they open to the public? Inquiring minds wish to know.
When you say "they aren't dominating" and I look at the Adepticon lists being submitted for this year and notice the heavy cavalry/brute trend, I have to disagree with you. I am not sure what your context is for "not dominating" but they certainly are a VERY popular choice.
Where can one find these lists? Are they open to the public? Inquiring minds wish to know.
The michigan GT guys have some in their ranks that I talk to on facebook (one is from where I was and moved there) and they have shared their lists with me and/or painting on instagram shows you what they are building. I asked the guys I talk to specifically what the rest of the group was fielding and got some different types of lists.
Whole lot of cavalry and brute models. Avatara builds are very popular for spires and I've seen two "bretonnian" themed hundred kingdoms lists (archers, knights, and squires) now.
Also check out the online tournament going on and what lists are being submitted for that. We were discussing that in playtest a couple (maybe a month) ago because they were trying to find some power lists to emulate for testing the Old DOminion against and a whole lot of those lists were heavy slanted towards brute and cav (infantry was still present but it was noticed by several people that most lists don't have very much).
Not really no. If you have something worth discussing by all means share and we can discuss. Otherwise... if you only wish to do your drive by ****posting, go antagonize somewhere else
*All* cavalry/brute and *mostly* cavalry brute are very different things. I commented on the former. Lists which have any infantry are completely irrelevant as commentary to what I expressed.
Or maybe we should talk about the devs specifically calling out balance concerns of all-cav 100k and how they were paying close attention to it.
Or that it could simply be down to people using planet bowling ball when there is supposed to be more terrain on the board.
Opposing giving players choice because GW has done it badly is not a rational opinion.
I think you're splitting hairs but sure. All cavalry vs mostly cavalry are two different things.
When I see a 2000 point list and one is:
5 units medium cavalry
3 units light cavalry
2 units missile troops
And I compare it to:
6 units medium cavalry
4 units light cavalry
I don't see a giant difference in how that game plays on the table. So it is for me a gradient on the two things. All and mostly in the above case play out almost identical to me so I treat them the same.
I realize that "mostly" is an abstract terminology though.
Or maybe we should talk about the devs specifically calling out balance concerns of all-cav 100k and how they were paying close attention to it.
Having been a part of the playtest team I simply do not believe that they were paying close attention to it. This same discussion happend almost same time last year. Many of the playtesters playtest against their wives or partners very casually and weren't really trying to hammer on the game like tournament players are fond of doing.
So contest the following points:
Infantry vs mostly cavalry
* mostly cavalry dictates charges against mostly infantry - a negative play experience for many people having to react the entire time (note my use of the words many people)
* mostly cavalry is faster and therefore can reach objectives quicker than infantry and the game is solidly built around capping objectives.
* mostly cavalry is faster and has greater board control than mostly infantry.
* mostly cavalry doesn't lose attacks when they take wounds as fast as mostly infantry because cavalry and brutes and monsters are 100% effective until they die. an infantry stand that loses 3 of 4 wounds only has 1 set of attacks. A cavalry stand that loses 3 of its 4 wounds is still 100% of its attacks.
* mostly cavalry does impact hits when they charge to do more damage.
Based on those above things, discuss how mostly infantry is balanced against mostly to all cavalry armies and what the developers were specifically doing to pay attention to it?
Because I dont think they were paying attention to game balance. I think a lot of those playtesters want all or mostly cavalry and monster armies because AOS lets them do it and its fun and the developers hear a lot of comments about how much fun and more players they'll get and that they are a commercial endeavor trying to make money - so I understand them from that point.
However I can be persuaded that perhaps I just don't see how mostly infantry is at a stark disadvantage and I'm missing something.
Or that it could simply be down to people using planet bowling ball when there is supposed to be more terrain on the board.
The expected terrain count on tables was, as of Leandros email to me when he commented on my youtube video showing me using a lot of terrain - 2 or 3 pieces total. THE TOURNAMENT GUIDELINES that I was given when I ran the underspire online tournament was 2-3 pieces of terrain max. EDIT: whoops I was wrong I looked up the email. It was 2-4 pieces of terrain with 1 piece being sizeable (6-8" in diameter) and the other 1-3 pieces being small 3 or 4" in diameter.
Not planet bowling ball, but not a heavy feature either. Plus terrain was purposely meant to not be that impactful.
In the context of mostly cavalry, terrain makes them lose their impact hits if you can find a way to leverage said 2 or 3 pieces of terrain. Certainly a benefit, but cavalry still fight just as well as their infantry counterparts when stuck in depending on what they are attacking (a medium cav unit slamming into an elite heavy unit through terrain losing impact hits has made a blunder).
Opposing giving players choice because GW has done it badly is not a rational opinion.
Not even remotely on target with why I oppose that choice. Has nothing to do with Games Workshop.
Zero.
Nada.
Has everything to do with the items I have posted above.
Player choice is a false choice in this case because cavalry and brutes are the better option unless they are disgustingly overcost.
Additionally - for taste - I play rank and file for rank and file. Rank and file involves infantry. Heavy to all cavalry is not rank and file for players getting into the game for that purpose.
Also nothing to do with Games Workshop. That was my same reason for quitting warhammer in 7th edition. I got tired of cav-hammer every game for years. If Warhammer had been done by Privateer, or Mantic, or Joe's Game Shop I would have quit because rank and file with nothing but or heavily featuring mostly cavalry is not why I play these games.
Player choice is often taking what is best and most powerful. Player choice here is the illusion of choice. Infantry exists, but if you're competitive or playing in a competitive environment, you are purposely handicapping yourself if you take a lot of infantry in a game that lets you just take however many cav / brute choices you want.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree--I consider 'all' and 'most' to be distinctly different concepts. Besides, if there is no significant difference why NOT let players do it?
Those terrain guidelines are not what I have seen in games or heard of from playtesters, and I am rather suspicious of your implication that most playtesting happens against the playtester's partners. To be frank, I find that line pretty absurd to include in your argument for multiple reasons.
Post-Edit: This is in response to the below post; I want to provide additional context to my above statement but not drag out the thread with personal arguments. The "multiple reasons" I mentioned are as follows:
Spoiler:
-There is no possible way for Auticus to have the evidence to judge if most Vanguards playtest against their partners
-It also implies that these wives/partners must be unqualified to act as opponents, which again, is something he cannot possibly have evidence for. Also borderline sexist but in that regard I do not believe it was his intent.
-It also implies that those games are both a significant portion of games played and that the Vanguards in question are not capable of factoring in the opponent's skill (or lack thereof) into their feedback, and that the devs themselves are unwilling to factor that in (or don't know, when Auticus somehow does)
-Due to the above the implication that a significant portion of playtest feedback comes from incompetent playtesting against spouses is little more than defamation against the Vanguard team. It would not have been included in the argument if it was an insignificant factor so we know he considers it to be, or at least is willing to claim as such, but it is also impossible for him to have solid evidence or backing to that claim outside of personal speculation.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I suppose we will have to agree to disagree--I consider 'all' and 'most' to be distinctly different concepts.
Those terrain guidelines are not what I have seen in games or heard of from playtesters, and I am rather suspicious of your implication that most playtesting happens against the playtester's partners. To be frank, I find that line pretty absurd to include in your argument for multiple reasons.
Be suspicious all day long, doesn't change that that was how it happened to include a full on chat on it to discuss the validity of testing and concerns from some of us on testing a product in such a manner. If things have changed today then awesome. You can find it as absurd as you wish. Pretty much everything I state you come back with a back handed comment about how I'm lying or whatever so... thats par for the course as far as I'm concerned. The point of stating it was to state that playtesting wasn't being done at a level where the game was being stressed, it was casually playing against casual opponents. Thats not what someone who is interested in balanced games wants to see. Now I know you are a stickler for exact verbage so I will comment that there was testing being done under the guise of tournament testing and that it was pretty involved as well, but there wasn't nearly enough of that going on.
And if they have changed terrain guidelines - great. Thats what it was this time last year which spawned this video (after the designers saw one of my battle reports with a lot of terrain and battle lines):
And a great discussion afterward that we had on the discord about it with the designers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But lets go back to the real discussion and not trying to derail it with how i'm lying or absurd or whatever ad hominem attacks are pretty basic standard operating procedures from you...
Based on balanced gameplay, based off of the pointers I gave on cavalry's (and brute) advantage over infantry... where is the balanced game play if I can just spam cav and brutes.
Why on earth would i not want to do that if I could?
What do infantry get that makes them worth taking if I want to optimize and bust the game ?
Other than "player choice" and "its fun to take" - what is missing here that makes infantry attractive gameplay-wise moreso than cav to balance them out? What in particular were the designers looking for in terms of balance / unbalance that made them feel that this is fine do you feel?
Since my intent is clearly being misinterpreted, I will clarify my original point.
It was a response to this sentiment (not just you):
auticus wrote: Sadly (or joyfully depending on your stance) I see the push for all mounted armies is getting stronger with the squires now getting pushed to mainstay.
There was also a push for all monster / brute armies which was only a matter of time
To which I say:
-All cavalry and all brute armies are already part of the game
-They have been part of the game for some time
-They are not dominating the game
-Giving players more choice is a positive quality
To again clarify, any list that includes anything other than cavalry or brutes, respectively, would by objective definition not be an all-cavalry or all-brute army. So any such lists are not what I was commenting on and have no bearing on the points I was making.
To raise such as counter-evidence is to change the standard of the discussion, thus my comment about moving the goal posts. To comment on infantry vs cav/brute balance is also outside of what I was referencing.
I think some are sensitive about armies which break the mold of "blocks of infantry in rank and file formation" because that is the primary appeal of the game... and at some point, if nobody is using them, then you no longer really have a rank and file game anymore.
chaos0xomega wrote: I think some are sensitive about armies which break the mold of "blocks of infantry in rank and file formation" because that is the primary appeal of the game... and at some point, if nobody is using them, then you no longer really have a rank and file game anymore.
Hm... I never thought of it that way. Good observation.
That's the way I see it. I'm all for people playing what they want to play but when it happens that cavalry/brute/monster focused lists are stronger than lists with investment in infantry, it bums me out. If brutes/cavalry/monsters are going to have inherent advantages over infantry, units should be relatively compensated in one way or another. In my opinion, this can be done by restricting non-infantry choices more than they currently are, since they are more powerful choices in many cases.
Pre 1.5.1, W'adrhun infantry were, imho, terrible. Every list I made that had even a minimum sized unit of blooded/braves was just tangibly worse than if I took a unit of warbred or raptors. This drove me to making lists that had, at most, a single unit of hunters and finding ways to avoid infantry "taxes".
At the same time, trolls were/are extremely good, and dweghom don't really have anything besides infantry, so I can't say that infantry were being pushed out of the game. I know that in that same period that I felt pushed out of W'adrhun infantry, a lot of 100k players felt pushed towards Household Knights rather than focusing on Guard or Gilded/Steel Legion. This was also made better in 1.5.1.
While Nords aren't perfect (trolls and jotnar seem a bit much right now), I think that their paradigm is pretty good. Yes, you can take an all-brute/monster army, disregarding infantry, but it's a choice rather than how the rules sort of push you to go. (right now, imho, a bad choice, as both Werewolves/Ugrs need a boost and Trolls need a drop to make that sort of choice truly viable, imho).
Moral of the story seems to be: 1.5.1 update good, hopefully 1.5.2 update even better! But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't wary of things like the Mounted Squire Mastery, or the Fallen Divinity rule. In the long run, over some iterations I'm sure it'd be fine, but PB does swing and miss sometimes (Ugr and Huscarl price hike in 1.5.1 is mystifying to me)
I agree that there is plenty of balancing left to do. Having official rules for terrain would help a lot when it comes to cav/brutes/monsters, as right now there is literally nothing; it's all second hand and best guesses.
I personally feel that non-bracketing monsters are a concern that can't be dealt with via point adjustments. Especially when it comes to Nords, where leaving a monster at even one wound alive has a dramatic shift since it fights significantly better and with extreme reliability in damage output. I see that as a recipe for feels bad moments.
Can all cavalry and brute types claim objectives?
That might be a good way of stopping those types of forces not taking infantry.
Not played the full game yet only First Blood so not too sure on how best to counter such forces.
Terrain would seem to be a good way of stopping charges by cavalry.Maybe an option to take some field works to stop/reduce cavalry charges?
I think some are sensitive about armies which break the mold of "blocks of infantry in rank and file formation" because that is the primary appeal of the game... and at some point, if nobody is using them, then you no longer really have a rank and file game anymore.
That was entirely my second main argument against it yes. This is what I said about that very thing on the previous page:
In a rank and file game ... losing infantry off the table is a big disappointment.
Can all cavalry and brute types claim objectives?
Anything can claim objectives. mediums and heavies score. The new scenarios coming out start removing characters from being able to score.
errain would seem to be a good way of stopping charges by cavalry.Maybe an option to take some field works to stop/reduce cavalry charges?
Terrain in this game is very forgiving. They didn't want a game where terrain was too heavy handed because players then just dont' use any of it (lessons learned from oldhammer).
You cannot stop cavalry charges short of being against impassable terrain that they cannot cross, which is very rare.
Hindering terrain stops them from having impact hits which is useful but doesn't stop them from unleashing the rest of their normal attacks (impact hits are just a bonus IMO). Medium and Heavies also lose their inspire bonus (+1 on the charge) on the turn they charge through it but afterward they are fine. So its useful. But... their terrain rules are not laid out in black and white in terms of how much should be on the table (and again my last instructions from PARA BELLUM when I ran the underspire tournament was 2-4 pieces of terrain, 1 of which being large, the other 1-3 pieces being 2-4" in diameter) - and having seen pictures of some of the tournaments that have happened the last few months that is also the table layouts I am seeing. The point of all that being terrain is not numerous on tables, is generally fairly small, and you aren't getting a lot of use out of it other than here and there. And in your friendly casual games, you're going to have a hell of a time convincing your heavy cavalry loving friend that you should be allowed to take a bunch of hindering zonal terrain without rules stating how much terrain should be on the table (and even then when they place the terrain they are going to put it on the edges of the table out of the way, that is like what 99.9% of everyone I have ever known has done in that instance)
The houserule I employed in the underspire was to give spears / pikes an anti-cavalry bonus so that you could at least counter someone that wanted to run mostly or all cavalry.
As it stands now from a purely optimization standpoint the only thing stopping people from going mostly or all all cavalry / brutes is
* restraint on their part to keep the game with some infantry blocks
* bad point costed cavalry that is too far in the unoptimal zone
Otherwise from a pure gameplay standpoint nothing else withstanding (which is the environment that I mostly come from) the better choice will definitely not be walking on two legs and lacking impact hits and have a slower move speed.
Some ways that they can consider:
* an anti-cavalry type weapon like the pike or spear
* a solid rule that states infantry stands take precedent when claiming objectives. As it is - infantry WAS used to hold objectives more than blocks of cavalry so this is a rule that also makes sense and isn't gamey gamey for the sake of abstraction.
I do think infantry should take the precedent for claiming objectives.
Archers will come in handy to thin cavalry out a bit.
Might have to see what buffs can be used for the infantry in the forces played against cavalry heavy forces.
Terrain really is a big unknown here. There are rules for what terrain does, but so rules whatsoever for how much of it there should be. It is all second-hand and that is inconsistent. Given its ability to deny impact hits terrain has a significant effect on how strong brutes and particularly cavalry are (the latter more often relying on impact hit damage).
Also worth noting cavalry/brutes are not overperforming across the board. Plus some infantry and monsters are too strong as well. Without the terrain factor nailed down it is next to impossible to say if it is a trend of certain unit types or just normal imbalance of some options being too strong.
Its an added bonus. it doesn't have to be overperforming. Its still greater than zero impact, while infantry gets zero impact from it.
As an item greater than zero, it becomes more desirable. From a powergamer's perspective, thats all it takes to spam. An item with 0 in the column vs an item with a value > 0 in the column will be on paper more attractive depending on the point cost associated.
Cavalry and brutes in addition to the impact hit bonus have the added speed bonus to get to objectives fast, which is the prime game for almost all of the scenarios.
Cavalry brutes in addition to those two factors do not degrade their attacks like infantry does.
There are many factors that go into why cavalry and brutes outperform infantry and make them more desirable from a powergamer's perspective.
Once the tournament meta starts churning, this is how games become all about that one thing in the long run.
Everyone in this thread has enough experience with AOS and Warhammer to know what I'm talking about.
(the latter more often relying on impact hit damage).
Cavalry do not rely on impact damage, its just a nice added bonus.
A Men At Arms 3 stands is 12 attacks, Clash 2, 1 attack each, and a D2 with shields D3 to the front with a 5" move for 105 points
Household Knights 3 stands is also 12 attacks, same wounds, same clash, D4 to the front, and an 8" move with the added bonus of getting to do impact hits on their charge for 150 points. (and they are Resolve 2)
They both have similar staying power. They can both sit on something and the knights will last longer barring the men at arms pay 20 extra points for the D4 (so then they are 150 points vs 125 points)
They both fight exactly the same except on the charge knights get extra bonus hits.
Knights have a 3" better movement, or 6" better movement overall so can get where they need to go faster. They are also base Resolve 3.
They are both medium choices.
So 150 points vs 125 points... 25 points extra and you get:
* +3" move per action (+6" movement)
* +1 better Resolve so are going to be sticking around longer
* Impact Hits
* Attacks don't degrade as fast since it takes 4 wounds to drop a knight before you see a loss of attacks.
Those two shapes are almost identical to each other and can fulfil the same type of roles. The cavalry does not RELY on impact hits unless you are trying to use them as a mega hammer that can bust through things.
Medium cavalry is a support unit that fulfils much of the same roles as men at arms do for 25 points more, but they can get where they need to go much faster.
TERRAIN can at best remove the impact hit portion, but they are only paying 25 points more, and the intangible of if terrain is or is not there is well worth paying 25 points for the potential for impact hits when I'm also getting up to 6" faster movement a turn and a better point of resolve to stick around longer (and not needing to activate to get my D4 since the vet's +1 defense the men at arms are getting only goes once they activate)
Again - from an optimizer point of view - this is a no brainer.
You can compare that also with household guard. Household Guard cost 150 points as well.
Same cost.
Household Knights +6" better movement, +1 better defense to the front, impact hits, attacks degrade slower due to needing to take 4 wounds off of the knight before you notice.
Household Guard Cleave 1 so they can hit armor better and extra support so if you have back ranks you can do more attacks, but then you are paying more points for those back ranks.
Now Household Guard are great, I love them. But from an optimizer standpoint, the knights have a higher utility because they are faster, can do more attacks due to the cav rule requiring you to do 4 wounds before you drop attacks, potential to most of the time have impact hits unless there is some terrain on the table stopping them once in a while...
Is it an overwhelming tabling?
No.
Is it enough for the tournament scene to start min maxing toward? Absolutely.
Whats the point of all that?
All cav and brute armies, despite it being great for player choice, negatively impact the game once the tournament players start crafting the meta that everyone buys around and removes from rank and file games appeal.
I am not opposed to all cav armies existing so long as there are proper optimized counters that make them know there's a consequence for running skew lists.
That can be done with anti cav weaponry in the hands of infantry.
That can be done by letting infantry take precedence over scoring objectives.
That can be done by changing scenarios so that most of them aren't about objectives and introducing some other proper victory conditions.
There are I'm sure other ways this can be done that I'm missing here.
I suppose we will see. I do not expect to see cavalry and brutes dominating the game. I expect to see specific units overperform, because that's what happens when balance isn't perfect. Then PB will learn, refine, and move forward. I just don't see it as a big deal, just as I did not feel the expanded hero options were going to be a huge issue either.
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah I think 1 faction per year is the target, which makes the idea of 18 factions somewhat absurd considering theyll still be releasing new ones 12+ years from now
I mean, Warhammer 40k has been around for 30+ years, and we still are getting new factions from time to time.
Warhammer 40k didn't have any true rivals 30 years ago, did they?
A glacial release schedule in today's market is not feasible, especially for a fledgling company that has to compete against GW and video games.
Battletech was literally the bigger fish in the early to mid 90s.
uhhh.... huh... are we thinking this will be a mounted version of the sorcerer (as in instead of picking "Tempered Sorcerer" you pick "Hellbringer Sorcerer") or are we thinking this is more like the Apex Matriarch/Queen where you would have to take a Tempered Sorceror and a Heldrake and then buy a 5 pt upgrade for the Sorceror to mount it on the Heldrake?
chaos0xomega wrote: uhhh.... huh... are we thinking this will be a mounted version of the sorcerer (as in instead of picking "Tempered Sorcerer" you pick "Hellbringer Sorcerer") or are we thinking this is more like the Apex Matriarch/Queen where you would have to take a Tempered Sorceror and a Heldrake and then buy a 5 pt upgrade for the Sorceror to mount it on the Heldrake?
If I remember right in their google hangouts sessions they've said it's a mastery upgrade on a Sorcerer.
Update from the Discord. Apparently the social media posts saying that the Old Dominion army list is being released on March 3rd were a miscommunication with the PR team.
March 3rd will only be a preview of the army's rules, not a full army list release.
Thats interesting because the playtesters were told it was also a full release and that the fourth round of input would be considered after the full release for tweaks.
Regardless - thats good because there are a few things in the current version that are still a bit not right so I'm glad they are taking the time to iron those out.
Lack of description of difference between Wave 2 and Wave 3 card packs, big miscommunication about the contents of the new companion (lore *and* rules, it would seem), them very clearly stating March 3rd and then rolling it back (through Vanguards on Discord, and without an official public statement!)
Then there's things like the Centaur Avatara, which had a typo in their statline which was not corrected nor was a non-discord post made about it until the models actually hit shelves, which was overall extremely weird and moderately shady.
Maybe they'd be better to wait and make better public statements
Not going to disagree there. It's a problem that crops up in the rules too--there are items, updates, even whole special rules that are mechanically broken due to the wording.
Indeed. The playtesters and a few of the vanguards are very good at sending that information up to Leandros as well which is how a lot of those do get resolved.
I don't understand the policy and characteristics of Dweghom Ardents and the reason for the discord between Ardents and Tempered.
Tempered use fire magic and also Ardents have Flame Berserkers.
auticus wrote: Their characters have up to this point always been resin.
Plastic sprues were shown for OD characters
Neat. We'll see how that goes
Ah. Red soil is pretty common including in apparently Greece according to this article (and not listed also parts of North America as well).
Kentucky soil is red. If anyone here has any military background and trained on tanks in Ft Knox you will be familiar with the red mud all over the tanks.
Webstore is wrong for Archimandrite and Xhilliarch according to vanguard in the discord. Might also be wrong for the limited time Strategos, too? unclear from the statement made.
Cool models, thank goodness for plastic and they definitely took advantage of that to do appropriately thin boney bits. Those shields are thick as all hell though.
Well that's quite a fun and thematic way to base them, then.
Indeed! I wasn't aware that it was also present specifically in Greece (as it is by me in the US) but I imagine (given the location/heritage of the company) that they probably were.
Oh I like their armor. Not sure I like the green effect on them, although I understand that they were going for the tarnished bronze look.
If that's what the Not-Romans look like I can't wait to see the Not-Greeks.
A year of waiting unless they will change their release method of 1 new army per year.
Wait, that's their release schedule? At 18 armies? That doesn't seem feasible :/
That means what, 12 years of waiting until we can see the whole range? Too bad if you're holding out for the Not-Chinese I guess.
I'm just saying, they'll get a lot more interest if they released bits of all of the factions quickly and fleshed them out over time, to pull in potential customers who are either holding out for another army or aren't interested in what they have so far.
They already showed their hand with the 18 faction comment, might as well go with it.
Something cool that I'd like to comment on rules-wise. THey found through playtest that there was a seriously unfun rule sticking around and had a long discussion on it.
On one side we had the "the top tier players never encounter this, on top tables this is not a problem so its not a problem" argument.
Then the rest of everyone said its still a problem and not everyone was a top tier player.
The FAQ coming out on day one will address this and they are erring toward not everyone is a top tier player and that they have to develop for casual players as well as the "top tier" players.
I personally love that because after a lifetime of hearing "its balanced and fine at top tables so there's nothing wrong" - this approach is what I've been after for a long long time from game devs.
A year of waiting unless they will change their release method of 1 new army per year.
Wait, that's their release schedule? At 18 armies? That doesn't seem feasible :/
That means what, 12 years of waiting until we can see the whole range? Too bad if you're holding out for the Not-Chinese I guess.
I'm just saying, they'll get a lot more interest if they released bits of all of the factions quickly and fleshed them out over time, to pull in potential customers who are either holding out for another army or aren't interested in what they have so far.
They already showed their hand with the 18 faction comment, might as well go with it.
Well if you think it is bad waiting for miniatures to be released for the factions that are out now just imagine how long you would have to wait if they tried to do all 18 in one go.It is totally unfeasible to try doing anything like that for a new Company venture.
I just cant understand people who say,well i am not buying anything until x or y faction gets released.
As to getting more interest if they released bits for every faction.You would not see enough units to play decent games due to the amount being released and the design,production and tooling that would be needed.Then you also have the packaging to be worked on and printed.
Bit stiff on the posing, but it kinda works. May be intentional. Look like they'll be a pain to rank up if they aren't posed in a certain order. Solid models in my eyes though.
For those who have bought in the US, are Conquest products commonly available through the normal FLGS and online store retail chain or do you have to order direct or tyrough a chosen distributor as a customer?
warboss wrote: For those who have bought in the US, are Conquest products commonly available through the normal FLGS and online store retail chain or do you have to order direct or tyrough a chosen distributor as a customer?
It depends. I think they have made progress on getting the product to FLGS and online stores, but for a while if you wanted anything at release or close you definitely needed to hit the Parabellum online store.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Is the Divinity gonna be a Founder's Exclusive or an Artisan Series?
Artisan Series. I can't tell if it was community mentioning it or the actual team but there was a casual mention of a possibility of a Founder's Exclusive version down the line.
warboss wrote: For those who have bought in the US, are Conquest products commonly available through the normal FLGS and online store retail chain or do you have to order direct or tyrough a chosen distributor as a customer?
Miniature market stocks it and has it on release day. Good discount, free continental shipping at some level. They get the artist series stuff too, so you can save a bunch that way.
warboss wrote: For those who have bought in the US, are Conquest products commonly available through the normal FLGS and online store retail chain or do you have to order direct or tyrough a chosen distributor as a customer?
Miniature market stocks it and has it on release day. Good discount, free continental shipping at some level. They get the artist series stuff too, so you can save a bunch that way.
Thanks. It looks like the Old Dominion stuff still hasn't arrived. Is $29/24 retail/discounted the normal price for a single plastic character? That was a bit surprising for me. Do they come with lots of customization bits or are they monopose build kits? Are they typically one sprue?
Characters have never been on a plastic sprue before but they in the past do not have a ton of options no. Thats not to say the plastic sprue won't but there is no comparison to judge by (that I recall) - and I have painted every character released up to this point.
They were always resin up to this point. They are supposedly plastic now.
The resin characters did not have a ton of options.
I haven't seen a plastic sprue to know if there are options, but up to this point even with the plastic kits there haven't been a ton of options but we will see.
Thanks for the clarification and correction of the correc from you both. So judging by the preorder prices, if looks like the character price is staying the same despite despite the switch from resin to plastic. It might be an outdated mindset but I always hope for some of the long term savings to be passed onto customers (yes, yes, initial tooling costs...but they're amortized!).
I'll be going live here in an hour on my conquest channel to discuss a few things but as for price - the starter box is listed as $165 and there are roughly $200 worth of minis in that so they do offer some savings. I don't flinch at their prices because honestly $25 or so for a character model is about on par with most games I know, or cheaper anyway.
With the exception for the mounted Noble Lord and the Pheromancer, who like all minis in the starter box are plastic.
Mine were resin but I had a first printing of the starter box where everything inside was white plastic or resin.
I knew about the existence of the resin starters but they were only a promotional thing not sold in shops. Never heard about the mixed plastic/resin ones.Thanks for the info
I was one of the first vanguards, I got mine a few months before the box set came out so that I could get it painted and ready to go when the official launch dropped.
It slipped my mind that the characters in the normal box were plastic.
warboss wrote: For those who have bought in the US, are Conquest products commonly available through the normal FLGS and online store retail chain or do you have to order direct or tyrough a chosen distributor as a customer?
Miniature market stocks it and has it on release day. Good discount, free continental shipping at some level. They get the artist series stuff too, so you can save a bunch that way.
Thanks. It looks like the Old Dominion stuff still hasn't arrived. Is $29/24 retail/discounted the normal price for a single plastic character? That was a bit surprising for me. Do they come with lots of customization bits or are they monopose build kits? Are they typically one sprue?
One sprue, no customization. They are nice figures, but GW only gets away with charging so much for single characters because they are GW. As unfair as it is PB needs to do better than them in order to compete. I still think they are, but continued difficulties with rule writing and communication shrinks the margin of forgiveness people are willing to offer, and prices like that shrink it further.
warboss wrote: For those who have bought in the US, are Conquest products commonly available through the normal FLGS and online store retail chain or do you have to order direct or tyrough a chosen distributor as a customer?
I’ve bought some from Miniature Market and from my FLGS.
got my hellbringer Drake last night, haven't built it but pretty great cast quality, GW style spruce and runners and gates like the Apex, sculpt doesn't look quite as detailed/well textured but still solid.
I don't understand the War Chant rule.
It says that once you have three 3 chant markers you must immediately chant the warcry, but then it goes on to say that you can have a fourth token.
How is it possible to have a fourth token if you must immediately chant?
It actually says you explicitly can't have a fourth token, barring very specific circumstances (having a Drum Beast that has activated its Draw Event that allows you to keep more than 3)
You might be confused looking at the fact that there are three tiers of chants, but tier 2 requires 3 tokens.
Third tier chants can only be chanted if the unit chanting has Fanatic, which counts them as 1 tier higher. So you discard 3 tokens, but chant the "4 token" tier of the war cry.
Note that even with a Drum Beast, you're not allowed to discard more than 3 tokens per chant, so you still need Fanatic even if you have 4 tokens.
Rihgu wrote: It actually says you explicitly can't have a fourth token, barring very specific circumstances (having a Drum Beast that has activated its Draw Event that allows you to keep more than 3)
You might be confused looking at the fact that there are three tiers of chants, but tier 2 requires 3 tokens.
Third tier chants can only be chanted if the unit chanting has Fanatic, which counts them as 1 tier higher. So you discard 3 tokens, but chant the "4 token" tier of the war cry.
Note that even with a Drum Beast, you're not allowed to discard more than 3 tokens per chant, so you still need Fanatic even if you have 4 tokens.
Oh ok. That makes sense. Not sure I like that rule, seems a little complicated. I had to read it a couple of times to understand it.
I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?
I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?
I think you are refering to an old idea for that army. Basically in their fluff they have a perfect hearing allowing them superior communication over the battlefield noise. That was suposed to be simulated in rules by the ability to choose whatever card they want to activate next.
I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?
I think you are refering to an old idea for that army. Basically in their fluff they have a perfect hearing allowing them superior communication over the battlefield noise. That was suposed to be simulated in rules by the ability to choose whatever card they want to activate next.
Oh it never actually made it into the rules? That's a pity, I thought it was a neat idea.
Rihgu wrote: It actually says you explicitly can't have a fourth token, barring very specific circumstances (having a Drum Beast that has activated its Draw Event that allows you to keep more than 3)
You might be confused looking at the fact that there are three tiers of chants, but tier 2 requires 3 tokens.
Third tier chants can only be chanted if the unit chanting has Fanatic, which counts them as 1 tier higher. So you discard 3 tokens, but chant the "4 token" tier of the war cry.
Note that even with a Drum Beast, you're not allowed to discard more than 3 tokens per chant, so you still need Fanatic even if you have 4 tokens.
Oh ok. That makes sense. Not sure I like that rule, seems a little complicated. I had to read it a couple of times to understand it.
I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?
Scion of conquest's supremacy ability does what you're talking about.
Rihgu wrote: It actually says you explicitly can't have a fourth token, barring very specific circumstances (having a Drum Beast that has activated its Draw Event that allows you to keep more than 3)
You might be confused looking at the fact that there are three tiers of chants, but tier 2 requires 3 tokens.
Third tier chants can only be chanted if the unit chanting has Fanatic, which counts them as 1 tier higher. So you discard 3 tokens, but chant the "4 token" tier of the war cry.
Note that even with a Drum Beast, you're not allowed to discard more than 3 tokens per chant, so you still need Fanatic even if you have 4 tokens.
Oh ok. That makes sense. Not sure I like that rule, seems a little complicated. I had to read it a couple of times to understand it.
I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?
Don't worry, you aren't alone! The way it is written makes the rule difficult to understand, I've seen countless people with the same issue. I know I had to read it a couple times myself.
I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?
I think you are refering to an old idea for that army. Basically in their fluff they have a perfect hearing allowing them superior communication over the battlefield noise. That was suposed to be simulated in rules by the ability to choose whatever card they want to activate next.
Oh it never actually made it into the rules? That's a pity, I thought it was a neat idea.
It was way too powerful in a game where everyone has to figure out what order to activate in turn by turn to have an army that ignored that and could do whatever it wanted.
I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?
I think you are refering to an old idea for that army. Basically in their fluff they have a perfect hearing allowing them superior communication over the battlefield noise. That was suposed to be simulated in rules by the ability to choose whatever card they want to activate next.
Oh it never actually made it into the rules? That's a pity, I thought it was a neat idea.
It was way too powerful in a game where everyone has to figure out what order to activate in turn by turn to have an army that ignored that and could do whatever it wanted.
Fair enough, it did seem like a pretty powerful rule. I guess they couldn't work out how to design the army to be balanced around it.
I should have clarified: that it wasn't something that was a normal part of their rules and that trying to make that part of their normal rules was a bit too stacked.
New FAQ/errata is up. It includes this handy description of the updates rules for obstruction while shooting:
Q: What exactly is the sequence of operations when determining LoS (Line of Sight)
and Obscuration during a volley?
A: When performing a Volley Action each Stand in the Regiment's front Rank needs
a) LoS and b) to draw an unobstructed line between the center of the Stand's front
facing and the center of any facing of a Stand in the Target Regiment.
We determine LoS of the entire Regiment as per the Line of Sight rules in Chapter 1
of the Rulebook, exactly as we would for a Regiment that wants to declare a Charge
Action for example.
Then we check for Obscuration on a Stand by Stand basis. When checking for
Obscuration we follow the "Check for Obscuration rules" in Chapter 3. When
checking for Obscuration the lines we draw need to be within the front Arc of
the Regiment, not of the Stand. Always remember that Stands do not have their own
Arcs, their Front, Side and Rear is the Regiment's. If a Stand is Obstructed then it
does not contribute any shots when the regiment performs a volley action
So it is possible for a Regiment to have LoS but individual Stands are Obstructed and
therefore, unable to fire. Always keep in mind that both conditions need to be met.
The Regiment needs to have LoS to the Target and the individual Stand needs to be
able to Draw an unobstructed line even if that line is Obscured.
So it is possible for a Regiment to have LoS but be Obstructed and therefore, unable
to fire. Always keep in mind that both conditions need to be met. The Regiment
needs to have LoS to the Target and the individual Stand needs to be able to Draw an
unobstructed line even if that line is Obscured.
I'm still incredibly confused tbh. I've been told multiple times that Obstruction and Obscurement are the same, but this seems to indicate that they are different.
I'm not even going to bother asking the discord because that's where most of my confusion comes from.
Anyway, I had a bit of time on my hands, so I tried to reword it a little to be clearer and added a minor (and important) clarification.
Q : How does one determine LoS (Line of Sight) and Obscuration during a volley?
A: When performing a Volley Action, each Stand in the Regiment’s front Rank needs to be able to draw an unobstructed line of sight between the center of the Stand’s front facing and the center of any facing of a Stand in the target Regiment.
The Line of Sight rules in chapter one explains how an entire regiment draws line of sight. It is the same method used for when a regiment wishes to make a charge action, for example.
Obscuration is explained by the “Check for Obscuration” section in chapter 3, and is determined on a Stand by Stand basis. When checking for Obscuration we use the Regiment’s front arc, not the Stands as Stand do not have their own Arcs; their Front, Side and Rear arcs are the Regiment’s. If a Stand is Obstructed, it may not contribute any shots when the Regiment performs a volley action.
Remember that Obscuration is not the same as Obstruction; as explained under the “Check for Obscuration" rules, if the Line of Sight crosses a regiment or terrain feature that has a greater size than the firing regiment, then it is Obstructed. If not, it is Obscured.
Thus, it is possible for a Regiment to have Line of Sight to the target, but the individual Stands themselves could be Obstructed and therefore cannot fire.
However, remember that for a Regiment to fire, it must fulfill two conditions; a LoS must be drawn, and that LoS must be unobstructed, even if it is Obscured
Therefore, if all Stands are Obstructed, then even if the Regiment has Line of Sight to the target, then it may not fire at all. Always remember those two conditions when making a volley action; a LoS must be drawn, and that LoS must be unobstructed.
I think it's clearer as when working on it I have a better idea of what they were going for, but that might just be me.
As they are currently written the line of sight rules only apply to entire regiments and never to individual stands. The regiment as a whole declares a shooting action then the stands determine their line of sight individually, since the line of sight rules do not apply to stands this entire process was invented... instead of just making LoS rules apply to stands. Which would take a sentence at most.
So not only is it worded poorly, the entire block does not even need to exist in the first place. Language barrier can't account for that. It is as if they came up with a solid concept of how it would work in game, then deliberately tried to write that functionality in the most inefficient manner possible.
Conquest: the game is great, the description of how to play it is awful.
A Vanguard description of this change from 3/02/22 (so may not be accurate to what actually released, considering the huge difference between what is conveyed and what is released sometimes) is:
Basically, if you can draw a line from center to center = clear shot.
From the front of the activating stan to any point on target's stands = obscured shot
Can't draw a line without it being interrupted (barring things smaller than you or your target) = obstructed, which is 0 shots for that stand
Which is an easy way of breaking it down, and I think matches what was written there? Hard to say.
Rihgu wrote: A Vanguard description of this change from 3/02/22 (so may not be accurate to what actually released, considering the huge difference between what is conveyed and what is released sometimes) is:
Basically, if you can draw a line from center to center = clear shot. From the front of the activating stan to any point on target's stands = obscured shot Can't draw a line without it being interrupted (barring things smaller than you or your target) = obstructed, which is 0 shots for that stand
Which is an easy way of breaking it down, and I think matches what was written there? Hard to say.
That's not what the rules say though. Obscured and Obstructed are game terms under chapter three.
For each Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment, trace a straight line between the center of the Stand’s front facing to the center of any facing of a Stand in the Target Regiment, as described in the section for Line of Sight.
If the line is not interrupted by Regiments or Obscuring Terrain, that Stand’s Volley is a Clear Shot. If the line is interrupted by either a Regiment or Obscuring Terrain then it is an Obscured Shot. If a line is interrupted by Regiments or Terrain of a larger or equal Size then the shot is Obstructed.
Note that a Regiment can be targeted if it is in base contact with an enemy Regiment, although this will often mean the Volley of one or more Stands might be Obscured.
To me this indicates that True Line of Sight (like in Warhammer) doesn't exist in conquest. If you can draw a straight line from stand to stand and if there is no intervening terrain or unit of a larger size class, then you can make the shot.
That's not what the rules say though.
Obscured and Obstructed are game terms under chapter three.
Just goes to show how well I can read these rules. I've been told repeated times that Obstructed and Obscuring mean the same thing, by Vanguards in the Discord, despite evidence that they are different things.
And this FAQ seems to point them out as different things. And also contradicts what the Vanguard said the rule was going to be. What's the rule!!?
Well some vanguards will be right. Others will be wrong. However all parties over there will claim to be right. At the end of the day, the vanguards are nothing more than not-vanguards, except that they put in to get some free stuff monthly and try to run demos. They do have a tiered system and the tier 3 vanguards did (or they did when I was one but I left the vanguard ranks last March) have monthly google meetups with the designers to discuss issues so did know a little more (as I was one of them - so I was present at said calls) - but there's no way of knowing who is tier 3 and who is not to know one way or the other.
I've been told repeated times that Obstructed and Obscuring mean the same thing, by Vanguards in the Discord, despite evidence that they are different things.
Had this very same conversation in another conquest group this weekend where person stated that exact same thing.
auticus wrote: Well some vanguards will be right. Others will be wrong.
I've been told repeated times that Obstructed and Obscuring mean the same thing, by Vanguards in the Discord, despite evidence that they are different things.
Had this very same conversation in another conquest group this weekend where person stated that exact same thing.
I meant on this Oscuration/Obstruction thing. The fact that so many people are wrong about concepts that are clearly defined in the rulebook is surprising to me.
Perhaps they are conflating the "Line of Sight" rules with the True Line of Sight rules in other systems?
I wonder if the problem would persist in Line of Sight was instead Line of Fire.
This obstruction / obscuration thing has been a chestnut of annoyance for at least a year or more. It was brought up before and the designers themselves said that they understood how the issue could be confusing.
Unfortunately they have not clarified the wording ... clearly.
I know from the arguments I have heard that no one is confusing true line of sight - as we all understand that is not a part of this game (and thankfully so).
Its because there are needles you can nitpick with the language that from a legalese standpoint make things contradict themselves.
If you want to throw the hand grenade into the room, simply go into the tlaok-rules channel on the discord and ask the question and watch the fun.
Huh, strange. To me they are two different terms. That part in the rule book seems really clear to me.
I kind of see how it can be confusing at first because they both sound the same, but when you read the rule it becomes clear that they are both two different concepts.
Maybe Concealment/Obstructed would have been better.
I too had goosebumps. I thought it was pretty cool.
Have they revealed what the subfactions are? I'm going to assume that there's a legionary subfaction and a priest-subfaction.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I too had goosebumps. I thought it was pretty cool.
Have they revealed what the subfactions are? I'm going to assume that there's a legionary subfaction and a priest-subfaction.
3 subfactions, 2 you mentioned, third being fallen pantheon of Hazliah.
Got the last of what I needed for my Dweghom, so I'll be starting work on them soon. Debating paint scheme, looking to use mostly contrast/speedpaint paints on them for speed, I'm between wanting to do a really pallid fleshtones or doing duergar style purplish bluish grey skin.
Swing and a miss for me. Looks like a person with noodle legs sitting on an ornate cylinder and posing for a meme pic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So putting together my Hellbringer Drake and I am left rather underwhelmed. I know this is actually a much older sculpt that was delayed and it shows--the details are softer (the studio paint job does a good job hiding this) than on the apex predator and the pieces do not fit together as well. This would be one thing if it was priced lower, but it isn't. A lot of gaps that aren't obvious from a few feet away but still detract, and some strange errors like a giant hole in the palm of its upraised claw or a handprint on the cannon-charge panel that is clearly out of scale with the crew supposedly using it.
None of it is tremendously bad, except that they are happening on a $125 model. If I am dropping that much on a mini I expect something like the Apex Predator, not this.
tank, then everyone got a huge tank
. $50 is ludicrous, even with the 15% discount from the shop it’s still more than I find acceptable, even after buying the Dark Angels codex a few months ago.
, that’s one aspect of modern gaming that could disappear without bothering me. I get it’s use, and easy way to update, but I dislike having to buy frequent updates such as those.
