Switch Theme:

Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
One line saying it's positive followed by five paragraphs of negativity--yeah, I can see where your position is just fine. I see someone who has spent so long fighting a monster they have lost sight of how much they've come to resemble it.

At this point, make your own wargame. You clearly won't be happy with anything else.


At this point you are arguing just to argue for whatever reason you want to argue. If you have any points of mine you'd like to argue/debate, cool - do that. If not - use the ignore feature. Your comments make no sense as I was not criticizing the game itself so "making my own wargame" really has no bearing or place in this conversation.

Yes, listening to the community can be a double-edged sword.

On the other hand...Conquest's fanbase is already small, they have to do something to keep it invested and draw new players.

Looking for balance above everything isn't a good seller, to me. People want to have fun, in the end. Balance at all costs tends to get in the way of that.


Looks like Conquest is just another wargame like the others, in the end.


They have a good starting vision and could really do something special. But in the end they are also trying to make a commercially successful product, and the things that the overall community wants that would make it a commercially successful product often will resemble other commercially successful products on the market. (which is why our entertainment these days be it movies or games or whatever often rehash the same old things over and over).

It is sad that the Conquest crew always touted that this was their vision and passion, now they seem to be allowing others to usurp that vision.


They are businessmen. Thats why I dont believe in trying to silence the people criticizing things. When everyone holds hands and hums about how great everything is and the ones criticizing are told to be quiet you will get a product in the end shaped by the loudest or the majority. But maybe thats the point and thats how it should be? I dont honestly know because I see the benefits of both sides.
   
Made in ru
Courageous Silver Helm





I'd be strange to shape a game without listening to the majority. Perfect way to alienate your customers With 1.5 they are continuing what they originally wanted to do (faction rules were always planned), no shift in course (big magic update with more extra rules and subfaction stuff probably next).

The internal testing with Vanguards, as you well know, is precisely there to criticize and bring different opinions.I sure did mention things I didnt like and no one told me to be quiet, nor anyone else on the testing channel also disagreeing (there quite a few rule debates for v1.5, but all very reasonable).
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





Thats awesome glad to hear it.

In 1.4 there were a few moments of escalated comments, one of which involved one of their moderators (a vanguard) that got escalated to the community manager and they had to have some offline talks with some people because there were a few instances of not appropriate comments turning personal because of disagreements during that playtesting period.

I'm glad that the 1.5 testing didn't involve that.
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





 auticus wrote:

But in the end they are also trying to make a commercially successful product, and the things that the overall community wants that would make it a commercially successful product often will resemble other commercially successful products on the market. (which is why our entertainment these days be it movies or games or whatever often rehash the same old things over and over).

...

They are businessmen. Thats why I dont believe in trying to silence the people criticizing things. When everyone holds hands and hums about how great everything is and the ones criticizing are told to be quiet you will get a product in the end shaped by the loudest or the majority. But maybe thats the point and thats how it should be? I dont honestly know because I see the benefits of both sides.


I saw your video explaining why and I can understand your reasons. Sadly, Vanguard programs for wargames tend to be indeed considered as unpaid advertisers for their products, I saw that as well with the games I promoted (and died since) when I was younger.

Can't really blame Para Bellum for wanting to be successful, but yeah, I don't like as well to lie to competitive people about an army that's not great on the competitive scene because it would paint a 'negative picture' of Conquest. Sounds more like they don't want to admit they're not the Savior against Evil GW or something like that.
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





I dont see them in any negative light. They just didn't want vanguards posting about competitive power of units in a negative light because other vanguards were complaining they couldn't get players to want to play the armies that were weaker and wanted us to spin the positives of the weaker armies. I was doing an entire video series on that subject and I think the company liked it at first but then after a few vanguards started complaining a lot that it was impacting their ability to get players interested because they liked some of the weaker armies, they had to reprimand and ultimately revoke my status. From a business / sales standpoint thats 100% reasonable (and also why I'm 100% never going to be a salesman lol)

If asked directly about competitive power though I won't lie.

I'm glad to see 1.5 upped the 100 kingdoms because they were in a really bad spot from a competitive standpoint. After running numbers on 1.5 they are a lot more evened out so kudos to the design team for getting that balance a little tighter.

However it is everyone's duty to do their due diligence before investing a lot of money into an army. The vanguards are all different individually, but no different than the outriders of GW yore back in the day that sold me a 40k dark angels army in 3rd edition 40k that was utter garbage but was told they'd be just fine.

Not every vanguard will do that but players should never take anyone's word for it, especially in a system that is created competitively like the vanguard program where you rise in ranks similarly to commission in sales.

Its a great tool for selling, but you have to go into it as a player knowing that many vanguards will not tell you the negative things about your choice because they dont want to run you off or risk losing you as a player.

That same behavior can be seen even here in the player forums where negative commentary is not welcome by a lot of people for similar reasons.

My opinion on 1.5 right now is that all of the factions are in pretty good shape and you can make a good army regardless of your faction choice, and thats ace in my book.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/07 16:42:25


 
   
Made in gr
Been Around the Block





I spy something with my little eye
[Thumb - Firefox_Screenshot_2021-09-07T20-04-52.442Z.png]

   
Made in pl
Tunneling Trygon





Imperial Officer painted by Duncan
[Thumb - 241711964_2869723220005151_7074372206301880929_n.jpg]

   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





It's a pity to hear that the Conquest team are seemingly of the 'AoS design mindset'. One of the most common topics of concern I remember was how Conquest would hold up when The Old World launches and inevitably a large chunk of Conquest's player pie go running back into GW's waiting arms. I don't think anybody would be surprised if TOW, being a GW game, would follow similar beats to 40k and AoS when it comes to 'WOAH DUDE AWESOME' design principals with internal and external balance sacrificed at the altar.

The miniatures are good, the fluff is decent, but if the quality of the rules and balance is on par with TOW then the vast, vast, vast majority of people are going to take TOW's mega-popularity (by comparison to Conquest and other rank and file games) every time.
   
Made in ro
Courageous Silver Helm





Conquest is far from the "AoS design mindset". I think v1.5 is proof enough (bulk update for the better for all factions, more balance), no matter how hard some folks try to discredit it.
As someone interested in TOW, I wish the game has some resemblance of quality rules and balance but we all know that ain't happening
   
Made in gr
Been Around the Block





 Arbitrator wrote:
It's a pity to hear that the Conquest team are seemingly of the 'AoS design mindset'. One of the most common topics of concern I remember was how Conquest would hold up when The Old World launches and inevitably a large chunk of Conquest's player pie go running back into GW's waiting arms. I don't think anybody would be surprised if TOW, being a GW game, would follow similar beats to 40k and AoS when it comes to 'WOAH DUDE AWESOME' design principals with internal and external balance sacrificed at the altar.

The miniatures are good, the fluff is decent, but if the quality of the rules and balance is on par with TOW then the vast, vast, vast majority of people are going to take TOW's mega-popularity (by comparison to Conquest and other rank and file games) every time.


The rules are free online, just a quick look and you will immediately understand why is that not the case (not even close). Also unlike others they lister to the community and respond the feedback in a refreshing way compared to what ive seen from other companies.
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





The conquest team itself is not of the AOS design mindset. The community has a lot of requests that stem from the AOS design mindset.

Now SOME of the items being considered are straight up to pull AOS fans in.

THings like being able to take a hero that makes things like an all monster / giant army possible (I dont know if thats a thing yet but that was one thing being heavily considered and requested) and then the game mats and scenarios going to GW standard (that weird 60x44 size) were another example.

The game mats were backed off and they said they'd include traditional table sizes but there was some minorly heated discussion on that in the playtest group because larger tables were deemed unnecessary and the movement phase in general is not fun and they wanted smaller tables to allow for combat to begin right away (like in AOS).
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







Yeah that GW table size stuff needs to be nipped in the bud.

Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in ro
Courageous Silver Helm





I don't recall any conversations about making an all monster army. When was that? Anything specific mentioned? It would require quite a few fundamental changes to the rules (not only "X character can have monster as mainstay") to not suck.

Tournament rules mention 4x6 table for tlaok and 4x4 for fb so.... whatever

Fantasy wargames with dice, special rules and stuff will inevitably have similarities. It doesnt mean that X is trying to copy Y at all cost, unless you have a fixation for a certain game and see it everywhere
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





It was mentioned a few times in vanguard chat during whadrun testing (the all monsters and the all raptor armies being desired) and it was discussed on a skype call back in February among a list of other things during the monthly tier 3 vanguard chat we had.

It wouldn't require a fundamental change to the rules. It would basically be "take this hero. Now any of these monsters count as mainstay under that hero"

It was even playtested a few times on tabletop simulator to get a feel for what it would be like.

I left before tournament rules were published officially. In the underspire tournament, which was an official tournament, the 60x44 table size scenarios were given to us by the design team to run. So if they changed that - great.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/14 16:34:03


 
   
Made in es
Brutal Black Orc




Barcelona, Spain

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yeah that GW table size stuff needs to be nipped in the bud.


It was. Plus the fact was more "do we adapt to the market leader?" and they chose not to after... 4 months of consideration or so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Arbitrator wrote:
It's a pity to hear that the Conquest team are seemingly of the 'AoS design mindset'..


They really are not.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/14 16:41:34


 
   
Made in ro
Courageous Silver Helm





 auticus wrote:
It was mentioned a few times in vanguard chat during whadrun testing (the all monsters and the all raptor armies being desired) and it was discussed on a skype call back in February among a list of other things during the monthly tier 3 vanguard chat we had.

It wouldn't require a fundamental change to the rules. It would basically be "take this hero. Now any of these monsters count as mainstay under that hero"



Most monsters are heavy, which doesn't make it particularly viable for an army. Only Wadrhun seem to have variety. Heroes would have to have the Rider rule implemented if only taking monsters (Konungyr on top of Ice Jotnar lel).
For scenarios, if your army consists of 8 or 9 stands in total (monster only count as one), you ain't going too far in terms of capturing objectives.
It would be best for an all monster army to change more than "hero gets mainstay monster", unless it's for some narrative fun thing.
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





VBS wrote:
 auticus wrote:
It was mentioned a few times in vanguard chat during whadrun testing (the all monsters and the all raptor armies being desired) and it was discussed on a skype call back in February among a list of other things during the monthly tier 3 vanguard chat we had.

It wouldn't require a fundamental change to the rules. It would basically be "take this hero. Now any of these monsters count as mainstay under that hero"



Most monsters are heavy, which doesn't make it particularly viable for an army. Only Wadrhun seem to have variety. Heroes would have to have the Rider rule implemented if only taking monsters (Konungyr on top of Ice Jotnar lel).
For scenarios, if your army consists of 8 or 9 stands in total (monster only count as one), you ain't going too far in terms of capturing objectives.
It would be best for an all monster army to change more than "hero gets mainstay monster", unless it's for some narrative fun thing.


You aren't wrong. Except that monsters being mainstay weren't the only changes that were being looked at to make that viable (the heavy, medium, etc thing has been scrutinized to see how it can be made better for over a year). The counter argument to all of this from a few of us was that all monster armies break that rank and file feel that a lot of us play the game for. That was argued back and forth (that being a reason to not do it vs is that important enough to adhere to). That was one of the reasons I stepped back for a bit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/14 17:02:03


 
   
Made in es
Brutal Black Orc




Barcelona, Spain

the scrutinizing of heavy, medium, light didn't just cover monsters, though. As I said a year ago, there was little incentive to ruin heavy units in conquest, bar abominations and blooded jotnars.
   
Made in gr
Been Around the Block





The Legends Campaign Rules are free on the website:

https://www.para-bellum.com/rules-and-faq/
[Thumb - Legends 2.jpg]

   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





Lord Kragan wrote:
the scrutinizing of heavy, medium, light didn't just cover monsters, though. As I said a year ago, there was little incentive to ruin heavy units in conquest, bar abominations and blooded jotnars.


Right. It doesn't just cover monsters. I'm saying that the whole push for letting people take all monsters or all cavalry or all whatever-you-want was being looked at, and that the thought that all-monster armies wouldn't be good because most are heavy only applies to the rules as they are today - and part of letting you take all-monster armies would come in conjunction with refactoring the light-medium-heavy rules so that all-monster armies work just as well as normal armies.

I'm also going to reiterate for clarity that this was something being looked at, not 100% going to be implemented, based on a large number of the community wanting it. I clarify that so that people understand I'm not saying its 100% going to happen, but a lot of the AOS-minded community (and double clarity for stating that the whole of the conquest community is not aos-minded, but there is a very strong aos design mindset present in said community - as someone above said - the industry leader that has the lion's share of paying customers so makes sense to try to appeal to them) pushing for it was making that a legit looked at change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sasorijap wrote:
The Legends Campaign Rules are free on the website:

https://www.para-bellum.com/rules-and-faq/


The campaign ideas they were working in were pretty interesting.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 14:56:50


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Lord Kragan wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yeah that GW table size stuff needs to be nipped in the bud.


It was. Plus the fact was more "do we adapt to the market leader?" and they chose not to after... 4 months of consideration or so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Arbitrator wrote:
It's a pity to hear that the Conquest team are seemingly of the 'AoS design mindset'..


They really are not.
I did do some digging recently as a response to that assertion. Everything I found overwhelmingly pointed to a reality that no, they are not in line with the AoS mindset at all. The closest thing I can think of is how the armies remind me of 6th edition WHFB army books a little.

Really, they have their own mindset and it's the same vision they had at the start. Doesn't mean the ruleset is inherently good, bad, or for everyone. Some people may not like it, that's cool. What isn't is making invalid criticisms as to why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Kragan wrote:
the scrutinizing of heavy, medium, light didn't just cover monsters, though. As I said a year ago, there was little incentive to ruin heavy units in conquest, bar abominations and blooded jotnars.
Yeah there are heavy units I want to run but they just get on the board so late. I don't want to pay for a unit that misses half the battle. Though part of that is also the 'default' objective scenarios in the core rules being largely broken by the 8-VP threshold. I talked with the playtesters and it seems they have been using the tourney scenarios which have a 12-VP threshold.

It would have been really easy in their position to forget about changing that number in the core scenarios, and I'd bet that is what happened. RAI seems to be using 12 instead of 8, which does wonders for heavies since the games last longer.

Going to a bigger picture I feel that is the sort of typo/wording error that I feel is the biggest hindrance of Conquest right now. There are multiple instances where RAI must be applied over RAW and that RAI is not always clear. While it is absolutely fantastic that I can go on the discord and get an answer within minutes, it is equally bad that doing so is almost a necessity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 18:50:58


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in pl
Tunneling Trygon





Assembly instructions for Stryx are on the website
https://www.para-bellum.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/STRYX_A4.pdf

They have also nice art
[Thumb - Stryx.jpg]

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 08:47:59


 
   
Made in gr
Been Around the Block





Para-Bellum at Gencon

That T-rex though...
[Thumb - 242126484_2874219049555568_5343269683788416874_n.jpg]

   
Made in gr
Been Around the Block





Better Picture
[Thumb - Apex_Predator_WADRHUN.jpg]

   
Made in es
Brutal Black Orc




Barcelona, Spain

Sasorijap wrote:
Para-Bellum at Gencon

That T-rex though...


Well, hopefully we can hold big conventions in spain too, come next year.
   
Made in pl
Tunneling Trygon





Big chicken looks great. Now give me the Order of the Sword, Werewolves and Pteraphons!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/21 10:42:18


 
   
Made in es
Brutal Black Orc




Barcelona, Spain

I'll settle for crimson towers (and pteraphons).
   
Made in pl
Tunneling Trygon





2021 holiday catalogue https://www.flipsnack.com/conquestcatalogue/conquest-s-new-releases-for-holiday-2021/full-view.html
   
Made in gr
Been Around the Block





Play on Tabletop is doing Conquest!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbdNjPJXOsM&ab_channel=PlayOnTabletop
[Thumb - HbdNjPJXOsM-SD(2).jpg]

   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Germany

I don't know why, but the phrase "BIG IS COMING" in big, bold letters cracks me up.

"Tabletop games are the only setting when a body is made more horrifying for NOT being chopped into smaller pieces."
- Jiado 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: