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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

And lol, Kings of War kits are awful, they are the dollar store fantasy miniatures kits in this discussion.

It's really just a question of miniature scale. KoW is closer to GW's own than Conquest, that is so significantly bigger in comparison than it's not even a question of using miniatures from one to play the game of the other. You just don't. That's why the comparison doesn't stand at all ; people who buy Conquest products and people who may be interested in The Old World products are simply not the same. They don't mix...especially even more because these games are so time consuming than there is simply no room to play both for the common of mortals.

It's the same reason fans of 32mm and 75mm scale miniatures aren't the same crowds that are never in competition with each other.

Again, the scale is irrelevant. Nowhere did I say anything about people using Conquest minis for TOW or vice versa. Why you keep bringing this up is absolutely baffling.

The point is that Conquest is a great game with an ever improving set of miniatures. It is becoming a solid competitor and clear rival for rank and file miniature gaming. Period, end of. That it doesn't have the same scale as other miniature games does not change that.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Again, the scale is irrelevant. Nowhere did I say anything about people using Conquest minis for TOW or vice versa. Why you keep bringing this up is absolutely baffling.

The point is that Conquest is a great game with an ever improving set of miniatures. It is becoming a solid competitor and clear rival for rank and file miniature gaming. Period, end of. That it doesn't have the same scale as other miniature games does not change that.

No it's not irrelevant. It's a big issue when you choose which game you want to invest your time in. You see Conquest's game system as the real competition for other miniature wargames and seem to think its type (rank and file) is enough to make it able to weigh against big names like GW.

But it's not the case, otherwise it would have been a while Conquest would have weigh heavier in terms of number of players (hell, even a whole lot more of other games that are "deemed awesome" by their fans, most being irrelevant or dead now). The reason why Conquest is still "small" in that field is because it's not just the rules that matter : its universe and its miniatures also do. I would even add availability of the products in your area and translation of the rules in your mother language.

You can dismiss the fact Conquest miniatures are significantly bigger scale as an issue for new players (especially those who are already experienced in wargames and have a huge collection already), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (bigger miniatures means you need bigger shelves and bigger space to expose them, not even talking about carrying). It was certainly my case when I saw Conquest coming - that and the fact I didn't have time to invest in another time consuming game with complicated rules that is very expensive as well.

Thinking Conquest is a serious competitor for the Old World is dismissing all these reasons Conquest isn't already a serious competitor for GW core games, except in the minds of its own fans. The Old World project is targeted at nostalgia driven players who miss Warhammer Battle. This crowd has no interest in playing another game with wholly different looking miniatures AND of bigger scale...they want to play in the old world of Warhammer Battle, and that is something Conquest will never be able to offer them. So it's not even a competition : they don't play in the same schoolyard.

I just think the game is fun and the minis cool *shrug*

Sasorijap wrote:
New City States are up! And new product catalogue: https://www.flipsnack.com/conquestcatalogue/conquest-product-catalog-sept-2023-jan-2024.html

So the Behemoth looks amazing but the Inquisitors and especially the Eidolon stole the show for me. I really like what the Eidolon shows for the City-States. That other factions, especially the Eidolons, are influencing the City-States. It adds a level the world that I really enjoy.

As a Nords player I have to say that I am very interested in that Female Jarl sculpt. Also the Vargyr Lord looks like a fun time .

I am excited to see what else PB will produce.

Sarouan wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Again, the scale is irrelevant. Nowhere did I say anything about people using Conquest minis for TOW or vice versa. Why you keep bringing this up is absolutely baffling.

The point is that Conquest is a great game with an ever improving set of miniatures. It is becoming a solid competitor and clear rival for rank and file miniature gaming. Period, end of. That it doesn't have the same scale as other miniature games does not change that.

No it's not irrelevant. It's a big issue when you choose which game you want to invest your time in. You see Conquest's game system as the real competition for other miniature wargames and seem to think its type (rank and file) is enough to make it able to weigh against big names like GW.

.

Mate, old Warhammer Fantasy models are a completely different scale next to Age of Sigmar stuff. Even older 40k kits are outscaled by the new stuff. Your point is moot.

Sasorijap wrote:

Mate, old Warhammer Fantasy models are a completely different scale next to Age of Sigmar stuff. Even older 40k kits are outscaled by the new stuff. Your point is moot.

Well no, since the point made by Conquest fan chaosomega is that Conquest is a serious competitor to The Old World, not 40k or AoS thus, and that The Old World miniatures are specifically the same scale than old Warhammer Battle - thus not the same than current AoS and 40k models.

And fact is, Conquest miniatures is a bigger scale even than AoS and 40k models. Thus they're even bigger than The Old World miniatures. Why anyone would think competition is even a thing when we're talking about different games, different universes AND different miniature scales ? That is a mystery only Conquest fanboyz will understand, apparently.

It's not even a critic about Conquest as a game system. It has its own appeals. But they won't resonate with people interested in The Old World because they're not the same what they're looking for in such a project. It's not because 2 games are "rank and file" that they automatically compete with each other, that's all what I'm saying.


As for the quality of Conquest miniature, it's always a subjective matter. Some appeal to me, others clearly not - but the scale was always a big issue to me. It's not a scale I enjoy painting or playing with...and I don't have enough room for a Conquest army on my already overcrowded shelves. If it was a 10mm scale miniature wargame, that would totally not be the same issue...but it still wouldn't be competition for TOW.

Sarouan wrote:

Sasorijap wrote:

Mate, old Warhammer Fantasy models are a completely different scale next to Age of Sigmar stuff. Even older 40k kits are outscaled by the new stuff. Your point is moot.

Well no, since the point made by Conquest fan chaosomega is that Conquest is a serious competitor to The Old World, not 40k or AoS thus, and that The Old World miniatures are specifically the same scale than old Warhammer Battle - thus not the same than current AoS and 40k models.

And fact is, Conquest miniatures is a bigger scale even than AoS and 40k models. Thus they're even bigger than The Old World miniatures. Why anyone would think competition is even a thing when we're talking about different games, different universes AND different miniature scales ? That is a mystery only Conquest fanboyz will understand, apparently.

It's not even a critic about Conquest as a game system. It has its own appeals. But they won't resonate with people interested in The Old World because they're not the same what they're looking for in such a project. It's not because 2 games are "rank and file" that they automatically compete with each other, that's all what I'm saying.


As for the quality of Conquest miniature, it's always a subjective matter. Some appeal to me, others clearly not - but the scale was always a big issue to me. It's not a scale I enjoy painting or playing with...and I don't have enough room for a Conquest army on my already overcrowded shelves. If it was a 10mm scale miniature wargame, that would totally not be the same issue...but it still wouldn't be competition for TOW.

I think you may just have to accept that you're in something of a minority, at least here, when it comes to the suggestion that difference in scale here invalidates it as being a competitor. Mainly because it's a dumb suggestion.

Sarouan wrote:

and that The Old World miniatures are specifically the same scale than old Warhammer Battle

Are you daft? I NEVER said that.

Why anyone would think competition is even a thing when we're talking about different games, different universes AND different miniature scales ?

You clearly don't understand how market competition works.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
I think you may just have to accept that you're in something of a minority, at least here, when it comes to the suggestion that difference in scale here invalidates it as being a competitor. Mainly because it's a dumb suggestion.

While I don't think it invalidates it, scale is incredibly important to many gamers including myself. I really like some of the models but was hesitant to buy in because of the scale differences; once I saw the models in my local store during a biannual used flea market event they put on, it unfortunately removed any chance of me ever buying the normal infantry. The "regular" guys were almost the size/scale of oldhammer ogryns (though not as bulky) and I wouldn't even consider using them in another game or RPG as they don't go with my existing collections across various games. I don't need things to be in exact scale with each other (they rarely are within a single product line let alone across different companies' games!) but the difference is just too much for me.

 warboss wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
I think you may just have to accept that you're in something of a minority, at least here, when it comes to the suggestion that difference in scale here invalidates it as being a competitor. Mainly because it's a dumb suggestion.

While I don't think it invalidates it, scale is incredibly important to many gamers including myself. I really like some of the models but was hesitant to buy in because of the scale differences; once I saw the models in my local store during a biannual used flea market event they put on, it unfortunately removed any chance of me ever buying the normal infantry. The "regular" guys were almost the size/scale of oldhammer ogryns (though not as bulky) and I wouldn't even consider using them in another game or RPG as they don't go with my existing collections across various games. I don't need things to be in exact scale with each other (they rarely are within a single product line let alone across different companies' games!) but the difference is just too much for me.

And that is absolutely respectable as an opinion; I'm not going to argue against anyone's preference or taste when it comes to scale, design, gameplay or whatever. The merits of their choice to scale their game so distinctly have been discussed ad-nauseum but it was a very deliberate choice, for better or worst. The point was more that Conquest is still broadly comparable to games of a similar scale (i.e. 28mm-40mm ish but they're largely on similar sized bases and units have a similar footprint) and design space (i.e. 'rank and file').

Scale isn't necessarily irrelevant when we're comparing, say, Warmaster to Conquest; those are games that are far enough apart in hobby space in terms of models that there'd be no expectation of them being directly comparable or necessarily competing in the same space. The difference in scale becomes more of a conscious choice in terms of what type of game or miniatures the prospective hobbyist wants to engage with. Warhammer Fantasy/The Old World and Conquest are much closer though in that regard.

I'm not for one minute going to suggest that Conquest is 'competition' in the sense that it will completely nuke the release of the Old World or anything like that (and I don't think that's even being argued by others...). It's still 'competition' in the sense that it occupies a similar hobby space though and there's bound to be some degree of cannibalization of the same market, even if it ends up being one-sided. For what it's worth, I'll likely collect and play both when TOW drops.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
I'm not for one minute going to suggest that Conquest is 'competition' in the sense that it will completely nuke the release of the Old World or anything like that (and I don't think that's even being argued by others...). It's still 'competition' in the sense that it occupies a similar hobby space though and there's bound to be some degree of cannibalization of the same market, even if it ends up being one-sided. For what it's worth, I'll likely collect and play both when TOW drops.

I agree that there is crossover between the fandoms (both are fantasy mass battle tabletop wargames after all). I just sometimes wonder how much the scale difference hinders the game rather than helping it (via added detail and posing options) but admittedly I'm biased in that regard.

 warboss wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
I'm not for one minute going to suggest that Conquest is 'competition' in the sense that it will completely nuke the release of the Old World or anything like that (and I don't think that's even being argued by others...). It's still 'competition' in the sense that it occupies a similar hobby space though and there's bound to be some degree of cannibalization of the same market, even if it ends up being one-sided. For what it's worth, I'll likely collect and play both when TOW drops.

I agree that there is crossover between the fandoms (both are fantasy mass battle tabletop wargames after all). I just sometimes wonder how much the scale difference hinders the game rather than helping it (via added detail and posing options) but admittedly I'm biased in that regard.

Indeed, I'd go further and suggest that there's a direct through-line in the fandoms in that Conquest was, at least in part, designed to capture the attention of jaded ex-WHFB players.

I've often seen the argument that the scale is offputting because it precludes their use alongside other ranges (which it undoubtedly does for those who care about such things). Does that number of lost potential sales translate into a significant amount? No idea. I do get the impression that PB want people who buy Conquest to do so in order to play Conquest.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Indeed, I'd go further and suggest that there's a direct through-line in the fandoms in that Conquest was, at least in part, designed to capture the attention of jaded ex-WHFB players.

The release of Sigmar basically caused every company out there to try and seize the opportunity to fill the void. That's why we got Runewars and ASoIaF among quite a few other new rank and file designs a couple years after the whole fiasco, likely meaning they started development the day of.

Conquest is very much a passion project. And it's honestly what will help it stay afloat whenever WHFB releases. That and it managing to grow into a healthy and strong playerbase.

Eidolon video on Youtube

https://youtube.com/shorts/WOmKUFJx7rU

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

I've often seen the argument that the scale is offputting because it precludes their use alongside other ranges (which it undoubtedly does for those who care about such things). Does that number of lost potential sales translate into a significant amount? No idea. I do get the impression that PB want people who buy Conquest to do so in order to play Conquest.

Oh that's totally their intent by choosing that particular scale, I completely agree with that. They really wanted to do their own thing, and TBH, would that project has arrived a couple decades ago, maybe it would have been that "new norm" on the market with a more numerous community.

Sadly, they arrived on a market already crowded with same kinds of games, and with player's time definitely less available for a new challenger.

And yes, for totally new players who begin their first miniature wargame and start their collection from scratch, miniature scale is not especially an issue for them (except if they live in a small room and don't have much shelf space to spare to put them away when they're not playing). But for veteran players with shelf space issue, it's definitely a thing.

If it was a skirmish game only asking for at most ten miniatures, sure I can manage. Not a whole army meant for mass battles.

Ah, people still harping about the scale. Reminds me why conquest players tend to avoid dakkadakka.


To ellaborate. The argument of 'conquest miniatures take more shelf space' is misleading, because the bigger factor to take into account into such things would be base size. And conquest minis' do have a smaller base size than modern warhammer ones. If shelf space is a consideration, then conquest minis are more desireable than warhammer ones due to smaller footprint.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Ah, people still harping about the scale. Reminds me why conquest players tend to avoid dakkadakka.

It's not "harping about the scale", it's just explaining why some people didn't jump on Conquest bandwagon even though it is believed to be the best game ever by your community.

Like I said, it's not really a critic about Conquest as a game. But dismissing other's opinions won't help you promote the game, especially if you react like this.

Sarouan wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

I've often seen the argument that the scale is offputting because it precludes their use alongside other ranges (which it undoubtedly does for those who care about such things). Does that number of lost potential sales translate into a significant amount? No idea. I do get the impression that PB want people who buy Conquest to do so in order to play Conquest.

And yes, for totally new players who begin their first miniature wargame and start their collection from scratch, miniature scale is not especially an issue for them (except if they live in a small room and don't have much shelf space to spare to put them away when they're not playing). But for veteran players with shelf space issue, it's definitely a thing.

If it was a skirmish game only asking for at most ten miniatures, sure I can manage. Not a whole army meant for mass battles.

I just can't take this particularly seriously; it takes up no more 'shelf space' than WH:FB did or TOW likely will. Or any comparable rank and file fantasy game that isn't epic scale. The models are taller and occasionally bulkier but the 'footprint' isn't different (or not different enough to make a tangible difference).

Lord Kragan wrote:
Ah, people still harping about the scale. Reminds me why conquest players tend to avoid dakkadakka.

I give Conquest players more credit than that. I find it difficult to believe that group therapy affirmation is the only thing they can tolerate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
I've often seen the argument that the scale is offputting because it precludes their use alongside other ranges (which it undoubtedly does for those who care about such things). Does that number of lost potential sales translate into a significant amount? No idea. I do get the impression that PB want people who buy Conquest to do so in order to play Conquest.

I agree that it was most definitely a conscious effort/decision likely for a variety of reasons including that one but I do find the reasoning behind that single aspect to be suspect. There's nothing about making it at an industry "standard" scale (even with the massive size bump GW's given ostensibly 32mm "heroic" with the sigmarization of the line) that precludes anyone from using it only for Conquest... but it sure does discourage people who don't want to only do so from buying.

 warboss wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Ah, people still harping about the scale. Reminds me why conquest players tend to avoid dakkadakka.

I give Conquest players more credit than that. I find it difficult to believe that group therapy affirmation is the only thing they can tolerate.

Okay, that is a nice backhanded personal attack.

But frankly, this isn't about group therapy or 'no-negativity in the dojo'. It's about having conversations about things one likes get derailed by the upteenth repetition of the same dead horse beating. The arguments have long since repeated ad nauseam.


And anyways, let's get back into the topic of the news. They also updated the army rules.

Kingdoms, W'adrun and old dominion are unchanged. Cities got a buff to the giants' casting. Spires got some unit costs slightly lowered and the pheromancer got buffed to give regen 4 to brute drones and lower enemy deffence with an action.

Dweghom got nerfs with their defense stacking shenanigans, now shifted to cleave/AP/BI mitigation. Some units got slightly pricier.

Nords got the best deal. Their rules got strengthened to include some charge bonuses and terrain effect mitigation. Some units also got cheaper.

Nothing earthshattering, but should do the trick given that the balance is solid enough.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Okay, that is a nice backhanded personal attack.

Said the person who responds to criticism of a miniatures line with criticism of the people mentioning it...

Lord Kragan wrote:
It's about having conversations about things one likes get derailed by the upteenth repetition of the same dead horse beating. The arguments have long since repeated ad nauseam.

And anyways, let's get back into the topic of the news.

Maybe it keeps coming up because it significantly matters? Regardless, I agree that what was needed and wanted to be said has been for the most part and a return to other topics is probably for the best.

 warboss wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Okay, that is a nice backhanded personal attack.

Said the person who responds to criticism of a miniatures line with criticism of the people mentioning it...

Okay, who's the one that seems to yearn for affirmative therapy now? Because if saying that repeated backtracking to the same topic is a criticism on a personal level, there are other issues at hand.

Now, in order to be fair: If anything I said could be construed as an attack, I make my apologies. It's not proforma to poison the well with such ill-behavior.*


*Of course, the 1st line of this comment is obviously construable as an attack, no iffs nor butts. My bad for that one.

Lord Kragan wrote:

*Of course, the 1st line of this comment is obviously construable as an attack, no iffs nor butts. My bad for that one.

No worries and the same if my sarcasm is taken as such.

Some beautiful stuff announced.

As with everything I'm interested in playing, there's just no appetite for anything other than 40k, MCP, or AoS here. It is immensely frustrating.

First Blood is just £120 at Wayland Games so hopefully it stays low and despite me not liking the Dino Orc sculpts I'm sure they could win over someone locally. So, maybe a cheeky Christmas Present to myself!

Knock off the personal attacks and stick to the N&R.

 Tabletop_Magpie wrote:
Some beautiful stuff announced.

As with everything I'm interested in playing, there's just no appetite for anything other than 40k, MCP, or AoS here. It is immensely frustrating.

First Blood is just £120 at Wayland Games so hopefully it stays low and despite me not liking the Dino Orc sculpts I'm sure they could win over someone locally. So, maybe a cheeky Christmas Present to myself!

You can always aim for individual 1st blood sets and buy one of them for a buddy.

Yes, two First Blood Warbands are more than enough to get started with the Skirmish game or you can split the Two Player Starter for the rank and file version.