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.

Anyone playing Warhammer Conquest? After some snafus my preorder (lol) finally came through. The factions are great, oozing with flavour. The planet mechanic is great and lends itself well to a long strategic game. Loving Chaos with Ork allies just now. I'm hoping Tau get a sneaky diplomacy style deck, and the teased Necrons and Tyranids look exciting to play.

I've heard that to really play you need 2-3 core sets at a minimum. Is that true?

If you want consistent card draw it's true. Each faction in the cores set has two copies of two different cards, the rest are all single copies. Your deck can have three copies of any one card, so you can see that it's designed for multiple purchases. The only downside is the spare warlord cards. Rightly or wrongly, it's part and parcel of playing an FFG LCG. Usually two cores are needed, and it appears in this case FFG area trying to make buying the third core set as economical as possible for the tournament players, especially compared to earlier efforts in Game of Thrones or more recently Netrunner.

yeah,

Zond wrote:Anyone playing Warhammer Conquest? After some snafus my preorder (lol) finally came through. The factions are great, oozing with flavour. The planet mechanic is great and lends itself well to a long strategic game. Loving Chaos with Ork allies just now. I'm hoping Tau get a sneaky diplomacy style deck, and the teased Necrons and Tyranids look exciting to play.

I've played two games so far and think it's very good.
I've bought two cores and will buy my third when it's back in stock.

I used Dark Eldar.
The Warlord is a female pack master and her ability generates khymera each time she commits to a planet.

The first game was against Space Marines - I won
The Second Game was against CSM - I lost :(

I enjoyed the fluffy flavour in each game.
Dark Eldar had cards that tortured and routed enemy cards giving a hit and run feel to them.
Space marines felt tactical and strong.
CSM sacrificing weak cultist units to pull in bigger things like defilers was perfect!

H.B.M.C. wrote:I've heard that to really play you need 2-3 core sets at a minimum. Is that true?

You can make a unique legal deck from one core set by using allies and neutral cards.

So you do not need to buy three sets to play the game.
You can start with one core and get a feel for the factions.
However running a deck with 40 unique cards won’t have much consistency and you will find yourself hoping for a card that's never going to come!

Here’s what's going on,
With 7 factions sharing the card count the core includes very few duplicates.
The game rules set the minimum deck size to 50 cards.
You must start deck building by selecting a warlord.

Each Warlord comes as a set of 9 'signature' cards (The warlord, retinue and wargear)
You are then need to selecting 41 more cards.
You are allowed a max of 3 of any other card.

And here's the rub, you kind of need/want to buy 2-3 Core sets so you can select 2-3 of the same card.

Like 40k codex list building every card in your conquest deck should have a purpose.
To make a deck of cards that 'works' you try to increase the odds of drawing cards you want by only including multiples of cards you want to draw.
So the next 41 cards in your deck are best selected in multiples of 3 to maximise their chance of them coming up in a game to build combos and synergy with your warlord.

Most people will select a Warlord unit plus another 14 x3 cards that work well together = 51 cards.

But once you get past that hurdle it gets better.
Each expansion pack includes complete play sets no singles.
You don't need to buy booster packs of random cards or buy multiples of the expansions to get play sets.

The expansion packs come with 60 cards.
1 warlord 9 card play set.
Plus 17 new cards in 3 cards play sets.



TLDR - Yes the games great and Yes you'll want 2-3 core sets.

Panic...

I've played a /lot/ of Netrunner, so I know FFG can produce a damned good LCG. So far, I have not been disappointed at all in what 40k Conquest has been.

I've gotten in maybe a dozen games, and each game is fairly short (~25-40 min), but full of interesting decisions and depth that takes a few games to really appreciate. You have mechanics based on never giving you dead draws (Fighting units are also money generators, one-time events are also defenses in combat, etc). Balancing capturing territory (Command struggle) with winning battles to gain planets for victory is a really neat mechanic.

So far, the factions have played as expected.

Spess Mahreens are about having their badasses weather attacks and destroy enemies far beyond their normal abilities, and to surprise foes with mobility and fast strikes.

Guard throw bodies to solve problems that long range bombardment cannot, and the initial warlord, Colonel Straken, is surprisingly effective at turning gakky guardsmen into killers.

Tau are all about eqipping each soldier with the best and most powerful gear, and maneuvering around. They're really nasty and optimized if their plan works out, but tend to fall apart if disrupted.

Eldar are weak in combat, few in number, and mean as hell. Eldorath Starbane always outmaneuvers some of your troops every time he shows up, and he can foresee the future and redeploy himself and his troops after the eldar player knows what the opponent is doing! One of my favorites.

Dark Eldar are all about generating Khymera beasts now, and powering up based on them and debuffing enemies or causing terror to make some flee battles. They're a bit weaker, but make a good ally faction.

Chaos is all direct damage, and sacrificing friendlies to summon powerful demons. They've got so many powerful direct damage abilities, to supplement a fragile sorceror as their warlord.

Orks are about swarming foes, then declaring waaaugh to do extra damage. And being tough to kill, and even nastier when wounded.

Really, even with the core set, everything's very balanced and has a lot of flavor. I haven't played 40k in a decade, but this game brings out a lot of the appeal of the IP to me.

 Panic wrote:
Here’s what's going on,
With 7 factions sharing the card count the core includes very few duplicates.
The game rules set the minimum deck size to 50 cards.
You must start deck building by selecting a warlord.

Each Warlord comes as a set of 9 'signature' cards (The warlord, retinue and wargear)
You are then need to selecting 41 more cards.
You are allowed a max of 3 of any other card.

And here's the rub, you kind of need/want to buy 2-3 Core sets so you can select 2-3 of the same card.

Ah, ok. That makes a lot more sense. I watched all the videos they made but I never understood just how big your deck was meant to be. Thanks for the explanation. It's very clear now, and I can see how that relates to multiple boxed copies.

 Panic wrote:
The expansion packs come with 60 cards.
1 warlord 9 card play set.
Plus 17 new cards in 3 cards play sets.

So you don't need to buy three of every expansion?

One of every monthly expansion gets you an entire playset, three copies, of every single card included in it excluding the Warlord which comes with fixed cards that cannot be altered.

You will only ever need to buy one of these, unless you like running multiple decks that include all three copies of one card you like to use and can't be bothered taking them apart. So you only need to buy more for convenience.

Deluxe expansions, which are big box releases at the end of a cycle also follow this pattern, including maximum playsets (the only exception I believe is the Star Wars LCG which bucked this trend).

yeah,

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Panic wrote:
The expansion packs come with 60 cards.
1 warlord 9 card play set.
Plus 17 new cards in 3 cards play sets.

So you don't need to buy three of every expansion?

Nope

The first 9 cards in a warlord pack will be The Warlord and the 8 cards that are unique to him.
Warlords don't share their toys! so you can never use extra copies of these.

And the remaining cards come in multiples of three so you don't need to buy more than one pack.
you will have a playset of each card.

But if you want to build multiple decks of the same faction or using allies you've already used and don't want to switch out the cards... I guess you could buy more cores and more warlord packs to have a second or third playset...
But I think only those with more money than sense will do that!


Panic...

I'm not sold on Conquest yet, I got the demo at GenCon, bought the starter box, and haven't been enjoying myself yet.

Sat down today with a second box to build a Chaos deck with Dark Eldar allies (though there's not a lot of DE in my deck. And then an IG with Ork Allies deck that is pretty much nothing but warriors/soldiers. So we'll see how it goes.

The idea of fighting for planets is kind of interesting, but I either find myself with 1) too many resources and not enough cards or 2) too many cards and no resources.

i quite enjoy it... games are ~35 mins long, easy to re-rack and have a completely different interaction, each faction is distinct, and there is quite a bit of tactics rather than just strategy.

Me and a mate played our first game last night. Never played anything like it before, so the videos helped. After it we realised we'd misunderstood some of the game play Both enjoyed it though.

yeah,

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'm not sold on Conquest yet... ...The idea of fighting for planets is kind of interesting, but I either find myself with 1) too many resources and not enough cards or 2) too many cards and no resources.

It's tricky to balance a deck out.

You need
Enough command to win the command phase.
Enough Shields to protect your guys
Enough Power/Numbers to win Fights

The big difference to me between this and magic is the command struggle, winning command struggles gets you more card/resources.
So having some command presence/utility is not to under-estimated even if the guys are not big hitters themselves.

Panic...

It's weird coming from another FFG LCG (Netrunner) because it's so totally different from Conquest because I generally have the resources I need available to me without a mechanic like the command struggle. I know if I run a server that I need to have enough credits to break ice and potentially enough to steal an agenda. With the command struggle I have to make sure I commit enough resources to planets my warlord isn't going to or else I waste resources.

As it stands right now, I feel as though there aren't enough cards in the card pool that allow for passive resource gathering. If I can't win command struggles because I don't have resources (including the 4 you get every turn) then my game is pretty much over and my opponent wins without really trying.

I havent gotten a chance to play since getting my second box, so my chaos/de deck might function better now. It's just I feel like they could have done a little more in the economy department in the core box.

Command Struggle is how you get resources in Conquest. There is no 'I need to have lands' or 'I have econ cards'. You have soldiers, and those are both your fighting units and your econ cards.

Basically, every unit of resource or card you gain does double duty, since it's a card your opponent loses. You can let them win one or two battles, but lose all command struggles, then crush them because they neglected gaining a superior strategic position in favor of early wins.

Eldar need to play that way for example, since their units are fragile and weaker hitting. but it's very satisfying watching your Farseer land, outmaneuvering a land raider or something, then you winning due to hideous command dominance. Just as planned.

I get that the command struggle is a part of the game and a key one at that, but the problem I see in every game I've played is that I do not have the resources to spread out and attempt to control multiple planets do gain the resources and card draw. That means I have to commit everything to the first planet to attempt a capture and win the command struggle. And there is currently a single card that generates resources for you, and that's it. So if you can't win a command struggle you have to sit there until you get enough from last phase.

Give me cards that give resources or card draw, give me a reason to attempt capture of certain planets (like a bonus for taking material planets) I know that it's a very new card game, and the first war pack cycle will probably give us these new cards, but atm it's missing a few things.

It's early days and all but it sounds that your decks lack cheap 2 command units, or that you're not using your mulligan when you get bad starting hands. The former is a problem for many factions without splashing for some allies. You also don't have to spend all your resources, or can focus on other planets than the first planet, which also sets you up well for later stages. Your Warlord is also a key command unit and automatically wins a planet if your opponent does not also commit to the same place. Add in the Rogue Trader and Promotion, and it's pretty easy to get resources.

I haven't played a game since getting a second core box so my decks (had to have 2 so I could demo the game) were hamstringed on the rogue traders and promotions.

And I know about the warlord, the problem I'm constantly facing is that I need the warlord to commit to the planet where I've committed the units because my opponent is going to commit their warlord and take that planet's command struggle anyways... so my tactics are undone because the warlord auto wins command struggle which makes sense, but I often find that it hinders me in the short and long game.

My next few games may be completely different now that I've been able to sit down and make decks.

yeah,
I find that securing early planets is also useful as it forces your opponent to go all in for planet 3-4.
You can afford to secure resources while he is playing catch up.

Remember that your opponent has the same card pools as you and is having the same resources issues as you!
Especially early on, you need to balance getting a hold of the game against taking early planets.
Trying to win command struggles and leaving units/planets vulnerable to attack!

Panic...

Got in my first game with my built decks, and I have to say I just don't think Conquest is the game for my group.

I let my opponent have an early planet grab to spread out and start to secure planets 2, 3, 5, and eventually 6. We're still ironing out the stupid timing windows and when things go back to HQ and when they don't (Unfortunately we figured this out after I had mistakenly pulled my ENTIRE army back after a committing my warlord to a planet (as I was taught in the demo at GenCon, which apparently doesn't actually happen?) So after my army of 4 cultists, a fantatic, a plague squad, and a Heldrake were wiped out by a Doom spell...

I got more consistency out of my deck, but the game still feels too clunky.

yeah,
I think the only time everyone goes back to HQ is after you win a battle at planet 1.
If you win at planet 2 your HQ returns but the other guys stay there?

Again I need to check this out!

But not attacking at planet one is a good way to move a large group of guys from your HQ to one of the other planets you're actually interested in.
They will get ready at the end of the turn, your warlord goes home leaving them at the planet.
Next turn they will contribute to the command struggle there and any battle that occurs.

Panic...

Yeah, we saw that ruling near the end of the game (like planet 5). It was a little bit better of a game, but just feels off.

My basic strategy this last game was to try and win command struggles at 2 plants, at least. I would go for planets with 2 Resources first, and then try and grab a 1 and 1 planet. Anything else was just cake at that point.

Question: During the Action Window that happens during the combat phase (or any action window really) do players get the chance to play an number of action cards they can during that time period? Or is it one and done?

Edit: For those of you that want to play this game, check out http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/wh40kconquest/conquest.html. It's a deck building website owned by Fantasy Flight for all of their LCGs. It's not the greatest, but it's what is currently out there for Conquest. I tend to use netrunnerdb, which is a wee bit faster.

Yeah,
During the action window, starting with the player with initiative, Both players take turns playing actions.
Each player can play as many actions as he wants, one at a time.

If both players skip consecutively you move to the next combat.

So IF B has Initiative it could be.

Actions = BABABPBPBAPP
Combat B Combat A
Actions =PAPABPP
Combat B Combat A...

Panic.

I got to playtest it awhile back. It was enjoyable. they kind of listened to us. AoE used to be 1 point higher on everyone who has it now. At the time they didnt think it was breaking the game

My hopes were it to be a lot closer to the old sabertooth version. I did support it though and bought two cores. Played a few games. Over all, seeing it after the fact id give it a 5/10. Doesent feel like anything special. Now I got to try to get rid of 2 cores lol

Sorry to revive an old thread...

I was just wondering if anyone has any advice/tips for this game? I just purchased it and played my first game, it seems very interesting so far, just unsure of any pitfalls or common rule mistakes. I am going to play each starter deck once before I decide to continue with the game though. So far it seems like a more complicated version of MTG.

There is lots of discussion on the Boardgamegeek.com forum and the Fantasy Flight Games Forums.

This forum has been really helpful too.
http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/forum/41-warhammer-40000-conquest-general-discussion/