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.

 Kroem wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
So which faction in this game is the simplest one? I like to follow the words of Lord Nelson "Never mind the maneuvers, just go straight at them"!

Nords. Dual blooded ferried by trolls and smack people.

Interesting, I'm not that keen on the look of Nords to be honest!
Are the 100 Kingdoms particularly complex? They have nice lore and models.

I would say so. With Conquest, there are always layers of complexities that you can add with every faction depending on your particular play style, but you can also keep it pretty simple.

100 Kingdoms currently have the typical 'Jack of all trades' drawbacks. The Knights and Steel Legion can be tricky to use, but if you use them correctly they can hit like a ton of bricks and really do damage.

If you like the lore and the models for the hundred kingdoms, go for it! It'll take a few games to start figuring out the direction you want to take them, but you can successfully play them however you'd like!

I think that a second version with 2 sickle swords looks better.

Cool pics for OD and Weavers revealed this week:

VBS wrote:
Cool pics for OD and Weavers revealed this week:

I admit...that's very fantasy-like.

Proportions are weird for the first ice lady.

Wonder how they will look as miniatures, in the end.

Those ice lady proportions look like an Avatara body. Do the Weavers use those?

Each week seems to be a more difficult choice as to what to vote for!

We don't know for now but it's possible that Weavers also use organic constructs (with Life-Bonding instead of Biomancy).

As for the artwork, I guess that's just the way some of the alien-elves look like. Long skinny arms and legs. Biomancers/Pheromancers have a similar appearance.

It may just be latent engineering, similar to the venusflytrap Weaver we saw not that long ago. It does look a lot like an Avatara though.

These are looking really good. Old Domion might just win the 6th release spot.

I must say that the new alt sculpt of the Dwarfen King (or "Dweghom Hold Raegh" - Artrisan series), is just WOW!

I finally broke down and tossed in an order for some Conquest goodies. Dammit! But then again, some headswaps and minior conversion works on the Hold Warriors and I would be thrilled to amass a horde of them!

And that Dweg character on fire? I could easily have him with some automatas for laughs!

Some things for March: Hundred Kingdoms Servite and Hunter Cadre/Longbowmen dual kit, Dweghom Flame Beserkers Rage X Fire (see pic below), Army Support Packs v2 (see pics below).

Are there any product pics for the not-orc Dino rider? I have resisted conquest because I'm not a war gamer persay, and the scale is wrong for my RPG collection, but if that Rex is near a decent scale for 28-30mm-32 gaming... I might just get one...

Carlovonsexron wrote:
Are there any product pics for the not-orc Dino rider?

Only riders shown are the female orcs raptor riders. As to the size of a not T-Rex, if you base it on the size of the Conquest minis compared to the other ranges then I would guess it will be at least a third bigger than a 28/32 sized T-Rex.

I wonder what is the content of those army support packs, since we already have some with spells/objectives.
Would be great if they were command cards. I'd buy a few since I converted a few units (missing cards...).
Also, Order of the Crimson Tower on the 100K box

VBS wrote:
I wonder what is the content of those army support packs, since we already have some with spells/objectives.
Would be great if they were command cards. I'd buy a few since I converted a few units (missing cards...).

New packs are updated (some wording updates) old cards plus additional command cards bonus. New packs were made because the old one were sold out = your old cards are still perfectly valid.

W'adrhun Slinger

That's a very strange pose...

I think it's the angle more than the pose. The first time I saw that photo I thought it was a bust.

Ohkaay... I'll withhold judgement until we have more images.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ohkaay... I'll withhold judgement until we have more images.

Oi! You! Yeah, YOU! You take your level head and you GIT OUT!

I thought it was a strange pose too, so I'm interested to see the unit. With that said, I accept a certain amount of strange poses as an occupational hazard with any rank and file game.

*looks at the crazy hell-donkeys for the Slaves to Darkness in AoS*

...and I guess any game that GW makes...

Longbowmen and Hunter Cadre:

Dam those are really cool. Wish they were 28mm, would get some to use in other games.

In other news, actually got to reading the rules. A very high quality design to them, still simple and straightforward but also effective. But the explanation is horrid. It's as if the writer is trying to intentionally make it difficult to understand. And then the shooting section has one version of a rule written, then a different version depicted in the diagram! And the whole thing is littered with typos to boot, legitimacy surprised and disappointed.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
But the explanation is horrid. It's as if the writer is trying to intentionally make it difficult to understand. And then the shooting section has one version of a rule written, then a different version depicted in the diagram! And the whole thing is littered with typos to boot, legitimacy surprised and disappointed.

Could you please point to page/s where those things are present, and also do you mean Conquest or First Blood rules?

Off the top of my head I remember figure 3.17, determining what shooting attacks are obscured, depicts different rules from those written.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Off the top of my head I remember figure 3.17, determining what shooting attacks are obscured, depicts different rules from those written.

So you mean Conquest rules, still I cannot see there any error, it is explainded as in the rules = Stands that can trace a clear line from their centre get full shots, others are either obscured or cannot shoot at all.

The rules say that if you can draw an unobstructed line that is a clear shot, if the line is obstructed it is obscured. Obscured fires half shots.

The diagram has three stands drawing unobstructed lines, but says one of them is obscured (with no reason given) and says the stand with an interrupted line cannot fire at all (as opposed to the rules which say it would just be obscured).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The rules say that if you can draw an unobstructed line that is a clear shot, if the line is obstructed it is obscured. Obscured fires half shots.

The diagram has three stands drawing unobstructed lines, but says one of them is obscured (with no reason given) and says the stand with an interrupted line cannot fire at all (as opposed to the rules which say it would just be obscured).

''...trace a straight line from the centre of that Stand to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment....'' , and the 3,17 shows that only 2 Stands have it = have clear shots,
''If one or more Regiments and/or Obscuring Terrain break that line, the Stand’s Volley is an Obscured Shot.', and 1 Stand that is on the left is obscured,
''If you cannot trace an unbroken line from at least one Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment, the Target is not a legal one as it is outside of Line of Sight.'' , and 1 Stand on the right cannot see anything = cannot shoot.

I can't bring myself to read the original rulebook. Not enough pretty pictures and fluffy lore pieces for me, and I can't find the companion for a reasonable price anymore.

At least I've got one of the first blood starters showing up this weekend to occupy me over a three day weekend.

Guess I can bring both books with me to read while I wait in line for my vaccine!

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
I can't bring myself to read the original rulebook. Not enough pretty pictures and fluffy lore pieces for me, and I can't find the companion for a reasonable price anymore.

At least I've got one of the first blood starters showing up this weekend to occupy me over a three day weekend.

Guess I can bring both books with me to read while I wait in line for my vaccine!

Next time I'm at Miniature Market I can look to see if they have any more of the dinged copies of the companion. I think I got mine for $20 or $30 the week it came out and they had quite a few that had minor blemishes. Unfortunately they put a sticker right on the cover which is a pain to get off, but still was a deal.

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The rules say that if you can draw an unobstructed line that is a clear shot, if the line is obstructed it is obscured. Obscured fires half shots.

The diagram has three stands drawing unobstructed lines, but says one of them is obscured (with no reason given) and says the stand with an interrupted line cannot fire at all (as opposed to the rules which say it would just be obscured).

''...trace a straight line from the centre of that Stand to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment....'' , and the 3,17 shows that only 2 Stands have it = have clear shots,

The diagram clearly throws three unobstructed lines.

"If one or more Regiments and/or Obscuring Terrain break that line, the Stand’s Volley is an Obscured Shot.', and 1 Stand that is on the left is obscured,

No, because nothing breaks the line. However the stand on the right falls into this category, with the regiment in front of it breaking its line. So by the rules it should have an obscured shot.

''If you cannot trace an unbroken line from at least one Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment, the Target is not a legal one as it is outside of Line of Sight.'' , and 1 Stand on the right cannot see anything = cannot shoot.

Emphasis mine. On a stand-by-stand basis line of sight doesn't matter.

I know this sounds impolite but please read what I am saying and read what the rules actually say (RAW not RAI) before responding like this. The situation is frustrating enough as it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I will add; if someone can come in and humiliate me by pointing out some obvious thing I am missing PLEASE do so. I would much rather this be just a stupid mistake on my part than be witnessing a company that did the hard part (rules design) so well flop this hard on just writing them down.

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Dam those are really cool. Wish they were 28mm, would get some to use in other games.

Yeah, it's not like Dragon rampant, Erewhon and plenty other games are scale agnostic. Oh wait... they are scale agnostic. I am sorry if I sound harsh here but if you think these are not taylor made for aos/fantasy, you are free to do so, no need to dilly dally. Not that it's an actual impediment as I've yet to see anyone raise an eyebrow at me using mercenary crossbows as freeguilders. Tbh it is a bit annoying that in a thread about a specific game people feel the need to go "damn, I wish this was also for that other game!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NinthMusketeer wrote:

And I will add; if someone can come in and humiliate me by pointing out some obvious thing I am missing PLEASE do so. I would much rather this be just a stupid mistake on my part than be witnessing a company that did the hard part (rules design) so well flop this hard on just writing them down.

It seems less a typo and more a gaffe by the paint app or whatever they used to draw the diagram. The line, rather than go through the center, is on the corner of the stand. If you were to draw it from the center of the stand you'd see the other regiment clips the line, making an obstructed line and therefore making them fire an obstructed shot.

EDIT: aaaaand shadow walker found the correct explanation. At least I didn't stray to far off hahahaha!

@NinthMusketeer
You wrote:
''The diagram clearly throws three unobstructed lines.'' - it is not true. The rules say ''...trace a straight line from the CENTRE of that Stand...'', and the diagram shows that only 2 Stands in the middle can do that = the diagram shows 2 unobstructed lines and 1 obstructed (Stand on the left).
''No, because nothing breaks the line.'' - again untrue. The line for the Stand on the left is broken because it cannot be traced ''from the CENTRE of that Stand''.
Stand on the right cannot trace the unbroken line ''from the CENTRE of that Stand'' at all = cannot shoot.
This is all shown on the diagram. I base my answers on the rules downloaded from the website = the latest version.