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.
2021/02/19 11:14:43
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
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!"
From my experience, when people say "they can't be used in other games" or anything similar, they actually mean that they don't fit well for their personal specific usecase. There is just need to extrapolate it as a universal truth (we've seen this in other places... "cargad" comes to mind).
I tested out WoE and KoW rules using Conquest minis and no problem. Some of the models even blend in perfectly with 28mm (ex: Dragonslayers look very good as Ogres, just like people use Stormcasts for the same purpose).
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). An almost irrelevant issue considering the rules are clear regarding obscuring (ie. with common sense you can understand the point of the diagram). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/19 11:15:04
2021/02/19 12:23:03
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
2021/02/19 12:37:56
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
2021/02/19 12:46:52
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
Ok, you have the point, I stand corrected
2021/02/19 14:34:33
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
Ok, you have the point, I stand corrected
Good! That'll learn you! ;-)
I love Conquest, and I've loved the gameplay since the first time I demoed it at Adepticon in 2018.
With that said, I'm willing to forgive a lot because I recognize that this is a first game from a small and new company that has some really bold ideas about rank 'n file wargaming in an original fantasy universe. I HIGHLY recommend you pick up the starter box and give it a go. I've played many games and I've yet to run into any rules issue that wasn't immediately solved by a quick chat with my opponent, which is far more than I can say for many other games I've played which seem to require you to set an extra 30 minutes aside each game to rummage through the rulebook. If you find a serious problem, jump on the Conquest Discord channel and ask the rules writers to clarify it for you. They will. Seriously. And they'll thank you for bringing it to their attention! Don't let a few typos rob you of a great game like this!
One of them filthy casuals...
2021/02/19 16:17:13
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
Ok, you have the point, I stand corrected
Good! That'll learn you! ;-)
I love Conquest, and I've loved the gameplay since the first time I demoed it at Adepticon in 2018.
With that said, I'm willing to forgive a lot because I recognize that this is a first game from a small and new company that has some really bold ideas about rank 'n file wargaming in an original fantasy universe. I HIGHLY recommend you pick up the starter box and give it a go. I've played many games and I've yet to run into any rules issue that wasn't immediately solved by a quick chat with my opponent, which is far more than I can say for many other games I've played which seem to require you to set an extra 30 minutes aside each game to rummage through the rulebook. If you find a serious problem, jump on the Conquest Discord channel and ask the rules writers to clarify it for you. They will. Seriously. And they'll thank you for bringing it to their attention! Don't let a few typos rob you of a great game like this!
I guess I was not meant to be the recipient of this (I have no issues with the ruleset and also I am 'together' with the Conquest since the first website was set online.) Did you meant @NinthMusketeer instead?
2021/02/19 16:30:22
Subject: Re:Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
Ok, you have the point, I stand corrected
Good! That'll learn you! ;-)
I love Conquest, and I've loved the gameplay since the first time I demoed it at Adepticon in 2018.
With that said, I'm willing to forgive a lot because I recognize that this is a first game from a small and new company that has some really bold ideas about rank 'n file wargaming in an original fantasy universe. I HIGHLY recommend you pick up the starter box and give it a go. I've played many games and I've yet to run into any rules issue that wasn't immediately solved by a quick chat with my opponent, which is far more than I can say for many other games I've played which seem to require you to set an extra 30 minutes aside each game to rummage through the rulebook. If you find a serious problem, jump on the Conquest Discord channel and ask the rules writers to clarify it for you. They will. Seriously. And they'll thank you for bringing it to their attention! Don't let a few typos rob you of a great game like this!
I guess I was not meant to be the recipient of this (I have no issues with the ruleset and also I am 'together' with the Conquest since the first website was set online.) Did you meant @NinthMusketeer instead?
Yeesh. Yes, I meant @NinthMusketeer. This is what I get when I don't get my beauty sleep and then try to contribute to a conversation!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/19 16:38:26
One of them filthy casuals...
2021/02/19 16:45:06
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
As for the line of sight diagram question, I think the stand on the left should have the drawn line more centered (it appears a bit too much on the left side). I wish that was the worst mistake in the rules lol.
There is no mistake there. That diagram clearly shows that the shots for the Stand on the left are obscured because it cannot trace the line from its center (unlike 2 Stands in the middle). If the line would be drawn like you suggest then it could wrongly suggest that its shots are not obscured.
Both options work to illustrate the point. If they draw it like I suggested, it would show that the line drawn from the center of the stand crosses through another enemy regiment, hence obscured.
It could help people that don't understand the concept.
Ok, you have the point, I stand corrected
Good! That'll learn you! ;-)
I love Conquest, and I've loved the gameplay since the first time I demoed it at Adepticon in 2018.
With that said, I'm willing to forgive a lot because I recognize that this is a first game from a small and new company that has some really bold ideas about rank 'n file wargaming in an original fantasy universe. I HIGHLY recommend you pick up the starter box and give it a go. I've played many games and I've yet to run into any rules issue that wasn't immediately solved by a quick chat with my opponent, which is far more than I can say for many other games I've played which seem to require you to set an extra 30 minutes aside each game to rummage through the rulebook. If you find a serious problem, jump on the Conquest Discord channel and ask the rules writers to clarify it for you. They will. Seriously. And they'll thank you for bringing it to their attention! Don't let a few typos rob you of a great game like this!
I guess I was not meant to be the recipient of this (I have no issues with the ruleset and also I am 'together' with the Conquest since the first website was set online.) Did you meant @NinthMusketeer instead?
Yeesh. Yes, I meant @NinthMusketeer. This is what I get when I don't get my beauty sleep and then try to contribute to a conversation!
Beauty sleep is very important. Here have some W'adrhun banner to help you sleep to the tunes of the drums
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/19 16:50:08
2021/02/19 17:25:12
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
Shadow Walker wrote: @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.
I got out a ruler and checked the line on the left. It clearly runs from the center of that stand to the center of the other. There is nothing obstructing it.
The stand on the right IS obstructed, but the rules say that if it is obstructed it can still shoot. The rules are quite clear that if one stand can draw line of sight, all the stands in that regiment can shoot. They may be obscured, but there is no rule written detailing that some stands would be unable to; either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.
This whole thing makes me concerned, because it demonstrates a certain apathy to writing. Did no one proof read this? Why are there so many obvious typos? Why are so many rules written in such an obtuse way? It's like they came up with this great ruleset but then half-assed things when it came to the tedious work. I roll my eyes when GW does it, and they get away with it thanks to being the biggest game in town. But Para Bellum needs to do better than this, and it is a double shame because the ruleset they are explaining is so good.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I will have to check the discord though, I didn't know they had one.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/19 17:54:33
NinthMusketeer wrote: I got out a ruler and checked the line on the left. It clearly runs from the center of that stand to the center of the other. There is nothing obstructing it.
The rules are quite clear that if one stand can draw line of sight, all the stands in that regiment can shoot. They may be obscured, but there is no rule written detailing that some stands would be unable to; either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.
a) I did the same with the ruler: there are 5 Stands in the enemy Regiment A, and only for 1 enemy Stand (second from the right) you could draw a line according to the rules, and even then it touches the corner of the Regiment B = it is obstructed.
b) The rules do not say ''either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.'. They say ''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.'' = you need just 1 Stand to be able to have an unobstructed line = the line traced from Stand's centre = it is possible for some Stands to not be able to fire at all so long as at least 1 is able to do this unobstructed.
Side info: the rules are by Alessio Cavatore, one of the best in the industry.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/02/19 18:33:45
2021/02/19 18:13:53
Subject: Re:Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
NinthMusketeer wrote: I got out a ruler and checked the line on the left. It clearly runs from the center of that stand to the center of the other. There is nothing obstructing it.
The rules are quite clear that if one stand can draw line of sight, all the stands in that regiment can shoot. They may be obscured, but there is no rule written detailing that some stands would be unable to; either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.
a) I did the same with the ruler: there are 5 Stands in the enemy Regiment A, and only for 1 enemy Stand (second from the right) you could draw a line according to the rules, and even then it touches the corner of the Regiment B = it is obstructed.
b) The rules do not say ''either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.'. They say ''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.'' = you need just 1 Stand to be able to have an unobstructed line = the line traced from Stand's centre = it is possible for some Stands to not be able to fire at all so long as at least 1 is able to do this unobstructed.
Side info: the rules are by Alessio Cavatore, one of the best in the industry.
The discord was actually very helpful (thank you for suggesting it @Godswildcard). They confirmed that the diagram does not depict the rules, and should be ignored. But I'll take a picture to show you if you want concrete proof.
The rules themselves are high quality, as I have explained before. It is the description of those rules that are convoluted and riddled with typos. I could do better myself, a company producing this as part of their product line definitely should.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/20 01:26:20
NinthMusketeer wrote: I got out a ruler and checked the line on the left. It clearly runs from the center of that stand to the center of the other. There is nothing obstructing it.
The rules are quite clear that if one stand can draw line of sight, all the stands in that regiment can shoot. They may be obscured, but there is no rule written detailing that some stands would be unable to; either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.
a) I did the same with the ruler: there are 5 Stands in the enemy Regiment A, and only for 1 enemy Stand (second from the right) you could draw a line according to the rules, and even then it touches the corner of the Regiment B = it is obstructed.
b) The rules do not say ''either the whole unit shoots or the whole unit doesn't.'. They say ''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.'' = you need just 1 Stand to be able to have an unobstructed line = the line traced from Stand's centre = it is possible for some Stands to not be able to fire at all so long as at least 1 is able to do this unobstructed.
Side info: the rules are by Alessio Cavatore, one of the best in the industry.
The discord was actually very helpful (thank you for suggesting it @Godswildcard). They confirmed that the diagram does not depict the rules, and should be ignored. But I'll take a picture to show you if you want concrete proof.
The rules themselves are high quality, as I have explained before. It is the description of those rules that are convoluted and riddled with typos. I could do better myself, a company producing this as part of their product line definitely should.
a) I would like to know who, by name, gave this answer because there are like 3 people from PBW that could make such a statement an official one.
b) Even then, it still does not changes that the diagram works fine, and probably only needs, as per @VBS suggestion, a minor adjustment to avoid arguing.
2021/02/20 17:35:48
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
NinthMusketeer wrote: I don't really want to argue about it anymore. But the discord is open to everyone, you can go check it out for yourself if you like.
So I should make a discord account just to get an answer you could write here? Either it is an official ruling by PBW or you were given an answer from some random guy who claims to speak for them.
2021/02/20 22:34:29
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
LOL, Theo your mind is an amazing place, never change.-camkierhi 9/19/13
I cant believe theo is right.. damn. -comradepanda 9/26/13
None of the strange ideas we had about you involved your sexual orientation..........-Monkeytroll 12/10/13
I'd put you on ignore for that comment, if I could...Alpharius 2/11/14
2021/02/21 08:07:50
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
I am gonna be a bit of a pedant here and ask: since when is a person a whole community!?
It takes two sides to argue, unless your in a Monty Python sketch.
LOL, Theo your mind is an amazing place, never change.-camkierhi 9/19/13
I cant believe theo is right.. damn. -comradepanda 9/26/13
None of the strange ideas we had about you involved your sexual orientation..........-Monkeytroll 12/10/13
I'd put you on ignore for that comment, if I could...Alpharius 2/11/14
2021/02/21 10:07:34
Subject: Re:Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
I am gonna be a bit of a pedant here and ask: since when is a person a whole community!?
It takes two sides to argue, unless your in a Monty Python sketch.
Except... ninth is not part of the conquest community? He is looking to join it, or rather considering to. But... okay, I guess you wanted to be backhanded and get some sort of high ground with those one liners?
2021/02/21 14:35:06
Subject: Re:Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
I am gonna be a bit of a pedant here and ask: since when is a person a whole community!?
It takes two sides to argue, unless your in a Monty Python sketch.
Except... ninth is not part of the conquest community? He is looking to join it, or rather considering to. But... okay, I guess you wanted to be backhanded and get some sort of high ground with those one liners?
No.
It was not an attempt at a backhand or to gain high ground. I also looked into Conquest. Dropped a few hundred dollars on Dweghom, started assembling and watching the threads. People ask questions, point out flaws, and generally try to get involved and are met with the above. Simple statement of what I have seen. But any time someone disapproves of something they become the enemy. It’s not a healthy community attitude. It won’t grow the game if others cannot voice their opinion. Any further purchases of PBW and Conquest are on hold for me. It hasn’t gotten the traction in the community around me that it needs to become a player. Some nice models, rules so far look good to me, but if I can’t find players it’s not worthwhile to me.
LOL, Theo your mind is an amazing place, never change.-camkierhi 9/19/13
I cant believe theo is right.. damn. -comradepanda 9/26/13
None of the strange ideas we had about you involved your sexual orientation..........-Monkeytroll 12/10/13
I'd put you on ignore for that comment, if I could...Alpharius 2/11/14
2021/02/21 19:06:13
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
NinthMusketeer wrote: If you want the answer that badly then yeah, you should. I'm not your personal messenger.
To quote your own words:
''But I'll take a picture to show you if you want concrete proof.''
I changed my mind when I saw how toxic it was getting, but fine.
Spoiler:
First off, the rules for taking the action with a unit:
To take a Volley Action, you must first choose a legal target enemy Regiment. The target must be in range of the Barrage special rule you wish the Regiment to use. The target must also lie within the Regiment’s front arc and also be within Line of Sight.
This is the restriction for the unit one is shooting with to take the action. The whole unit takes the action or the whole unit does not.
Then the rules for checking if individual stands within the unit are obscured:
For each Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment that is in range of the Target, trace a straight line from the centre of that Stand to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment. If no Regiments or Obscuring Terrain break this line, that Stand’s Volley is a Clear Shot. If one or more Regiments and/or Obscuring Terrain break that line, the Stand’s Volley is an Obscured Shot.
This is very simple stand-by-stand checking. If an unobstructed line can be drawn it is clear, if it cannot be drawn it is obscured.
Then there is this paragraph:
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. The Regiment must choose another Action or another Target. Note that a Regiment can be targeted if it is in base contact with an enemy, although this will often mean the Volley of one or more Stands might be Obscured.
Emphasis mine. This paragraph is reiterating at least one stand in the unit must have a clear shot or the whole unit cannot perform the action. If at least one stand can draw that line, then all of the stands shoot; there is nothing here saying individual stands without line of sight cannot shoot.
Those rules are quite clear. What becomes an issue is the diagram associated with them:
And the text that goes with it:
Regiment D Targets Regiment A with its Volley. However, because of the presence of Regiments B and C, only two of the Stands have clear Shots. One Stand is Obscured and halves its Shots whilst the last Stand cannot fire its shots at all.
I added the red line to show that the stand on the left does have, objectively and with no ambiguity, a clear shot by the rules described. The stand on the right is obscured, but there is no rule saying that obscured stands cannot shoot. There is no rule anywhere saying that when a unit shoots some of its stands may be unable to; it is all of them or none of them. The diagram does not fit the rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/21 19:54:51
NinthMusketeer wrote: If you want the answer that badly then yeah, you should. I'm not your personal messenger.
To quote your own words:
''But I'll take a picture to show you if you want concrete proof.''
I changed my mind when I saw how toxic it was getting, but fine.
Spoiler:
First off, the rules for taking the action with a unit:
To take a Volley Action, you must first choose a legal target enemy Regiment. The target must be in range of the Barrage special rule you wish the Regiment to use. The target must also lie within the Regiment’s front arc and also be within Line of Sight.
This is the restriction for the unit one is shooting with to take the action. The whole unit takes the action or the whole unit does not.
Then the rules for checking if individual stands within the unit are obscured:
For each Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment that is in range of the Target, trace a straight line from the centre of that Stand to the centre of any Stand in the Target Regiment. If no Regiments or Obscuring Terrain break this line, that Stand’s Volley is a Clear Shot. If one or more Regiments and/or Obscuring Terrain break that line, the Stand’s Volley is an Obscured Shot.
This is very simple stand-by-stand checking. If an unobstructed line can be drawn it is clear, if it cannot be drawn it is obscured.
Then there is this paragraph:
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. The Regiment must choose another Action or another Target. Note that a Regiment can be targeted if it is in base contact with an enemy, although this will often mean the Volley of one or more Stands might be Obscured.
Emphasis mine. This paragraph is reiterating at least one stand in the unit must have a clear shot or the whole unit cannot perform the action. If at least one stand can draw that line, then all of the stands shoot; there is nothing here saying individual stands without line of sight cannot shoot.
Those rules are quite clear. What becomes an issue is the diagram associated with them:
And the text that goes with it:
Regiment D Targets Regiment A with its Volley. However, because of the presence of Regiments B and C, only two of the Stands have clear Shots. One Stand is Obscured and halves its Shots whilst the last Stand cannot fire its shots at all.
I added the red line to show that the stand on the left does have, objectively and with no ambiguity, a clear shot by the rules described. The stand on the right is obscured, but there is no rule saying that obscured stands cannot shoot. There is no rule anywhere saying that when a unit shoots some of its stands may be unable to; it is all of them or none of them. The diagram does not fit the rules.
You misunderstood me. I did ask for a proof that you had an official confirmation about the diagram on discord from a PBW. I too have no wish to repeat the rules conversation again.
I guess that at this point we both must agree that we disagree on this matter.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/21 21:50:50
2021/02/22 01:40:34
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
Disagree? The only thing up for discussion is if the diagram is right or the written rules are right. To which my stance is 'I asked the discord community and they said to ignore the diagram' so unless you are trying to say that did not occur, there is no disagreement at hand. Was it official? If I thought so I definitely would have said as such. Maybe one of the multiple people who gave me that response was official, but I doubt it--they just seemed like community members. All I ever wanted was an answer to if I was missing something or if there was an established interpretation to make the volley rules work.
Meanwhile, that the diagram does not match up with the rules is objective fact. Trying to sweep this all under 'well agree to disagree' after I laid out proof you were objectively wrong is simply disrespectful, both to me and to you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/22 01:45:52
NinthMusketeer wrote: Disagree? The only thing up for discussion is if the diagram is right or the written rules are right. To which my stance is 'I asked the discord community and they said to ignore the diagram' so unless you are trying to say that did not occur, there is no disagreement at hand. Was it official? If I thought so I definitely would have said as such. Maybe one of the multiple people who gave me that response was official, but I doubt it--they just seemed like community members. All I ever wanted was an answer to if I was missing something or if there was an established interpretation to make the volley rules work.
Meanwhile, that the diagram does not match up with the rules is objective fact. Trying to sweep this all under 'well agree to disagree' after I laid out proof you were objectively wrong is simply disrespectful, both to me and to you.
1) Discord - No official ruling. Case solved.
2) No one wants to disrespect you. We have a conversation that leads to both of us being adamant in that we are correct.
3) After seeing how you draw that red line on the diagram it is clear for me from where steps your confusion about the diagram. You simply took the words ''from the centre of the stand'' too literally. The line should never be traced like that. Imagine how it would ''work'' on a battlefield with the actual minis, especially in the rank&file game. There is a reason that the lines on such diagrams in wargames are traced from ''base to base'' or stand to stand in this case.
4) As to other points I did already answer them during our talk, and we have a disagreement there.
To close it finally. Even if you do not agree with me let it not prevent you from enjoying the game. Conquest (both versions) is a great experience, and our differences should not be a detriment to having fun
2021/02/22 09:50:46
Subject: Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! (Latest: YOU choose 6th faction)
Did you meant @NinthMusketeer instead?
No.
