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.

I’ll never play the game, as I have too many game systems (a topic I’ve just brought up at length on the beasts of war forum).

But this is one I would look at if I was going into something new.
The models and scale are good.

I can always have a vote, as it’ll give me more nice things to look at

Pre-orders for March are up, including a limited run of W’adrhŭn Preview Edition Scion Of Conquest https://eshop.para-bellum.com/wadrhun/217-wadrhun-preview-edition-scion-of-conquest.html

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 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.

The rules have been getting cleaned up over the past couple of years. There are still some issues that we discuss in the rules channel on discord... and PB knows about them and makes good efforts at correcting.

That being said, I will take this ruleset and several of its current blunders over anything by GW any time of the day. The game is miles ahead of where other games are *for what I am looking for* and has brought me incredible experiences that have not been the type of experiences that AOS has given me from 2015-2019 before I got fed up with it and had to drop it.

Check out underspire.net for articles and battle reports. There is also a link to the discord there.

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 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

Apologies if I gave the impression there was an official ruling--even if a developer had responded it would still just be discord chat and not official so I assumed that was a given. The rules say from the center of one stand to the center of another, do they not? Can you clarify exactly how I did it wrong, because that is rather important. And where is the rule that says the stand on the right can't shoot (like what page number)? Again, that is very important to actually playing the game.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 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

Apologies if I gave the impression there was an official ruling--even if a developer had responded it would still just be discord chat and not official so I assumed that was a given. The rules say from the center of one stand to the center of another, do they not? Can you clarify exactly how I did it wrong, because that is rather important. And where is the rule that says the stand on the right can't shoot (like what page number)? Again, that is very important to actually playing the game.

1) Measuring: Yes the rules say that but if you take them literally, like you did drawing that red line on the diagram, then you will get into troubles during the game. For example, you would need to either remove minis from the stand to properly measure it from its literall centre or you would need to measure from above the stand with minis which would also be rather weird method. Please bear in mind that in the rulebook there are no diagrams that would suggest that you should measure from the literall centre of the stand. As to wording, I assume it was written like that because it would otherwise require a weird phrasing like ''trace the line from the centre of the front of the stand''. I believe that an author simply assumed that like in most/every? wargame, the line is always traced from the front of the base/stand, and it does not need a farther explanation. In short, every time you will measure a distance simply trace the line for each stand starting with the centre of its front. This way you will be sure that it is properly measured.
2) Stand on the right: P. 156 (download version of the rulebook) ''Check for the Obscuration'' subsection has the line that says ''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.
I hope it helps I also recommend to watch some battle reports (our fellow dakkanaut @auticus made some) on YT to see how the game plays. It all will became more clear than perhaps I could explain here with my own words.

1 - "Take it literally" as in... follow the rules. Your 'interpretation' relies on reading the thing and assuming it means something else.

2 - That rule doesn't say that stands without line of sight can't shoot; it says that if no stands have los the regiment cannot shoot. Again, you are referencing rules that do not exist.

You have been running me in circles for days based on rules that only exist in your head. You have made up your own version and claimed it as fact. That is was I mean when I talk about disrespect. Just admit that you were wrong, the diagram does not follow the written rules, and quit trying to play like what I posted is subjective. I spent quite a while very confused before finally realizing you were misleading me.

And FYI, Auticus is one of the people on discord agreeing with me and saying you are wrong.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
1 - "Take it literally" as in... follow the rules. Your 'interpretation' relies on reading the thing and assuming it means something else.

2 - That rule doesn't say that stands without line of sight can't shoot; it says that if no stands have los the regiment cannot shoot. Again, you are referencing rules that do not exist.

You have been running me in circles for days based on rules that only exist in your head. You have made up your own version and claimed it as fact. That is was I mean when I talk about disrespect. Just admit that you were wrong, the diagram does not follow the written rules, and quit trying to play like what I posted is subjective.

And FYI, Auticus is one of the people on discord agreeing with me and saying you are wrong.

You can call it my interpretation if you wish, for me it is what comes from reading the rules. Others are free to voice their opinion but as long as there is no official ruling their voice has the same weight as mine.

Just roll a die each and the lower is right (it's Conquest, after all ). GW rule design may look not as complex, but sometimes complexity isn't what you need.

Anyway, back to the news, this exclusive W’adrhŭn miniature looks nice. I'm keeping an eye for the full release of the new faction (we need more dinosaur riders female orcs in this world).

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
1 - "Take it literally" as in... follow the rules. Your 'interpretation' relies on reading the thing and assuming it means something else.

2 - That rule doesn't say that stands without line of sight can't shoot; it says that if no stands have los the regiment cannot shoot. Again, you are referencing rules that do not exist.

You have been running me in circles for days based on rules that only exist in your head. You have made up your own version and claimed it as fact. That is was I mean when I talk about disrespect. Just admit that you were wrong, the diagram does not follow the written rules, and quit trying to play like what I posted is subjective.

And FYI, Auticus is one of the people on discord agreeing with me and saying you are wrong.

You can call it my interpretation if you wish, for me it is what comes from reading the rules. Others are free to voice their opinion but as long as there is no official ruling their voice has the same weight as mine.

You are literally saying to do something different than what the rules say to do. And lying about the diagrams to boot, even when there is a picture of one in this thread! For someone trying to learn said rules that is confusing and irritating in equal measure.

So I'll take my 'opinion' that 2+2=4, you keep your 'equal weight opinion' that 2+2=5 and we can agree to disagree.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:
Just roll a die each and the lower is right (it's Conquest, after all ). GW rule design may look not as complex, but sometimes complexity isn't what you need.

Anyway, back to the news, this exclusive W’adrhŭn miniature looks nice. I'm keeping an eye for the full release of the new faction (we need more dinosaur riders female orcs in this world).

I really want to see the W'adrhun in color, as I just don't feel like I'm getting the best sense of them yet. And they already look pretty cool.

Having been playtesting them, they are pretty cool and have a neat unique mechanic in their warchants. And the all raptor cavalry army will be a thing.

 auticus wrote:
the all raptor cavalry army will be a thing.

YESSS!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
1 - "Take it literally" as in... follow the rules. Your 'interpretation' relies on reading the thing and assuming it means something else.

2 - That rule doesn't say that stands without line of sight can't shoot; it says that if no stands have los the regiment cannot shoot. Again, you are referencing rules that do not exist.

You have been running me in circles for days based on rules that only exist in your head. You have made up your own version and claimed it as fact. That is was I mean when I talk about disrespect. Just admit that you were wrong, the diagram does not follow the written rules, and quit trying to play like what I posted is subjective.

And FYI, Auticus is one of the people on discord agreeing with me and saying you are wrong.

You can call it my interpretation if you wish, for me it is what comes from reading the rules. Others are free to voice their opinion but as long as there is no official ruling their voice has the same weight as mine.

You are literally saying to do something different than what the rules say to do. And lying about the diagrams to boot, even when there is a picture of one in this thread! For someone trying to learn said rules that is confusing and irritating in equal measure.

So I'll take my 'opinion' that 2+2=4, you keep your 'equal weight opinion' that 2+2=5 and we can agree to disagree.

When this conversation started, all I wanted was to help a new and confused player, just to be called a liar a few days later. I should have known better. Oh well, lesson learnt. Good luck finding nonexistent holes in a basic diagrams coming from a simple, and easy to learn system. I am sure you will also have plenty of fun measuring like you did with that red line on the real board full of minis.

Sarouan wrote:
sometimes complexity isn't what you need.

Indeed, but I'd not look at GW as an example of rules writing (unless we are talking about WHU) either. At all. A third of this forum's posts can attest to this statement!

VBS wrote:
I wonder what is the content of those army support packs, since we already have some with spells/objectives.

Hundred Kingdoms: Army Support Pack W2:
13 Spell Cards
15 Army Cards
15 Objective Cards
1 Wound Marker
1 Hundred Kingdoms Deck Box
Spires: Army Support Pack W2:
10 Spell Cards
12 Army Cards
11 Objective Cards
1 Wound Marker
1 Spires Deck Box
Nords: Army Support Pack W2:
13 Spell Cards
10 Army Cards
13 Objective Cards
1 Wound Marker
1 Nords Deck Box
Dweghom: Army Support Pack W2:
14 Spell Cards14 Spell Cards
11 Army Cards
12 Objective Cards
1 Wound Marker
1 Dweghom Deck Box
W'adrhun: Army Support Pack Wave 2:
3 Spell Cards,
10 Objective Cards
1 Wound Marker
1 W’adrhŭn Deck Box

Edit: Nevermind. I had to step back for a second, and realize I was trying to converse with someone who doesn't understand what the center of a square is.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Edit: Nevermind. I had to step back for a second, and realize I was trying to converse with someone who doesn't understand what the center of a square is.

Apparently Alessio, when writing the ruleset, had never thought that there would be someone who would translate a ''centre of a stand'' as a literal centre for measuring instead using the centre of a front of that stand, like any wargamer would do.

Lord Kragan wrote:

Sarouan wrote:
sometimes complexity isn't what you need.

Indeed, but I'd not look at GW as an example of rules writing (unless we are talking about WHU) either. At all. A third of this forum's posts can attest to this statement!

Alessio was part of GW rule design team, you know. And all of his creations once he worked for other companies aren't perfect as well. See first version of KoW.

The truth is : the more complex your game system is, the higher chances are that people interpret things differently from what the creators have thought. Conquest isn't any different here. They may be more proactive and follow their community because they can at this scale (let's face it : Conquest fanbase is still small in comparison to the other behemoths on the market), but they aren't exempt from making mistakes. Humans are still behind the process (thankfully !).


Anyway, I'm glad that you can bring more dinosaur rider female orcs in your army, but I tend not to like specialized forces. Playtest doesn't show all that is bad and good (playtesters have also their own bias), there are things that can only be revealed on a bigger scale. You may despise GW's work all you want, you can't escape the fact that they still have a lot of means at their service on that field...way, way more than Conquest can even hope to attain.

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Edit: Nevermind. I had to step back for a second, and realize I was trying to converse with someone who doesn't understand what the center of a square is.

Apparently Alessio, when writing the ruleset, had never thought that there would be someone who would translate a ''centre of a stand'' as a literal centre for measuring instead using the centre of a front of that stand, like any wargamer would do.

I wouldn't, And I have been gaming for almost 40 years, so cut the hyperbole. A few extra words for clarification make a world of difference. It is seen in lots of situations. Rules as written versus rules as Interpreted will always be an issue in any system.

At this point I think everyone needs to take a step back, breathe and look at this as an attempt to improve the game rather than an attack against one another.

If you love the game as much as you say, or want to improve it then take an outsiders perspective at what it looks like when they come into this thread and see the potential damage that is being done to it's brand.

 Theophony wrote:

If you love the game as much as you say, or want to improve it then take an outsiders perspective at what it looks like when they come into this thread and see the potential damage that is being done to it's brand.

Come on, it's not that bad. It's normal to have different views on rules, especially when they are rich like Conquest. Makes me remember the days of WFB, which is a good thing to me : it means people are passionate about the game and its rules.

Sarouan wrote:

 Theophony wrote:

If you love the game as much as you say, or want to improve it then take an outsiders perspective at what it looks like when they come into this thread and see the potential damage that is being done to it's brand.

Come on, it's not that bad. It's normal to have different views on rules, especially when they are rich like Conquest. Makes me remember the days of WFB, which is a good thing to me : it means people are passionate about the game and its rules.

There's the fine line between passion and Righteousness. We've trampled on it recently here. I loved old editions of Warhammer and 40K where my chums and I could argue rules and both be right because of the constant updating from GW, but that was friendly. This has turned for the worst.

I have written rules before; house rules, fan updates, etc. When I write a rule it is because that's what I mean it to be. I do not write a rule with the intent that people will read it and assume it means something different. I would just write the thing I mean in the first place!

This is because while writing rules may be an art form, they are not meant to be interpreted as one would do with a poem.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have written rules before; house rules, fan updates, etc. When I write a rule it is because that's what I mean it to be. I do not write a rule with the intent that people will read it and assume it means something different. I would just write the thing I mean in the first place!

This is because while writing rules may be an art form, they are not meant to be interpreted as one would do with a poem.

In a perfect and ideal world, yes it would be that way.

(Un)fortunately, we're living in a imperfect world, with a lot of humans with different points of view and you can't think about everything when writing your rules - especially when they're complex and meant for a very large group of people.

There's a difference when you write rules for your group of friends (who know each other and tend to lean to easily find a common ground) and yourself, and when you write rules for a game you're selling to complete strangers. Conquest makes no exception here.

Exactly; that is what makes it so important to write rules as literally as possible, because people could have different interpretations. It also makes it important as players to take things as literally as we can, because once we veer into interpretation territory we lose the common ground required to play the game.

For example, Shadow interprets "the center of the stand" to mean "the center of the front edge of the stand". What if someone else things it means "the center of any edge of the stand"? Or thinks that a stand changes dimensions as models are lost? Or thinks that the rule means just one stand can be measured then its LoS used for all stands? One might say 'well obviously THAT doesn't make sense' but for different people with different perspectives it isn't so simple. For the game to function players need to be on the same page, thus why game rules are written literally.

Painted Scion.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Exactly; that is what makes it so important to write rules as literally as possible, because people could have different interpretations. It also makes it important as players to take things as literally as we can, because once we veer into interpretation territory we lose the common ground required to play the game.

For example, Shadow interprets "the center of the stand" to mean "the center of the front edge of the stand". What if someone else things it means "the center of any edge of the stand"? Or thinks that a stand changes dimensions as models are lost? Or thinks that the rule means just one stand can be measured then its LoS used for all stands? One might say 'well obviously THAT doesn't make sense' but for different people with different perspectives it isn't so simple. For the game to function players need to be on the same page, thus why game rules are written literally.

I’ve never read the rules for this game (I just come for the pretty models).

However, to me if it said center of the stand (to which I assume a stand is basically a base or a tray), that would mean the middle of it.
Center Of The front, would make sense for line of sight if that’s what it is? But if it doesn’t say front, I’d read it literal, as in the very middle?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Main thing though.
That scion looks cool..

VBS wrote:
Painted Scion.

Oh yeah, once painted the miniature really comes to life. I definitely want to see painted versions of the other upcoming models because that guy looks great.

I'll just leave this here and walk away whistling...

Hm, reserving opinion until I can see more shots.

Are these in plastic? If so they look as good, even better, than what gw kits. Impressive if its the case