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.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That is so photoshopped it is painful to look at.

What and how is it photoshopped.

The ground, rocks and background looks really weird.
Like they too a photo of the guy with his rocks, but then just added in the ground so it looks like he's sort of floating a bit and added the guys behind him in such a way that the focus doesn't seem quite right.
If it's not a photoshop then it's an impressively bad photo.

I think it's a playmat. They often have that 'uncanny' look to them when put against 3D terrain.

Ah maybe, it does look really odd.

I don't care for the transition or whatever is going on with the FENR Beastpack. I like the first one but the second and third that are blue...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That is so photoshopped it is painful to look at.

What and how is it photoshopped.

The ground, rocks and background looks really weird.
Like they too a photo of the guy with his rocks, but then just added in the ground so it looks like he's sort of floating a bit and added the guys behind him in such a way that the focus doesn't seem quite right.
If it's not a photoshop then it's an impressively bad photo.

I think it's a playmat. They often have that 'uncanny' look to them when put against 3D terrain.

Ah maybe, it does look really odd.

eeeeeeh. I am not seeing the weirdness, but not gonna drag this further out.

Some Stryx

The Stryx look a lot better fully painted up. Mind you their faces/heads aren't good and suffer the same issue as much of the Spires range does of having indistinct weirdly/poorly sculpted blob-faces (yes, I know they are going for that unintelligible inhuman alien look, but I don't think its working well, theres not enough definition and detail in a lot of the sculpts to recognize them as really being anything other than a misshapen lump).

New mainstay option for Konungyr and Supremacy ability for Theist Priest

More new rules

Pre-orders for

Pheromancer https://eshop.para-bellum.com/the-spires/261-spires-phermomancer.html
Mounted Noble Lord https://eshop.para-bellum.com/the-hundred-kingdoms/262-hundred-kingdoms-mounted-noble-lord.html
Fenr Beastpack https://eshop.para-bellum.com/nords/263-nords-fenr-beastpack-wargs.html
Objective Markers https://eshop.para-bellum.com/home/264-conquest-objective-markers.html
All factions paints pack https://eshop.para-bellum.com/paints-hobby/268-wadrhun-warcolours-paint-set.html

Sasorijap wrote:
More new rules

It's cool to start seeing them. A bit too close to the update, but good to drip feed them for hype.

If it helps the 100 kingdoms not feel like playing super hard mode every time, then thats great.

Sasorijap wrote:
More new rules

The new rules were coming out today, right?

1,5 rules and army lists are up on their website.

Plenty of cool stuff, the fact that the gilded legion don't lose support when flanked is pretty cool.

City States art from the Campaign Book

Sasorijap wrote:
City States art from the Campaign Book

Scholastic Cities sub faction

Were the First Blood rules updated in any substantial way?

Obviously the army stats and points were adjusted for the main game, but I have not had much free time this week at all to even start to peruse the new stuff.

Love the idea of the Konungyr and his Huskarl best buds just wading through the opposition.

First Blood core rules were updated (including some special rules)

The Army Lists will be updated at a later date.

The v1.5 brings lots of good stuff for everyone. Some of the "weaker" options can now be really good. Though a few things were a head scratcher, like regiments that were "going to have a buff/nerf" and the contrary happened.

Adding tons of special rules do add variety, if a bit bloaty. I really hope PB don't push further down that path (I think they are...).

The playtesters have a very heavy age of sigmar playtesters vibe to them.

So ... yeah I'd see them further going down bloat and other things that people that love AOS love. Speaking from someone that was a playtester and was in the conversations.

If you love AOS - you will likely love the direction that the playtesters are influencing.

Talk about pessimism and loaded phrasing.

Until now I had yet to encounter anyone, anywhere in the community that was not happy with the rules update.

I don't think bringing up personal grievances is the way to go.

I'm curious to know what is the "aosification" of the game?
Is it that there are more "super special special rules" or that tactics have devolved or what?

Is it the subfaction rules Dweghom, 100k, and Spires got?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Talk about pessimism and loaded phrasing.

Until now I had yet to encounter anyone, anywhere in the community that was not happy with the rules update.

There was nothing that was stated that had anything to do with being happy or unhappy with the rules update. You can draw pessimism because you know I hate AOS but in terms of the statement it simply states if you like AOS you will like the direction that the rules play testers have been wanting to push the game in.

It was in direct response to this:

Adding tons of special rules do add variety, if a bit bloaty. I really hope PB don't push further down that path (I think they are...).

I don't think bringing up personal grievances is the way to go.

There were no personal grievances brought up. Stating that a lot of the playtesters want to push the game closer to what AOS is is not a personal attack on me and has nothing to do with me personally. Me not liking a direction a project is taking is not a personal grievance. Its just me not liking the direction a project is taking.

I'm curious to know what is the "aosification" of the game?

With the current system it could simply mean bloating the rules so that each faction has a lot of unique special rules.

Armies having special rules is standard for wargames, making it out be an AoS thing is absurd.

And seriously, Conquest players must now manage... one special rule for their army. It may even be chosen from a list of three. That isn't bloat.

I actually reviewed the rule changes to be positive. It makes the 100 kingdoms not be chumps anymore. All in all this latest rules change is mostly positive, if I still played the game. You are drawing conclusions that were never there in the first place.

I was never fully against army specific rules. I was only against army specific rules if the balance was shattered by them. Ding 1 for the playtest group in my opinion is that their opinion of balance is identical to the AOS group's opinion on balance. That being... not that important. Just ask your opponent to not be a dick and it'll be fine levels in playtesting balance. If anyone knows me they know that balance is my #1 priority in any game that I play and that if I ever have to litigate with my opponent to please not play tournament cheese so I can enjoy my campaign army - I'm done.

Every army has special rules in every game. Yep. Some games go to extremes (AOS). AOSifying conquest in the context of army specific rules would be to start cranking army specific rules up to 50. It can be legit said that adding more army specific rules is moving towards AOS.

For some people that is a step too far. I know a number of people that dropped Conquest because they were sensitive to that and they are back playing older warhammer or kings of war or oathmark. Did they do that here? Subjective. To me? Its not that bad. To some others - its bad enough to drop the game. For others - its not even close to being bad.

There are a moderate number of other things in the playtester chat that I'm referring to that may see the light of day that is far more AOSifying than the army special rules of 1.5 and having to fight them tooth and nail became more than I wanted to do which is a solid reason why I dropped the game altogether this past spring (I discussed all of this in my youtube chat on why I don't play conquest anymore - not going to go into the finer bullet points but the direction of the game as being pushed by a large number of the folks in the playtest group was eerily similar to my experience in the aos playtesting back in 2015); I'm tired of arguing with people and have no interest in having to fight to keep a rank and file game from becoming a glorified spreadsheeting exercise and I want a rank and file game to be rank and file...

Whether the things I am referring to come to light - who knows. I'm no longer a part of those conversations so I couldn't tell you what they were moving toward. I know from the guy that took my place in Louisville and from hearing some other people I know that are big time involved that some of the things that repel me strongly are likely to come to light and are definitely very much inspired by and intenteded to draw AOS fans in. I know that because at the time I was high enough level vanguard to be involved in actual phone calls / skype calls with the rules designers to discuss these things. The level 3 vanguards had regular direct talks with the design studio via skype.

In the end I hope Conquest is successful and I hope people enjoy playing it because the market needs a solid rank and file game for people that love rank and file games. The art is magnificent. The lore is pretty awesome. The models have become superb in my opinion. The core of the game of Conquest is still one of my favorite systems. The main rules developer loves world building like I do and he had a lot of really cool ideas for expanding the game.

I am not playing it right now because I don't want to invest heavily into a game that has a lot of push from the community to make it like a game I hate, and that push repels me in general. There were other more "personal" reasons that I talked about on my youtube that don't have a place to be posted here. For now I am playing Oathmark because it ticks all my boxes and the community so far is not trying to introduce elements that make me want to burn all my books

One line saying it's positive followed by five paragraphs of negativity--yeah, I can see where your position is just fine. I see someone who has spent so long fighting a monster they have lost sight of how much they've come to resemble it.

At this point, make your own wargame. You clearly won't be happy with anything else.

 auticus wrote:

I am not playing it right now because I don't want to invest heavily into a game that has a lot of push from the community to make it like a game I hate, and that push repels me in general.

Yes, listening to the community can be a double-edged sword.

On the other hand...Conquest's fanbase is already small, they have to do something to keep it invested and draw new players.

Looking for balance above everything isn't a good seller, to me. People want to have fun, in the end. Balance at all costs tends to get in the way of that.


Looks like Conquest is just another wargame like the others, in the end.

It is sad that the Conquest crew always touted that this was their vision and passion, now they seem to be allowing others to usurp that vision. Hopefully they are listening to the community, but still insisting on some certain boundaries or areas that must not change.

Tbh, adding faction rules has always been in their plans. We've known about it for a long time. Just that it got implemented now.

I personally dont mind them, quite fun actually.

I'm less of a fan of the torrent of special rules/draw events (30+ between 1.3 and 1.5), especially as some seem redundant and unecessary. And I am sure that with each new faction, an extra batch is going to be added to "make them unique" instead of working with what is already an exhaustive list.

VBS wrote:
Tbh, adding faction rules has always been in their plans. We've known about it for a long time. Just that it got implemented now.

I personally dont mind them, quite fun actually.

I'm less of a fan of the torrent of special rules/draw events (30+ between 1.3 and 1.5), especially as some seem redundant and unecessary. And I am sure that with each new faction, an extra batch is going to be added to "make them unique" instead of working with what is already an exhaustive list.

Tbh, they could do with some trimming/unification, yeah. I personally think covering *some* extra aspects is good, provided we don't see an excess of redundancy and stop talking the same language based on the army.