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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah I think 1 faction per year is the target, which makes the idea of 18 factions somewhat absurd considering theyll still be releasing new ones 12+ years from now

I mean, Warhammer 40k has been around for 30+ years, and we still are getting new factions from time to time.

yes, but at least both the already released factions and the new ones have complete model ranges. Meanwhile the original 2 factions are still missing models for more than half of their units 3 years post release, and that assumes para bellum doesn't intend to expand them further

Electro-priests just came out a couple years ago, but they had stats back in 3rd edition. There are plenty of examples, GW can crank out a new faction and has the backing to do a full range refresh in a year or two. Conquest is still in it’s infancy, give them time, they could be a contender. Hopefully the owners still have the desire in a few years and their investment pays off.

I spent a good amount on Dwegholm, all at once before I saw the models in person, I was disappointed with the quality between art and sculpts. I look forward to the city states, hopefully they get better sculpts, the artwork is fantastic.

Looking back on rogue trader sculpts and old marines I see a very similar growth.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah I think 1 faction per year is the target, which makes the idea of 18 factions somewhat absurd considering theyll still be releasing new ones 12+ years from now

I mean, Warhammer 40k has been around for 30+ years, and we still are getting new factions from time to time.

Warhammer 40k didn't have any true rivals 30 years ago, did they?
A glacial release schedule in today's market is not feasible, especially for a fledgling company that has to compete against GW and video games.

I think theyd be better served by cutting the faction count in half and focusing on supporting those before continuing to expand it further. The Dweghom interpretation of dwarves is good enough, don't need more "traditional" dwarves too. Old Dominion is great as an undead faction, we don't also need a separate "wet undead" faction. I dont see any reason why Keltonni shouldn't just be part of the Weavers or why Asgard shouldn't be part of Nords, etc etc etc.

If you're going to add factions you need to be able to support them long term (otherwise you risk losing established players who lose interest when their own factions go too long without a new release), and im not convinced that Conquest will ever grow enough that they can maintain a regular enough release schedule to support 18+ factions simultaneously and consistently.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think theyd be better served by cutting the faction count in half and focusing on supporting those before continuing to expand it further. The Dweghom interpretation of dwarves is good enough, don't need more "traditional" dwarves too. Old Dominion is great as an undead faction, we don't also need a separate "wet undead" faction. I dont see any reason why Keltonni shouldn't just be part of the Weavers or why Asgard shouldn't be part of Nords, etc etc etc.

If you're going to add factions you need to be able to support them long term (otherwise you risk losing established players who lose interest when their own factions go too long without a new release), and im not convinced that Conquest will ever grow enough that they can maintain a regular enough release schedule to support 18+ factions simultaneously and consistently.

What your saying is exactly what I see wrong with most game systems now. They keep adding more and more to every faction where factions loser their identities because their special unit just got duplicated in one or more rival armies.

Black Templar’s had the Emperors champion, now everyone’s got one.
Blood angels had their stormhawk (or whatever stupid plane that carries a dreadnought), then everyone got one.
Imperial Guard got the huge f tank, then everyone got a huge tank
Lords of war everywhere

What do you do when though have the full army list....start a second, third or eight army. If you have everything that is available, work with your game group to develop something new between you. You won’t be able to use it in a tournament, but perhaps you create something you can share online and eventually the game designers will pick it up. It’s happened in other systems.

 Theophony wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think theyd be better served by cutting the faction count in half and focusing on supporting those before continuing to expand it further. The Dweghom interpretation of dwarves is good enough, don't need more "traditional" dwarves too. Old Dominion is great as an undead faction, we don't also need a separate "wet undead" faction. I dont see any reason why Keltonni shouldn't just be part of the Weavers or why Asgard shouldn't be part of Nords, etc etc etc.

If you're going to add factions you need to be able to support them long term (otherwise you risk losing established players who lose interest when their own factions go too long without a new release), and im not convinced that Conquest will ever grow enough that they can maintain a regular enough release schedule to support 18+ factions simultaneously and consistently.

What your saying is exactly what I see wrong with most game systems now. They keep adding more and more to every faction where factions loser their identities because their special unit just got duplicated in one or more rival armies.

Black Templar’s had the Emperors champion, now everyone’s got one.
Blood angels had their stormhawk (or whatever stupid plane that carries a dreadnought), then everyone got one.
Imperial Guard got the huge f tank, then everyone got a huge tank
Lords of war everywhere

What do you do when though have the full army list....start a second, third or eight army. If you have everything that is available, work with your game group to develop something new between you. You won’t be able to use it in a tournament, but perhaps you create something you can share online and eventually the game designers will pick it up. It’s happened in other systems.

Don't blame the designers, blame the consumers. If this was a video game, what you would eventually get is a "complete game" where all the factions are fully fleshed out with content and further development is no longer needed. At that point, the devs would stop supporting the game and launch something else - maybe a sequel, maybe an entirely new game - which many fans of the previous game would buy into and continue playing even though they are starting from square 1 and their previous investments into other games by the same publisher are meaningless, essentially knocking them back to square 1. This is how board games generally work (if a game receives expansions... eventually it stops getting them and the company moves on to publishing new board games, and the fans continue buying products for other games from the same publisher, etc.), this is how video games generally work (look how many Final Fantasy or Megaman or Call of Duty or Battlefield games there are, etc.) - sure every once in a while you get a game like Eve Online or World of Warcraft that runs continuously for ~20+ years, but those are the exception rather than the rule. Card games *almost* work this way - Magic is kicking after what 30 years? But they have set rotation, and many of the cars released 10 years ago are no longer playable.

But miniatures? You can't do that. Look at the outrage that set in when WHFB had more or less run its course as a viable product line and was sunset in favor of a new game. There is still a lot of bad blood over that and I think many of us know people personally who have quit GW games entirely as a result of that move. If you were active in Warmachine a few years back (right around the time they were launching Mk3) there was a lot of theorizing that Privateer Press might introduce set rotation where certain minis would sunset out of playin order to clear design space for new minis, and just the mere discussion of that generated a *lot* of negative feedback. Also look at the wailing that results whenever a faction goes too long without an update - if you've been a 40k fan for a while, you might have an idea of what it was like to be a Necron, Dark Eldar, or Sisters of Battle player who each went about a decade between updates and revisions. If you played WHFB you might know the pain of Bretonnian players. Look at the feelsbadman today that players of some factions are experiencing because they are ~18 months into 9th edition and still haven't received a new codex. Look at the feelsbadman that results when GW does update a faction and all what they get is a single new hero model instead of a resculpt of half the factions model range or a half dozen new kits for them.

Theres a lot of resources time and money sunk into collecting factions for a miniatures game, and the people who do so don't like to feel all of that is wasted if you rotate stuff out of play or if you stop supporting their faction in order to focus on other newer ones, etc. The problem you illustrated in terms of overstepping design space is a real one, but unless you're willing to risk alienating your existing customers or closing up business entirely then you don't really have much choice as you need to be able to keep feeding the beast that is your customer base and community - and they have a voracious appetite.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Theophony wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think theyd be better served by cutting the faction count in half and focusing on supporting those before continuing to expand it further. The Dweghom interpretation of dwarves is good enough, don't need more "traditional" dwarves too. Old Dominion is great as an undead faction, we don't also need a separate "wet undead" faction. I dont see any reason why Keltonni shouldn't just be part of the Weavers or why Asgard shouldn't be part of Nords, etc etc etc.

If you're going to add factions you need to be able to support them long term (otherwise you risk losing established players who lose interest when their own factions go too long without a new release), and im not convinced that Conquest will ever grow enough that they can maintain a regular enough release schedule to support 18+ factions simultaneously and consistently.

What your saying is exactly what I see wrong with most game systems now. They keep adding more and more to every faction where factions loser their identities because their special unit just got duplicated in one or more rival armies.

Black Templar’s had the Emperors champion, now everyone’s got one.
Blood angels had their stormhawk (or whatever stupid plane that carries a dreadnought), then everyone got one.
Imperial Guard got the huge f tank, then everyone got a huge tank
Lords of war everywhere

What do you do when though have the full army list....start a second, third or eight army. If you have everything that is available, work with your game group to develop something new between you. You won’t be able to use it in a tournament, but perhaps you create something you can share online and eventually the game designers will pick it up. It’s happened in other systems.

Don't blame the designers, blame the consumers. If this was a video game, what you would eventually get is a "complete game" where all the factions are fully fleshed out with content and further development is no longer needed. At that point, the devs would stop supporting the game and launch something else - maybe a sequel, maybe an entirely new game - which many fans of the previous game would buy into and continue playing even though they are starting from square 1 and their previous investments into other games by the same publisher are meaningless, essentially knocking them back to square 1. This is how board games generally work (if a game receives expansions... eventually it stops getting them and the company moves on to publishing new board games, and the fans continue buying products for other games from the same publisher, etc.), this is how video games generally work (look how many Final Fantasy or Megaman or Call of Duty or Battlefield games there are, etc.) - sure every once in a while you get a game like Eve Online or World of Warcraft that runs continuously for ~20+ years, but those are the exception rather than the rule. Card games *almost* work this way - Magic is kicking after what 30 years? But they have set rotation, and many of the cars released 10 years ago are no longer playable.

But miniatures? You can't do that. Look at the outrage that set in when WHFB had more or less run its course as a viable product line and was sunset in favor of a new game. There is still a lot of bad blood over that and I think many of us know people personally who have quit GW games entirely as a result of that move. If you were active in Warmachine a few years back (right around the time they were launching Mk3) there was a lot of theorizing that Privateer Press might introduce set rotation where certain minis would sunset out of playin order to clear design space for new minis, and just the mere discussion of that generated a *lot* of negative feedback. Also look at the wailing that results whenever a faction goes too long without an update - if you've been a 40k fan for a while, you might have an idea of what it was like to be a Necron, Dark Eldar, or Sisters of Battle player who each went about a decade between updates and revisions. If you played WHFB you might know the pain of Bretonnian players. Look at the feelsbadman today that players of some factions are experiencing because they are ~18 months into 9th edition and still haven't received a new codex. Look at the feelsbadman that results when GW does update a faction and all what they get is a single new hero model instead of a resculpt of half the factions model range or a half dozen new kits for them.

Video Games are a one-time purchase of 30-60$, Tabletop Games cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars over the course of many years.

WHFB had not even come close to running its course. Otherwise there would be no Cathay or Kislev expansion soon. WHFB had a ton of creative space to explore, but it was crippled by the idea that every faction had to be filled out before anything interesting enough to attract new players could be added, that perfect was the enemy of good, and also by the huge barriers to entry that were the rules and the prices. They also chose never to address complaints with core miniatures when some new unit could drop for twice the price.

A WHFB with refreshed core units and a variety of new factions might have survived the rules and the prices.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
WHFB had not even come close to running its course. Otherwise there would be no Cathay or Kislev expansion soon. WHFB had a ton of creative space to explore, but it was crippled by the idea that every faction had to be filled out before anything interesting enough to attract new players could be added, that perfect was the enemy of good, and also by the huge barriers to entry that were the rules and the prices. They also chose never to address complaints with core miniatures when some new unit could drop for twice the price.

A WHFB with refreshed core units and a variety of new factions might have survived the rules and the prices.

It’s why Mantic and Kings of War took of so well. People had armies already and the rules were cheap with one rulebook to govern everything. I was about to pick up the Space Marine Codex yesterday to go with my Dark Angels Codex . $50 is ludicrous, even with the 15% discount from the shop it’s still more than I find acceptable, even after buying the Dark Angels codex a few months ago.

Conquest is doing it the correct way, it may not be GWs current way, but it’s what worked for them a long time ago. The dual build kits work out great to help increase coverage in the short term as well.

I do not like the cards though , that’s one aspect of modern gaming that could disappear without bothering me. I get it’s use, and easy way to update, but I dislike having to buy frequent updates such as those.

What cards do you have to buy frequent updates for? The cards are really nothing more than unit portraits and you use them to set the order of your activation in a way that can't really be cheated as opposed to marking it on your roster.

 auticus wrote:
What cards do you have to buy frequent updates for? The cards are really nothing more than unit portraits and you use them to set the order of your activation in a way that can't really be cheated as opposed to marking it on your roster.

I hadn’t paid too much attention to what the card says were, more just kept seeing new small boxes with some cards and a token or two come out every so often. I thought it was another marketing gimmick. If it actually aids gameplay, then great. I’m just tired of seeing new games go the collectible card route, or like Warhammer Underworlds where you have to constantly buy all the warbands to have the full collection.

There are deckboxes that they sell that are optional. They now have cards I am told for all of the units, not just the ones sold.

They also contain spell cards.

However you don't need any of that. The only thing you need really are the cards that come with your box and those are just unit portraits that you use in game to delineate your activation sequence

Technically secondary objectives, but afaik those haven't changed between waves. Nor is it really clear if they want to actually use them, really.

I can say the wave 3 Dweghom was the first card pack I got where all the spells were correct and without typos so that is good.

 auticus wrote:
They now have cards I am told for all of the units, not just the ones sold.

When you look at their description in the shop then there are fewer Command Cards than there are units available = not all cards are there.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Don't blame the designers, blame the consumers. If this was a video game, what you would eventually get is a "complete game" where all the factions are fully fleshed out with content and further development is no longer needed. At that point, the devs would stop supporting the game and launch something else - maybe a sequel, maybe an entirely new game - which many fans of the previous game would buy into and continue playing even though they are starting from square 1 and their previous investments into other games by the same publisher are meaningless, essentially knocking them back to square 1. This is how board games generally work (if a game receives expansions... eventually it stops getting them and the company moves on to publishing new board games, and the fans continue buying products for other games from the same publisher, etc.), this is how video games generally work (look how many Final Fantasy or Megaman or Call of Duty or Battlefield games there are, etc.) - sure every once in a while you get a game like Eve Online or World of Warcraft that runs continuously for ~20+ years, but those are the exception rather than the rule. Card games *almost* work this way - Magic is kicking after what 30 years? But they have set rotation, and many of the cars released 10 years ago are no longer playable.

But miniatures? You can't do that. Look at the outrage that set in when WHFB had more or less run its course as a viable product line and was sunset in favor of a new game. There is still a lot of bad blood over that and I think many of us know people personally who have quit GW games entirely as a result of that move. If you were active in Warmachine a few years back (right around the time they were launching Mk3) there was a lot of theorizing that Privateer Press might introduce set rotation where certain minis would sunset out of playin order to clear design space for new minis, and just the mere discussion of that generated a *lot* of negative feedback. Also look at the wailing that results whenever a faction goes too long without an update - if you've been a 40k fan for a while, you might have an idea of what it was like to be a Necron, Dark Eldar, or Sisters of Battle player who each went about a decade between updates and revisions. If you played WHFB you might know the pain of Bretonnian players. Look at the feelsbadman today that players of some factions are experiencing because they are ~18 months into 9th edition and still haven't received a new codex. Look at the feelsbadman that results when GW does update a faction and all what they get is a single new hero model instead of a resculpt of half the factions model range or a half dozen new kits for them.

Theres a lot of resources time and money sunk into collecting factions for a miniatures game, and the people who do so don't like to feel all of that is wasted if you rotate stuff out of play or if you stop supporting their faction in order to focus on other newer ones, etc. The problem you illustrated in terms of overstepping design space is a real one, but unless you're willing to risk alienating your existing customers or closing up business entirely then you don't really have much choice as you need to be able to keep feeding the beast that is your customer base and community - and they have a voracious appetite.

I agree with a lot of this and have thought for a while now that both players and designers should come to terms with miniature games being perceived more as subscription-based experiences, where eventually it's done and you start something new. Every game reaches a point where furter additions make it worse, not better, and it should be allowed to die then. GW is really the only one who can successfully get away with just jamming more and more stupid gak into their games ad nauseam and not get punished for it.

I dunno, updated kits for old units do really well. And multiple similar options can be consolidated into single ones, something I think a lot of us would like to see GW do more of instead of treating releases like it's a race to get the highest dataslate count.

Old Dominion Rule Tease

That artwork looks like a family photo, the kind you keep framed on some cupboard for 10-20 years.

Sadly (or joyfully depending on your stance) I see the push for all mounted armies is getting stronger with the squires now getting pushed to mainstay.

There was also a push for all monster / brute armies which was only a matter of time.

In a game where capping objectives is paramount, giving all mounted armies a build seems a bit brainless. If history has taught us anything with warhammer and AOS, those types of builds easily can become the predominant build.

And in a rank and file game that kind of really sucks when infantry starts being seen less and less.

 auticus wrote:
Sadly (or joyfully depending on your stance) I see the push for all mounted armies is getting stronger with the squires now getting pushed to mainstay.

There was also a push for all monster / brute armies which was only a matter of time.

In a game where capping objectives is paramount, giving all mounted armies a build seems a bit brainless. If history has taught us anything with warhammer and AOS, those types of builds easily can become the predominant build.

And in a rank and file game that kind of really sucks when infantry starts being seen less and less.

Yeah that is worrying. Sounds like what Fantasy turned into.
Cav should probably have a hard cap on them or something, or have movement/combat rules that actually represent how cavalry fights instead of just staying in combat.
It was actually a really bad idea for cavalry to engage in melee for a prolonged period of time because they will get surrounded and unhorsed.

So they should actually have a disengage rule and deal most of their damage on the charge, but are really easy to hit and damage in combat to represent their size and how dangerous it is for the rider to be unhorsed.
I mean, horses are big, and monsters are even bigger. It should be really easy to hit them in both melee and ranged.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Sadly (or joyfully depending on your stance) I see the push for all mounted armies is getting stronger with the squires now getting pushed to mainstay.

There was also a push for all monster / brute armies which was only a matter of time.

In a game where capping objectives is paramount, giving all mounted armies a build seems a bit brainless. If history has taught us anything with warhammer and AOS, those types of builds easily can become the predominant build.

And in a rank and file game that kind of really sucks when infantry starts being seen less and less.

Yeah that is worrying. Sounds like what Fantasy turned into.
Cav should probably have a hard cap on them or something, or have movement/combat rules that actually represent how cavalry fights instead of just staying in combat.
It was actually a really bad idea for cavalry to engage in melee for a prolonged period of time because they will get surrounded and unhorsed.

So they should actually have a disengage rule and deal most of their damage on the charge, but are really easy to hit and damage in combat to represent their size and how dangerous it is for the rider to be unhorsed.
I mean, horses are big, and monsters are even bigger. It should be really easy to hit them in both melee and ranged.

For the most part, most cavalry has Brutal Impact which means it's really only effective on the charge. Order of the Ashen Dawn, Raptors, and Thunder Riders, are, off the top of my head, the only cavalry which are "really" effective in prolonged engagements in the game.

The big part is that if you are running infantry, and your opponent is running most / all cavalry:

* Your opponent is picking what is being charged. You have to have a solid anvil list or reactive list or you are going to have a hard time.

* Your opponent is much faster than you and has greater board control. Obviously this means they can get where they need to faster than you and in a game that is mostly capping objectives (sadly - it started where scenarios would have multiple win conditions but they seem to be doubling down on objectives for most of their scenarios) that speed is quite decisive. I can't help but feel they are trying to dip more into the AOS fan base for sales here but thats just my own cynicism.

* Your opponent is overall operating at a greater efficiency in terms of dice. When infantry lose models, they lose attacks. When cav and brutes and monsters take wounds, they are still operating at 100% until the model is removed.

It is true cav does better on the charge, but medium household knights are D4 to the front. Medium men at arms infantry are D3 to the front, and D4 if they have bastion or vet upgrade. They are just as durable if not more so than their medium infantry counterparts in prolonged engagements and they are fighting better because if I kill a couple men-at-arms you lose a couple attacks, but if you do two wounds to my knight, I still get ALL my attacks. Im just not doing impact hits on top of my normal hits after the charge... but neither was the infantry EVER getting impact hits so I don't see this as a downside and its not like cavalry is weaker at sticking around than their infantry counterparts. They have just as good if not better Defensive stats.

Back in the beginning days of covid when I had tabletop simulator league running on the underspire, we saw a few of those builds and that was one of the things brought up in playtesting.

I added a houserule for spears / pikes / long pointy things to offset cavalry to give them a decent counter (which of course as a houserule went over as you would expect) - but without a proper counter to the above... history has shown us multiple times that infantry starts to disappear off the table unless your army simply only has infantry (dwarfs in warhammer 7th edition for example had no cav options in an edition that was dominated by all-cav style armies)

In a rank and file game ... losing infantry off the table is a big disappointment.

Well, they just previewed another rule

FALLEN DIVINITY
Surrounded by Fear and Dead Men: A Fallen Divinity must always be the Warlord. A Fallen Divinity is considered to be a Regiment by itself in addition of it also being a Character Stand and therefore uses all the relevant Regiment rules as if it was a Monster Regiment.
A Fallen Divinity Activates as if it was a Regiment, performs two Actions per Activation and has access to all Out-of-Combat and In-Combat Actions a Regiment has. In addition, the Fallen Divinity may also use the Duel Action and may not refuse a Duel from an enemy Character Stand. However, the Fallen Divinity is not affected by the effects of the Dark Power Pool.
The Fallen Divinity may not join another Regiment and does not need to include a Monster Regiment in its Warband to enter the battlefield. The Fallen Divinity does not need to include any other Regiments in its Warband. If a Rule affects any Regiments in the Fallen Divinity’s Warband, and there are no Regiments in its Warband, then it would also affect the Fallen Divinity.

Characters without Warbands, when Warbands were barely putting actual restrictions into army construction in the first place? Interesting choice.

If the W'adrhun community bands together, I'm sure we can either make Apex Master not require a Warband or unlock Apexes as Mainstay

Armies of Apex and Raptors was something the playtesters were pushing for as an option...

Apex Master character needs an Apex Pred in its warband to be riding. They are still two separate unit entries with their own cards.

All-brute and all-cav armies have already been available for some time. They aren't dominating. All it is is the company wanting to give people more options for how to build the army. Just like going heavy on characters or light on characters are both valid builds (Auticus also claimed that characters were going to be dominating the scene like hero-hammer, yet to play out). People confuse GW not considering the ramifications of just throwing options in with, ya know, competent balancing.

A real problem is the continued lack of finesse when it comes to actually writing rules down. I already see holes in just those previews and for something that has been extensively playtested there really shouldn't be flaws evident just from a first read.

Post-Edit: I am adding this in response to subsequent posts by Auticus attempting to label my claims as ad-hominem attacks, to provide specific evidence as to my above statement regarding his opinion on character strength: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plCVLomM3t8&t=1011s at 16:30 is when he begins speaking on the topic.

 auticus wrote:
Armies of Apex and Raptors was something the playtesters were pushing for as an option...

They pushed it hard enough to make it come true

I would say "lucky these Fallen Divinities are only one per army" but can't make that call with just the rules we have. "A Fallen Divinity must always be the Warlord" seems a bit ambiguous but I hope the intent is that there can only be one and it is always the Warlord.

(Auticus also claimed that characters were going to be dominating the scene like hero-hammer, yet to play out).

Tbf I don't think there's a scene for it to play out in, yet.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Apex Master character needs an Apex Pred in its warband to be riding. They are still two separate unit entries with their own cards.

All-brute and all-cav armies have already been available for some time. They aren't dominating. All it is is the company wanting to give people more options for how to build the army. Just like going heavy on characters or light on characters are both valid builds (Auticus also claimed that characters were going to be dominating the scene like hero-hammer, yet to play out). People confuse GW not considering the ramifications of just throwing options in with, ya know, competent balancing.

A real problem is the continued lack of finesse when it comes to actually writing rules down. I already see holes in just those previews and for something that has been extensively playtested there really shouldn't be flaws evident just from a first read.

Auticus said that things like Blooded were a little top heavy and most of my nord games are against nothing but Blooded and that I questioned hero hammer being a direction at the time, not that all characters were going to be dominating the scene like hero-hammer. If you're going to try to cut me down at least get the context correct. That entire round and round in playtesting chat (which you were not a part of at that time) was about how hero hammer was fine and some people like it and that a pair of Blooded or whatever doing almost half the kills was fine because thats a valid playstyle. That was the part I was arguing against specifically.

During playtest, when I made those comments, Blooded were responsible for on average 40% of the overall kills in the game, and the Spires Executor with his decay bomb was around the same level, which is why I made those comments in the first place because to me that was obscenely high.

When you say "they aren't dominating" and I look at the Adepticon lists being submitted for this year and notice the heavy cavalry/brute trend, I have to disagree with you. I am not sure what your context is for "not dominating" but they certainly are a VERY popular choice and seem to be a pattern emerging. Also "they aren't dominating" - there is no hardcore tournament scene yet. So "they aren't dominating" doesn't really have any data to back that up at the moment.

When you say "they aren't dominating" and I look at the Adepticon lists being submitted for this year and notice the heavy cavalry/brute trend, I have to disagree with you. I am not sure what your context is for "not dominating" but they certainly are a VERY popular choice.

Where can one find these lists? Are they open to the public? Inquiring minds wish to know.

Rihgu wrote:

When you say "they aren't dominating" and I look at the Adepticon lists being submitted for this year and notice the heavy cavalry/brute trend, I have to disagree with you. I am not sure what your context is for "not dominating" but they certainly are a VERY popular choice.

Where can one find these lists? Are they open to the public? Inquiring minds wish to know.

The michigan GT guys have some in their ranks that I talk to on facebook (one is from where I was and moved there) and they have shared their lists with me and/or painting on instagram shows you what they are building. I asked the guys I talk to specifically what the rest of the group was fielding and got some different types of lists.

Whole lot of cavalry and brute models. Avatara builds are very popular for spires and I've seen two "bretonnian" themed hundred kingdoms lists (archers, knights, and squires) now.

Also check out the online tournament going on and what lists are being submitted for that. We were discussing that in playtest a couple (maybe a month) ago because they were trying to find some power lists to emulate for testing the Old DOminion against and a whole lot of those lists were heavy slanted towards brute and cav (infantry was still present but it was noticed by several people that most lists don't have very much).