Conquest! The Last Argument of Kings! 5th Anniversary One Player Starters. p.92.

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**

got my hellbringer Drake last night, haven't built it but pretty great cast quality, GW style spruce and runners and gates like the Apex, sculpt doesn't look quite as detailed/well textured but still solid.

**CthuluIsSpy**

I don't understand the War Chant rule.
It says that once you have three 3 chant markers you must immediately chant the warcry, but then it goes on to say that you can have a fourth token.

How is it possible to have a fourth token if you must immediately chant?

**Rihgu**

It actually says you explicitly can't have a fourth token, barring very specific circumstances (having a Drum Beast that has activated its Draw Event that allows you to keep more than 3)

You might be confused looking at the fact that there are three tiers of chants, but tier 2 requires 3 tokens.

Third tier chants can only be chanted if the unit chanting has Fanatic, which counts them as 1 tier higher. So you discard 3 tokens, but chant the "4 token" tier of the war cry.

Note that even with a Drum Beast, you're not allowed to discard more than 3 tokens per chant, so you still need Fanatic even if you have 4 tokens.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Rihgu wrote:
It actually says you explicitly can't have a fourth token, barring very specific circumstances (having a Drum Beast that has activated its Draw Event that allows you to keep more than 3)

You might be confused looking at the fact that there are three tiers of chants, but tier 2 requires 3 tokens.

Third tier chants can only be chanted if the unit chanting has Fanatic, which counts them as 1 tier higher. So you discard 3 tokens, but chant the "4 token" tier of the war cry.

Note that even with a Drum Beast, you're not allowed to discard more than 3 tokens per chant, so you still need Fanatic even if you have 4 tokens.

Oh ok. That makes sense. Not sure I like that rule, seems a little complicated. I had to read it a couple of times to understand it.
I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?

**Shadow Walker**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?

I think you are refering to an old idea for that army. Basically in their fluff they have a perfect hearing allowing them superior communication over the battlefield noise. That was suposed to be simulated in rules by the ability to choose whatever card they want to activate next.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Shadow Walker wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?

I think you are refering to an old idea for that army. Basically in their fluff they have a perfect hearing allowing them superior communication over the battlefield noise. That was suposed to be simulated in rules by the ability to choose whatever card they want to activate next.

Oh it never actually made it into the rules? That's a pity, I thought it was a neat idea.

**Rihgu**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
It actually says you explicitly can't have a fourth token, barring very specific circumstances (having a Drum Beast that has activated its Draw Event that allows you to keep more than 3)

You might be confused looking at the fact that there are three tiers of chants, but tier 2 requires 3 tokens.

Third tier chants can only be chanted if the unit chanting has Fanatic, which counts them as 1 tier higher. So you discard 3 tokens, but chant the "4 token" tier of the war cry.

Note that even with a Drum Beast, you're not allowed to discard more than 3 tokens per chant, so you still need Fanatic even if you have 4 tokens.

Oh ok. That makes sense. Not sure I like that rule, seems a little complicated. I had to read it a couple of times to understand it.
I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?

Scion of conquest's supremacy ability does what you're talking about.

**NinthMusketeer**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
It actually says you explicitly can't have a fourth token, barring very specific circumstances (having a Drum Beast that has activated its Draw Event that allows you to keep more than 3)

You might be confused looking at the fact that there are three tiers of chants, but tier 2 requires 3 tokens.

Third tier chants can only be chanted if the unit chanting has Fanatic, which counts them as 1 tier higher. So you discard 3 tokens, but chant the "4 token" tier of the war cry.

Note that even with a Drum Beast, you're not allowed to discard more than 3 tokens per chant, so you still need Fanatic even if you have 4 tokens.

Oh ok. That makes sense. Not sure I like that rule, seems a little complicated. I had to read it a couple of times to understand it.
I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?

Don't worry, you aren't alone! The way it is written makes the rule difficult to understand, I've seen countless people with the same issue. I know I had to read it a couple times myself.

**auticus**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Shadow Walker wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?

I think you are refering to an old idea for that army. Basically in their fluff they have a perfect hearing allowing them superior communication over the battlefield noise. That was suposed to be simulated in rules by the ability to choose whatever card they want to activate next.

Oh it never actually made it into the rules? That's a pity, I thought it was a neat idea.

It was way too powerful in a game where everyone has to figure out what order to activate in turn by turn to have an army that ignored that and could do whatever it wanted.

**CthuluIsSpy**

auticus wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Shadow Walker wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I thought the W'adhrun had a rule that allowed them to pick cards to activate? Where is that rule under?

I think you are refering to an old idea for that army. Basically in their fluff they have a perfect hearing allowing them superior communication over the battlefield noise. That was suposed to be simulated in rules by the ability to choose whatever card they want to activate next.

Oh it never actually made it into the rules? That's a pity, I thought it was a neat idea.

It was way too powerful in a game where everyone has to figure out what order to activate in turn by turn to have an army that ignored that and could do whatever it wanted.

Fair enough, it did seem like a pretty powerful rule. I guess they couldn't work out how to design the army to be balanced around it.

**NinthMusketeer**

As Righu mentioned, literally in the game. Not a huge deal though because it is just one turn, other supremacies are similarly powerful.

**auticus**

I should have clarified: that it wasn't something that was a normal part of their rules and that trying to make that part of their normal rules was a bit too stacked.

As a supremacy ability one-turn its fine.

**NinthMusketeer**

New FAQ/errata is up. It includes this handy description of the updates rules for obstruction while shooting:

Q: What exactly is the sequence of operations when determining LoS (Line of Sight)
and Obscuration during a volley?
A: When performing a Volley Action each Stand in the Regiment's front Rank needs
a) LoS and b) to draw an unobstructed line between the center of the Stand's front
facing and the center of any facing of a Stand in the Target Regiment.

We determine LoS of the entire Regiment as per the Line of Sight rules in Chapter 1
of the Rulebook, exactly as we would for a Regiment that wants to declare a Charge
Action for example.

Then we check for Obscuration on a Stand by Stand basis. When checking for
Obscuration we follow the "Check for Obscuration rules" in Chapter 3. When
checking for Obscuration the lines we draw need to be within the front Arc of
the Regiment, not of the Stand. Always remember that Stands do not have their own
Arcs, their Front, Side and Rear is the Regiment's. If a Stand is Obstructed then it
does not contribute any shots when the regiment performs a volley action

So it is possible for a Regiment to have LoS but individual Stands are Obstructed and
therefore, unable to fire. Always keep in mind that both conditions need to be met.

The Regiment needs to have LoS to the Target and the individual Stand needs to be
able to Draw an unobstructed line even if that line is Obscured.

So it is possible for a Regiment to have LoS but be Obstructed and therefore, unable
to fire. Always keep in mind that both conditions need to be met. The Regiment
needs to have LoS to the Target and the individual Stand needs to be able to Draw an
unobstructed line even if that line is Obscured.

And I thought 40k was bad with its wording...

**Rihgu**

I'm still incredibly confused tbh. I've been told multiple times that Obstruction and Obscurement are the same, but this seems to indicate that they are different.

I'm not even going to bother asking the discord because that's where most of my confusion comes from.

**auticus**

The discord is a bunch of people running amuk claiming to be the one source of truth but all conflicting lmao.

If a designer doesn't state it - ignore it IMO.

The wording on this is indeed very poor.

**CthuluIsSpy**

There's a conquest discord?
Yeah it's not well written. I'm going to assume the language barrier is at work.

**auticus**

Yep there's a conquest discord. Came online early 2020ish.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Huh, cool. May I have the link?

Anyway, I had a bit of time on my hands, so I tried to reword it a little to be clearer and added a minor (and important) clarification.

Q : How does one determine LoS (Line of Sight) and Obscuration during a volley?

A: When performing a Volley Action, each Stand in the Regiment’s front Rank needs to be able to draw an unobstructed line of sight between the center of the Stand’s front facing and the center of any facing of a Stand in the target Regiment.

The Line of Sight rules in chapter one explains how an entire regiment draws line of sight. It is the same method used for when a regiment wishes to make a charge action, for example.

Obscuration is explained by the “Check for Obscuration” section in chapter 3, and is determined on a Stand by Stand basis. When checking for Obscuration we use the Regiment’s front arc, not the Stands as Stand do not have their own Arcs; their Front, Side and Rear arcs are the Regiment’s. If a Stand is Obstructed, it may not contribute any shots when the Regiment performs a volley action.

Remember that Obscuration is not the same as Obstruction; as explained under the “Check for Obscuration" rules, if the Line of Sight crosses a regiment or terrain feature that has a greater size than the firing regiment, then it is Obstructed. If not, it is Obscured.

Thus, it is possible for a Regiment to have Line of Sight to the target, but the individual Stands themselves could be Obstructed and therefore cannot fire.

However, remember that for a Regiment to fire, it must fulfill two conditions; a LoS must be drawn, and that LoS must be unobstructed, even if it is Obscured

Therefore, if all Stands are Obstructed, then even if the Regiment has Line of Sight to the target, then it may not fire at all.
Always remember those two conditions when making a volley action; a LoS must be drawn, and that LoS must be unobstructed.

I think it's clearer as when working on it I have a better idea of what they were going for, but that might just be me.

**Rihgu**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Huh, cool. May I have the link?

https://discord.com/invite/xwsFZqE

Here you go!

**CthuluIsSpy**

Rihgu wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Huh, cool. May I have the link?

https://discord.com/invite/xwsFZqE

Here you go!

Cool, thanks!

**NinthMusketeer**

The entire thing is completely unnecessary.

As they are currently written the line of sight rules only apply to entire regiments and never to individual stands. The regiment as a whole declares a shooting action then the stands determine their line of sight individually, since the line of sight rules do not apply to stands this entire process was invented... instead of just making LoS rules apply to stands. Which would take a sentence at most.

So not only is it worded poorly, the entire block does not even need to exist in the first place. Language barrier can't account for that. It is as if they came up with a solid concept of how it would work in game, then deliberately tried to write that functionality in the most inefficient manner possible.

Conquest: the game is great, the description of how to play it is awful.

**Rihgu**

A Vanguard description of this change from 3/02/22 (so may not be accurate to what actually released, considering the huge difference between what is conveyed and what is released sometimes) is:

Basically, if you can draw a line from center to center = clear shot.
From the front of the activating stan to any point on target's stands = obscured shot
Can't draw a line without it being interrupted (barring things smaller than you or your target) = obstructed, which is 0 shots for that stand

Which is an easy way of breaking it down, and I think matches what was written there? Hard to say.

**auticus**

There was a heated discussion on that from several vanguards who disagree.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Rihgu wrote:
A Vanguard description of this change from 3/02/22 (so may not be accurate to what actually released, considering the huge difference between what is conveyed and what is released sometimes) is:

Basically, if you can draw a line from center to center = clear shot.
From the front of the activating stan to any point on target's stands = obscured shot
Can't draw a line without it being interrupted (barring things smaller than you or your target) = obstructed, which is 0 shots for that stand

Which is an easy way of breaking it down, and I think matches what was written there? Hard to say.

That's not what the rules say though.
Obscured and Obstructed are game terms under chapter three.

For each Stand in the front rank of the Volleying Regiment, trace a straight line between the center of the Stand’s front facing to the center of any facing of a Stand in the Target Regiment,
as described in the section for Line of Sight.

If the line is not interrupted by Regiments or Obscuring Terrain, that Stand’s Volley is a Clear Shot. If the line is interrupted by either a Regiment or Obscuring Terrain then it is an Obscured Shot. If a line is interrupted
by Regiments or Terrain of a larger or equal Size then the shot is Obstructed.

Note that a Regiment can be targeted if it is in base contact with an enemy Regiment, although this will
often mean the Volley of one or more Stands might be Obscured.

To me this indicates that True Line of Sight (like in Warhammer) doesn't exist in conquest. If you can draw a straight line from stand to stand and if there is no intervening terrain or unit of a larger size class, then you can make the shot.

**Rihgu**

That's not what the rules say though.
Obscured and Obstructed are game terms under chapter three.

Just goes to show how well I can read these rules.

I've been told repeated times that Obstructed and Obscuring mean the same thing, by Vanguards in the Discord, despite evidence that they are different things.

And this FAQ seems to point them out as different things. And also contradicts what the Vanguard said the rule was going to be. What's the rule!!?

**CthuluIsSpy**

I guess the vanguards are just flat out wrong then.

**auticus**

Well some vanguards will be right. Others will be wrong. However all parties over there will claim to be right. At the end of the day, the vanguards are nothing more than not-vanguards, except that they put in to get some free stuff monthly and try to run demos. They do have a tiered system and the tier 3 vanguards did (or they did when I was one but I left the vanguard ranks last March) have monthly google meetups with the designers to discuss issues so did know a little more (as I was one of them - so I was present at said calls) - but there's no way of knowing who is tier 3 and who is not to know one way or the other.

I've been told repeated times that Obstructed and Obscuring mean the same thing, by Vanguards in the Discord, despite evidence that they are different things.

Had this very same conversation in another conquest group this weekend where person stated that exact same thing.

**CthuluIsSpy**

auticus wrote:
Well some vanguards will be right. Others will be wrong.

I've been told repeated times that Obstructed and Obscuring mean the same thing, by Vanguards in the Discord, despite evidence that they are different things.

Had this very same conversation in another conquest group this weekend where person stated that exact same thing.

I meant on this Oscuration/Obstruction thing. The fact that so many people are wrong about concepts that are clearly defined in the rulebook is surprising to me.
Perhaps they are conflating the "Line of Sight" rules with the True Line of Sight rules in other systems?
I wonder if the problem would persist in Line of Sight was instead Line of Fire.

**auticus**

This obstruction / obscuration thing has been a chestnut of annoyance for at least a year or more. It was brought up before and the designers themselves said that they understood how the issue could be confusing.

Unfortunately they have not clarified the wording ... clearly.

I know from the arguments I have heard that no one is confusing true line of sight - as we all understand that is not a part of this game (and thankfully so).

Its because there are needles you can nitpick with the language that from a legalese standpoint make things contradict themselves.

If you want to throw the hand grenade into the room, simply go into the tlaok-rules channel on the discord and ask the question and watch the fun.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Huh, strange. To me they are two different terms. That part in the rule book seems really clear to me.
I kind of see how it can be confusing at first because they both sound the same, but when you read the rule it becomes clear that they are both two different concepts.
Maybe Concealment/Obstructed would have been better.