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.

 Alpharius wrote:
Good idea!

Where can I find all the necessary Path to Glory stuff?

It's in the army books themselves.

SamusDrake wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
It's better, if you are going the Skirmish route rather than Warcry, to track down a copy of Hinterlands by Bottle (the guy who worked on Warcry). It uses AoS warscroll entries like Skirmish, but with much better internal balance, especially when adding several small rules that cap damage output so models like a Knight Incantor can't kill an entire warband in one attack (but still remain a useful character to lead a warband).

Just downloaded Hinterlands. Looks good, and - is this correct? - one doesn't have to select a hero as a general. The underdog feature is interesting too. Probably give it a shot after a few more games...

As far as I know, no. The only restriction is that you can;t have more than half the warband be Heroes. Also Heroes are going to be a better choice for a leader as they are inherently higher quality, especially in a low-numbers game where you need a solid core model.

I personally have blended the older version of Skirmish (the one in Shadespire) with Hinterlands, to a pretty satisfying effect.

I know when AOS was first teased/announced it *appeared* like it was going to be a much smaller scale game. Not "skirmish", but not like WHFB. It seemed like you would have maybe no more than 50 figures, and probably less than that.

*THAT* would have been a good game. Instead, we have WHFB with round bases.

Wayniac wrote:
I know when AOS was first teased/announced it *appeared* like it was going to be a much smaller scale game. Not "skirmish", but not like WHFB. It seemed like you would have maybe no more than 50 figures, and probably less than that.

*THAT* would have been a good game. Instead, we have WHFB with round bases.

I think when it first appeared there wasn't a game at all. It was whatever you wanted it to be without any real rules from GW itself. The armies were often split into smaller ones but that wasn't so much to make it a skirmish game; but more (I think) to make it so that GW could retire whole armies at once and introduce new ones with only a handful of models. Relying on gamers to collect within the Grand alliances and simply take "soup" armies to games. REmembering that at that time their view was that it was going to be more a case of people buying masses of models because of the designs and not for any game related purposes.

In my neck of the woods the preferred mode of play is as many monsters as possible to keep the model count low.

 auticus wrote:
In my neck of the woods the preferred mode of play is as many monsters as possible to keep the model count low.

Run clanrat heavy skaven just to drive them mad

I have an obsession with having to have all my models painted before I play, so that probably won't happen anytime soon thats a bit more painting than I want to do right now lol

 auticus wrote:
In my neck of the woods the preferred mode of play is as many monsters as possible to keep the model count low.

Shouldn't you be able to run lots of troops, throw buckets of dice and roflstomp them then? In AOS it really seemed like quantity > quality every time.

Slaanesh builds here are 3 keepers with a small handful of daemonettes.

In fairness slaanesh is the very extreme of it mostly because of how depravity works. It's something I do hope they change not just for allowing more variety but also because it really cuts down on the variations of armies you can build with the army when you want to put most of your points into leaders and most of your summons also being leaders. I want GW to give me more reasons to field fiends; or to do a cavalry and chariot cascade over the battlefield etc....

 auticus wrote:
Slaanesh builds here are 3 keepers with a small handful of daemonettes.

I prefer triple units of Hellstriders, myself. Ten points cheaper, more mobility, more armor, same number of wounds. Best used as objective grabbers. Add in an epitome, Cogs, and a cheap mortal hero and then two battalions and enjoy your near infinite command dice, guaranteed choice of turn and three magical weapons; one for each keeper.

I've been enjoying Conquest immensely the past couple weeks post-gencon because the rules are 1000x what I want to play with, and the game isn't built around ccg buffing heroes and units but rather combat maneuvers and positioning. We had a game last saturday where defending a water feature made all the difference (because if half of your unit or more is in water feature, you are at -1 to hit which ended up being the end game difference for the last clash). The heroes are a lot like warmaster. They are minor buffs but don't dominate the game.

We have our AOS campaign starting in a couple weeks (I should say... its a game built on AOS rules, but heavily houseruled so its not really AOS anymore) and I am struggling to find my motivation now that Conquest is a thing.

Never heard of Conquest, third party game I presume? Para Bellum Conquest?

Para Bellum Conquest. Written by Alessio Cavatore. (WHFB 6th and Kings of War author)

 AegisGrimm wrote:


As far as I know, no. The only restriction is that you can;t have more than half the warband be Heroes. Also Heroes are going to be a better choice for a leader as they are inherently higher quality, especially in a low-numbers game where you need a solid core model.

I personally have blended the older version of Skirmish (the one in Shadespire) with Hinterlands, to a pretty satisfying effect.

Thank you muchly.

 auticus wrote:
Para Bellum Conquest. Written by Alessio Cavatore. (WHFB 6th and Kings of War author)

Oh, it’s Alessio?? Will have to check it out!

 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, just play Path to Glory if you don't want to do WarCry.

They've got a copy of that in the local gaming store, but wondering if its worth getting. As I understand it, you start off with a small warband and progress in a campaign to a full blown army.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Para Bellum Conquest. Written by Alessio Cavatore. (WHFB 6th and Kings of War author)

Oh, it’s Alessio?? Will have to check it out!

The rulebook is free on their website as a pdf.

Unfortunately, no matter how good it is it will likely be one of those games that nobody has heard of (because nobody apparently follows any company but GW online), no game store stocks and therefore nobody is interested in it in any way, shape or form no matter if the rules are free or not.. Or the old immediate "those models are crap compared to GW" comparisons that always crop up.

I am writing a set of AI rules to play solo. Additionally after I finish a current android side scroller that I am developing for the google store, I am going to be working on a tabletop simulator specifically to play Conquest on that will have an AI as well as multiplayer.

 Alpharius wrote:
Good idea!

Where can I find all the necessary Path to Glory stuff?

There's also a fan-made update for Path to Glory (made by no one in particular) that fixes up some issues and adds additional content like FW units: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

Wayniac wrote:
Unfortunately, no matter how good it is it will likely be one of those games that nobody has heard of (because nobody apparently follows any company but GW online), no game store stocks and therefore nobody is interested in it in any way, shape or form no matter if the rules are free or not.. Or the old immediate "those models are crap compared to GW" comparisons that always crop up.

Frostgrave had some interest at my old LGS for a while. Of course, I think part of that was because AoS was flopping and not everyone had caught on to 9th Age, yet. It pretty much matches that description, though.

Charistoph wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Unfortunately, no matter how good it is it will likely be one of those games that nobody has heard of (because nobody apparently follows any company but GW online), no game store stocks and therefore nobody is interested in it in any way, shape or form no matter if the rules are free or not.. Or the old immediate "those models are crap compared to GW" comparisons that always crop up.

Frostgrave had some interest at my old LGS for a while. Of course, I think part of that was because AoS was flopping and not everyone had caught on to 9th Age, yet. It pretty much matches that description, though.

How many people are catching onto T9A?
Been into KoW myself and haven't heard much T9A noise for a wile.

It really depends on where you are.

There is zero T9A where I am. KoW has a fairly large following here, significantly larger than our AOS players. However, they come together at large cons or our annual KoW tournament as opposed to playing weekly at a store.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Unfortunately, no matter how good it is it will likely be one of those games that nobody has heard of (because nobody apparently follows any company but GW online), no game store stocks and therefore nobody is interested in it in any way, shape or form no matter if the rules are free or not.. Or the old immediate "those models are crap compared to GW" comparisons that always crop up.

Frostgrave had some interest at my old LGS for a while. Of course, I think part of that was because AoS was flopping and not everyone had caught on to 9th Age, yet. It pretty much matches that description, though.

How many people are catching onto T9A?
Been into KoW myself and haven't heard much T9A noise for a wile.

This was back before AoS had released the first General's Handbook. I've moved since then, and getting to the new game store is a bit of a pain on several levels, but I haven't heard a word of T9A or KoW there.

As for lately? I might have seen a posting for it on the local AoS Facebook page in the last year, maybe.

There seem to be a lot of 9th age people playing here. AoS and AoS playing people get little love here in some cities. Posting about AoS on some polish forums about AoS can get you banned.

I thought the world had moved on from the AoS stance of 5 years ago?

Posting about AoS on some polish forums about AoS can get you banned.

Thats as ridiculous as TGA banning you for criticizing AOS lol.

 Overread wrote:
I thought the world had moved on from the AoS stance of 5 years ago?

Sounds about right, being forever offended about something is a polish pastime

 auticus wrote:

Posting about AoS on some polish forums about AoS can get you banned.

Thats as ridiculous as TGA banning you for criticizing AOS lol.

Remember, this is Karol- who lives in a version of Poland where it's like Mad Max times over there. I'd take what he says with a pinch of salt.