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.

 Manchu wrote:
Has anyone played First Blood?

I'll be playing my first game of it (or any Conquest game) on Wed/Thurs this week over TTS. From my reading of the rules it looks 90% similar to Last Argument of Kings, so I'm hoping playing and learning both at the same time will go fairly smoothly for me

Based on my “test drive” of LAoK, I really liked the game mechanics so the idea that First Blood closely parallels them is IMO a good thing. Two things have prevented me from getting deeper into Conquest: (1) I know I will never be motivated to paint for a rank’n’flank game and (2) some of the models (looking at you 100K Militia) seriously fractured my faith that Para Bellum can be trusted to consistently deliver good sculpts. That said, if First Blood entails a more modest commitment in terms of collecting models, that addresses both points.

My plan is, because I only truly like a few of the Dweghom sculpts (Hellbringer Drake and Infernal Automata to be precise), They're going to be my smaller First Blood force and when Wadhrun (or possibly Weavers, depending on how long I can hold out) come out they'll be my mass battle force, since based on previews (for the orcs) I like more of their baseline units so can probably make a more reasonable army of them

I am kind of toying with the idea of FB forces of Dweghom and Nords. Similar to you, I don’t like all of the models for Dweghom; actually, I don’t like all of the models for any faction. My worry about FB is, although the starter packs entail a reasonable amount of minis, the game itself seems to require many more.

 Manchu wrote:
My worry about FB is, although the starter packs entail a reasonable amount of minis, the game itself seems to require many more.

To play the FB you only need 1 Regiment and 1 Character per side which could even mean just 2 models - for example 1 Ugr and 1 Blooded for the Nords. You can scale it as you like. It is your game, and nobody will tell you that playing for example 250 points per player is wrong.

While playing the game that way would not be “wrong” it’s hardly likely to be satisfying per the game’s mechanics, which is what I’m referring to.

 Manchu wrote:
While playing the game that way would not be “wrong” it’s hardly likely to be satisfying per the game’s mechanics, which is what I’m referring to.

My point was that there is nothing stopping you from having fun. Also the beauty of alternate activation is that even with a few models you can have engaging experience for both opponents. Even if the FB given standard is 600 points, it does not mean that you need to play it like that. For example, one player I know is regularly playing with 1 Mainstay Regiment, 1 Restricted Regiment, and 1 Character per side (like Stalkers, Jotnar and the Blooded) with guys from his club, and he says it is really fun.

I see what you’re saying and that would be fine as far as I am personally concerned. It would be a harder case to make for other players in my gaming group. So, to the extent that I bought everything everyone needed to play with small forces and provided it to them for a special session set aside for First Blood, that would work — but also amount to me having to collect, assemble, and paint an amount of figures equal to or exceeding what LAoK requires, which kind of invalidates the attractive point of FB in the first place. My buddies would take a look at the ruleset, as I have, and conclude “oh the mechanics really call for a 600pt army rather than these starter pack forces.”

I only did a test run for FB (against myself haha *forever alone*) to see how it works.

Unsurprisingly very similar to LaoK. A few key features do make it quite different though. Mainly:

- the game seems much more herohammer-esque. Not only do the characters form their own unit (and can have retinue) but army composition favours bringing more heroes (2 regiments max per, instead of 4). You can min-max some pretty disgusting builds but I hope people don't play that way...
- Due to units being smaller, shooting/magic can decimate stuff faster. It is recommended to play with lots of terrain but a lot of folks like a barren landscape for their table.
- The moral mechanic is less relevant because you need to miss more resolve tests. This makes close combat less deadly (one might say it is fine, considering how brutal it is for LaoK) and shooting becomes that more relevant (as it doesn't use resolve anyway).
- Some units that were already very good become borderline OP due to special rules (VCI?).
- Overall if you like LaoK, FB should be good too. Just a bit more silly with all the hero flying around and balance not being totally on point. Probably appeal to the current warhammer crowd (no disrespect intended, it is just how things are when looking the rules).

In any case, I'll probably pick up the Dweghom FB box. Very hit-and-miss faction when it comes to model so a small force is best.
Convert zerkers (which I don't like the base models) into retinue and the Ardent into Sorcerer (to get some Automatas!). Buy a Raegh (maybe the alternative version when available?) to go along my Dragonslayers. Should be cool!

One thing I really liked (among many things) about LAoK was that wounds taken from shooting do not trigger Resolve tests. Is there something similar in FB?

Thanks btw for posting your specific thoughts about the game, that’s very helpful.

 Manchu wrote:
One thing I really liked (among many things) about LAoK was that wounds taken from shooting do not trigger Resolve tests. Is there something similar in FB?

To quote: ''Wounds taken during a Volley Action do not
cause Morale Tests.''. BTW It is a thing that I do not like. I would prefer that a shooting would also force a morale test but could be handled like in Oathmark where you get a +1 bonus to your morale. That way it would be less lethal but still ''realistic''.

 Manchu wrote:
One thing I really liked (among many things) about LAoK was that wounds taken from shooting do not trigger Resolve tests. Is there something similar in FB?

Thanks btw for posting your specific thoughts about the game, that’s very helpful.

Yeah, shooting in FB is the same as in LaoK (ie. do not trigger Resolve tests). However, in combat (and magic) for FB you need to fail more Resolve tests to cause an extra casualty (hence why I mention that combat is less deadly).
I don't think it's necessarily bad.

The reason I like it in LAoK is the whole game is generally about closing in and hanging back shooting is contrary to that.

The no resolve checks on shooting attacks are supposed to discourage the boring gun lines that become popular because they are so easy to build and run.

IE - fantasy napoleanics will always be a thing if it can be because its easier to just form rifle lines and roll dice with them than it is to have to maneuver melee troops into a good position to fight.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Do not forget to go to PBW website and vote for the faction you want to see after orcs (click on Project 6 button) https://www.para-bellum.com/living-world/
My choice was the City States.

I voted Weaver Courts as I find them the most fascinating of the bunch (and, if that artwork is anything to go by, I would absolutely buy minis for them even if I never had a chance to play the game).

It'll likely be either City States or Old Dominion though.

Arcanis161 wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Do not forget to go to PBW website and vote for the faction you want to see after orcs (click on Project 6 button) https://www.para-bellum.com/living-world/
My choice was the City States.

I voted Weaver Courts as I find them the most fascinating of the bunch (and, if that artwork is anything to go by, I would absolutely buy minis for them even if I never had a chance to play the game).

It'll likely be either City States or Old Dominion though.

Yeah, the Weavers will definitely have the most unique look from all the revealed factions. Still the chances for them to be the 6th are rather minimal. If the City States win this one I will vote for the Weavers if there will be a possibility to choose the 7th faction.

So I played my first game of Conquest: First Blood (first game of any Conquest, really) and have a few questions.

1. Can you buy leaders/standard bearers or can you only get them by having 6/12 models respectively in a unit (1/3 for brutes/cavalry)? I can't find it in the FB rulebook, but I thought I saw somewhere that they, like retinue models, were 20 points apiece.
2. Herald of Fire gives a command ability which grants target regiment a Draw Event. It is unclear to me how they are activated/used? Is it effectively a draw event that grants another regiment a draw event? So if I draw my Tempered Sorcerer Command Card, and haven't yet used the Herald of Fire's duel bonus) I can target another regiment and give it the Fury Draw Event, so that if I draw it later in the turn it gets +1A in Clashes? Do I have that right?
3. Are Morale Tests caused by any wounds taken during an action or specifically by casualties? AKA if I have a unit of 3 models with 4 wounds and take 3 damage, do I have to test against Resolve and take additional wounds? We played it as wounds causing Morale.
4. If a Blooded has Vanir the Dancer, do their Impact Hits caused by Throwing Weapons also allow for additional hits? We played it as yes.

If you're interested in analyzing 2 newbies bumbling around trying to figure the game out (or listening to our post game thoughts) here's a VOD of the stream https://www.twitch.tv/videos/865271725
If anybody does take the time to skip through the boring parts would appreciate pointing out any rules we did get wrong, too!

1. You only get them (for free) with 6/12 & 2/3, it's on page 78. The army lists also specify if some unit cannot have leaders/sb and so only have an Acting Leader (such as Inferno Automatas).

2. The "Command" effect can affect other regiments that are in the Leader's 5" bubble (page 38) so I guess that when drawing your Sorcerer's Card, you can grant Fury to Fireforged, Hold Ballistae, Hold Thanes, Hold Warriors as described in the Herald's entry.

3. Any Wound causes a Resolve test (or at least 3 for First Blood) unless stated otherwise, such as from Volley actions.

4. Nope. Throwing Weapons cause Impact Hits. Those are part of the Charge action, not Clash. Vinda mentions "For each Hit scored from this Character's Clash or Duel Attacks" so impact hits are not part of it.
It's the same as with Inspire: it gives +1 Clash only when doing the Clash Action, not the Impact hits.

I think I got that right, anyone else can correct me if wrong.

Okay, all that makes sense! Thank you! Except I am a little confused about your answer to 3. What do you mean by "at least 3 for First Blood"? Does that mean 1 wound causes 3 Resolve tests or that 3+ wounds cause a Resolve test?

Sorry for the confusion, I mixed up some the numbers (I was thinking of the extra wounds you take after failing a Resolve test).

Each Wound inflicted (except for Volley) causes one Resolve test. Full stop.

Ahhh, okay, that's what I was thinking when reading the rules. And yes, it takes 1-3 failed tests to take 1 wound, 4-6 failed tests to take 2 wounds, etc. Thank you!

Very fun game. Can't wait to play more.

I got my Dweghom models in the mail today and hoooo boy am I not having fun with these Automata. I don't care for any of these balljoints at all and the legs are so weird and thin and small and only work in one pose anyways. WHY are all of these balljoints? There's a limited set of poses you can even rank these things up in! The little "face" horn thing is a balljoint? but it's supposed to go straight up?

Sigh. I hope the Fireforged are more fun to assemble than this.

I had to pay a commission hobbyist to assemble some of my Nords. She's fine with it but is a pro. Putting my games together is my absolute nemesis. I hate it.

On a positive note I finished a test model for my 100 Kingdoms Men at Arms. Feedback apprecitated. I"m not sure about using white / grey ligher primer on these larger models. Any mistakes are glaringly obvious, but I want to use the contrast paint as it is fast and looks good (the leather, black padded armor and red is all contrast).

What about priming black and heavily drybrushing those areas white before hitting it with the contrast?

 Eldarain wrote:
What about priming black and heavily drybrushing those areas white before hitting it with the contrast?

That's an idea worth an attempt. Thank you for the suggestion.

Really great tutorial about painting Conquest models (especially if you are new to Contrast paints) by our fellow Auticus https://www.underspire.net/painting-hobbying/auticus-paints-nord-raider/

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Really great tutorial about painting Conquest models (especially if you are new to Contrast paints) by our fellow Auticus https://www.underspire.net/painting-hobbying/auticus-paints-nord-raider/

Thanks so much!

Nord Chosen, full resin kit!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nord Trolls

Trolls are pure awesomeness. Bone (pun intended) Chosen are not to my taste.