Carteret posted:

The more I read about WH:40K:C the more interested I am. Consider me optimistically excited? I'm in for the core set, at a minimum.

TheLawinator posted:

A part of me didn't want it to be any different from the Fantasy one, but that's because I'm stupid.

Carteret posted:

If you didn't catch it, they announced the first War Pack.

Karnegal posted:

Played Conquest today. The FFG demo dude was a prick, bit the game has some promise. I don't think it will dethrone Netrunner any time soon, but I think it is worth a look. I'm still salty about needing 3 cores. 2 would be perfectly reasonable, but 3 is such a kick in the dick. I wish I had a chance to see more of the factions to get an idea of their play styles.

Karnegal posted:

It's unclear, but I want to have the option to build any competitive deck, and as others have pointed out in Netrunner the SanSans are important as 3 ofs in some decks. When the game was younger the consoles were also pretty important. I imagine Conquest will be the same. If the one ofs are all garbage, then few people will buy more than two, and they clearly want competitive players to buy 3.

omnibobb posted:

Yeah that makes me super stoked. I just don't know if I'll have the money or 3 sets between this and Doomtown.

And I'm sure no one in the store will play it

Carteret posted:

Carteret posted:

ALSO!

Next Warpack!
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=5092

Taran_Wanderer posted:

Sort of. There tends to be cards you'll practically always use if you're playing a particular sphere/faction/race/whatever, but not so many that tend to show up in every deck. For instance, if you're playing with Tactics cards in LOTR, you'll practically always use Feint, or every deck in AGOT will have three of its House's +Gold cards (e.g. The Goldroad). I imagine the neutral cards for Conquest will find their way into many decks, if only for the cheap units with command icons or the extra shields, but I doubt they'll be as common as those in Netrunner. Here's the neutral Conquest cards in the core set, for comparison.

GrandpaPants posted:

Is this realistic, though? Do battles typically last more than 2 full rounds? I imagine at that point, it should be pretty obvious who is going to win, and then it's just a matter of deciding whether or not you want to bleed their units. Not to mention if a fight lasts that long, I get the feeling a Warlord would not want to be vulnerable to attacks for that long. I'm obviously not a master at this game, but it just seems to me that it's hard to do a long sustained fight with a Warlord present without putting that Warlord at risk. Although amusingly, if Zogwort gets bloodied, his Snotlings live on to fight another day, maybe.

Kith, on the other hand, is a 2/6 that puts a 2/1 into play on commitment. For no work besides committing a Warlord, you get 4 attack worth. Combined with her signature Khymeramasters and Beastmaster Wyches, you are making GBS threads out a lot of Khymera.

This is all completely moot if your opponent has area effect, obviously. One Tactical Squad Cardinis is a surprisingly effective counter for a lot of Dark Eldar...

Rusty Kettle posted:

If you played this game more than twice, you have played it more than me. However, he'll put at a minimum two Snotlings down, which (barring area effect) seems like a free 2/2 unit. Then with his magic stick one is sticking around, and his supports bring out more. It seems reasonable that you could get 5-6 out at once mid to late game relatively easily.

Edit: also orcs seems like they will have lots of cards that make them beefier, so it seems like the support units will make this deck significantly less of a glass cannon.

GrandpaPants posted:

Actually, speaking of Events, how the hell do you use Power from Pain effectively? I don't think the sacrificed unit even has to take place in the planet the fighting is taking on, so it doesn't necessarily have an effect on the battle taking place. The only thing I can think of is maybe just eating through their chump units so that I can at least maximize my 2 resources spent on it. I do love that events can be used as shields though, so that situational ones like this and the sweepers can at least have a purpose besides being a dead draw.

NGDBSS posted:

In this case it looks as if whoever has initiative gets to decide:

And because reactions occur immediately after their triggering conditions (unlike interrupts), you'd want to hold off on the Warpstorm if you didn't have initiative. (Assuming, of course, that you were trying to get more cultists instead of simply nuking everything for its own sake.)

GrandpaPants posted:

Played another game of Warhammer Conquest today. Good lord are Tau ludicrous once they get going. Even a Repulsor Impact Field on a Fire Warrior Elite is a pretty huge goddamn wall of pain, doubly so with Stealth Cadre to boost its HP. So good.

I also learned that Repulsor Field's effect does not trigger on the killing blow.

Edit: Also, can a Comm Relay block a Black Heart Ravager's rout ability?

PJOmega posted:

Does the LOTR core box have enough for 3-4 players before I decide to go whole hog and get 3x cores?

EvilChameleon posted:

Gonna give them a go, we'll see how it works out. I think I got the rules mostly down, but just to be clear, the damage that units take doesn't just go away at the end of the round or something like in, say, Magic where if you don't kill a thing it just heals up for next turn?

AMooseDoesStuff posted:

Conquest has been great so far, the only thing we're hung up on now is what type a card is.
At first we were confused with Squigs Bombin' or whatever Ork card that lets you blow up a support, but the rulebook explained that.
But now, we have no idea what's a 'WARGEAR' or not? I mean, it makes sense you wouldn't be able to give a tank a sword or whatever. But the Relic Sword just says 'Relic Weapon' not 'Relic, Wargear, Weapon' or what have you.
I feel like we're missing something pretty obvious in the rulebook but I haven't been able to find anything.

EvilChameleon posted:

Where is this in the rules? I've been playing super wrong, always un-exhausting everything and having huge armies with the Warlord every command phase. This would make more sense but I think I skimmed over the part that says things come from HQ exhausted. Other newbie questions: If there is only one side at a planet during the battle phase, like I commit my Warlord to an empty planet, does the battle text on the planet still happen since I "win" but I didn't actually fight? And secondly, does Zarathur (Chaos Warlord)'s ability increase all damage or just attacks? Specifically, I was using an AoE and wasn't sure if it was amplified by Zarathur's ability. Based on the rules I could find it makes sense that it would, but I am not sure.

Are there any good resources for Conquest yet besides the deckbuilder? Theorycrafting and whatnot? I think I'm gonna try to make two more decks so I can have two games going at once (since I have the two core sets) -- which factions would you recommend going to next since I have Space Marines and Chaos already?

Gravy Train Robber posted:

I'm honestly sad the original idea for the Star Wars LCG got scrapped (it was going to be Co-Op like LOTR)

PaybackJack posted:

The Orks are definitely short on combat tricks but they make up for it in overwhelming strength I find. As mentioned I'm not using an tokens or units that die in a single area1 attack, they're just not worth it. The card that spawns the Acolytes is just there to provide a cost reduction to one of the daemons.

PJOmega posted:

What does Headquarters Action on Calamity mean?

EvilChameleon posted:

The store I ordered my Conquest cores from initially is listing Nov 14th as the day they will have copies of Blackmane's Howl for order. I looked at FFG's site and didn't see anywhere that had a definitive date, but I am bad at finding that sort of thing. Anyone know if this date is correct or approx correct? I need more cardssss.

GrandpaPants posted:

Why isn't Howl of Blackmane released yet.

PaybackJack posted:

That's how we've been playing it because the wording says that as soon as a unit is able to "strike" and there are no units on the otherwise the battle is over, but I ruled that the action window before it would still occur.

DatonKallandor posted:

I take the end of battle trigger from the Red Box in the Battle Resolution Diagram - it's the most specific of the end of battle explanations and the only one in the reference guide that has a clear cut rule for "when does a battle actually end, specifically?".

Actually I think you're right too. It looks like both conditions are active at the same time? In that case you couldn't do an unopposed retreat, but it'd still work if your only active unit after a commit (Warlord) kills the only opposing unit on his first attack, because an unopposed battle is won from the "start of Combat Turn" trigger, while a single opposing unit being killed by the Warlord means the "unit strikes but can't" isn't triggered.