Warhammer 40k Conquest

Ok but you said Aesops + Cache… :stuck_out_tongue: Semantics I suppose.

It does give decks similar flows… I think that as time goes on, better options are going to be released though and decks might be able to do different things(although running your opponent run away with command is just never going to be good unless your winning right now)

Maybe a deck gets most of its economy from winning certain battles? We have colors matter coming up in cycle 2, so it could be that a warlord gets " when you win a battle at a planet with a blue icon, get 2 resources"

Aunshi already is very battle centric. I’ve triggered 5 battle abilities in one turn with Aunshi :D.

1 Like

Or stuff like “At the beginning of the command phase, you may declare a reversal. If you do, each planet that would give a player resources draws them that many cards, and each planet that would draw a player cards gives them that many resources”.

That’s probably just a one-shot card, actually.

Anyway, there’s definitely space, but it seemed much less prominent.

1 Like

All you really need to know about Conquest is that I played a game that ended in a tie. I haven’t played it since.

Additionally, I have a strong suspicion that the player that starts the game with initiative will win more than 50% of the time which just doesn’t seem very fun. Granted, the card pool for Conquest is very limited at this time and the expansions and new cycles should move things in a positive direction, but in general, Netrunner is just a better game.

However, I don’t think Netrunner is actually FFGs best LCG. That distinction, imo goes to Lord of the Rings. I personally feel this is because Caleb Grace and Matt Newman, the devs for LotR LCG, are the best at FFG. They do a perfect job of blending theme and card function. I secretly wish that the two of them would do a cycle for Netrunner because I think they would do a hell of a job.

Back to Conquest; I’ve always loved 40k theme anything, but as far as a game goes, I just kind of felt like Conquest was “ok” at best when compared to some of FFGs other LCG offerings.

2 Likes

Big LoTR fan here :slight_smile:

4 Likes

In the “which is more skill based” debate, most of both sides will just be anecdotal evidence (read: empty words). That being said, netrunner, due to the base actions that are always present, particularly click to draw, is the single most consistent card game I’ve played barring maybe vintage magic. Now that corps actually have good economy, bad starts have been fixed by the ability to draw out of it, and the “you just lose” game happens maybe 1 in 100 games. Several top players have put up remarkably consistent placings, which supports this theory. Higher consistency rewards higher player skill.

Now, for anecdotal evidence of my own, I was able to pick up a deck and go even against one of the better players in the city (won both store champs) not knowing what was included in the deck and having to stop frequently to read what cards did. This was having not played since core set release and having maybe 10 total games under my belt. That is not something that would happen with netrunner.

EDIT: On the note of vintage magic, did you know that a budget vintage deck costs more than most 4 door sedans?

6 Likes

Sure but i took a game off of AlexFrog at one of my first ever times out playing Netrunner. Can’t remember which time out it was (I had only really played at home with my SO).

Anecdotal :).

The conquest community is fairly soft imo and doesn’t seem to be to big, which is why I’m most hesitant to recommend my friends buying in it at this point, especially if they can’t afford multiple LCGS. I love netrunner and I love AGOT and I’m looking forward to 2.0.

It wouldn’t shock me if @Kingsley was the worlds best player right now(he is also really helpful!) Most of my personal warhammer community plays this game as a secondary game. Several of the players play Agot or Netrunner primarily, a few others play MTG.

If I could only play one lcg, Warhammer Conquest would not be it. But it’s not as bad of a game as others make it out to be. Also if it doesn’t pick up too much around here after worlds I’m probably dropping out since I’m planning on playing 2.0 and 13 person regionals just aren’t that exciting. I played basically two games that mattered the whole day and that was the top 4 games, and well that just can’t compare to the intensity of the Netrunner regionals from yesterday where I had tons of intense matches because the level of competition is a notch above and we got 33 competitors and i didn’t even make the cut!. Ok I’m not making a very good case for WH… but I’m gonna repeat that I have been having fun playing, and Tyranids and the new uniques look like they are going to be awesome :D, and if you want something to do give it a chance cause we could use the competitive players to push the game to that next level.

3 Likes

Netrunner and agot, all the way, i play conquest (because a friend is buying that) its fun, but not as fun as these 2 :slight_smile:

once conquest gets a bigger card pool, there will be more options, and skill level does play into it but snowballing happens way more then it should. still why is this on a netrunner forum?

it’s under “other games”

3 Likes

soo it is, lol didnt even see that

Agreed. From what I hear, Conquest is more popular now than Netrunner was at the equivalent time in its lifecycle, but that still doesn’t equate to it being huge. There are a lot of people in my area waiting to get in until after the Tyranids come out (the Tyranids will also allow people to play fully competitive decks with one core + one big box), and I’m hoping that’ll lead to more play in general.

(There are also a bunch of 40k players who got into Conquest but aren’t really connected to the normal LCG community, which makes it harder to find a game than one would expect given the number of players.)

That’s somewhat true by design, though there are a few differences - Chaos decks often use sacrificial units as an economic substitute/supplement (there are several cultists that can sacrifice to reduce the cost of daemon units), and there are some support-heavy IG (especially Coteaz) decks that gain card draw and money from supports like Ammo Depot and Promethium Mine, which later buff their Infantry Conscripts.

However, it’s definitely the case that there isn’t as much economic variety in Conquest as in Netrunner. That said, the economy is much more interactive, which I appreciate.

[quote=“Danwarr, post:26, topic:4071”]
All you really need to know about Conquest is that I played a game that ended in a tie. I haven’t played it since.

Additionally, I have a strong suspicion that the player that starts the game with initiative will win more than 50% of the time which just doesn’t seem very fun. [/quote]

Ties are extremely difficult to achieve in Conquest. What happened? Keep in mind that if the seventh planet is taken and nobody has three icons of the same color, the person who won the last planet (typically the 7th though rarely the 6th) wins.

As for initiative, going second is actually better most of the time (it gives you an advantage in the deployment phase), though this is somewhat dependent on warlord/matchup/planet alignment.

1 Like

In my experience, it’s less about who goes first in the game as such and way more about how the planets and their colors are lined up, in relation to where you’ll have initiative once that’s the first planet. If your opponent gets the same color on 1,3,5 (or 2,4,6 if you’re the one starting with initiative) while you get a bunch of random garbage that you can’t possibly puzzle a win out of, even if you manage to wrest one of those from him… yeah, you’re done.

(I guess there’s warlord hunting as a variance-resistant strategy in this regard, but that’s a deckbuilding decision much more than an actual gameplay decision, which is meh)

Kyle, have you played Call of Cthulhu? If so, would be interested in your thoughts on it (both in general and relative to Conquest and Netrunner).

1 Like

I don’t particularly experience that? There are several units that have an advantage off initiative (most notably Blood Angels Veterans and anything with Brutal), and I don’t find who has initiative to be all that important under normal circumstances. Obviously, if you can force the final battle to be at a place where you have initiative, that’s great, but that’s far from guaranteed, and there are ways to play around it anyway.

For instance, in the final game at Worlds last year I successfully won a battle and set up a large force at planet 7, where I would have initiative for the win on the last turn, but my opponent headed there on turn 6 and managed to defeat the large force I had sent there when it was his turn with the initiative, setting up his own force in preparation for turn 7 and giving him enough of an advantage that I had to concede.

The more advanced I get in Conquest, the less relevant battle initiative seems to be to the overall outcome. That’s why I prefer going second if possible - with battle initiative often out of the picture, the deployment delay is much more useful and advantageous in my view.

1 Like

I think it’s only reasonable to compare conquest now to Netrunner at the end of Genesis. Netrunner was awkward then, Runners were way ahead. Conquest doesn’t have any of the disadvantages of asymmetry, although they still have to balance the wheel. I think Conquest is probably in a reasonable spot. My 10 or so games have been fun and if there were games to be had near me I’d play it more. Especially now it’s the ‘off season’ for Netrunner.

I think the lack of comeback mechanisms is a real problem. I also think that the lack of ways to upset the game’s natural clock is problematic. That said, it’s a good core of a game with much more depth than I gave it credit for originally.

The biggest strike against Conquest is that it has to compete with Netrunner for my time. Everything has a hard time doing that.

2 Likes

I’ve been enjoying Conquest, but it’s an entirely different beast from Netrunner. I find that scoring/stealing points in Netrunner always takes more out of the person scoring/stealing than the person losing. In Conquest you get your guys that didn’t die back with your Warlord, you get points, and you get to trigger the battle ability at the planet (which can be devastating I’ve discovered, I didn’t have enough units to commit to the first planet so the other player put a fucking chaos Dragon onto the board for free. Bye bye Eldorath alt-art :frowning:)

I always have a lot of fun playing, but I do feel like my victories have a measurable amount of luck. I went to a game night kit and came in 3rd place (granted it’s a pretty small group, just 6 people). First, every game I won had an extremely favorable planet flop for me by having a victory condition at either the 3rd or 4th planet. Second, I got my Cybork Body (and a good unit to attach it to, hello Snakebite Thug) in every game I won as well.

My biggest problem with Conquest right now is that I find Doomtown considerably more fun, and the people that play Doomtown also play Netrunner (no one that plays Conquest locally also plays Netrunner except for me).

2 Likes

Best of one as a tournament format was the deal breaker for me.

It’s the same in Netrunner… Even if you play 2 games, each one is scored independently.

Edit: I also think that Conquest is pretty good game and people complaining about a lack of a comeback mechanism probably haven’t played enough with good players to see how to stop the snowball. It’s definitely doable and pretty fun to pull off. In fact I felt that the control/ choke decks that gave up the first couple of planets were actually vastly favored.

I haven’t played much in the last few months though as I was disappointed with the lack of diversity of decks. Basically it was all Eldorath and Kith choke decks, with SMs making an appearance here and there using basically the same tactics and from time to time you spot the inconsistent and unfun “I win” decks from Aun’shi.

I have friends who still play fairly regularly, and they tell me that while new stuff has happened in the format, it’s still basically the same structure.

Have there been any good aggressive decks for instance? All the good decks when I played were either Choke or Commander kill combo. I really wanted to build an Orc deck when Snakebite Thug came out, but it just didn’t feel like the pieces were there and you just got wrecked by the choke decks and could easily be screwed by a bad planet flip.

Which actually is a huge difference and far from the same.

2 Likes

How is that different? Each game is best of 1. You get points for the game and not for the match.

There is no difference between a player who sweeps half their matches and gets swept the other half and another player who splits all their matches.

Edit: Especially since they did away with the weak side wins tie breaker.

2 Likes

I don’t remember the exact circumstances, but I was playing with just the Core set and it happened that the way the planet spread worked out and how things were won made it come down to the last planet but that wouldn’t have given either of us the 3 color victory. It’s entirely possible that we played incorrectly as neither of us noticed the last planet victory condition.

I’m certainly willing to give the game another look if, based on your endorsement, this last cycle has expanded options and made the game less “snowball-y”. From my limited experiences with the Core set, that was the general sense that my brother and I got.

So now that GoT 2.0 and 40k Conquest have threads, is it time for a LotR: LCG one?

1 Like