I think you -could- make some sort of Co-Op 40k game (maybe not a LCG, but still....).

The problem is that you either sacrifice theme ("and the Eldar and Tyranids teamed up against Chaos and the Necrons" at the extreme end) or you sacrifice options ("everybody has to pick one of the following factions, since the foe is X").

I rather like that Conquest actually allows for some alliances between the factions, and it would seem to me that it wouldn't be hard to construct some sort of "team versus team" scenarios, where four or more (or three or more) players choose sides and build single faction forces allied along teams.

As for Necrons and Tyranids.... I see the Imperial Guard maybe joining the Tyranids (with some Genestealer Cult cards added to their mix), and Necrons going it alone. Eventually, as the line developes, I expect to see solo faction play as being more viable (hopefully neither ideal nor worthless however). At that point a solo Tyranid or Necron (or Chaos or Ork or Space Marine) force could hit the table.

I see expansions going somewhat like Nemesis for Relic. Tyranids and Necrons, if added would be additional armies that don't ally with others, with perhaps the exception of the Tyranids allowing Imperial Guard allies, but not vice versa. I'm okay with that fluff-wise, and it makes sense.

E

If it resembles any FFG LCG I would say it would be Cthulhu

That's exactly what I was thinking! I would also say it resembles not that it's alike but I have only watched not played C'thulu so I can't speak directly from experience. Great minds n' all that....

When I saw 40K LCG on the main page I was so psyched. But then started to read and found out the game was like Net runner not LotR.

I understand Netrunner is a good game and I am sure this will be too but CO-OP is what we play around here. So much more fun.

He is hoping they some day make an expansion that adds new rules to make it a cooperative game.

Like NetRunner? HOW?? You are aware that FFG DID NOT DESIGN NetRunner right? That would be Richard Garfield the combinitician, creator of Magic and reason you can play ANY of these LCGs. NetRunner does not use the tapping mechanic. NetRunner uses actual credits, not cards, as resourses, NetRuner has no central objective (Such as planets) to fight over. Almost 50% of the game is about unrevealed information. There is no such mechanism in Conquest. Seriously, what are you basing your opinion on? Do facts matter to you.....at ALL?? If you're going to be down on a game......I dunno maybe it's just me, but I think you should know why and be able to list a valid reason maybe? NetRunner has been around for more than just over a year. It was Garfield's second game and while everyone else was running around trying to capitalize on the tapping mechanism Dr. Garfield wanted to do something different. NetRunner was that something and to this day it is remembered while all those copycats? Not so much. In fact all six of the other LCGs share some similarities EXCEPT NetRunner because it wasn't designed by FFG.

The game you likely would want is Star Wars with the Balance of the Force expansion. It's the only LCG I think that has a co-op specifc expansion.

Yeah, looks a lot more like Call of Cthulhu where each player as to battle for a planet (story in CoC).

LCGs IMO are made for competitive play. LOTR is good but there's something missing that the others don't.

It's a matter of taste though and I can understand you not liking competitive games.

You could check Relic maybe? It's competitive but with minimal player interaction. It.s more like a race for which player will find a relic and go to the center to complete the quest. It's a great game btw!

Ah! Another player who actually has learned about the other games, excellent! Good to know also that I made the right choice between LotR and Pathfinder tACG. (I've always been more of a C.S. Lewis guy anywho.....) Although Pathfinder isn't really an LCG it gives the same feel I think.

I agree about Relic but I just want to point out that if you like getting into expansions Relic is making a turn back towards Talisman and it's competitive nature. It's first expansion really highlights this. Just wanted to point that out. Without that expansion though Relic is a great game and has little player interaction that you can't mostly just ignore.

"I'm super happy that they didn't ruin the W40k LCG by making it some lame, wimpy co-op game. Thank GAWD!"

messed up the quote sorry

It makes me sad to know that most Warhammer people are folks like this. Very hardcore with little room to consider what other people like. But I understand why the fluff was written the way it is. The tabletop game is a 1 on 1 competitive game and they are making a setting where there are many many battles and making sure everyone hates each other so what ever army your opponent has it still makes sense.

So I will rephrase and say I really hope FF or some other company can put out another game like LotR soon. I love the complexity of the deck buildings and the variety of play with all the scenarios to do along with the Cooperative nature of the game. And I hope it is done in a setting that I enjoy as much as 40K. LotR is an ok setting but not really one I am very into.

And yes I have both Relic and Death Angel, both of which are good games, but they don't have the depth. You can only play them now and then and the game will be fairly similar each time you play. Still good but not on the same level as LotR is.

There is only one other game that I think is kind of comparable to LotR. It does not have the customization of the deck buildings. But does have tons of variety in both what you play and what you play against and is Co-Op. And that is Sentinels of the Multiverse. Which I highly recommend to anyone that enjoys Co-Op games at all.

I'm with you, I'd like more co-op LCG's. But I also understand the sentiment form Wytefang. Co-Op in a 40k themed game would be a little forced, if you are including any number of the factions people want to play. The problem is the order and chaos factions all have ardent fans. If you made one of them the 'enemy' faction, you'd chase off half of the 40k fanbase, and let's be honest, if this game is going to succeed, it will be on the sholders of that fan base.

I for one would hate it if the Orcs or Necrons were forced to be the baddies, and I had to play as Space Marines... Don't get me wrong, I like the Space Marines, but Orc's are my first love in 40k.

Do you really think that Conquest will fail w/o the Warhammer 40k fanbase? If true, then historically speaking, Conquest will fail. Many TCGs have already counted on fanbases to prop them up and that didn't work out so well. Overpower counted on the comic fans (fail) so did VS. (which failed for the same reason PLUS the damage done by Overpowers immense failure causing fan uncertainty for any other comic based TCG.) The closest example I have though is the World of Warcraft TCG. I mean with such a huge fanbase how could that fail?? Simple. WoW players like to play Wow. Not TCGs. That's why I don't think a lot of Warhammer 40k players will be joining us. Warhammer is really more about the entire hobby which takes a lot of both money and time not leaving much for other games that take up those resources. I think that Warhammer 40k will be supported more by FFG fans than GW fans. GW fans are well, busy and broke. (I actually laughed out loud when I saw what Warhammer players are expected to put up with from GW. Seriously? People buy into this?? I mean it really is so ridiculous that it's almost hard to believe....)

In the grim dark future, there is only co-operation!

Seriously, I don't think the theme is a good fit for that.

But tell you what, you can have your co-operative 40K game with Orks and Eldar exchanging hugs right after I get my competitive Tolkien LCG so I can build a Witch King deck and go smash some rotten hobbitses. Deal?

In the grim dark future, there is only co-operation!

Seriously, I don't think the theme is a good fit for that.

But tell you what, you can have your co-operative 40K game with Orks and Eldar exchanging hugs right after I get my competitive Tolkien LCG so I can build a Witch King deck and go smash some rotten hobbitses. Deal?

Finally! Thanks for the laugh man..... Am I the only one thought that thinks either Grim or Dark pretty much have it covered? I know that GW is really proud of coming up with it and all but Grim Dark sounds like the name of some 70's marvel comics villian.... "Survival Horror" it is not.

I glad someone finally nailed it when it comes to 40k theme tho'! A team mechanism wouldn't be in the spirit of the one thing that CAN make this game a hit - the almost unlimited amount of 40k lore! It's as if no one's ever been in a room with a tech preist as a psyker and tried to get him to open a locked door.......co-operation is NOT warhammer 40k's forte'.

But tell you what, you can have your co-operative 40K game with Orks and Eldar exchanging hugs right after I get my competitive Tolkien LCG so I can build a Witch King deck and go smash some rotten hobbitses. Deal?

As much as I do love the LOTR LCG, I typically love playing the villians and it's extremely disappointing that I can't make a Witch King or Goblins deck. I would have prefered it to be competitive, but at least in this case the theme for LOTR does lend itself to Co-Op very well. I'm just happy they didn't decide to go Co-Op with Star Wars! Yay, dark side decks!

Did I miss something or did Balance of the Force make Star Wars Co-op? It's still competitive of course, but the new option is there isn't it?

If that's how you see the deck building of Star Wars, then I doubt you have won as much stuff as you say. Unless you're of course talking about your local casual tournaments. That's hardly the level of regionals though.

So, it does demonstrate your lack of understanding of the pod building system. Then again, you are approaching troll territory, so I probably should stop responding.

I've only been able to watch streamed tourneys online and so those were only the Oklahoma regionals and those players looked on about the same level as our local folks. Our own regional only had about 8 opponents (I know, if you can make it, insta-top 8 swag! great, huh?) and is more about who will be off and can make it than anything else so when you talk about the regional level what do you mean by that since some of ours are literally Did you show? You win yay!

As for the pods I see it as different, not better or worse. It is, of course, less complicated but on the other hand it creates a game where not every card is a "power" card. Some you literally put up with (force struggle fodder) so that you can have access to others in the pod. A different attitude and mechanism for deckbuilding sure, but worse? I don't think so.

By the way the tourney info I'm talking about is based on NetRunner because that's the only LCG played where I am. None of the stores in our city have any other organized play for LCGs. I don't know about regional Star Wars tourneys becuase there aren't any local players so it's just something I play with my roommate. I wish if they were going to have swag tourneys for Star Wars that they would have somewhere I could compete for them. I may not be "Mr. tournament big deal" but I'm pretty confident I'd have just as much chance as anyone else who tried. If I ever got the chance.

I see expansions going somewhat like Nemesis for Relic. Tyranids and Necrons, if added would be additional armies that don't ally with others, with perhaps the exception of the Tyranids allowing Imperial Guard allies, but not vice versa. I'm okay with that fluff-wise, and it makes sense.

E

^{The lore is pretty much my favorite part of Warhammer 40K but I just don't get how Tyranids + Imperial Gaurd makes sense. There's lots about the lore that I don't know so what happened to change the Tyranids? Aren't they pretty much just like the monsters from the Aliens movies?}

Tyranids and Imperial Guard allow for Genestealer Brood armies, old forces that used to be playable and now are again thanks to unbound in 40K.

E

Do you really think that Conquest will fail w/o the Warhammer 40k fanbase? If true, then historically speaking, Conquest will fail. Many TCGs have already counted on fanbases to prop them up and that didn't work out so well. Overpower counted on the comic fans (fail) so did VS. (which failed for the same reason PLUS the damage done by Overpowers immense failure causing fan uncertainty for any other comic based TCG.) The closest example I have though is the World of Warcraft TCG. I mean with such a huge fanbase how could that fail?? Simple. WoW players like to play Wow. Not TCGs. That's why I don't think a lot of Warhammer 40k players will be joining us. Warhammer is really more about the entire hobby which takes a lot of both money and time not leaving much for other games that take up those resources. I think that Warhammer 40k will be supported more by FFG fans than GW fans. GW fans are well, busy and broke. (I actually laughed out loud when I saw what Warhammer players are expected to put up with from GW. Seriously? People buy into this?? I mean it really is so ridiculous that it's almost hard to believe....)

Yup. Actually, I do believe that.

Your observations are mostly spot on, except fans doesn't necessarily mean people who play 40k.

Follow me for a minute, if you will. You are a 40k fan. Wait, wait! Don't laugh! You like the story, the setting, the themes, the background right? I think you mentioned that it was the rules that kept you out of the mini's game. For me it's the money. I have a handful of mini's. I like painting them. But I don't really have the time or money to play. But guess what? I'm a fan too!!!

The real question is, why would someone who doesn't like the 40k background/fluff pick up this game? Who are those people? And, if this game is going to be successful with just those people buying the game, then why on earth would you give it a 40k theme? Why not come up with your own theme, your own art, your own rich history? Because the fans of 40k WILL buy this game. Maybe not a lot of 40K players, but 40k fans will. Certainly FFG has no reason to pay the licensing fees associated with a GW property, which I assume are not small, if they don't think that the fan base of that game isn't going to do anything for them.

I don't know any of the TCG's you mentioned, so I can't really comment on how or why they failed. I suspect with WoW, it's just easier and more fun to log into your computer and play the real game instead of the card game. Also, for all I know the rules sucked, or finding a player base could have been very difficult. Can't really say to be honest. One major difference though, is that 40k has fans that can't/don't play the mini's game and those people will be a part of making this game successful, if they aren't then the licensing fees were wasted.

Granted, FFG LCG fans will also have to be a part of the equation, those may be your non-40k fans that will help sell the game, but again, if they were the only ones buying the game, then there is no need for the 40k setting, it's just wasted money.

While I agree on many of MechaBri.zilla's points - I would like to stipulate a couple things. Overpower and Vs. did not fail because they relied on the patronage of comic book fans and then didn't receive said patronage. Those two games failed because they were terribly designed games. Overpower was a tarted up version of the old school "War" card game and Versus became a HUGE cash-grab by Upper Deck with all of the crazy chase cards and the ridiculous power-creep. They almost LITERALLY put a warning label on the latest booster sets that said, "WARNING: THESE CARDS MAKE ALL PREVIOUSLY EXISTING VERSUS CARDS OBSOLETE. PLEASE BUY TWO MORE BOOSTER BOXES TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE."

It was that bad at times.

WoW TCG did really well for a long time. Not even sure why that was brought up. It was the third largest TCG and had huge tournaments and cash prizes. It's dead now because Blizzard pulled the license and is using the same art for Hearthstone. WoW was a great game. We had a ton of players here.

This game will easily pick up fans of 40K and LCGs, some will be fans of both and some will come from the other. 40K has a lot of burnt out former players who still love the IP. And people who play the other LCGs will likely try this out. It's certain to do better than Invasion did.

I am one of the 40K burn outs who is really excited for this card game

WoW TCG did really well for a long time. Not even sure why that was brought up. It was the third largest TCG and had huge tournaments and cash prizes. It's dead now because Blizzard pulled the license and is using the same art for Hearthstone. WoW was a great game. We had a ton of players here.

This game will easily pick up fans of 40K and LCGs, some will be fans of both and some will come from the other. 40K has a lot of burnt out former players who still love the IP. And people who play the other LCGs will likely try this out. It's certain to do better than Invasion did.

Blizzard maybe pulled the license, when it was made public Upper Deck were producing their own falsified cards (not for WoW, but for Yu-gi-oh).

WoW TCG did really well for a long time. Not even sure why that was brought up. It was the third largest TCG and had huge tournaments and cash prizes. It's dead now because Blizzard pulled the license and is using the same art for Hearthstone. WoW was a great game. We had a ton of players here.

This game will easily pick up fans of 40K and LCGs, some will be fans of both and some will come from the other. 40K has a lot of burnt out former players who still love the IP. And people who play the other LCGs will likely try this out. It's certain to do better than Invasion did.

Blizzard maybe pulled the license, when it was made public Upper Deck were producing their own falsified cards (not for WoW, but for Yu-gi-oh).

Upper deck lost the WoW license years ago, 2010. When the game ended it was made by Cryptozoic. It's only been gone since August 2013.

While I agree on many of MechaBri.zilla's points - I would like to stipulate a couple things. Overpower and Vs. did not fail because they relied on the patronage of comic book fans and then didn't receive said patronage. Those two games failed because they were terribly designed games. Overpower was a tarted up version of the old school "War" card game and Versus became a HUGE cash-grab by Upper Deck with all of the crazy chase cards and the ridiculous power-creep. They almost LITERALLY put a warning label on the latest booster sets that said, "WARNING: THESE CARDS MAKE ALL PREVIOUSLY EXISTING VERSUS CARDS OBSOLETE. PLEASE BUY TWO MORE BOOSTER BOXES TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE."

It was that bad at times.

I LOVED Vs. I don't know about power creep. I quit the game when they changed the graphic design on the card (which looked terrible in my opinion). At that time, I thought it was decently balanced and some of the better decks were still the older sets. The Kree Press mechanic was a bit crazy though as was the fact that Enemy of My Enemy was needed in many decks.

Do you really think that Conquest will fail w/o the Warhammer 40k fanbase? If true, then historically speaking, Conquest will fail. Many TCGs have already counted on fanbases to prop them up and that didn't work out so well. Overpower counted on the comic fans (fail) so did VS. (which failed for the same reason PLUS the damage done by Overpowers immense failure causing fan uncertainty for any other comic based TCG.) The closest example I have though is the World of Warcraft TCG. I mean with such a huge fanbase how could that fail?? Simple. WoW players like to play Wow. Not TCGs. That's why I don't think a lot of Warhammer 40k players will be joining us. Warhammer is really more about the entire hobby which takes a lot of both money and time not leaving much for other games that take up those resources. I think that Warhammer 40k will be supported more by FFG fans than GW fans. GW fans are well, busy and broke. (I actually laughed out loud when I saw what Warhammer players are expected to put up with from GW. Seriously? People buy into this?? I mean it really is so ridiculous that it's almost hard to believe....)

Yup. Actually, I do believe that.

Your observations are mostly spot on, except fans doesn't necessarily mean people who play 40k.

Follow me for a minute, if you will. You are a 40k fan. Wait, wait! Don't laugh! You like the story, the setting, the themes, the background right? I think you mentioned that it was the rules that kept you out of the mini's game. For me it's the money. I have a handful of mini's. I like painting them. But I don't really have the time or money to play. But guess what? I'm a fan too!!!

The real question is, why would someone who doesn't like the 40k background/fluff pick up this game? Who are those people? And, if this game is going to be successful with just those people buying the game, then why on earth would you give it a 40k theme? Why not come up with your own theme, your own art, your own rich history? Because the fans of 40k WILL buy this game. Maybe not a lot of 40K players, but 40k fans will. Certainly FFG has no reason to pay the licensing fees associated with a GW property, which I assume are not small, if they don't think that the fan base of that game isn't going to do anything for them.

I don't know any of the TCG's you mentioned, so I can't really comment on how or why they failed. I suspect with WoW, it's just easier and more fun to log into your computer and play the real game instead of the card game. Also, for all I know the rules sucked, or finding a player base could have been very difficult. Can't really say to be honest. One major difference though, is that 40k has fans that can't/don't play the mini's game and those people will be a part of making this game successful, if they aren't then the licensing fees were wasted.

Granted, FFG LCG fans will also have to be a part of the equation, those may be your non-40k fans that will help sell the game, but again, if they were the only ones buying the game, then there is no need for the 40k setting, it's just wasted money.

While I agree on many of MechaBri.zilla's points - I would like to stipulate a couple things. Overpower and Vs. did not fail because they relied on the patronage of comic book fans and then didn't receive said patronage. Those two games failed because they were terribly designed games. Overpower was a tarted up version of the old school "War" card game and Versus became a HUGE cash-grab by Upper Deck with all of the crazy chase cards and the ridiculous power-creep. They almost LITERALLY put a warning label on the latest booster sets that said, "WARNING: THESE CARDS MAKE ALL PREVIOUSLY EXISTING VERSUS CARDS OBSOLETE. PLEASE BUY TWO MORE BOOSTER BOXES TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE."

It was that bad at times.

I LOVED Vs. I don't know about power creep. I quit the game when they changed the graphic design on the card (which looked terrible in my opinion). At that time, I thought it was decently balanced and some of the better decks were still the older sets. The Kree Press mechanic was a bit crazy though as was the fact that Enemy of My Enemy was needed in many decks.

I used to be 40k player but GW priced me out. Still love IP and want to play something. I own warhammer invasion and its great game. Conquest look realy great and diskwars too. FFG produce better warhammer games than GW

It's certain to do better than Invasion did.

That's an odd statement, and the first time that I've seen it. Why do you think that?

I believe this game will mainly appeal to those that know of or like the IP but are NOT 40K table top players. 40K is a relatively hardcore game, as in all encompassing.. it is expensive and massively time consuming. I belive we will get a lot of them trying it out.. but becoming regular players buying packs every month? No. I expect the penetration into those gamers to be very low indeed.

This game will appeal to X-TableTop players and those who just love the IP. Also FFG has fostered a pretty popular RPG community for 40K and I would think they will be very interested in this game. FFGs GamesWorkShop games are all targeted like this. Discwars for example.

It's certain to do better than Invasion did.

That's an odd statement, and the first time that I've seen it. Why do you think that?

I think that too and for the most simple reason of all, fans be damned. I believe it will do better because I've played Invasion and I've read all the articles for Conquest and from what I see so far (which granted is limited) it seems to be an evolution and fix for some of the issues players were having with Invasion. I enjoyed Invasion but reading it's rules and the articles I think I will enjoy Conquest more.

it is a very common and foolish mistake to think that because you like something others will. People tend to trust their own opinions and have a hard time accepting that usually their opinion is shared by the minority. It is easy to say.. because I dislike something any sane and thinking person MUST also dislike it. A good example is Transformers 4.. a lot of people hate that, but tat didn't stop it from being a 400million box office smash breaking all records. So all these excuses come out, but the truth is.. that the majority just do not agree with me that the film is bad.