if this game was just a reskin of CoC i would be thrilled, because CoC is a LOT of fun!

Common elements:

Planet deck (Story cards)

Resource match when fighting over planets, with factions most likely tuned towards a particular resource.

SWLCG: the single hero card you bring to battle has a fixed pod of cards that must be in each deck.

It's not a crime to borrow from your own games. By the sound of things they are combining the best elements of a few well loved products.

It's obviously a different game. I never claimed it was a reskin. But at the same time, FFG LCGs tend to have certain identifiable traits that mark them as FFG house style.

Look, I don't want to dig too deep, because obviously, there's still a lot to learn about the game. But here's one example of what I mean -- the planet deck and the way it's used:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 card fixed planet deck, not controlled by either player. CoC stories are set up the same way.

3 to win (CoC stories) modified in Conquest by 3 specific icons on the planets to win. A good development of the idea.

Planets represent up to 3 spheres of engagement. During a turn, each player must divide his forces to contest or not, each sphere. This, too, is apparent in CoC's stories. But a version of this also appears in the Star Wars objectives and in the 3 conflict types in game of thrones. I know people will object that the executions here are different, and they do each execute the conflicts themselves in ways particular to each game. But the underlying concept is the same. You could even argue that this is true of Netrunner, with 3 root servers, but given its history pre FFG, maybe that's part of its appeal for the company, rather than a result of the company's influence.

In addition to moving you closer to victory, winning a battle provides the choice to either activate or not the planet's "Battle:" ability, just as in CoC you can trigger a story's text (or elect not to) when you win it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure once we know more, we can make similar observations about other gameplay elements. Hell, we can now. And it's just as true that there are many differences to point out. I don't think it's a reskin, nor did I say it was. Obviously there was a lot of work done to make this thing it's own game.

At the same time, FFG's LCG "house style" is very apparent. Although really, this is more Eric Lang's design "voice," given that he designed most of them.

Many of us are here because we like that style or that voice, just as readers who appreciate an author anticipate his next book, or many TV viewers keep going back to certain cable networks with strong brands because they produce certain kinds of shows that their audience appreciates.

Is it a reskin? No, of course not. Is it totally unrelated? Same answer: Of course not.

We'll just have to see where it lands on the spectrum between reskin and revolution, and each decide for ourselves whether we're happy with the outcome.

There are clearly small bits of similarities between Conquest and several other games.

The main point of contention here is how many small points of similarity it takes to say that the games are similar. Personally, I feel like it takes quite a lot of similarity. Others seem to feel that just 1-2 small scattered points are enough to say this. To the people looking for deeper comparisons, this is roughly like seeing an alien biologist comparing a grizzly bear and a shark and claiming that they're pretty similar because they both have two eyes and teeth attached to a hinged jaw.

To the people looking for deeper comparisons, this is roughly like seeing an alien biologist comparing a grizzly bear and a shark and claiming that they're pretty similar because they both have two eyes and teeth attached to a hinged jaw.

For me, at least, I suspect it's the former game designer in me poking around under the hood (at least as much as possible given what we know).

As for the biologist comparison, I'd say it's more like noting the similarities between birds and dinosaurs (which itself isn't without controversy). There are commonalities, but you don't worry on a day to day basis that our feathered friends are going to go all Jurassic Park on us.

I think it comes down to game mechanisms.

The planet offer is basically a "game board" one shared by many many many card games.. just as game boards are in many boardgames. The mechanisms of the game though, have no similarities at all, not any more than any other card game.

Taking possession of cards is a general type of card game device. Winning ticks in bridge for example is winning "conflict" based on icons and taking possession to cards to your victory pile... I mean this is such a common thing in games.

The mechanisms of these general principals, of how they are won and what they mean is what is different, and this is important. I mean cards can only be used in so many way. That is why all games that share a focus like say all card games, or all dice games share similar broad stroke game states. I mean a dice game isn't copying another dice game because they both have a rulwe that when you roll 2 pair it means something.

I have not that much experience with many different card games, but i also noticed some similarities to other games. Let me ask you this question: Do you see some innovation in this 40k LCG, something that would be a really new mechanism? Of course it is still only speculation. And as i see it, creativity must not mean inventing completely new things. Still i wanted to ask this.

Many of us are here because we like that style or that voice, just as readers who appreciate an author anticipate his next book, or many TV viewers keep going back to certain cable networks with strong brands because they produce certain kinds of shows that their audience appreciates.

Yes, but even the best series can get stale after a while...

Many of us are here because we like that style or that voice, just as readers who appreciate an author anticipate his next book, or many TV viewers keep going back to certain cable networks with strong brands because they produce certain kinds of shows that their audience appreciates.

Yes, but even the best series can get stale after a while...

The analogy wasn't in reference to long running series fiction, but to standalone novels from a particular author. I don't read much series fiction anymore. As far as TV goes, I was referring to a network's brand rather than a long running series. It sounds like you're thinking of one specific TV show going into its sixth or seventh year, which would be more akin to a single LCG that's been on the market for a long time, IMO.

Of course, even in new launches like Conquest, there needs to be new twists on the old ideas alongside new ideas and mechanics. Which I've been saying all along, and have been speculating on in another thread.

I have not that much experience with many different card games, but i also noticed some similarities to other games. Let me ask you this question: Do you see some innovation in this 40k LCG, something that would be a really new mechanism? Of course it is still only speculation. And as i see it, creativity must not mean inventing completely new things. Still i wanted to ask this.

The resource generation and card draw mechanic, where you have to win a command struggle on a planet in order to claim these things, seems new, and drives the game in a fundamental way.

That's the biggest change, but there are lots of smaller concepts and refinements.

Even though I've been discussing the similarities here, I do think it's also bringing new things to the table.

Also the combat going in rounds till yu die or retreat. Most games I have hard of only ever attack once. So that is innovative as well.

It looks to me like there are several new mechanisms here - new in this sense meaning that they are new within the context of an LCG/CCG type game. Obviously if you deconstruct things enough nothing is completely unprecedented but I have not seen anything too similar to the signature squads or command struggles in other card games. Multi-round combat is also rare to nonexistent. Cthulhu has story cards with effects on them, but this game adds an order to them and non-First planets seem like their win effect could be triggered multiple times over a game which is definitely not the case with Cthulhu. Probably other new things as well, but we only know so much about the game at this point...

Bottom line though is that making a list of new things isn't that important. What is important is how the game feels as a whole. Do the mechanics work well together? What about the actual cards? Do they offer interesting yet balanced effects? Do they interact well with the rules mechanics? It's quite possible to take a bag full of "new" mechanics and end up with a crappy game after all.

The first thing I thought of when skim-reading the rules overview was how much it reminded me of the 40k card game by Sabertooth Games. Having five planets (sectors in the old game) to capture, commiting units to each of the locations, etc, sounded just like the old game (which to me was a good thing because that game was awesome, except for some glaring balance issues). Can't wait for a comprehensive rulebook!

yeah the game is supposed to be a reimaginging of the original.. .that much seams pretty clear.

Kay' points for "title most likely to suck up gamers" but no, this is not like CoC in my opinion. Reasons? Well for one that hasn't been listed yet but is key (I feel) to why a game like Conquest will succeed would be theme. For many of us this one can be a deal breaker and actually it's one of the reasons why I chose not to play CoC, LotR, and GoT or Invasion. Something about all those games was just "eh." I don't play games to feel "eh." Is that always the best way to pick games? Maybe not but it turned out to be a pretty good indicator in this case. I ended up getting Star Wars and NetRunner and since I didn't get the "eh" games I ended up with one of the games still played around here (NetRunner) and one that isn't. (Star Wars) rather than any of the "eh" games which I have never seen hit the table at open game nights.

That's my biggest concern about this game. That it won't have any players and it's just me and my roommate the way it is with SW....

Coc also has no necessary conflict at the first planet, resourses work differently, there are a different number of central cards and the central cards serve an entirely different purpose and are won differently as well. Combat is also quite different.

They are not similar.

I think this game is like Smash Up! No totally trolling here.

Actually I kinda' think you're on to something....... Does that mean that there will be an obligitory Cthulu expansion?? Not that I would want one of course I mean that would be just silly...........honest. It's TOTALLY not why I'm in this thread.....