Like Senf in one of neighbouring topics I was super exited about the announcement, but after reading the description it has suddently started sounding like something very similar to CoC. Actually, the repetition of some core mechanics was already pretty obvious in Star Wars LCG (some strange mix of GoT and CoC - that was still OK for my taste), but from what I've read about Conquest it looks like too similar to CoC. Maybe that's because I found CoC the least appealing of FFG living card games up to date (generally because of central story deck model that makes planning difficult - just too much counting and counter-counting for me to enjoy), but I am somehow disappointed about it. Yet, I would really like to restore this nice feeling of anticipating a new LCG that I had with LotR, A:N and SW in the earlier years, so can someone convince me that I'm wrong and these are going to be two completely different games? Kudos are promised !

All off FFG's games tend to share some common design foundations. ANR's perhaps the most divergent, but the reason for that is obvious, given that the game predates most of FFG's library!

I'm not super clear on what it is about CoC's influence that you object to. If "too much counting and counter-counting" refers to icon challenges and skill challenges, there's a little of that in this game, but not much. You count command icons at each planet for the command struggle (it's unclear if there will be actions during this phase) to determine who collects the resources and card draw, but the actual fight to conquer planets involves shooting the enemy forces until they aren't there anymore.

Try to keep in mind this is a very high level overview of the mechanics of the game. It is way to early to say that it is exactly like Call of Cthulhu, or even if the planet deck idea is even the same as the story deck. It does sound like there are some similarities, but I don't see any sort of story icons or things like there are with Call of Cthulhu. In fact, the only similarity I see between the two is that they are laid out in the middle and you can commit units to specific planets.

However, Call of Cthulhu 40,000 sounds like an awesome game and now I really want someone to make it! Lets let Cthulhu show the Chaos gods how it's really done!

Playing your cards to a central line of cards is shared by "The Call of Cthulhu" LCG and "Blood Bowl: Team Manager". I've played the latter and winning a face off gets you a big prize. From what I understand of "Warhammer 40,000: Conquest", you have to win on three battlefields that share a common symbol; tech, strongpoint, or material.

I've played both of those games. There is some similarity in the fact that you have a line of cards, but without seeing the rules it's hard to really say how closely the mechanics resemble each other. I was mostly just saying it's WAY to early to say this game is identical to Call of Cthulhu.

There is a big difference between reminding you of something and being like something. This game is NOTHING like coc. Not even remotely, no way, not even close, nu-uh, nope. not one bit.

The only thing that is even close and it is not really close at all. Is that there is a line of objectives you fight over. Though I could like probably 20 games or w/e with this same thing with out breaking a sweat. The funny thing is the ONLY thing the planet row has in common with CoC is that is it a row of card you fight over and is drawn from a non player controlled deck..

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

The funny thing is the ONLY thing the planet row has in common with CoC is that is it a row of card you fight over and is drawn from a non player controlled deck..

That non player controlled deck, for instance, is enough to sound the alarms in my head, as I think the story deck is the weakest point of the Call of Cthulhu LCG. I always felt not having control over it limits not only my control of the game but its replay value as well. It is SO boring to do the same tired, old quests over and over again. When was the last time FFG released new stories? In the Secrets of Arkham expansion? If it is going to be the same in Warhammer, then it is a huge turn off for me.

each to their own as it is with out a doubt one of the reason that coc is so awesome.

The last new stories was not that long ago, just before they switched to the new system.

Still, regardless there is no relation to the planet deck and the coc story deck, any suggestion there is comes form some kind of miss understanding. As I said before I could name a zillion games with story decks, why is this anymore like coc than say Spycraft or Revolver or ... I could just go on and on and on.

The games have been designed by the same person, so it is not surprising to see common design choices. However, I would be extremely surprised if it follows identical rules, and not just share the layout.

Is it just me, or is it way too early to even worry about this. We know almost nothing about this game....

Yes, there is a planet deck. There could be new planets in ever expansion for all we know. For once, can't we wait until we see the gameplay tutorials and the rule book before we start howling about how sucky some part of the game will be.

No. I am not being paid by FFG.

Seeing as how AGOT, CoC, SW:TCG, and W40KC were all designed by Eric Lang, yeah, I'd say there's going to be some similarities between any of his games.

You could say that Eric has essentially been refining his one trading card game design over and over and this latest version looks pretty sweet. Also, look at the game overview more carefully: while it is true that there is a central deck that is played in the middle and shared between the two players, the major difference is that you are completing one card (planet) at a time, starting from the leftmost card of the 1st player. Meanwhile, you can still deploy units to the other cards (or planets) down the line in order to try and secure your future. But you must always keep an eye on the battle at hand. Brilliant? Yup

It is inspired but other card games out there, and if I may say, the best there is, and borrow some mechanics and gameplay element from those.

Center row of cards you have to battle for: Call of Cthulhu, Bloodbowl Team Manager

This is the most obvious element that is similar between these games.

But looks like it has a bit more unique mechanics like the warlord vs deckbuilding and allies, the victory condition is a bit more defined and will force players to make on the fly or hearthbreaking decisions (do I take a planet that gives me a great reward right now or do I take a planet that pushes me toward victory or do I block and gain almost nothing this turn, etc).

Conquest looks like a **** amazing game even with these little details we have right now.

I think I'll wait to see if you guys like this game when it comes out. Just in case it sucks!

I do think there's a noticeable mechanical overlap between Eric Lang's LCGs. I think they all are different enough to be interesting on their own, but in my opinion it would be nice to see another LCG that really breaks the mold, similar to how Netrunner does it (props to Richard Garfield's design and Lukas's adaptation). That being said, not every theme and IP lends itself to great innovation, and ultimately it comes down to "is it fun to play?" -- and this game looks like it could be good fun while its mechanics seem a thematically fitting abstraction of trying to conquer a galaxy.

Center row of cards you have to battle for: Call of Cthulhu, Bloodbowl Team Manager

This is the most obvious element that is similar between these games.

but it is NOT even remotely similar. Yes there is a non-player controlled deck of contested points.. but that is ALL that is similar. Saying this is like COC because of that is like saying chess is like checkers as they both use the same board. I understand peoples fears here but it is compleatly unfounded and sorta ridicules.

There ISN'T any relationship to CoC.

If anything, a line of central locations to fight over is a callback to the original Sabertooth WH40K CCG,only difference being that it was sectors of a planet that were fought over, not planets themselves.

Other than "cards in the middle", I'm not seeing much similarity to Cthulhu to be honest. Overall I think there's at least as much Star Wars DNA in there.

CoC: 3 stories form a center row where players commit characters to win the story. Each Story has it's own power that can be activated.

Conquest: 5 planets form the center row where players send units to gain control of those planets. Each planet as it's own power that can be activated.

Sure it's just one tiny element of gameplay but to me this tiny aspect look similar

it would be nice to see another LCG that really breaks the mold

I think Lord of the Rings qualifies here, it breaks the biggest rule of all - competition.

I'm not sure I buy into the whole "Eric Lang keeps revising the same basic game design" theory. To me, they feel pretty different even if certain parts are similar. Also, if he was continuing to polish and improve the same idea then why do we see good mechanics get trimmed out of "newer versions of the same game"?

There are certainly things that seem to be part of FFGs design philosophy though. For instance, FFG uses a strong faction model where almost all cards belong to a faction. AEG by comparison uses a much weaker faction model where generally only characters (and maybe a few other cards) belong to factions and most cards are Neutrals that can be used by anyone.

I also haven't seen an FFG LCG yet that didn't have turns, whereas both Doomtown and 7th Sea (both from AEG) are wholly based on alternating actions from both players and do not have turns. L5R on the other hand does have turns.

So yeah, overall there is some amount of formula but I think that's true of most companies. You try not to stray too far from a model that you understand well, that makes your designers more productive and lowers the chance of errors.

this thread is so stupid. anyone that thinks these game are even remotely similar or even share any kinship are ******* retards. There is just no other way say it, your being moronic.. stop it. there is no link to this game and coc.. NONE AT ALL.

It's pretty obvious there are related concepts, but equally that they're developed in different ways.

Whether they're different enough, we'll have to wait and see!

I don't feel that there are related concepts. Unless your implying that laying cards face up in a line makes them related. If that's the case, there are games much older than CoC that this game is obviously similar to.

It's pretty obvious there are related concepts, but equally that they're developed in different ways.

Whether they're different enough, we'll have to wait and see!

Although Booored is a little more bombastic and grandiose than I think is required, I don't think his peeve is all that unwarranted. FFG isn't going to re-skin a game that they already have, that isn't one of their top games, and push it back out at us. I'm pretty willing to bet that the similarities will end where we currently see them.

40K is a huge franchise. There is an opportunity to make a lot of money with this one. Why ruin that by using the rules from a not-so-popular, non-LCG card game like Blood Bowl? Or their 5th, or if you believe BGG 6th tier LCG? Hell, even WH:I is rated more highly than CoC, and they stopped publishing new content for it.

They know we've all played those games, or at least looked at the rules. They aren't going to torpedo what could be a big money maker by re-skinning those ideas in total.

So, let's back away from the cliff here, and wait to see what we are actually getting.

booored if you feel the need to threat others as retarded for expressing their opinions in a forum you seriously need to see someone. Calm down, comment constructively and don't be a effing prick.

It's just a freaking game where most of all are anxious to know more about, don't need to be insulting about it.