A battle ends when a unit should attack and there is no enemy unit (also if there are no units at all when after both players pass on actions). The combat phase itself ends when all battles have been resolved.

This very thing happened to me the first time just a couple nights ago after about the 7th game I had played. We both thought we had a pretty good grasp of the rules at this point but the combat flow is a bit wack IMO. This needs some clarification badly. I am not sure I still understand it entirely or agree with any particular interpretation. So I guess I am wrong here too but I thought the opportunity to retreat units occurred after the first round of combat and every round after, post refresh step, before next round of fighting begins? Which would make sense: Army lays waste to the field of battle, surveys the field, no survivors, the battle is won, ok boys lets go home. Use of ambush in this situation breaks theme and immersion and is just plumb stupid. Battle is over for days, everyone has left... but wait, here comes private dumb azz, days later after the war is over to snag (lol, terrible, it wouldn't let me use the other word) victory from the jaws of defeat just by his mere presence upon this empty battlefield. Now that is abusing the rules and being stupid IMO. I guess there just needs to be a bold print clarification released by FFG stating exactly when a battle is considered WON and OVER. Anyway, yea my bro told me no go after I wiped out his army at a planet and then wanted to take my units back with me to HQ. I think this should be an optional thing. Refresh, leave them or retreat them, but I guess I can get on board with leaving the warlord there in case lieutenant late pants shows up, before the timing procedure checks game state to determine, "hey everyone is dead" or not, therefore determining the victor... even if I still think it's stupid.

I guess there just needs to be a bold print clarification released by FFG stating exactly when a battle is considered WON and OVER.

Just for reference, I think FFG would say this already exists:

RRG, p. 22 (flowchart): " 3.2.10 If, at any time, a unit would attack but there are no enemy units in the battle, the battle ends with the player who controls the would be attacking unit winning the battle."

RRG, p. 26: " 3.2.10 Winning a Battle If a player controls at least one unit in a battle at the beginning of his combat turn, and there are no enemy units at the planet, the battle ends and the player controlling the only unit(s) at the planet is the winner of the battle."

Isn't this "bold print clarification" enough to say that a battle is WON and OVER when a unit goes to attack, but there is no one on the other side of the field to shoot?

Anyway, yea my bro told me no go after I wiped out his army at a planet and then wanted to take my units back with me to HQ. I think this should be an optional thing. Refresh, leave them or retreat them,

Ah, but here is the difficulty with that take on things. Killing the last opponent does not win the battle -- Attacking and finding no one there to fight does. Just because you kill the last guy you can see doesn't mean there isn't a sniper hiding in the bushes or some hidden bunker of enemies waiting to take advantage of your mistake -- like leaving entirely because you think you won instead of making sure you won by attacking one more time.

So, if your last ready unit kills the last opponent (you know about), you haven't actually won the battle yet. You need to refresh everyone, retreat units to HQ if you want, then attack one more time, just to make sure they really are all dead. If you don't do this, you don't win the battle. If you retreat everyone, you never get the chance to make that last attack and the battle ends in stalemate (unless that hidden guy jumps in and wins by attacking your empty battle field -- that everyone just left because they celebrated too early).

Retreating to HQ between combat rounds is always optional. You are never forced to retreat and can leave units at a planet after a battle. The only time you must retreat to HQ is when battle is over at the First Planet -- because the planet goes away, and there is nowhere to leave the units. But this happens AFTER the battle is actually over, not between combat rounds.

Yes I understand now just fine. I only mean to say that it could have been a bit more prominently occluded to I guess. My point regarding things like "ambushers" played after a retreat is this:

Armed forces are sent to a location to take advantage or control of an area. Either they face opposition after arriving or they don't. Let us say the first is true; Battle over the strategic location ensues. The forces that manage to hold the position reap the benefits and rewards of said location until its resources are depleted or it no longer holds any strategic value, after which they retreat or redeploy to another location. Any forces that show up at this point are pretty much irrelevant.

In the 2nd instance; Forces arrive, no opposition is met. The setting up of infrastructure to take advantage of the locations' resource or strategic value is all the more rapid and efficient. After everything is sucked dry and evacuated, your "Eager Recruit" shows up to do what? Contact Command to tell them he has single handedly captured strategically useless real estate and established an F.O.B. at said dust bowl?

It is an arbitrary rule that doesn't do justice to the theme and legitimizes a ridiculous strategy. I mean with that line of thinking then I guess any military would have to maintain a constant presence everywhere they are sent indefinitely to be considered victorious in any campaign.

Also, how does this make sense?

1) 2+ planet, I am the only one with units present. I never get the opportunity to retreat forces who barely even had any base of operations established there if they came with my Warlord. They have "just barely" been committed.

2) 2+ planet, forces I commit become embroiled in conflict. My army digs in, fighting continues for god knows how long. Much infrastructure is established to continue the campaign to win the location. After much fighting over an entire planet... and the dust begins to settle and my forces are likely far removed from their forward base of operations, it is now somehow easier for them to pull up stakes and retreat, relocate, move along and or redeploy elsewhere?

Rules mechanics aren't required to make fluff sense (though it's better when they do) or be realistic (too much realism can make rules clunky and make the game tedious, so it's not necessarily better when they do). Also, realism in 40k? Seriously?

Rules mechanics aren't required to make fluff sense (though it's better when they do) or be realistic (too much realism can make rules clunky and make the game tedious, so it's not necessarily better when they do). Also, realism in 40k? Seriously?

I bet you havn't seen my Chainsword yet!

Always comes in handy when I'm battling trees again.

Rules mechanics aren't required to make fluff sense (though it's better when they do) or be realistic (too much realism can make rules clunky and make the game tedious, so it's not necessarily better when they do). Also, realism in 40k? Seriously?

+

Yea I agree, I just think a game feels more intuitive when the theme permeates it more completely and there is a bit more "realism" or rationale that marries the theme. It is a bit of a cop out to say "realistic? it's (insert fictional IP here)" however. That is the ultimate argument ender for every difference of opinion on how things "should" work in every fictional world ever imagined. to say such arguments are invalid is to discredit our very existence or at least have everyone posting on this thread to seriously reconsider what we are doing with our lives.

Seriously though, Back to topic... kind of. I am a bit confused still on this whole ambusher thing again. I know you don't sacrifice your attack for using a combat action on a card you play, but shouldn't it be your "turn" to take a combat action to play one? That is to say, should you only be able to play a card with ambush when it is your turn to attack? You would then have to have at least 1 unit present after your opponents' attack in order to play a unit with ambush right? If such is true, an ambush unit could not be played at an "uncontested" 2+ planet as a surprise factor or when a player leaves a Warlord behind after a battle at a 2+ planet if you didn't have units there as the player with the only present Warlord would have combat initiative, proceed to attack, only never does because there is no unit to attack therefore never becoming "your" combat turn because they just won the battle. I guess that is the main difference in the way I interpret "RRG, p.22 3.2.10 If , at any time, a unit would attack but there are no enemy units in the battle, the battle ends with the player who controls the would be attacking unit winning the battle. " Am I wrong here? The player with initiative does have to attack first before passing combat turn to his opponent right? Can players just go ham, throwing out combat action cards whenever during a battle?

While that is certainly a good point, I think the realism comment was more that 40k is quite renowned for being a bit over-the-top.

Nevermind, disregard that. RRG, p. 20, Action Windows answered that one for me lol. both players have the option to initiate an action starting with the player with initiative, alternating between both players until both players pass at which point the action window closes.

Right. Over the top I can deal with and greatly appreciate. The lone "Eager Recruit" on an empty battlefield, waving a banner over it and claiming victory and domination over the entire PLANET , long after the war is over though.... does not strike me so much as "over the top" as it does slapstick comedy .

Correct, one reason for waiting until it is your turn to attack is that you will actually get to. Both players can ambush in units before an attack, but it is the attacking plaayer that is ahead as they will likely kill the opposing unit unless shielded.

It is also quite thematic as an attack comes out of almost nowhere.

Right. Over the top I can deal with and greatly appreciate. The lone "Eager Recruit" on an empty battlefield, waving a banner over it and claiming victory and domination over the entire PLANET , long after the war is over though.... does not strike me so much as "over the top" as it does slapstick comedy .

I tend to think of it not so much that a lone scout conquered the planet but provided the necessary tipping point allowing the masses of unseen forces, presumably blowing chunks out of each other, to come to a conclusion. The Imperial Guard are not typically known for only sending 1 tank to a theatre, but it could be that one tank among many doing what is strategically needed that wins the war.

That said the levels of abstraction present can still feel a little strange sometimes.

Edit: tablet fingers.

Yes, my comment about realism was meant to say WH40k is not known for realism generally. Also, a card (even more than a miniature in the tabletop game) is probably not meant to represent a single soldier or vehicle (with the possible exception of uniques), but rather a whole squad or troop (or whatever the appropriate unit size is).

Personally, I hardly ever think of planets as such. More like a "territory" or an "objective" that needs to be taken or accomplished. The scale is way off in this game and it is an issue I have heard others bring up. All I can suggest is that you suspend your belief and not think of them as whole entire planets.

Another thing we do is play in a "campaign" style setting, where a faction/s will come into conflict via a planetary invasion. We play that the first faction/s to win ten games against the other/s, takes or keeps control of the planet. For us, this makes it so that the individual games feel more like a part of a larger whole, rather than the conquest of an entire sector with a handful of units. The length of games it takes to win a single planet also makes it feel more epic, like there was a lot of time, effort and a large amount of military resources spent to win over a single planet.

Right, I mean I like Conquest so far and I am semi familiar with the IP though I have never actually participated in a 40k game. I have been around hobby gaming stores since the early 90's so I have seen much of the product over the years and watched more than a few games played. I used to play C.P. 2020 quite a bit back in the day yet ironically missed the first iteration of Netrunner, however Android Netrunner ended up being my first foray into LCG territory and I loved it. I am all about theme and that game hits all the right spots in that regard. Since finally breaking the habit of another well known card game that I won't mention, I have the time and cash to invest in more than one game finally so I took the plunge here. Like I said, I am liking Conquest quite well, but I think Netrunner might just have me a bit spoiled in the theme/scope/scale dept.