Yeah invasion Empire was broken. But otherwise still good. Sad FFG killed it before we got tomb kings and ogres.

At least in invasion there were no questionable alliances.

Imperial guard and orks- say what?

Also i found it more fun to play multiplayer than 40C.

Game feels cramped with 3 players.

'No id on't wanna fight I just want the resoucres!"

"To bad we both got our warlords on this planet! Bring it!"

Imperial guard and orks- say what?

This again? There are MORE than enough precedents in the tabletop game and the fiction to account for this.

DE/Chaos or SM/Tau is actually weirder.

The system they use was always going to have some odd choices, no matter where they placed factions on the wheel. A necessary evil, I suspect, especially if you take into account balancing all of the faction's mechanical themes, not just their narrative ones.

The way the factions are heading Im quite sure eventually the alliences are more optional and less needed anyway.

Imperial guard and orks- say what?

This again? There are MORE than enough precedents in the tabletop game and the fiction to account for this.DE/Chaos or SM/Tau is actually weirder.

U doubt it. Solo decks will be a thing in this game, but splashing support or events especially will always be a thing. There will always be a card in a faction worth putting in over something in your base faction. It is the nature of the card games.

I swapped out Mordian Hellhounds for Tank Buster Bombas because to me it made a better 4-slot, and I didn't need the AoE 1.

Imperial guard and orks- say what?

This again? There are MORE than enough precedents in the tabletop game and the fiction to account for this.DE/Chaos or SM/Tau is actually weirder.

Tau seem like loners, greater gooders. SM would probably disagree they are greater good at anything lol..them allying with each other more strange then IG and orcs? that's debatable.

IG and Orks have been established as allies of opportunity through multiple editions of the game, both in rules text and supporting fluff (obviously they also fight - a lot - but that doesn't preclude the occasional alliance).

By contrast, SM and Tau are depicted as adversaries in almost every fluff excerpt I've read where they interact. Tau/IG would make more sense (Gu'vesa defectors!) but that creates even MORE problems on the wheel, so this is probably the best solution.

Imperial guard and orks- say what?

This again? There are MORE than enough precedents in the tabletop game and the fiction to account for this.DE/Chaos or SM/Tau is actually weirder.

Tau seem like loners, greater gooders. SM would probably disagree they are greater good at anything lol..them allying with each other more strange then IG and orcs? that's debatable.

IG and Orks have been established as allies of opportunity through multiple editions of the game, both in rules text and supporting fluff (obviously they also fight - a lot - but that doesn't preclude the occasional alliance).By contrast, SM and Tau are depicted as adversaries in almost every fluff excerpt I've read where they interact. Tau/IG would make more sense (Gu'vesa defectors!) but that creates even MORE problems on the wheel, so this is probably the best solution.

Really? That is so strange and interesting at the same time I didn't know that (still learning the 40k lore). Isn't IG part of the Imperium? And how does the Imperium allow such a thing? Maybe I should just go to the game store and read a few Codexes I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

While there has been some guard/ork aliances it's mostly due to the Blood Axes being mercenaries. (and not proper orks to most clans) Not that these things matter really since the Blood Angels teamed up with the newcrons to defeat the tyranids, (Dammit GW! Is nothing sacred?)

While there has been some guard/ork aliances it's mostly due to the Blood Axes being mercenaries. (and not proper orks to most clans) Not that these things matter really since the Blood Angels teamed up with the newcrons to defeat the tyranids, (Dammit GW! Is nothing sacred?)

Lol Blood Angels actually said to Necron Lord "Let's team up?" Lord. "Ok, I don't like insects much, I like you guys just a little itty bit more." Thought SM would rather die then help either or is that other chapters?

Oftentimes Orks are just looking for a fight. If the Guard can offer them a better fight (hey look, we're fighting some Chaos Space Marines, they're like, way tougher than us!) they might be able to convince the Orks to go after them instead.

As for imperial policy, it's heresy to ally with Xenos. Or speak to Xenos. Or allow Xenos to live. Except sometimes its ok to trade with Xenos. Or ally with Xenos.

The inquisition itself is somewhat divided on the subject, so it's not surprising that there's a fair bit of wiggle-room.

Well yeah and in special for the LCG I don't really give a rats hat anymore. While certain alliences are weird, GW has come up with weirder things along the game...

While there has been some guard/ork aliances it's mostly due to the Blood Axes being mercenaries. (and not proper orks to most clans) Not that these things matter really since the Blood Angels teamed up with the newcrons to defeat the tyranids, (Dammit GW! Is nothing sacred?)

Lol Blood Angels actually said to Necron Lord "Let's team up?" Lord. "Ok, I don't like insects much, I like you guys just a little itty bit more." Thought SM would rather die then help either or is that other chapters?

Nah blood angels are pretty cool, they will team up with imperial forces. But not the necrons... Hell necrons shouldn't be teaming up either! And i could forgive it if they didn't have a C'tan with them! (I mean it's a friggin alien star god! how do you reconsile that with "there is only the Emperor!"?)

....And i could forgive it if they didn't have a C'tan with them! (I mean it's a friggin alien star god! how do you reconsile that with "there is only the Emperor!"?)

Through a "don't ask, don't tell" policy???

Well yeah and in special for the LCG I don't really give a rats hat anymore. While certain alliences are weird, GW has come up with weirder things along the game...

Yeah the game works so far guess we can all live with that.

Alliances are a necessary evil, something that is "best for business" in terms of the game. As for 40K "realism", it's way off. A few alliances in the span of 10,000 years doesn't equate with alliances being possible in every single game of Conquest. It's up there with that lone Ultramarine scout(the reincarnation of Roboute Guilliman, no doubt) capturing an entire planet by himself. It's a compromise and we should make the best of it.

Yeah altough the way the game revers to Army cards and Warlords as a unit we could also say it isn't just 1 guy.

Yeah altough the way the game revers to Army cards and Warlords as a unit we could also say it isn't just 1 guy

Gotta disagree with that one. Warlords are most definitely individual units. While it is still a stretch, they are at least meant to be larger than life individuals. But certain army units, like our aforementioned scout, are clearly meant as individuals as well. Hence why it is scout and not scouts, as opposed to Blood Angel Veterans, which is quite clearly a squad or more of terminators.

I do think that you are on to something here. Perhaps we should suspend belief a bit more and think of it as a group. I already think of planets as "objectives" and "areas", so for me, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

Yeah altough the way the game revers to Army cards and Warlords as a unit we could also say it isn't just 1 guy

Gotta disagree with that one. Warlords are most definitely individual units. While it is still a stretch, they are at least meant to be larger than life individuals. But certain army units, like our aforementioned scout, are clearly meant as individuals as well. Hence why it is scout and not scouts, as opposed to Blood Angel Veterans, which is quite clearly a squad or more of terminators.

I do think that you are on to something here. Perhaps we should suspend belief a bit more and think of it as a group. I already think of planets as "objectives" and "areas", so for me, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

Yeah, I always thought of the warlord card the warlord himself, along with his/her retinue of trusted advisers, personal bodyguard, elite strike teams, and specialists. The logistic capacity and support trumps anything else when determining command presence.

Yeah, I always thought of the warlord card the warlord himself, along with his/her retinue of trusted advisers, personal bodyguard, elite strike teams, and specialists. The logistic capacity and support trumps anything else when determining command presence.

Only problem with this is that they already have a signature squad with every warlord representing advisers, bodyguards, minions, etc.

Yeah, I always thought of the warlord card the warlord himself, along with his/her retinue of trusted advisers, personal bodyguard, elite strike teams, and specialists. The logistic capacity and support trumps anything else when determining command presence.

Only problem with this is that they already have a signature squad with every warlord representing advisers, bodyguards, minions, etc.

I think of those more akin to Napoleon's Imperial Guard or Hitler's SS.

Within the fluff of 40k, it's perfectly normal and acceptable for certain heroic (or despotic) indiciduals to completely sway the results of a battle with their presence alone (without any supporting retinue).

If Lysander turns up to hold the line somewhere, you can be **** sure the line gets held.

If Shrike decides to hit behind enemy lines to take out a high-value target, that targets days are up.

If Abaddon decides to slaughter a population - well, you get the idea.

The scale of Army units (and the scale of the overall conflict) is incredibly hit and miss though. The Chime of Eons over at CardGameDB had a lot to say about this in the early articles. Undeniable failure of consistency with regards to scale, so I just choose to ignore it.

Yep in all regards it doesn't really matter to much.

Also for what it is worth, certain Warlords in the miniature game could easily destroy a full unit, so it isn't even that far of.

The only real inconsistancy I don't really like to much are just a few cards, such as Alpha Legion Infiltrator (1 HP, really?!) and Leman Russ Battle Tank (No AoE, really?!) to name a few.

Comming back on this:

Huh? I don't understand your agreement saint1012.

As soon as a Warlord is along with his/her retinue it really isn't a single/1 guy anymore now is it?

The point being here is that as long as the game refers to a unit, we are allready talking about something that can either be a individual or a group. Be it the Warlord and even a tank for Ragnar's example, as is seen on his art.

As such I think Warlords should not only be seen as 1 guy, like all other units in Conquest.

u·nit (yo͞o′nĭt)

n.

1. An individual, group, structure, or other entity regarded as an elementary structural or functional constituent of a whole.

2. A group regarded as a distinct entity within a larger group.

Yep in all regards it doesn't really matter to much.

Also for what it is worth, certain Warlords in the miniature game could easily destroy a full unit, so it isn't even that far of.

The only real inconsistancy I don't really like to much are just a few cards, such as Alpha Legion Infiltrator (1 HP, really?!) and Leman Russ Battle Tank (No AoE, really?!) to name a few.

Comming back on this:

Yeah altough the way the game revers to Army cards and Warlords as a unit we could also say it isn't just 1 guy

Gotta disagree with that one. Warlords are most definitely individual units. While it is still a stretch, they are at least meant to be larger than life individuals. But certain army units, like our aforementioned scout, are clearly meant as individuals as well. Hence why it is scout and not scouts, as opposed to Blood Angel Veterans, which is quite clearly a squad or more of terminators.

I do think that you are on to something here. Perhaps we should suspend belief a bit more and think of it as a group. I already think of planets as "objectives" and "areas", so for me, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

Yeah, I always thought of the warlord card the warlord himself, along with his/her retinue of trusted advisers, personal bodyguard, elite strike teams, and specialists. The logistic capacity and support trumps anything else when determining command presence.

Huh? I don't understand your agreement saint1012.

As soon as a Warlord is along with his/her retinue it really isn't a single/1 guy anymore now is it?

The point being here is that as long as the game refers to a unit, we are allready talking about something that can either be a individual or a group. Be it the Warlord and even a tank for Ragnar's example, as is seen on his art.

As such I think Warlords should not only be seen as 1 guy, like all other units in Conquest.

u·nit (yo͞o′nĭt)

n.

1. An individual, group, structure, or other entity regarded as an elementary structural or functional constituent of a whole.

2. A group regarded as a distinct entity within a larger group.

So option #1 or #2 for you, Killax? #1 does list "An individual...". Also, my yeah is a yeah, I hear you, but this is what I think - not an in toto agreement. I clearly stated in the complete sentence that I don't believe that it is one solitary person out there.

For another example, my thought goes more along the lines of the Daimyo figure from Shogun - a single (three for shogun) figure that leads one of your armies. Powerful on its own, but needs the support of other elements to maximize its potential, and something that doesn't really represent just one man. The commander, along with his elite teams of closest advisers, personal bodyguard, and other command structure elements is a very powerful presence on the board as represented by the Warlord card. I didn't say this is just one person, but more of a group of the top people closest to the commander. Depending on the Warlord, this can look like a great many different things. The AM commander would have top psykers, bodyguards, communications specialists, advisers, commissars, and whatever else including transportation elements - after all, the Warlord does get around quite a bit!. The size and composition of this group is up to your imagination.

The hit points of the Warlord is a representation of the robustness of the command presence. Higher HP is for a Warlord who can lose more elements before its effectiveness starts to break down - such as when the card is bloodied. Cards with lower HP may have a more delicate command structure that cannot absorb heavy losses before losing part of its ability. You can take the abstractions of the game to create your own personal story.

Trevor