Play game
The Conquest's itch.io pageResults
| Criteria | Rank | Score* | Raw Score |
| Overall | #6 | 3.867 | 3.867 |
| Adherence to the Theme | #7 | 3.600 | 3.600 |
| Originality | #7 | 4.200 | 4.200 |
| Design | #7 | 3.800 | 3.800 |
Ranked from 10 ratings. Score is adjusted from raw score by the median number of ratings per game in the jam.
Leave a comment
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
Comments
OK, this jam is not about violating IP by mood board, right?
There are a lot of issues with the text and rules wording.
With one reading i spot:
Who deploys first is not clear
Ordinary Card of Deck can be a way different per country/culture, call it whist deck
What happen when model recieve a wound?
What happen when model loose in combat and is moved over undisputed Marker or over the edge of board
What happen with model wounded with succesfull action "shoot"?
How can I remove all disputed territory, probably remove disputed marker?
What happen if more models get in engage with one enemy model. As one model can fight only once, I can't use any cards again second attack?
Can Fodder be activated again after its activated via master.
Fodder can be on any models, is no model considered valid?
Remove token = Return token to pool once, supply second. It can be misunderstood
I am afraid the deploying of all zone markers by one player is not a good choice, but it need some deep playtest to check how it works - something I will not do, sorry.
Do I understand it well?
I have 9 conquest tokens
I Win when I have no Conquest token, right?
Everytime I go over undisputed Territory Marker I put Conquest token on it.
Anytime I win in melee I put Conquest token in enemy model and remove Conquest token from mine (thus geting 2 wining point at once)
In case there is more than One Territory in my Zone of control and push away enemy model by wining melee, ALL dispute markers are removed in consolidation and my conquest placed instead, right? I believe mandatory base size has to be defined.
SUMMARY
In my point of view, the game is quite complex for such a small game. There are way to much skills and abilities to my liking. More complex it is, more streamlined and clear rules (keyworded perhaps) are needed, so there are no issue with ambivalency or understanding of the rules. More abilities, more checking of abilities you have to do every round.
However its mee, it can be nice for others
Generaly the theme is nice and interesting new way of wining condition, however I dont see any synergies in it.
Overall it's nice game.
Thanks for the feedback!
- Not exactly sure what you mean by your first comment. A 'mood board' isn't an official piece of the design, just meant to convey a specific feeling to the reader before they start.
- Yes, it's not been thoroughly proofed in 48 hours.
- Good catch; it's meant to be the player that doesn't place the markers (and to address another point), to incentivize fair placement from the one doing the placement.
- I'll look into calling it a whist deck, or at least clarifying the suits and card numbers.
- Nothing "happens" when a model receives a wound. After they've received 5 they're removed from the game. This is already in the rules.
- The only time you're told to place Conquest Tokens on markers is during a March Action, so nothing. And I suppose I should create a provision for getting pushed into contact with the board edge.
- I don't have a shoot action? I suppose you mean the Bow ability. You give the opponent a Wound. That's all.
- The disputed territory thing is a fair point. Thanks.
- Oof, yes, this needs cleaning up. Each model can only be involved in one melee, but if you're engaged in a melee you must melee. So you need to determine how many melees there actually are. This is definitely the hardest bit for me to explain in an OPR doc. You apply one card to a melee, and since you can't be part of a second melee, it shouldn't ever be the case that you are part of a second attack. If you've ever played Frostgrave, it's a similar approach to combat, I just muddled the execution.
- Activations are unrestricted; you just need to play a card for the model you wish to activate. I did catch something I'd missed, though: Sprint should be a double move.
- In proofing I'll go through the rules for consistent language. Thanks for that, though, I'll need to keep my eye on it.
- "Anytime I win in melee I put Conquest token in enemy model and remove Conquest token from mine (thus geting 2 wining point at once)". Almost. It says: "The winner gives the chosen losing model a Conquest Token. If the winning model had any Conquest Tokens, they are removed." The only way to get a Conquest Token on a model is by losing a combat. So a model can lose a combat, getting a Conquest Token, and then win a combat later to remove it. You've highlighted that this needs to be given a sprucing-up, though.
- "In case there is more than One Territory in my Zone of control and push away enemy model by wining melee, ALL dispute markers are removed in consolidation and my conquest placed instead, right?" You have to move over a marker to place a Conquest Token. If that marker is in the ZoC of an enemy, it is disputed, but if you can push that enemy away you'll put the Conquest Token down.
- "I believe mandatory base size has to be defined" oops. Yeah that's an oversight on my part.
"There are way to much skills and abilities to my liking" That's fine. But you'll only use (at most) 4 general abilities and up to 3 theme abilities. The rest are just options for crew building.
"however I dont see any synergies in it." I mean, you discussed some of them, but ok.
I don't know much about malifaux but your game seems to come together nicely, you have some clever and interesting mechanics in there!
There are a couple of writing mistakes though. On the ZoC paragraph there are too many acronyms, I would say something like "Engaged models don't have LOS with..." instead. Also, in your rules, some units "discard cards" which is weird to read.
I think we kind of stumbled onto the same challenge when it comes to developing a game based on syngergy: we built some basic rules and then threw together a bunch of special rules and skills in hopes that they add together into something synergetic
There are some things that I don't understand yet, like monster hunters and really how the conquest markers are moved around. Is it just a king of the hill mechanic?
I think what I like the most is the list building. Nice job
Thanks for the comment! Yes; I feel like my every edit leaves something else to be edited. Models discarding cards when they don't have a hand of cards is from Malifaux, and I totally agree with you and can't believe I let that bleed into these rules.
So my synergies (effects that are more than the sum of their parts) are actually a little buried in the mechanics. For example, engaging an enemy with two of my models. It means I have an option to play from two suits in a combat, which means the two combatants will be able to withstand more attacks and present a greater threat. The movement creates an effect that is greater than the sum of its parts. The cards are the same, they haven't gotten more powerful. The movement didn't make the cards more powerful. But my hand is stronger nonetheless because I have two of the right models in the combat. So, yes, I do have a set of core rules, and some synergies in the crew building (my favorite I have found is taking Leadership on a Risen crew, I think). But my main synergies are in the mechanics.
Poor Monster Hunters. I didn't have time to clean them up, unfortunately. My idea is that they only have 4 models, and each gets either additional Armor or Speed, and they each get the Vigilant ability. Vigilant makes them less susceptible to spells. Otherwise they will follow the rules for a crew of 5 with deck creation and for models, they'd just not assign the lowest values. Essentially I think of them like witch hunters, or uh...Dracula's nemesis who's name is escaping me right now. Or the ladies from Claymore.
When I've got some extra time I'm going to clean up the language, make it more consistent and hopefully less confusing. But Territory Markers go on the board and they stay put. Conquest Tokens get put onto Territory markers. You should think of Conquest Tokens like a pile of VP you have to spend, and once you've spent it you've won. Winning combats will let you spend it and losing combats will make you take it back. But the main way is to advance past a Territory Marker and place it. I guess it is kind of a King of the Hill mechanic, but there's tons of hills. The main thing is that you can permanently remove some of that VP if you pull it all off the board. So you start with needing to get rid of 9 VP, right? And you end up placing 6 right away. During consolidation, you pick up all the VP you've put on the board, and then remove 3 VP from the game. So now you'll win if you score 6 VP instead of 9. Does that make sense? You'll consolidate if you think you can earn those VP back again quickly, or if you notice your opponent scoring quickly (because you remove a marker when you do it), or you know you can't score those 3 VP easily. This is another instance of synergy, too. The synergy between your hand, your models, and the state of the table.
Thanks for your feedback!
i pretty much understood everything but it is somewhat confusing.
I suggest maybe adding some rules together instead of splitting it into various sections, it's hard to draw the line, but if almost every rule concerning conquest tokens is on the same paragraph (even if it's kind of redundant) it's easier to read.
I'll check it again after reading the submissions I have left
Neat entry! I like the synergies from building your warband...you can have models with incredible speed that will zoom down the board!
A very interesting game, reminds me of Malifaux and the Middle earth SBG.
Although what is the benefit to choosing to give a model only one suit. Would it not be more beneficial to just give all of your models all four suits?
Thanks for the feedback!
You're actually not allowed to give models more than one Caste. In writing this I realized the confusion, from "Each model has one or more Suits assigned to them." That's explanatory, not a direction. In Step 4 of warband creation, "Assign each model a Caste." I can make that more clear, though.
My main game is Malifaux! I actually took more inspiration from the boardgame Maria, though my love of 'faux probably bleeds through a little.