Conquest: The Last Argument Of Kings
Playability
Components
Writing
Art Direction
Replayability
Review: Not what I thought it would be
I have a few games in with this game now and it just isn't me. From its presentation, I thought it would be a linear tactics game ("Rank & Flank") where you have to maintain your battle line and attempt to flank around your enemy or to deep marches to get into your opponent's rear, at the risk of your main battleline getting weakened as you commit troops to the flanking attempts. That is not what you get. Essentially, Conquest (and I AM talking about the main game, not its "skirmish" variant) is a pretty good skirmish game with low model count - except every model is a block of troops (or monster, sometimes). So for people like me who are looking for a game simulating fantasy linear tactics, this game doesn't give me what I want. AGOT has the same issues with some armies, but it is the basis of how Conquest works, with a lot of the flanking being harcoded into the system with units just appearing from the sides from your manipulation of the deck system.
Agreed. I had a demo at UKGE a few years ago and was pulled into it. Since then the range has expanded and their prices have got really silly. I took my starter boxset to the ‘Bring & Buy’ at my last local show, a costly experiment.
Everything is more expensive these days (I mean, I play several US-produced games and the currency difference is…tough) so I don’t stress as much about that. Most games billed as “skirmish” games might have cheap buy-ins, but you don’t play MCP or Kill Team or whatever without having to buy the newest stuff all the time so that it soon mounts up to being as expensive as a Warmachine or 40k army. What I was disappointed in was mainly that it doesn’t really play as a rank and flank game, as noted above. I’m missing it after WHFB died and… Read more »