Hmmmm....I missed that when I looked at that before (I wasn't near my computer at the time I posted it).

It's probably just oversight. I don't see any reason why a figure with Flight should be disallowed from moving in formations in Conquest.

I think the reason Flight isn't optional is to disallow the high movement flight figures from doubletiming (28" movement for a good number of figures, especially for some mounted figures that don't take a click for doubletiming). That could be avoided by simply allowing figures with Flight to doubletime.

If this was a concern, did you mention this a Warlord so they can send feedback to the design team? I don't remember the issue being brought up.

I did.

from the

Mage Knight Conquest Comments and Playtest Results

thread on the wizkids warlord forum (post 8)

I don't know what else I could have done.

...You mean "by simply FORBIDDING figures with flight to doubletime" right?

Anyway, to forbid figures with flight to make formations is just plain stupid. Honnestly, what is so bad about it? Figs with :wing: can make formations with anyone...and flight is the exact same thing as :wing: minus the soaring ability.

I don't want to be able to turn off flight. I just want them to be able to be in movement formations. THAT's the way it should be.

But Wizkids won't change any part of it. They don't care about old figs. For me and my group it's been an house rule since 2.0.

Only 47 replies? I guess after all that time, those who were waiting for Conquest to be revived just decided to move on...

Or they're playing. Or posting somewhere else. Or in the bathroom. Or in the bathroom playing... ok, I'll shut up now.

I just want to say thanks to sigmazero13 for the helpful insight in the Conquest rules. I know your information is limited, but the info is nice to have. Thanks!

Will it take another 2 years for a dungeons update?

Personally, while I wouldn't mind seeing a Dungeons update, comparing Conquest to Dungeons isn't really fair; Conquest is just a set of "speed up"-style rules for the regular Mage Knight game; Dungeons is a whole new game entirely.

Be sure to check out my "Dungeons Rules 2.0" article if you want some great new Dungeons rules for Champions!!!

Sorry, I just had to put that out there. Back to the subject, I agree with Siggy, as much as I feel that Conquest is also a different game, there is some dispute, with Dungeons, there isn't. That's because there is just no pheasable way that you can play Dungeons with the rules that you find in the starter kits without making a complete overhaul.

I agree. Despite the dispute, Conquest has always been more of a set of "delta rules" - ie "this is what is different to play Conquest, but otherwise use regular rules".

Dungeons is not - it is an entire new ruleset from the ground up. Thus, creating a 2.0 dungeons ruleset, even one based on existing Dungeons rules, would not just be a small endeavor.

The shame is the epic delay in putting these out. Why did it take so long?

This allows die hard MK players the chance to use more of their collection, but MK is simply not designed to be played at these point levels.

You are still starved for actions, and the formation rules are so limited. Conquest battles will turn out to be small groups of tricked out heavys. Kind of a battle of the Titans thing.

No it wont due to the relic/item limitation.

I often wonder this myself. I know part of the frustration shown by some of the more vocal on these boards is caused in part by the complete silence on the other side of the curtain. I know you cannot please everyone, and collectible games by their very nature are a constantly evolving project. I don't expect to agree all of the time when I am told why something was or was not done. But at least if we knew where the design team was coming from when certain decisions were made, we could at least understand their view. Right now, more often then not the answer we get is "because we wanted it that way". Quite honestly, I am completely mystified that sigmazero has absolutely no say in rules design. I understand he is not a game designer, nor a paid employee of Wizkids. But it seems to me Wizkids is wasting a tremendous resource, if they do not allow sigma (who quite frankly has better command of the quirks in this game than anyone) any input into new mechanics or re-tools of old formats and / or mechanics. Just something I was thinking about....
BTW- Sorry if this creates more work for ya Siggy :D

Well, in my humble opinion, this may the VERY reason that the designers don't attempt to explain themselves. Would it be nice sometimes? Possibly. However, I can almost guarantee that no matter WHAT explanation is given for potentially volatile situations, it will only ignite fires somewhere. Yes, by being silent, people get upset, too, but when something NEEDS to be explained, it is. When it would just be "nice" to be explained, it often isn't. And to be honest, the designers do a lot day in and day out, and a lot of it CANNOT be explained for various reasons, ranging from confidentiality to lack of time.

I work at a job where I'm a web designer. Although it's an internal-use-only tool (ie, only employees of the company use it), I often get questions of "why does it do this?" or "can you make it do that". And while sometimes I can answer the question, there are other times when, for sundry reasons, I simply cannot or will not answer them with anything beyond "that is the process for it" or "no". Is it to be rude or distant? No. It's because the INSIDE perspective often doesn't lend itself to being public knowledge. That's just the way life is sometimes, and it's not even necessarily because they WANT it to be that way.

Again, this is just MY opinion and MY speculation.

Much of that stems from the fact that I'm NOT an employee. As such, though I'm privvy to certain information at certain times, I'm still an "outsider" when it comes to the inner workings. However, though I'm not involved with the game DESIGN process directly, that doesn't mean I never have any input. Yes, my input is limited, but there are situations when it is appropriate for me to give it. Primarily, this is with the FAQ (and I'm referring mostly to the Q&A part, not the "corrections" part), but there are other aspects, too; the Conquest rules, for example, I did have some input in fine-tuning.

However, I'm not the ultimate say. Though I do claim somewhat of an "expert-level" understanding of the rules, there is a difference in "understanding" rules and "creating" them, and both require vastly different skillsets.

:)

Anyway, take this all with the grain of salt which my opinion implies ;) This is just my opinion, my perspective, and my attempt to give a glimpse of where I'm coming from, and perhaps a small glimpse of where the staff is coming from as well... And depending on the responses this evokes, it may even prove the point of what I'm trying to say :)

You will still find a big unique with an item and a relic per 400 points, that averages at least half of the build total. You are so starved for actions, you are foolish not to stack your army with heavys.