Yep, we too were heavily disappointing with how wimpy and generally impotent Exterminatus ends up being most of the time - which is a shame because thematically, it should be the ultimate in death and destruction when played.  Sigh.

Some more commonly made rules mistakes or things that are overlooked:
 
Remember that even though you might have Initiative, if your foe brings their Warlord to a planet where you have NOT done so, they will have initiative there.  (This is a big one that  people forget.)
  Remember that when your Warlord goes to any planet, in whatever state it was in before it went there, your Units arrive EXHAUSTED, ostensibly from the rigors of space travel. 
  Shield cards work against even re-assigned damage AND not only during combat but NOT against Moved damage.
  Remember that if you BOTH bring a Warlord to a Planet in the Command Phase, only the NON-EXHAUSTED Units will count their Command Icons.  Easy to forget this one, too.
  Remember to analyze the Planet chain right away to try to ascertain where key battles will take place AND/OR where the game could end, potentially.  Plan accordingly
  Always pay attention to Planet Battle abilities - they can wreak havoc with your plans if you aren't aware of them!
  Remember that with Ranged Units, if they're coming to a planet with your Warlord's posse, they're not going to get to use their Ranged abilities because they'll arrive Exhausted to that planet. If it's important to you to use a Unit's Ranged ability, your best bet is to Deploy that unit instead. 
  Finally, when you're deploying your cards in the Deploy phase, it's a good practice to play things like Supports or Events (or even Attachments) first, before your Units because the more you delay showing  your plans to your opponent, the more you can counter-plan for their moves, and such. 
  And remember that ANY Action you use in the Deploy phase DOES, in fact, count as your action in that phase as part of the back and forth.

40k art is dark. It's a grim dark setting.
Play the game first.

There's no reason to fix something that isn't broken. The franchise is great just the way it is, and if people don't enjoy playing the game for purely superficial reasons, then I see no reason to cater to their desires.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that inventing female characters is going to make women want to play card games more? One need look no further than Magic for an equivalent paradigm; female characters abound, and yet the draw for women remains extremely low. On occasion I'll see a female player at an FNM, attempting to enjoy herself while her boyfriend plays at another table. I've never seen a female player at a GP or PTQ, and I can only name one professional female player off the top of my head. Magic is the 800 pound gorilla of card games, and if they can't attract a wider audience then I don't suspect Conquest will either. Perhaps that says more about the nature of women and games then it does women in games.
 
Before anyone accuses me of misogyny, I'd like to say that I genuinely don't mind the inclusion of more female characters. What I do mind is changing something for the sake of "just because," and even more so "just because I feel like it." If there's no compelling reason to believe that such a change will impact female participation as a whole, what we're left is one person's desire to accommodate his wife on a purely personal level.       

War is not an invention of the 20th century; it's been going on since the dawn of civilization, and let's just say that participation of both genders has always been a little skewed.
 
 
I'm one of those guys who doesn't believe in changing a good game unless there's a compelling reason to do so from a gameplay perspective. I'm sure there are others games that would satisfy your sense of gender balance, if the forthcoming inclusion of already existing female characters doesn't do so.

That's a perfectly respectable way to feel, and a goal that can be accomplished without affecting any serious change to the game itself. Again, people who take issue with an activity for purely superficial reasons are missing the mark by a very, very wide margin. Either the game is enjoyable or it isn't.
 
I'm a fairly liberal person, and there are a lot of social injustices that I take issue with outside the realm of gaming. As much as I support things like gender and racial equality, or even g-y* marriage, those aren't aspects of the Warhammer universe that I feel need to be expanded upon. We all play games for different reasons, but I don't suspect anyone is playing the LCG or tabletop variety to vicariously live out their sociopolitical fantasies. That's certainly not why I play; in fact, you might say I play games to get away from the absurdity of real life. So when it comes to genetically engineered soldiers squaring off against each other in the 41st century, I really couldn't care less if the Salamanders get paid less than the White Scars, or if two battle brothers find love in a foxhole. When you try to make a game too PC, you lose sight of what's important about gaming.  
 
*Apparently that particular word is censored. How sad.
 
 
Don't be. I like being my own person, and there are far more important places to crusade for equality than a friggin' message board for a card game.

I want to get some games in before Worlds.  I am free this week during the day and early evening to play at FFGGC.

Kinda blew my mind. I preordered a copy at the local store and 2 more online for the complete set. Looking at my local store this Saturday they sold out. Not sure if they just didnt order much or it is that popular. We have a lot of warhammer players that were interested in it so idk.

I'm sure it's just good business; underprinting is better than overprinting as you can always print more and there is the fact that scarcity can increase demand.

Not to mention FFG is notorious for underprinting first runs of products...now it'll be back in the printing queue along with 50 other items.

A game with this kind of appeal was always going to sell quickly.

Yeah I grabbed 3 asap.
 
A friend of mine will hopefully get at least his 2nd.

Not really. But I was surprised that my local outlets didn't get their full orders. I'm glad I ordered 2 online and I got my third from a store so I could get make sense of the game before I got my pre-orders; I got the last copy at the last store I checked so I was lucky. 

Nope.  I'm surprised that one of my dumb local FLGS weren't smart enough to even order it.  LOL

I can get behind this statement. Remember that I defined my "roughly equal" idea in the balanced approach as being able to pay for what you have. You many have an amazing card advantage, but if you can't play any of them, it doesn't translate into a practical advantage. At that point, the only planning ahead you are probably doing is "I need more resources."
 
Let's say I could win a command struggle that gets me 2 cards, or one that gets me 2 resources, but not both. If I have 2 resources in the bank and 3 cards in hand (all at 1- or 2-cost) I'm probably going for the cards. But if I have 2 resources in the bank and 3 cards in hand (all at 3-cost or higher) I'm almost certainly going for the resources. Because until I get resources, all the cards in my hand are dead weight and can't help me at all, even if my opponent has just 1 card of his own. Sure, I might draw something cool I can play with my 2 resources, but I've never been able to top-deck like a Yu-Gi-Oh! cartoon.

I would agree that the balanced approach is the way to go, and would reiterate that the balance should include what you already have. If you have a fistful of cards, go for resources. If you have a bank of resources, go for cards. If you are roughly equal (ie, can pay for the cards you have), you should probably try to keep that equality.
 
However, I can see Command Struggles being as much about denying my opponent as it is building myself up. Remember, each command struggle I win is a card and/or resource my opponent doesn't get. So, for example, even if I have a fistful of cards, if my opponent's hand is all but empty, I'm going to try to win as many command struggles with cards at stake as possible - not because I particularly want them, but because my opponent needs them.

Yeah, he popped in over there to gripe at everyone and then disappeared when everyone explained that he had the rules wrong.  But he didn't disappear immediately, first he challenged everyone to prove he had interpreted the rules incorrectly.  Sigh.  #eyeroll

Ah. Well. That would explain it. (Since I don't cross-read the bgg boards, I didn't know about the parallel conversation.)

Yeah, he popped in over there to gripe at everyone and then disappeared when everyone explained that he had the rules wrong.  But he didn't disappear immediately, first he challenged everyone to prove he had interpreted the rules incorrectly.  Sigh.  #eyeroll

Pretty sure it was established over on bgg that he has the rules wrong. 

I agree there might be an element of bluffing that is lost, but I think this rule is completely necessary given the way the game plays out, and it goes a long way toward preventing abuse in Deploy.
 
A huge part of Deploying in this game is where you deploy your units based on where your opponent deploys his. If passing during the Deploy Phase didn't give the opponent free reign, then the person with initiative would pass until his opponent had pretty much deployed everything (based on resource and/or card count) and then deploy all of his cards with full knowledge of where the opponent's units were. And that would kill a huge part of the meta game and player interaction for me because the Deploy Phase would just be a big game of chicken -- i.e., "Will he pass after I do so that neither of us get to deploy any more cards?"
 
 
This comment utterly baffles me. The only way that this could happen is if all 3 of the first planet had a symbol in common, all three were won by the same player, and both players sent their warlords to the first planet each round. In my experience, given the nuance, strategy and interaction of the game, this would almost never happen.

As was said in the bgg post you made reread the rules again specifically victory and combat.
 
As for deployment it is a great system as you want to hide information so you play the smaller units first but what if they are space marines they might just play their signature squad and snipe your weenies or pull goff boyz off the first planet. Or in the case of tao you almost always play your limited first to hide what you are playing but they can snipe it with their event. Or if you just use all your resources in one turn they can prepare for it same as if you played a bigger unit early so you want to hold off on those.

The first three planets may not have a common icon thus pushing the battle farther in the row. Besides, it may be more advantageous to trigger other powerful planet abilities rather than conquer the first one.

You asked, I deliver:  
 
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1221109/my-sizable-review-w40k-conquest-eagerly-awaited-do
 
 

I've had people argue with me about this and seen other people argue about this. During deployment any ACTION or playing of a army/attachment/support is your action. I have seen to many times people argue to death that an event action does not use up your deployment action despite the rules being pretty clear on it.