Campaign

So with all this talk of campaigns recently I decided to go ahead and make one. So far we have Mike (Orks), Chris (Space Marines) and Darren (Tyranids) on board, so right now we're still looking for a fourth player, preferrably of the "good" variety (so Guard, Daemon Hunters, Witch Hunters would be ideal) but I'd be willing to settle for a Chaos player (it just means Chris will have that much more funness trying to protect the planet from the ravages of evil). Cam and Stash you two were suggested to give first props to since Stash plays Guard and Cam plays Chaos but anyone else who falls under this umbrella are welcome to throw their lots into the maelstrom.

Some story on the campaign: It's set in the Yusadian System, a made up system of my own concoction, on the capital world of Yusadia IV's main continent. I'm running this as a sort of trial campaign thinger, so it's a map based campaign, very simple gameplay and rules, nothing overly complicated or fancy. The rules are included below for those interested, I also have location descriptions (including special scenarios for certain locales and that) and a map I'll bring down to the Den next Thursday (btw, Paz or anyone else equally skilled with the pen, if someone wouldn't mind turning my crap sketch map into a far nice construct I'd buy them a drink or foodstuffs from Solonika one League night).

So yeah, let me know if any of y'all are interested in taking that fourth position. Without further adieu, the rules:

At the start of the campaign every player rolls their Strategy Rating. Continue in this fashion until a definite sequence has developed (example: Space Marine, Ork, Chaos and Tyranids are playing. Space Marine rolls 3d6 and rolls a 5, a 1 and a 3; the Chaos player rolls a 5 and a 2; the Ork player a 6 and the Tyranids a 4. So far the sequence goes Orks, Marines/Chaos and Tyranids, so the Marines and Chaos roll of again. The Space Marines scores a 5, 4 and a 1; the Chaos player two 2s. As such the sequence would be Orks, Marines, Chaos and Tyranids). This determines the order of selection for HQs. There are four HQs, each with their own special bonuses for defending, they are as follows: Volcano HQ off of the Finnyn Badlands (the Northwest), Wilderness HQ off the Novalan Lowlands (the Northeast), Island HQ off the Kaytian Coast (the Southeast) and finally the Polar HQ off the Ricardian Grasslands (the Southwest). The advantages of any one HQ are relative considering each HQ is exactly the same distance away from any other HQ and therefore armies should be able to claim at least one territory before coming into conflict with another army.

The gameplay is very simple. If you have set up a league game that week with another campaign player with whom you connect (even if through a neutral territory) then you fight your league battle presuming the battle is over the territory in question.
For neutral territory engagements: if there is question as to whom the attacker is either the players can agree beforehand or, if agreement cannot be reached, the player that wins first turn for the scenario is considered the attacker. Usually, for sake of argument, the army with a higher strategy rating can call being the attacker (although this does NOT automatically grant them first turn). Example, the Orks are in the Kaytian Coast, while the Tyranids occupy the Ricardian Grasslands. Both players have a league game scheduled so they decide to compete over the neutral territory of the Etheriel Jungle (since both the Ricardian Grasslands and the Kaytian Coast are adjacent to the Etheriel Jungle). Since both sides are attacking a neutral territory and both sides have the same strategy rating the player who wins first turn for the scenario within the Etheriel Jungle will be considered the attacker for the purpose of any special rules.
For controlled territory engagements: If both players have bordering territories both players roll Strategy Rating, the winner determines what territory is attacked (note: this can be a neutral territory). If the winner decides to attack a neighboring territory controlled by the loser, the winner is considered the attacker for the purpose of any special rules. Example: Space Marines occupy the Kielsy Desert while Chaos currently controls the Novalan Lowlands. The two have a league game set up and the Space Marine player wishes to attack the Novalan Lowlands. So they roll off, the Space Marine scoring two 5’s and a 3; Chaos scoring a 6 and a 2. The Chaos player instead informs the Space Marine they’ll be fighting over the Northern Manufactorum of Yusadia City, a neutral territory adjacent to both the Kielsy Desert and the Novalan Lowlands. Since it’s neutral territory, the Space Marine may call the role of attacker having a higher strategy rating, or the attacker maybe determined by whoever wins first turn for the mission.
Victory: Whoever wins the mission gains control of the contested territory.
No one wants to play with me: If you don’t have a league game set up for that week and there is a neutral territory adjacent to one of your own you may claim that territory since nobody was willing to contest you for it.

Special Tactics: At the start of the campaign each player will be permitted to draw three cards at random from a set of 14 cards. Each card will have a special ability that can be used in any battle provided the cards requirements are met. These will usually equate to special strategems or strategic assets you may utilize during your battle. You may only use one card per battle. Once a card is used it may not be used again during the campaign. Special Tactics may not be used on an HQ Assault. You need not let your opponents know what cards you have.

HQ Assaults will be done using the Meat Grinder special scenario (found on pg. 195 of the Warhammer Core Book) with the following exceptions: The Campaign runner (me) will set up with terrain for the fight and pre-designate which side each player gets; the Defender has a 20” deployment zone; the Defender gets to use a 2,000 pt army list; the Defender gets the Fortifications special rule; the Defender must use their Commander as their primary HQ; the Attacker may opt to use the Dusk or Dawn special rule; before deployment but after terrain set-up the Defender may move d3+1 pieces of terrain up to 6” from its current position. Once again, Special Tactics may not be used on an HQ Assault.

Commanders: Each army has a special General who is the army’s Commander. The player may add +1 to up to three of the Commander’s base stats, but may only add +1 to any of the Commander’s base stats (so, for example, a Tau Shas’O could opt to have +1 WS, +1 I and get a 2+ armor save, but may not select to have +3 WS or +2 WS and +1 I). Already 2+ Armor Save: Instead of granting the model a 1+ armor save (which is fairly redundant) the model may take the Feel No Pain special rule instead.
Already Ballistic Skill of 5: Instead of giving the model BS 6 (which is fairly redundant) the model may add +1 to the attack characteristic of their ranged weapons (so Assault 2 becomes Assault 3, Rapid Fire weapons may fire twice at their maximum range or three times rapid firing, etc.). For template weapons this exacts to re-rolling wounds (you don’t get two templates). For Nids players, this can indeed combine with +1 A to give two additional shots with a ranged weapon (although for templates this does not grant two re-rolls for wounds. One re-roll for wounds and lower the AP of the template by 1).
Leadership 11?: Yes, this is permitted.
Please see to it your Commander has an appropriate backstory.
What if my Commander dies?: You lose the campaign. Whatever locales you still control remain under your control and you still defend them, but you cannot win even if you have the most Victory Points and you cannot attack.
Where is my Commander?: Where ever you want him/her/it to be. (S)He/It can even lead attacks/defenses outside of your HQ if you really want to risk it.
And the Ruins of the Old Ancient Technological Bonus: Follows the same rules as above (so you still can’t get that +2 WS, it will have to apply to one of the Commander’s yet improved base stats).

The Campaign will last for 20 games (not weeks, games) total. Thus, statistically speaking every player should get on average 10 games out of the campaign. At the end of that period, provided we decide not to continue the campaign, Victory Points will be tallied and the highest player wins the campaign. The losers must buy the winner wings or a drink at Solonika. =)

Great idea, and its nice to see you are willing to take the initiative and run an event like this.
Normally i would be all over it, but with the escalation league coming up im not sure if i will be able to participate. Once escalation starts im going to work on getting my nids into playing shape. So if im playing my nids in escalation, then i wont be playing chaos, and the whole thing dosent work. Im not sure how many others are planning an escalation army, but this could kind of be bad timing. If you run another one, i will definately join up. Campaigns can be fun, but i have one point of advice. If there is any way that you can get involved in playing yourself do it. I ran a campaign that was going really well, but i was never around to play in it, as i was doing it while i was up north. For me not being able to play, or even be around the guys to talk about it lead to an early end to the campaign.

Thanks Cam, I know I could always play as the fourth player, the only problem is I'd know the special rules for the HQ Assaults and the special scenarios that would arise since I made them, so that would probably interfere. Otherwise yeah, I could just play my Tau as the fourth player (and second "good" player) and go ahead with it. This is still an option, provided we can't find a fourth and the other three don't mind, but I'd like it to be a last option.

Another option I was tossing around is the idea of proxy armies. For instance, let's say Darren and his Nids can't show one week but Cam you had your Nids arranged to play a campaign league player. Provided Darren approved it you could play in his armies' stead, that way campaign players can still have the opportunity to play out-of-campaign league members and still count towards the campaign.

On that same line let's say Chris starts the campaign playing his Marines but decides when Escalation starts to switch over to his Sisters. Considering the two are allied "good" armies an evolving story of the Inquisition taking over in matters the Space Marines considered their own could make an acceptable segway. (Addendum: Having thought about this if Chris really is serious about making a Sister's army we could always wait until Escalation and that way have another Space Marine player take up that fourth "good" spot. Chris? /=))

So basically, all the rules, suggestions and such are all based on agreement between the players in the campaign, so number of games, special rules, etc. are very flexible at this point.

Justin

PS. I suppose that's also why I considered running this sort of mini-trial-campaign now so that following escalation (or even maybe when Escalation begins) I might have some experience under my belt to plan more grandiose campaigns (perhaps involving other planets in the Yusadian System).

Here is a link to the GW campaign that i attempted to run. It is very nicely done and might give you a few ideas on how to run yours.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/cityfight/studio-campaign/1/

Oh yeah I've seen the Vogen campaign, much of the locales in the urban areas of my campaign map were influenced by Vogen Campaign areas. So yeah, I definitely took the good qualities from Vogen and tried as best to encorporate them into my campaign without losing its personal uniqueness, but I'd be hesitant to actually play the Vogan campaign.

Three things about the Vogen one, I found it a little complicated for a first attempt (having built my campaign myself I'm aware of how everything works on an intimate level and I tried to make it as simple as possible for a first time go-around). Also Vogen is entirely Cityfight, and while my campaign also contains urban areas there's really only one location that requires to play a Cityfight battle (and only if the defender so chooses). Finally there's the novelty angle, Vogen's been done. People are too familiar with it and there are several websites that outline what the best moves are for what armies which can take the fun out of it if you have an overly ambitious player whose just out to win.

So yeah, I did take from Vogen the parts I liked, but I also left behind some parts I figured I could do without.

Justin

PS. Lol I love how Gav Thorpe ended up losing their in-house campaign. That's priceless.

I would be in for imperial guard if you need a 4th. It's Stash BTW

I would be free to start right away in May, but for now there are exams...

I would have been interested, but with work taking me up north now.....I feel that Thursday nite's 40k may suffer....

Stupid work getting in the way of my fun.....lol

So as an update, it seems most players are in favor of starting up this campaign at the beginning of the escalation league, and it also seems there is sufficient interest to follow the Vogen example and have teams of two players each. As such, after having spoken to most the players, I've composited this tentative team list (let me know what you all think):

Team Good #1:
Pascal (Blood Angels)
Chris (Space Marines/Sisters of Battle)

Team Good #2:
Thomas (Guard/Daemonhunters)
Stash (Imperial Guard)

Team Bad #1:
Darren (Nids)
Rob (Nids)

Team Bad #2:
Cam (Chaos)
Mike (Orks)

Now like I said this is tentative, since some players may be moved around before the campaign begins depending on which armies they decide to play (since I want to try and keep the same Strategic Score armies together) so if players don't like their team mate or team color, are planning on using a different army or don't know why there names are or are not on this list let me know and I'll see what I can do to re-arrange things (since we do have between now and when escalation starts to sort things out). Tomorrow, as per Thomas' request, I'll post the location descriptors file to this discussion thread, however without the actual map (since I don't have a scanner and Pascal is currently working on making it look far more presentable) anyone using said file will have to be able to form a mental map until further notice using the Access To portions beneath the descriptors.

Justin

PS. Just as a quick show of hands from the players aforementioned, ignoring the otherwise clear rules restriction, would anyone be overly upset at a Guard player fielding a Baneblade in a 2,000pt regular 40K match?

I dunno... Paz... he seems a bit shifty to me, but if I I'll suffer through it for the good of the Imperium. :p

Looks good for the most part, only one question: During a combat, to both teammates have to battle at the same time or will one be able to capture a territory by themselves?

I sure as hell wouldnt want to fight a baneblade at 2000 points. Thats why they are illegal in 2000 point lists.

What about playing these games wednesday, or playing every other week?

Yeah, there has been talks about setting up another 'official' League night between some of us what with the strong showing of players recently on Thursdays. We could maybe set up a 'Campaign Night' on Saturday maybe, that way it won't take up any regular League playspots and leaves open the possibility to include a few games of Apocalypse.

Well, because of work, im really not available except for thursdays and sundays. Im really looking forward to the escalation league, but im also getting back into mordhiem as well (not to mention the odd game of LOTR) so my availability is pretty crappy. I will get that map all prettied up for at least next week though Justin.

Sundays would work too.

Personally im quite happy just playing every thursday night, and i know from running my own campaign that it can be quite disruptive to the league. Robyns point about only playing the others in the campaign is a very valid one. I also am more interested in seeing the league as a whole doing well. I know from my own experience, as well as allot of literature out there that campaigns are very very hard to sustain. If the campaign becomes one sided then those on the loosing side will not want to keep playing. The result is that they cannot play anyone else, and they dont want to keep playing the campaign, so they just stop playing. I would like to see the league keep up its momentum, and i agree with Rob that a campaign would probably be detrimental to that.

Argh, I just lost my entire reply that addresses each concern individually. Not having the will to go through and do that all again I'm going to post a summary of my thoughts.

First, I'm not sure exactly what to say right now without sounding like a bad guy, since it sounds like Robyn and Cam don't like the idea and you two are two of the most influential members of the league, but the reason I made this campaign up was because people were interested in it. I am not trying to disrupt the league, if anything I am trying to support it by getting people more heavily involved. If there is concern it will disrupt the league then we'll drop it and go on without. To be honest I wanted the campaign to be small since I was concerned upping it to 8 players would indeed lead to this sort of dispute. But people were asking about it and were genuinely interested in it, so what was I supposed to do, tell them sorry we're all full up?

Second, I'm not sold on the notion a campaign is all that complex. Afterall I made the campaign, I'm more than capable of GMing it, I made things as simple as possible in order to keep things easy and straightforward and everything, and everybody always enters an experimental phase for the first time. Presuming everything will work out perfect is an idealistic self-delusion, but thinking trying something new may well jeopardize everything we've accomplished is also somewhat pessimistic. We would just have to take things as they come and adjust accordingly. Besides it's like I said this is a test run, it will only last 20 games, which with 8 people playing would account to on average 5 games a player. Considering escalation that's what, two weeks to a month max? But, if it's going to cause problems then we'll just forget about it.

Third, the reason the campaign's start was pushed back to the start of the escalation league was because people felt it was somewhat silly to start a campaign so close to the end of this league.

Finally, I don't think adding everyone to the campaign would be a good solution. That merely overcomplicates things, since having 8 players rather than 4 will already make things more complex. I think the solution is figuring out what the players want. If they truly and honestly feel they can manage playing in a campaign without it impacting their greater participation in the league, then personally I think the campaign will actually be a good thing for the league. If there is concern players maybe sherking their duties to the league in order to capture another territory, then we'll simply close the idea now or deal with that should it come up during the campaign if it goes ahead. If the campaign starts getting overly one-sided and/or people start losing interest then we'll close the campaign. This was actually a pretty big concern early on with regards to Eldar (and just for clarification it was NOT me who said so) which is why the majority of the players interested wanted me to try and see to it no Eldar were involved in the campaign.

So yeah, I dunno what to say, if you guys don't want us to do this then we won't. Plain and simple.

Justin

Okay yeah, I totally agree with you Robyn, perhaps I was reading a bit more into your and Cam's replies than was actually there. It's like I said, personally I think and feel we're all mature enough people to recognize when a campaign starts interfering with the league, and to be honest I would be the first person, being the GM of the campaign, to see to it the campaign does not negatively impact the league and put a stop to any activities that may be doing just that. I'm also in favor of campaign games being worth less league points than non-campaign games, granting table access to non-campaign games over campaign games on Thursdays, etc. since such sanctions would be applied for the betterment of the league.

So if I'm clear about this, there is a sort of cautious-support for something of this sorts? Or would it be best not to rock the boat and simply put the campaign on the back burner for awhile?

Justin

I may have been a little too negative in my reply. Would i be able to act as a pinch hitter. I know with 8 people there will always be a few that cannon make it out to a game that needs to be played. Rather than be fully involved i could play for a team evil player if they could not make it out. That way i can still participate and help keep it running, while at the same time be available for regular league games against people who are not taking part in the campaign.

The other option would be to have it on a different night than league night, i could do that... maybe wed?

Actually Cam that is a great idea. Maybe, if there are some players who either don't want to be headliners or can't due to scheduling conflicts (like Paz) then yeah, we could definite use the pinch-hitter idea. That's actually what I had in mind earlier when I suggested the "proxy army" idea. Basically, if a member of the campaign wishes to play a non-campaign game and there's another player who has the same army and there's a tacit agreement between both players that the non-campaign player can decide the fight of the campaign player's turn I would have no problems with that. As long as both campaign players are alright with accepting the result beforehand. If not, then the games would still be league games, they just wouldn't count towards the campaign.

Hmm, that does seem a touch confusing. Perhaps an example can outline, so let's say Chris' Spac Marines (a campaign player) has a game set up with Ivan's Orks (a non-campaign player), and Mike (the Ork campaign player) has no problems with Ivan playing as Mike's proxy for campaign purposes. The only thing that would need to be done is Chris and Mike would have to do their strategic rolls beforehand in order to determine which territory is being fought over (unless it's a neutral territory), but the results of Chris and Ivan's battle would still count towards the campaign (and the league).

And if we wanted to take it a degree further we could say that any army can proxy for any other army, sort of a demo for the campaign. So as long as Mike is okay with say Andrew's Necrons playing a battle for him that would also be allowable (once again provided both players were okay with it. Otherwise it would still count towards the league, but not towards the campaign).

Does that sound like what you're thinking Cam?

Justin

Yea i think that is more or less the idea. As organizer you would probably have to do a bit of the legwork. So if Mike and Chris had a game set up, and Mike cannot be there, then another player could play for Mike so long as everyone agrees.

Oh yeah I know it'll be work on my part. I've come to accept that and I'm okay with it.

So anyways, I've decided to go with the first four players I had express interest as the current headliners with others having the ability to pinch-hit as appropriate. So Chris (Space Marines/Sisters), Mike (Orks), Thomas (Imperial Guard) and Darren (Nids) you guys are still the headliners right? I'm 90% sure Chris and Thomas are all in so I just want to doublecheck about Darren and Mike since I haven't spoken to definitely confirm with you two yet. So yeah, drop me a line and let me know if you're still in, otherwise I'll have to see what's what.

Justin