Switch Theme:

Where are my Roleplay/ Campaign Players at?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Somewhere in Canada

It comes up all the time on Dakka in other threads, so I figure I'd start a conversation about campaign play.

Any of you who have read my posts know that it's really the only way I play. If you and I play a casual game in a store, that's what it will feel like to you, but it isn't that for me, ever.

Because the next time we meet, you may notice that some of the minis that did well against you now have an extra purity seal, or a new skull on their base. I don't have to tell you that they earned those things during our last game, because a) you don't need to know, and b) you probably don't care. But it was still a campaign game for me, whether it was for you or not.

Now given that, obviously I have a metric tonne of ideas about campaigns, how to find the inspiration for them, how to carry them from platform to platform, how to track them, etc.

But what I'm curious about are other campaign players and their ideas, and how they manage the growth of their armies in terms of the story, not the rules. I'm going to try not to spout back with huge rambling posts of my own ideas. I just genuinely want to know how many people there are that appreciate the same things about this game that I do. So here are some guiding questions:

1. Do you use Urban Conquest rules (Cities of Death and especially Streets of Death, which is the map based campaign system that comes with the kit)
2. Do you cross-platform, and if so, which other systems do you incorporate into your campaigns?
3. Do you use a referee/ GM/ narrator system.
4. Do your characters earn their promotions? (ie. Did any of your troops ever work their way up to Commander level?)
5. Have you ever played a quest game to earn the right to use one of your Relics in the remainder of the campaign?
6. Do you have persistent maps/ terrain that can be affected by game play?
7. How many of you write your own fluff/ fanfic/ background based on game play?

No need to restrict your answers to those seven questions- they are just there as guidelines. If you have other stuff you want to tell us about your experiences with campaign play, I'd love to read it. Links to any of your campaign resources, battle reports or whatever are also welcome.



   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





PenitentJake wrote:
1. Do you use Urban Conquest rules (Cities of Death and especially Streets of Death, which is the map based campaign system that comes with the kit)
Nope, if it were cheaper, I'd considered picking it up and trying it though!
2. Do you cross-platform, and if so, which other systems do you incorporate into your campaigns?
Kill Team, and I imagine if I played either, Titanicus or BFG could be implemented.
3. Do you use a referee/ GM/ narrator system.
I've taken part in other people's systems as the GM in theirs, but in my own narratives, it's largely just done on what the players think is cool.
4. Do your characters earn their promotions? (ie. Did any of your troops ever work their way up to Commander level?)
Kinda. I had a second Captain have to stand in when my first was permakilled, and they grew from the commander of a small force to becoming a Chapter Master in their own right.
5. Have you ever played a quest game to earn the right to use one of your Relics in the remainder of the campaign?
I did, yes! I unlocked a relic sword for my commander, and IC character decided that they needed to earn the right to wield it. Mathematically, it was also strictly inferior to my current weapon at the time, but it had better lore behind it, so I was more than happy with the tradeoff.
6. Do you have persistent maps/ terrain that can be affected by game play?
Unfortunately not, but that would be a cool idea.
7. How many of you write your own fluff/ fanfic/ background based on game play?
Absolutely. My homebrew Chapter is nearly entirely formed as a narrative campaign character that grew to become his own minor hero and later Chapter Master, some of the story present on this site itself!

My question - how many narrative gamers set their games in a set time period? If the campaign isn't outright set on a famous planet (ie, a Badab or Armageddon campaign), do you default to setting it "in present day"? Have you had a campaign in a more awkward time period (say, M.38)?


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

When I do narrative gaming, I generally try and set up a believeable scenario of sorts based off themed forces.

I did a single player scenario battle report a few weeks ago, I decided I wanted to try out a concept for an IG list based around Armored Sentinels at about a thousand points, came up with a bunker attack scenario for my Iron Warriors to defend using models I liked but didn't often get to use competitively. I basically just took whatever terrain I had, set it up as best I could, came up with some sensible victory conditions (that weren't necessarily tournament balanced but were relatively balanced given the forces, terrain, and scenario I had in mind) tied to specific units and structures and actions (like getting across the map), and played it out.

The next one I'll try and do (when I can rustle up more terrain) will probably be a slightly larger counterattack scenario with the IG being more infantry heavy instead and the Iron Warriors running with a different HQ and more dudes in Rhinos, and the Tank Commander may get another Tank Ace skill if I decide to run him again.

I don't really find the actual GW supplements like Urban Conquest to be super helpful, they tend to add a lot of rules, but kinda just give us variants on match play missions with a bunch of extra stuff bolted on (that ultimately is mostly just expressed as some simple modifier to a combat roll), and makes zero attempt to shape the forces involved at all (a critical failure I believe) beyond an occasional timid suggestion (e.g. "this mission works best when power levels are equal") and otherwise just call on players to select a "battleforged army", and so mostly that results in just a string of modified pickup games except with more noise to slow the game down. They have a couple neat things to pick out, but mostly I just find those books to be a bloated mess.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Somewhere in Canada

"My question - how many narrative gamers set their games in a set time period? If the campaign isn't outright set on a famous planet (ie, a Badab or Armageddon campaign), do you default to setting it "in present day"? Have you had a campaign in a more awkward time period (say, M.38)?"

My campaign is set in a specific time, but I do play dreamscape games, where a battle represents a glimpse of a possible future, as well as historical battles that are used to highlight an event in the distant past which has a connection to the current story line.

I've always tried to be careful to set my stuff outside of cannon space though.

BTW, cool story about your chapter master- love that.



"I don't really find the actual GW supplements like Urban Conquest to be super helpful, they tend to add a lot of rules, but kinda just give us variants on match play missions with a bunch of extra stuff bolted on (that ultimately is mostly just expressed as some simple modifier to a combat roll), and makes zero attempt to shape the forces involved at all (a critical failure I believe) beyond an occasional timid suggestion (e.g. "this mission works best when power levels are equal") and otherwise just call on players to select a "battleforged army", and so mostly that results in just a string of modified pickup games except with more noise to slow the game down. They have a couple neat things to pick out, but mostly I just find those books to be a bloated mess."

There's definitely some truth to this. I liked the Streets of Death rules, but the territories didn't go far enough for me; the four special territories were cool, but all of the others were just a pair of numeric values that were really removed and abstracted from the story part of the game. Cool idea about campaign rules affecting army composition though. That's something I might have to experiment with.

This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2020/04/15 21:44:37


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

I do this to some extent in the various games I play (not just in 40k).
Models models might get purity seals/kill stripes/upgrades/sometimes a trophy of some type/etc. Visible rank promotions. Named. Some times even battle damage.....

In my DA I've got an Assault Squad Sgt who earned his upgrade/battle damage & a story.
Long ago (3rd ed) I was at a tourney. He got knocked to the floor & his sword arm snapped off right before the elbow - and of course bounced off to Emperor-knows-where.
I didn't have any extra bitz with me. Glue? Sure. And a black sharpie. But no bitz.
As I'm a strict WYSIWYG player? Since I couldn't fix him I simply used the sharpie to color his stump (the black carapace sealed the wound!) He then fought the rest of the day armed only with his plasma pistol with me refusing to take attacks from a non-present weapon. My opponents were surprised.
I figured I'd make him a bionic arm once I got home.

When I got home?
I put the DA away, played a different army in the casual games at the shops, & forgot all about fixing the Sgt.
Next event I went to? Opened the DA case to pull them out (they were my travel/event army at the time), "Crap, guess what I forgot to do?". "When we get home buddy....."
Yeah. Repeat this pattern for about the next four years into 4th ed. I joked that's what happens when you're transferred to warzones all across the galaxy - the admin is always playing catch-up trying to get your missing gear/mail to you - in the meantime there's still heretics & xenos that need killing....
The story does have a happy ending though. Eventually I was doing misc. hobby stuff & remembered to craft the Sgt his bionic arm. He's been sporting a Necron arm/paperclip scratch built arm + a powersword upgrade ever since.

Much more common though is that my models "Earn their paint".
I'm a decent to very good painter. But I'm slow & much more interested in PLAYING the games. And I like to play all kinds of forces. If I waited until a force was completely painted I'd never be rolling the dice. Or I'd be stuck playing about 1 force & bored beyond belief. So I have no qualms about fielding models wearing only a base coat of primer in day-to-day games with friends/at the shop.
Everything will get painted. Eventually. Squad by squad, plt by plt, whatevers the term for the game/force.
But until then? As individual models preform well/do memorable things? They get pulled aside & painted/finished early. Most recently a Churchill tank in a WWII game. Over 5 turns it soaked up 27 assorted AT rounds before being taken out, allowing its' squadron to chop up the every German they encountered. I drilled pits, dings, & shell holes all over it & then painted it up.
A friend termed this 'Earning Paint" & noted that it's a damned slow way to paint a force.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Somewhere in Canada

@css Thanks so much for that story. I sometimes don't give as much cred to tourney players for appreciating all aspects of the hobby.

It's nice to see that tournament play too can contribute to that campaign/ faction history stuff that matters so much to me.

Earning the paint is something that I'm doing for two different factions right now. I've got a Spacehulk game coming up where the stealers are actually trying to get OFF the ship using automated escape pods. There are only 8 pods, so that is the maximum number of stealers that can escape, and if the marines manage to do what marines do best, fewer are likely to make the cut.

The ones who escape begin to manifest Cult traits once they make planetfall. They are the ones that get painted, each a slightly different colour. The one who bestows the Genestealer curse upon the greatest number of Imperial citizens over the course of a schedule of kill team games becomes the Patriarch, which determines which subfaction I build.

The other one is harder; I've got two basic 5 member wych cult units, so I need two different schemes. I built an arena for them, and in their first match, they are competing for wych cult weapons. The MVP's from each cult then go head to head in a duel to see which one will earn the title of Hekatrix.

There are also plans for Reaver races to win additional jetbikes and venoms, and a scenario were a bunch of hellions get jumped by beasts, and one emerges from the battle as a beast master.

The reason it's trickier is that I need to sacrifice more models to alternate paint schemes, and I too am a slow painter.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

PenitentJake wrote:
@css Thanks so much for that story. I sometimes don't give as much cred to tourney players for appreciating all aspects of the hobby.


Well, you see, the reason I'm able to appreciate various aspects of my hobby is that I'm not really a tourney player.
(make no mistake, while I'm well able to compete, I just really dislike playing games in that environment. I think turning every system into a tourney often harms whatever the game is as most are not designed for that approach. And then tourney based gak spills out & warps the rules/approach of the non-tourney scene. - see Rule of 3 non-sense & Legends as examples)
So why was a non-tourney player in a tourney?? I was in that particular tourney (at GenCon) because the non-tourney 40k event I was signed up for got cancelled. I had a giant hole in my gaming schedule that I couldn't satisfactorily fill, was lugging a heavy case of 40k with me, & had no (practical) means to store it somewhere or return it to the hotel room until xPM. So I might as well use it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/16 01:55:59


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






PenitentJake wrote:
1. Do you use Urban Conquest rules (Cities of Death and especially Streets of Death, which is the map based campaign system that comes with the kit)

Mostly no. There are a few decent ideas in there I have stolen for my campaign (key buildings), but the box is pretty expensive and offers little. I'd probably buy the ebook, but they haven't released one.
It also requires players to own certain miniatures like assassins, and I'm no fan of that. In general it shares the weakness of many of GW's campaign book of only working with very specific kinds of armies.
I also agree with the sentiment above that most narrative rules and missions just slow down/unbalance the game, while not actually adding anything that would result in a more narrative experience.
In my campaign, the players are free to pick whatever mission they want to play.

2. Do you cross-platform, and if so, which other systems do you incorporate into your campaigns?

The campaign I wrote is using the old planetary empire tiles, and originally they could be conquered by playing either best of three killteam games, or a game of 40k/apoc. However, since our "protagonists" are each army's warlord, who scale badly to both kill team and apoc. In the end my players decided on just running 40k.

3. Do you use a referee/ GM/ narrator system.

I've created a setting of a remote agrar world with hooks for pretty much every faction to be there. My players have written short stories who their leader is, what their motivations are and which faction on the planet they are supporting. There are two factions which either try to re-establish the world as a valuable asset of the imperium or help them break off.
The reward system of the campaign is created in a way that it rewards fighting the most powerful player of your own faction, so there is going to be some back-stabbing as well
I will continue to write the story depending on how games turn out, if the players don't do so themselves before I get the chance

4. Do your characters earn their promotions? (ie. Did any of your troops ever work their way up to Commander level?)

We use the custom character rules from CA2018 and additional skill trees where the player's characters can pick up goodies so by the end of the campaign, they can eventually rival characters like Ghazgkhull Thrakka, Abaddon or Gulliman.
The skill trees are divided into Fury, Wisdom, Endurance and Honor, or Khorne, Tzeench, Nurgle and Slanesh, depending on how you want to look at it The eldar player even claims that the trees represent different aspect shirnes
All leaders start out as they are in the book though, keeping track of battlefield promotions on regular units has proven to be lots of book keeping and little fun.

5. Have you ever played a quest game to earn the right to use one of your Relics in the remainder of the campaign?

When my players win games, they can chose between getting rewards for the entire faction or just for themselves. The rewards they gain for themselves can be spend on the trees described above. The include stuff like relics, but also some high-end skills which allow them to gain personal command tanks, evolve into larger monsters or enable them to permanently loot weapons from units they destroy in melee.

6. Do you have persistent maps/ terrain that can be affected by game play?

No and yes. Using the faction rewards, players can construct building on tiles, like shield generators, power stations, bastions and so on. When you attack a tile with a building on it, this building will be part of the battlefield and can be destroyed during the battle - even if the defender wins.
Persistent maps don't work well when have to pack everything up at the end of the day, and the terrain belongs to people who might or might not be available every time you play.

7. How many of you write your own fluff/ fanfic/ background based on game play?

If one of my orks does a great feat, he gets a name, a short story and a paintjob (if not already the case).
For example, the big choppa nob "Manslaughter" has fought and killed 18 imperial guardsmen over three turns of combat for an objective that resulted in me winning at the end of the game.
My Death Guard? They are just game pieces. I play them because they are fun to play, but I'm much less invested in their fluff.

No need to restrict your answers to those seven questions- they are just there as guidelines. If you have other stuff you want to tell us about your experiences with campaign play, I'd love to read it. Links to any of your campaign resources, battle reports or whatever are also welcome.

While writing my campaign, I got some pretty awesome ideas here on dakka:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/782663.page

Sharing my stuff is kind of difficult, since some of my players aren't fluent in English and thus everything is written in German.

One general advice for running campaigns though: Keep it simple. If you pile a territory map on top of narrative missions, city of death, armies changing depending on mission, battle honors, legendary heroes and an escalation campaign on top of the already pretty complex game of 40k, it will just not be fun.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/04/16 09:24:17


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I ran/played a campaign with my local club back in 6th/7th, using Planetary Empires as a means of tracking a players progress. It worked so-so, the issues arose when one player was challenged by 2 others, and a different player was left out. If I were to try and run one again (some day I might..) I would split the players into 2 factions and give them a number of missions each week/round to split their forces about. No-one would know who they're playing against - one side would recieve "storm the gates" and the other would get "hold the fort" and the players in each team would decide who is the best suited for the task - EG someone with lots of tanks and artillery might get the defending task, whilst the ork player on the other side might get the role of storming the gates. Neither would know what they were facing until they have made their list and been sent to a table of pre-arranged scenery with an "attacker" and "Defender" mission-briefing. Their goals might directly oppose one another (hold the gate / breach the gate) or military intelligence might be wrong and they might not even be trying to get in (hold the gate vs take the outpost and send a radio signal).

I would probably do a string of maybe 3 battles per "event", so (in our example) the orks first scout the defences and send a signal, then they have an all-out attack, and then (depending on the outcome of the second) the IG player might be trying to re-take the gates, or they might be trying to stop a giant battering ram which is making its way across the board.
There could be others, like a mismatch of points, where the defender has 1500 points and the attacker has 1000 points, and their mission is to distract the for 7 turns (minor VP) or wipe them out (major VP). something like 1 VP for every turn you survive, and 10VP if you kill them all. you'e not expected to take the gate, but if you do, that's bonus.

There could be a large apocalypse game, which would be affected by the games preceding it, EG if you distract them for long enough then they have to arrive late, if you take the gate then you can outflank - that kinda stuff.

I really want to run a campaign again now

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






ccs wrote:
Much more common though is that my models "Earn their paint".
I'm a decent to very good painter. But I'm slow & much more interested in PLAYING the games. And I like to play all kinds of forces. If I waited until a force was completely painted I'd never be rolling the dice. Or I'd be stuck playing about 1 force & bored beyond belief. So I have no qualms about fielding models wearing only a base coat of primer in day-to-day games with friends/at the shop.
Everything will get painted. Eventually. Squad by squad, plt by plt, whatevers the term for the game/force.
But until then? As individual models preform well/do memorable things? They get pulled aside & painted/finished early. Most recently a Churchill tank in a WWII game. Over 5 turns it soaked up 27 assorted AT rounds before being taken out, allowing its' squadron to chop up the every German they encountered. I drilled pits, dings, & shell holes all over it & then painted it up.
A friend termed this 'Earning Paint" & noted that it's a damned slow way to paint a force.


I do this too. Recently, I bough a metal weird boy from a poster here on dakka. In his second game, he killed Kharn the Betrayer by rolling an insane amount of 6++ saves and then blowing up both their heads with perils. He is now is primed and waiting in line on the painting table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 some bloke wrote:
I ran/played a campaign with my local club back in 6th/7th, using Planetary Empires as a means of tracking a players progress. It worked so-so, the issues arose when one player was challenged by 2 others, and a different player was left out. If I were to try and run one again (some day I might..) I would split the players into 2 factions and give them a number of missions each week/round to split their forces about. No-one would know who they're playing against - one side would recieve "storm the gates" and the other would get "hold the fort" and the players in each team would decide who is the best suited for the task - EG someone with lots of tanks and artillery might get the defending task, whilst the ork player on the other side might get the role of storming the gates. Neither would know what they were facing until they have made their list and been sent to a table of pre-arranged scenery with an "attacker" and "Defender" mission-briefing. Their goals might directly oppose one another (hold the gate / breach the gate) or military intelligence might be wrong and they might not even be trying to get in (hold the gate vs take the outpost and send a radio signal).

I solved this issue by having campaign rounds and a pseudo-league system. At the start of the round the player who has won the least games picks an opponent and a tile to attack. Then the next player without a game does the same. If there are no players left from one faction, the faction with less players has to hire a mercenary - a player from the other team then runs one of his secondary armies and is rewarded as if he played a regular game on his side.
If three players end up being left, they play a 2v1 game depending on which factions they belong to.

I would probably do a string of maybe 3 battles per "event", so (in our example) the orks first scout the defences and send a signal, then they have an all-out attack, and then (depending on the outcome of the second) the IG player might be trying to re-take the gates, or they might be trying to stop a giant battering ram which is making its way across the board.
There could be others, like a mismatch of points, where the defender has 1500 points and the attacker has 1000 points, and their mission is to distract the for 7 turns (minor VP) or wipe them out (major VP). something like 1 VP for every turn you survive, and 10VP if you kill them all. you'e not expected to take the gate, but if you do, that's bonus.

There could be a large apocalypse game, which would be affected by the games preceding it, EG if you distract them for long enough then they have to arrive late, if you take the gate then you can outflank - that kinda stuff.

I've toyed with this, and have come to the conclusion that map-based campaigns and tree-based campaigns simply don't mix well. Also be careful with messing up the points balance or otherwise restricting armies - 8th is pretty volatile, so a 500 points handicap can cause the other party to just be tabled in the first turns, which will never turn into an enjoyable game.

I have come to the conclusion that the game 40k, by itself, is unfit to tell any stories. There a tons of abstract elements, like stratagems and warlord traits, some armies require named characters or certain unit combinations to function and there is an extremely high lethality in the game.
For example, if you have a named squad of intercessors which have earned some powerful advantages through heroic actions, there is nothing preventing your opponent's no-name plasma squad from just slaughtering to the man first thing every game.
There is also the issue that almost every game of 8th edition results in one side being nearly or completely wiped out. At some point you run out of reasons why your warboss didn't die to massive anti-tank fire this time.
Because of this, if heroic moments happen in a game, they are noted and added to the story, but the game by itself is just an abstract thing whose results serve to decide the story progresses.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/16 10:46:18


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




How about the upgrades, not being upgrades but more like unlocks. Lets say in the first 2-3 games you don't get most of your elite, heavy support stuff. And it could be a strickt power limit. If a troop for some faction was too powerful it could be limited in numbers, if an elite or FA was crucial to it could be taken, but take other slots. It would take a lot of work, and taking with people playing with and against all armies, But for a long multi month game, spending a day or two on talking wouldn't be a too big of a time investment.

The specific games could change the unlocks and rewards, Maybe if you win a game one of the heroes present gets a psychic power, or a relic. But if you lose you get a choice of something like a death company.

there could also be stuff that is tracked over time. For example orcs could slowly gather matterials from each won game, counting every vehicle destroyed and if they got enough wounds in, they could get a stompa

Eldar could be build spirit gates, that would unlock something else. IG and tau could get garnisons, leting them set up foritification in addition to normal terrain.

And considering those games wouldn't be tournament ones, but story driven, the special rules or the win/victory gains wouldn't have to be balanced. They could also open the games to doing unconventional stuff. Maybe the orc player is going to be less important to win 23:0, but okey with a 13:7, but with him trying to go after all those vehicles.

Maybe for a GK player the relic is going to be a better option, then the "death company", but for a IG player losing an Lt and one game, to get a zelot mob of white shields or drug pumped catachans is a better option that a weapon or psychic power.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






I have a special table for my Genestealer Cults army, which I tend to bust out whenever I get bored and want to do a private campaign.

Basically, with two space hulk sets I can field a solid 1k-1250 list of just genestealers, so I start with that and I roll on tables for all the surviving squads in the game, and each unit type has a table for what units they can add to the cult.

Genestealers create first gen hybrids or Brood Brothers and can respawn patriarchs if the patriarch rolls badly on the character death table and gets killed, first gen hybrids create late gen hybrids, slight chance of aberrants, metamorphs, or first gen body characters, late gen hybrids make vehicles and bikers as well as late gen body characters, and brood brothers make the other available brood brother units.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Karol wrote:
How about the upgrades, not being upgrades but more like unlocks. Lets say in the first 2-3 games you don't get most of your elite, heavy support stuff. And it could be a strickt power limit. If a troop for some faction was too powerful it could be limited in numbers, if an elite or FA was crucial to it could be taken, but take other slots. It would take a lot of work, and taking with people playing with and against all armies, But for a long multi month game, spending a day or two on talking wouldn't be a too big of a time investment.

In my experience, that's a terrible idea which doesn't work well at all. You are basic destroying what precious balance the game currently has.
Especially small niche armies suffer massively from this, as do players with small collections. Just imagine playing your GK when everything but strikes and grand masters are locked, against an ork army made of boyz and warbosses. You have absolutely no chance of archieving anything in that game, let alone win it.

The specific games could change the unlocks and rewards, Maybe if you win a game one of the heroes present gets a psychic power, or a relic. But if you lose you get a choice of something like a death company.

there could also be stuff that is tracked over time. For example orcs could slowly gather matterials from each won game, counting every vehicle destroyed and if they got enough wounds in, they could get a stompa

Eldar could be build spirit gates, that would unlock something else. IG and tau could get garnisons, leting them set up foritification in addition to normal terrain.

There is almost no way to balance this. People would be forced into multi-hour games that they have no chance of winning. Before you know it, the campaign will fall apart.
Not to mention you actually need all those models.
Stuff like this works in PC games, but not a tabletop game where each game lasts multiple hours and "rewards" have to be represented by physical models.

And considering those games wouldn't be tournament ones, but story driven, the special rules or the win/victory gains wouldn't have to be balanced.

This is, by far, the greatest mistake you can make when designing a campaign. Some people don't mind losing, but all but some very few exceptions hate losing all the time.
Not to mention that there is no story being told when you are getting tabled. I once was part of a campaign where my opponent made a grave tactical mistake in his first turn and ended up tabled by the end of my turn two. While everyone around us was having fun and experiencing all those weird events the GM thought up, he had his army packed up and was waiting for his mother to pick him up.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/16 12:52:33


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

PenitentJake wrote:
It comes up all the time on Dakka in other threads, so I figure I'd start a conversation about campaign play.

Any of you who have read my posts know that it's really the only way I play. If you and I play a casual game in a store, that's what it will feel like to you, but it isn't that for me, ever.

Because the next time we meet, you may notice that some of the minis that did well against you now have an extra purity seal, or a new skull on their base. I don't have to tell you that they earned those things during our last game, because a) you don't need to know, and b) you probably don't care. But it was still a campaign game for me, whether it was for you or not.

Now given that, obviously I have a metric tonne of ideas about campaigns, how to find the inspiration for them, how to carry them from platform to platform, how to track them, etc.

But what I'm curious about are other campaign players and their ideas, and how they manage the growth of their armies in terms of the story, not the rules. I'm going to try not to spout back with huge rambling posts of my own ideas. I just genuinely want to know how many people there are that appreciate the same things about this game that I do. So here are some guiding questions:

1. Do you use Urban Conquest rules (Cities of Death and especially Streets of Death, which is the map based campaign system that comes with the kit)
2. Do you cross-platform, and if so, which other systems do you incorporate into your campaigns?
3. Do you use a referee/ GM/ narrator system.
4. Do your characters earn their promotions? (ie. Did any of your troops ever work their way up to Commander level?)
5. Have you ever played a quest game to earn the right to use one of your Relics in the remainder of the campaign?
6. Do you have persistent maps/ terrain that can be affected by game play?
7. How many of you write your own fluff/ fanfic/ background based on game play?

No need to restrict your answers to those seven questions- they are just there as guidelines. If you have other stuff you want to tell us about your experiences with campaign play, I'd love to read it. Links to any of your campaign resources, battle reports or whatever are also welcome.


I appreciate this thread and it warms my heart. For me, I used to play that every PUG (pick-up-game) was part of my army's lore; however, that rapidly became untenable with the escalating lethality in the game since I started that. Stuff just gets wiped off the map too quickly to matter, making it hard to have heroic figures. I adapted to that in three ways: the first is simply to set up narrative games with my friends, rather than playing PUGs at the store. The rise of Social Media happened right alongside the rise in lethality in Warhammer so I am now able to use all sorts of communications to set up games. It's still unfortunate, because it means I play fresh opponents fairly rarely (not because I don't want to but because brand new people don't exist in my social media sphere yet, obviously). I do feel like the world is fragmenting a bit; I always meet new players at the store from other clubs who didn't know our club existed, despite our club being the largest in my area, officially promoted by the store, and with posters and banners pasted in said store's game room. But I digress...

... the second way I dealt with the problem of lethality making it hard to be narrative was completely inadvertent. I was looking to get into AOS (and I am into it, and happily so, by the way) and had narrowed down my army choices to Daughters of Khaine and Slaanesh Daemons. I set a Diaz Daemonette and a Wytch Aelf in front of my wife, unpainted, and said "which of these armies do you like the most." She was all about the daemons, so I picked them up for AOS; this was way back when DoK first got their book; I wanted a Morathi model. At any rate, needless to say I also play the Daemons in 40k, and in the lore for both games, Daemons are usually "banished" rather than "killed" when they are defeated on the tabletop. This means that, aside from the few ways to actually kill daemons (GKs, the Emperor's Sword on Guilliman, etc), then my characters and heroic units are guaranteed to survive from game to game, even if they are defeated. This also means my daemons are rightfully afraid of Guilliman and his sword - not afraid enough to not fight him, of course, but afraid enough not to be stupid. Better to send a wave of Daemonettes to overwhelm him rather than 1v1ing him in the heroic duel for which Slaanesh is usually known, for example.

Thirdly, I found a local group running a real campaign. It is a heavily houseruled map campaign, though it is currently on pause. I miss it dearly. The GM also plays in the campaign, which has caused problems in the past but he has been very willing to listen to players and back off from untenable positions if he makes the wrong ruling on something. An example of one of our house rules is Daemonic Summoning: in Narrative Play, it's completely broken (since you can summon infinite daemonic hordes if you have the models) but he houseruled it to cost CP, so that you can still benefit from it but it isn't infinite. The CP scales with the type of unit, etc. The campaign has two different types of phases: a phase reset every time a planet is conquered, allowing the victorious team/player to choose another planet from the sector map for everyone to fight on. This reset is also when players can swap factions if they feel like it. The other major change is every Chapter Approved release - all the unit XP in the campaign gets reset. This is the time when new players can join, and also prevents units from simply levelling up to maximum and then sitting on it with a bajillion XP.

Troopers earn promotions using the Battle Honour system in CA2018, though I've never had a trooper be promoted above her station so it hasn't come up. I have, however, blinged out my characters to match their achievements. I also blend AOS and 40k narrative (easy to do for Daemons) so there's that. Essentially, here is an example (old on the top, pre-ascension at NOVA 2018, and new underneath, post-ascension in her current form after growing in power. Notice the same face and arm layout, but much better armor, better posture, more imperious pose, better paint-job, and of course larger size): Caution, NSFW
Spoiler:



If you want the story of what happened at NOVA 2018 AOS Grand Narrative, I am happy to provide; I have all the fluff written already of course >

As for my own fluff, I have a huge fluff repository for my Slaanesh that is constantly growing. It happens in fits and starts - I have to be in the right mood (perhaps call upon a Slaaneshi muse) but they definitely exist and I am happy to share (privately, not necessarily to the whole world). They're not very well-written, but it's plentiful. Typical fan-fiction you might say.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/16 13:28:54


 
   
Made in us
Humorless Arbite





Maine

I'll just leave this here.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/524342.page

The campaign looks like it's taking a break, but only because a prequel campaign started.

The events of which are actually interspersed in Kestrals P&M blog
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/758007.page

Which has been slowed down by the adventure of Covid.

Voxed from Salamander 84-24020
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Somewhere in Canada

Wow gang, this is awesome. Thanks for all the inspiration and links- haven't followed them all yet, but I will.

Also, I had forgotten about Planetary empires. I never got to play it; at the time it was out, finances weren't enough that I could buy both the campaign tool and the armies, so I focussed on the army part.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




1. Do you use Urban Conquest rules (Cities of Death and especially Streets of Death, which is the map based campaign system that comes with the kit)
NO. I feel like they add too many additional rules w/out adding enough additional fun
2. Do you cross-platform, and if so, which other systems do you incorporate into your campaigns?
Kill Team. Previously also used BFG
3. Do you use a referee/ GM/ narrator system.
Nah. It's a pretty collaborative effort.
4. Do your characters earn their promotions? (ie. Did any of your troops ever work their way up to Commander level?)
Yes! We have a system for that.
5. Have you ever played a quest game to earn the right to use one of your Relics in the remainder of the campaign?
No
6. Do you have persistent maps/ terrain that can be affected by game play?
Yes
7. How many of you write your own fluff/ fanfic/ background based on game play?
Sort of do this - we lay out an over-all loose idea for the campaign to give it context and develop the story as it unfolds.

We have a system we've been honing over the course of a few editions. You start out with a certain number of total points. Anywhere from 5000 to 10,000 depending on what we want to do with the campaign, and depending on the collections of the players in said campaign. Typically, we agree on a certain amount of % of what makes up your troops, heavy support, etc.

Each game has a set level of points just like a normal match play game, and you pick your army as normal, with the exception that whatever dies in the gam is points lost off of your total army points. Meaning that if you lose 500points of Heavy Support, your army total drops from 10,000 to 9,500. We can make it even more granular so that those points get deducted from your Heavy Support pool. In this way players have to make more realistic choices about what they do with their units in a game. As the campaign goes on, if you aren't careful and you lose your Heavy Support points (or Elites, Fast Attack etc), it changes what you can actually take in a game. We always allow a roll for HQs to recover post game, but for everything else there are locations on the map that you need to secure in order to bolster your forces. "recruiting centers", and "regen-sectors" allow you to roll to save your troops post-battle, or to add a certain amount of troops automatically between each battle round. There's something for every slot so you can then decide what things you want to control.

If your army gets whittled down too far, you build a Kill Team and run challenge missions to try and get back in the fight. There are a bunch of other rules too, and we run one of these each year, so we keep refining it. It's pretty fun. At least for us.

This is, by far, the greatest mistake you can make when designing a campaign. Some people don't mind losing, but all but some very few exceptions hate losing all the time.


I think the point though is that it's a narrative campaign, or scenario. Everyone would know what they're getting into ahead of time. "That" type of player probably isn't going to play in that type of game/scenario. I've payed in many "last stand" type battles where there was almost np chance of "winning", and have had fun every time. I even won one once- got down to a single Warlock who then killed 20 Necron Warriors and a Overlord. Warms my heart to this day and was totally worth the other times I got tabled!

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





I've wanted my group to do a more integrated campaign but it never comes to fruition. We may occasionally play narrative but they are seldom linked to other games. I have tried a few Kill-Team to 40K games for sprcific outcomes.
I think for me it will come down to using my own armies solo and building a campaign, i just don't know what format to use. I already have characters created and looked at some of the narrative games in the supplements for ideas, but seem to get distracted too easily. I may need to iron out something more concrete.
   
Made in de
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator





1.
We also use a planetary empires map to track the progress of our factions. One guy in our group got two sets of it for cheap and built and painted a cool map. Before that we already wrote a background about the planet we are fighting over. With the map I used it as a starting point to write some pages about the importance of the planet and why our factions are there and what their goals are.
Even though I created a guideline for campaign gaming, we do it pretty loosely. All the games are tracked, so if you win your 2000points maelstrom game, your faction gains two provinces, if you win you kill team game, you get 1 province. We also have rules for all the buildings your faction holds, but these aren't used in every game, because sometimes you just want to have a simple game without thinking much about which boni you would get because of the map that is in the flat of another guy .
We also do some linked scenarios with their own story, which then again have consequences on the map.
I use scenarios from CA and Vigilus as inspiration for most of our games, but I didn't get my hands on urban conquest, because it seemed too similar to what you got as Cities of Death missions in CA 2018 to be of value, really.
2.
Not really so far, but I'm planning on doing an apocalypse game. Kill Team doesn't really appeal to me as the campaign aspect in this edition is very bland and really bad compared to what the heralds of ruin created back then.
3. no, not really. But right now I'm planning for some small scenarios similar to what miniwargaming does in their Deathwatch campaigns. I'll be GM and guide a friend of mine through the missions. (If Kill Team worked better and I had more experience with it I'd use it for that probably...)
4.
Most of our players created their own characters and partly wrote datasheets for them. We also used the veteran upgrades from CA 2018 in some games.
My Daemon prince is the result of a champion rolling well on the Boon of Chaos Table in 7th edition. My opponent gave him his name and since then whenever I use a Daemon prince it's that one guy.
7.
Most people in our group have written fluff for their armies I think. I wrote the most so far, with a background reaching back to the Horus Heresy, filling a small codex one could say. The others' at least wrote something for their characters or gave me information to use for the overall campaign description mentioned in 1.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/16 15:17:32


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





We started playing 8th via campaign with narrative games, etc. Sadly with the power creep it became more and more pointless. We really struggled to create scenarios where the solution didn't simply become "or kill your opponent's entire army by turn two...".

8th is insanely deadly and it makes it really hard to have a fun narrative game or scenario, or so I've found. You have to institute way too many additional rules or limitations to try to pull a story out of the world of "I hit and kill on 2's, re-rolling 1's", etc.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





 Elbows wrote:
We started playing 8th via campaign with narrative games, etc. Sadly with the power creep it became more and more pointless. We really struggled to create scenarios where the solution didn't simply become "or kill your opponent's entire army by turn two...".

8th is insanely deadly and it makes it really hard to have a fun narrative game or scenario, or so I've found. You have to institute way too many additional rules or limitations to try to pull a story out of the world of "I hit and kill on 2's, re-rolling 1's", etc.


I think that comes completely from the player's army builds. It seems that they want to play narrative, but are still building a list to compete. I know a few players, that even when playing "friendly" narrative style games, still build lists that they would take to an event. They just can't seem to shake the mindset.
   
Made in de
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator





 bullyboy wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
We started playing 8th via campaign with narrative games, etc. Sadly with the power creep it became more and more pointless. We really struggled to create scenarios where the solution didn't simply become "or kill your opponent's entire army by turn two...".

8th is insanely deadly and it makes it really hard to have a fun narrative game or scenario, or so I've found. You have to institute way too many additional rules or limitations to try to pull a story out of the world of "I hit and kill on 2's, re-rolling 1's", etc.


I think that comes completely from the player's army builds. It seems that they want to play narrative, but are still building a list to compete. I know a few players, that even when playing "friendly" narrative style games, still build lists that they would take to an event. They just can't seem to shake the mindset.


Agreed. What many Dakkanauts describe in their posts I've only encountered once against a Tau list, but the player warned me before and said he watched a youtube video about competitive Tau and wanted to try it out. I played a very fluffy DG list against that, but since DG is still seen as one of the strongest armies in my group we thought it could still work out. We also used cities of death terrain rules to nerf the firepower a bit. Didn't help, I was pretty much wiped away in 4 turns without killing anything, really. But even though we also do "tournaments" most people simply don't have the models to play what's seen as the competitive unit of the month, or don't want to own these models even, like our Necron player who's always like: Who in their right mind would buy 18 of these ancient, ugly overpriced (€-wize) destroyers?
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





 bullyboy wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
We started playing 8th via campaign with narrative games, etc. Sadly with the power creep it became more and more pointless. We really struggled to create scenarios where the solution didn't simply become "or kill your opponent's entire army by turn two...".

8th is insanely deadly and it makes it really hard to have a fun narrative game or scenario, or so I've found. You have to institute way too many additional rules or limitations to try to pull a story out of the world of "I hit and kill on 2's, re-rolling 1's", etc.


I think that comes completely from the player's army builds. It seems that they want to play narrative, but are still building a list to compete. I know a few players, that even when playing "friendly" narrative style games, still build lists that they would take to an event. They just can't seem to shake the mindset.


Sadly that's not the case. No one in my area is running tournament lists in our games. The constant flow of improvements, and benefits being given to armies and new unit abilities are simply making the tabletop way too deadly.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





 Elbows wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
We started playing 8th via campaign with narrative games, etc. Sadly with the power creep it became more and more pointless. We really struggled to create scenarios where the solution didn't simply become "or kill your opponent's entire army by turn two...".

8th is insanely deadly and it makes it really hard to have a fun narrative game or scenario, or so I've found. You have to institute way too many additional rules or limitations to try to pull a story out of the world of "I hit and kill on 2's, re-rolling 1's", etc.


I think that comes completely from the player's army builds. It seems that they want to play narrative, but are still building a list to compete. I know a few players, that even when playing "friendly" narrative style games, still build lists that they would take to an event. They just can't seem to shake the mindset.


Sadly that's not the case. No one in my area is running tournament lists in our games. The constant flow of improvements, and benefits being given to armies and new unit abilities are simply making the tabletop way too deadly.

Such as?

Marines running around outside of auras aren't getting a bunch of rerolls, especially if they're tacs in rhinos/razorbacks/drop pods etc.

Maybe given an example of what you're specifically seeing that makes it hard to play this way.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




This is, by far, the greatest mistake you can make when designing a campaign. Some people don't mind losing, but all but some very few exceptions hate losing all the time.
Not to mention that there is no story being told when you are getting tabled. I once was part of a campaign where my opponent made a grave tactical mistake in his first turn and ended up tabled by the end of my turn two. While everyone around us was having fun and experiencing all those weird events the GM thought up, he had his army packed up and was waiting for his mother to pick him up.

But if your boys "goal" could be building that special stompa. the story is there, the boys are building the stompa. And if someone gets tabled, he gets tabled. I expect such things to last for months, losing a single game, shouldn't have a huge impact on the entire campaign.

Having a psyker captin or a relic shouldn't be breaking the game. The initial limitations in points or units, maybe both could be interesting too, no longer would people be coming with quasi tournament lists, where instead of taking 60 sniper intercessors and 9 eliminators, this time they run 40, 6 eliminators and 20 scout with snipers. People would have to adapt, and yes it could mean that some match ups and games could be tougher.

Each game should bring something for both sides. Non of the winners gets a relic and the loser plays the next game with 500pts less. It would require a ton of work for the GM, because he would have to write up a ton of combinations. there should also be build in dimnishing return, so people that play more don't get a lot more then others.

I don't think balanced is needed in such a setting, it is not like without it the games are going to be more balanced. So if balanced is impossible to achive, then why not make the games enjoyable, with actual tactical decisions. Maybe if someone doesn't use units X, and wins his game, next game he gets an Y bonus. If he doesn't Z happens. Players would have to take choices based on the narrative of the games, and not just based on what is effficient. Because otherwise an event like that turns in to exercise in to who can hide a tournament army better.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Karol wrote:
This is, by far, the greatest mistake you can make when designing a campaign. Some people don't mind losing, but all but some very few exceptions hate losing all the time.
Not to mention that there is no story being told when you are getting tabled. I once was part of a campaign where my opponent made a grave tactical mistake in his first turn and ended up tabled by the end of my turn two. While everyone around us was having fun and experiencing all those weird events the GM thought up, he had his army packed up and was waiting for his mother to pick him up.

But if your boys "goal" could be building that special stompa. the story is there, the boys are building the stompa. And if someone gets tabled, he gets tabled. I expect such things to last for months, losing a single game, shouldn't have a huge impact on the entire campaign.

Having a psyker captin or a relic shouldn't be breaking the game. The initial limitations in points or units, maybe both could be interesting too, no longer would people be coming with quasi tournament lists, where instead of taking 60 sniper intercessors and 9 eliminators, this time they run 40, 6 eliminators and 20 scout with snipers. People would have to adapt, and yes it could mean that some match ups and games could be tougher.

Each game should bring something for both sides. Non of the winners gets a relic and the loser plays the next game with 500pts less. It would require a ton of work for the GM, because he would have to write up a ton of combinations. there should also be build in dimnishing return, so people that play more don't get a lot more then others.

I don't think balanced is needed in such a setting, it is not like without it the games are going to be more balanced. So if balanced is impossible to achive, then why not make the games enjoyable, with actual tactical decisions. Maybe if someone doesn't use units X, and wins his game, next game he gets an Y bonus. If he doesn't Z happens. Players would have to take choices based on the narrative of the games, and not just based on what is effficient. Because otherwise an event like that turns in to exercise in to who can hide a tournament army better.


I had a real fun time in one campaign with my ork collection where my narrative centered around Biln Eye Da Science Git (my big mek) whose entire goal was to obtain enough scrap to build a stompa.

My first game, I played a speed freeks ork army with Biln in the back with a Shokk Attack Gun.

My second game, the survivors were played as MANz, Deff Dreads and Killa Kanz

My third game, I had the very few surviving non-Biln orks driving Gorka/morkanauts and FW meka-dreads

And in the last game, my whole army was just a stompa, biln with a KFF, and a sea of gretchins made fearless by the stompa's aura

Luckily, that last game my opponent new he was playing against orks and expecting a huge sea of boyz he tailored his list HEAVILY to basically just anti-infantry. He had a couple of lascannon teams that I was able to just knock out turn 1, so the whole game was a ridiculous affair of me shoveling gretchins off the table by the dozen as the stompa lit up guardsmen platoons with its huge blast template.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Elbows wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
We started playing 8th via campaign with narrative games, etc. Sadly with the power creep it became more and more pointless. We really struggled to create scenarios where the solution didn't simply become "or kill your opponent's entire army by turn two...".

8th is insanely deadly and it makes it really hard to have a fun narrative game or scenario, or so I've found. You have to institute way too many additional rules or limitations to try to pull a story out of the world of "I hit and kill on 2's, re-rolling 1's", etc.


I think that comes completely from the player's army builds. It seems that they want to play narrative, but are still building a list to compete. I know a few players, that even when playing "friendly" narrative style games, still build lists that they would take to an event. They just can't seem to shake the mindset.


Sadly that's not the case. No one in my area is running tournament lists in our games. The constant flow of improvements, and benefits being given to armies and new unit abilities are simply making the tabletop way too deadly.


Maybe don't play with them, then. There's absolutely zero reason why you have to play super-deadly lists. Almost all the benefits gw has put together are dependent on having a particular detachment - run Imperium detachments and Chaos detachments instead.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/16 18:06:03


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





No one is intentionally taking mega-strong lists...and that's the problem. Bog standard, non-tournament armies are still strong enough to make narrative scenarios very difficult. I'm not playing with random strangers. I'm playing with my friends.

There is a difference between "don't take a meta-tournament list", and "hey could you not play with 30% of your codex, or not use those new marine rules...or not use those particular stratagems or buffs..."

I'm all about hacking 8th edition, and have been doing so since the start. No one in my group is even a power gamer, but the conversation is simply becoming too long to set up a game where scenarios work out. Heck, we've gone back to playing a hack of 2nd edition instead lately, first 40K I've played in six months or so.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




@Elbows -

What do your non-campaign/scenario based games tend to look like? I'd have to assume, if you aren't taking meta-style lists, that your standard games are also blowouts?

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 bullyboy wrote:
I think that comes completely from the player's army builds. It seems that they want to play narrative, but are still building a list to compete. I know a few players, that even when playing "friendly" narrative style games, still build lists that they would take to an event. They just can't seem to shake the mindset.


I disagree. I have actually tabled players by accident despite bringing a friendly one-of-everything-that-is-cool list that left everything powerful at home. There are quite a few armies that, if not build properly, just fly off the table like they are nothing.
I've also had games were hot/cold dice caused one player to be tabled despite the armies being equally matched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
But if your boys "goal" could be building that special stompa. the story is there, the boys are building the stompa. And if someone gets tabled, he gets tabled. I expect such things to last for months, losing a single game, shouldn't have a huge impact on the entire campaign.

I own almost ten thousand points of orks, but I don't own a stompa. Our campaign is played once a month, if you get tabled, you lost your chance at having fun for the month.

Having a psyker captin or a relic shouldn't be breaking the game. The initial limitations in points or units, maybe both could be interesting too, no longer would people be coming with quasi tournament lists, where instead of taking 60 sniper intercessors and 9 eliminators, this time they run 40, 6 eliminators and 20 scout with snipers. People would have to adapt, and yes it could mean that some match ups and games could be tougher.

No, it means that several games are decided before they are played. Why should someone waste all the time of packing miniatures, setting up a game and playing it, if there is no point in it?
Why didn't you "adapt" when GK sucked? For the very same reason, other players can't adapt either.

Each game should bring something for both sides. Non of the winners gets a relic and the loser plays the next game with 500pts less. It would require a ton of work for the GM, because he would have to write up a ton of combinations.

You can't have both fixed rewards and diminishing returns at the same time. They a mutually exclusive. Not to mention the "It would require a ton of work for the GM" is BS. It's wasted work, and you are guaranteed to leave some people unhappy. If you want happy people, don't restrict their games. People hate restrictions.
Instead, enhance their games, invest time into things people like

there should also be build in dimnishing return, so people that play more don't get a lot more then others.

In our campaign you can play only one game per campaign round. If you can't play a game, you still get the same rewards as if you had a loss, which is about half of what the winner gets. Due to the way we pick games, people who have more losses are more likely to be the attacker and thus go first in missions.
In addition, the further one player gets ahead, the more rewarding it is for his own faction to take him down. No only does this provide a benefit for the opposing faction, it also has the effect that people sometimes don't actually want to be in the lead.

I don't think balanced is needed in such a setting, it is not like without it the games are going to be more balanced. So if balanced is impossible to achive, then why not make the games enjoyable, with actual tactical decisions.

Whatever you do will make balance worse and thus the game less enjoyable. Less balance means less tactical decisions. If I get a free stompa there is nothing you can do about it except sit there and lose.
I have never, ever experienced any event where someone messed with the game balance for competitive or fun reason and it made the game better.
I know orks and death guard inside out. I don't know gak about Grey Knights. Do you really want me to re-balance your army?
How about this: These new tides seem powerful, how about you have to earn them first - by slaying a greater daemon of each god in close combat. Oh, and you have to bring an Ordo Maleus inquisitor to all games and everyone has to be in terminator armor. Also, no vehicles except landraiders, because gravity something something. And no named characters! To compensate, your landraiders are psykers now that can cast baby smite.
Does that sound like fun?

Maybe if someone doesn't use units X, and wins his game, next game he gets an Y bonus. If he doesn't Z happens. Players would have to take choices based on the narrative of the games, and not just based on what is effficient. Because otherwise an event like that turns in to exercise in to who can hide a tournament army better.

Players like that will always make choices based on what is efficient, you just change what efficient is. Fluff players will do fluffy things no matter what you do to the game. Competitive players will always try to game the system they are presented with and not care about the fluff behind it.
At best nothing changes, at worst you kill of someones army and/or fun as collateral damage. So why restrict the game to begin with?
Let people play their collections and armies in any way they wish. There are plenty of other ways to mix up games to make them interesting.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/04/16 22:39:01


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I've had a thought for an element of a campaign system:

you have a roster, which is your army on the planet - it constitutes the unit sand weapons you're allowed to take to make your army lists. It would start at, let's say, 2000 points.

- Game 1 is 1500 points.
- At the end of the game, you note which models and what wargear was lost, and it is removed from the Roster.
- Then the loser gets 1500 points of "Reinforcements" to add to their Roster
- The winner gets 2000 points to add to their Roster.

Thus the winners will get a more flexible army. Players who get tabled can either buy it all back, or replace it if they thought it was rubbish.

Characters will be dealt with differently, with a simple "Permadeath" table, and the army's General will be able to pick up war-wounds.

For Example:

Characters:
1-4 they died, 5-6 they survived
Named Characters get +2 to this roll

Warlords:
1 - They died, time to get a new one!
2 - Lost an eye, -1BS & WS
3-5 - they lived
6 - Permanently gain a specific warlord trait


In addition to this, I was thinking of incorporating the "Honour Guard" system from Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, and having elite/fast/heavy units become available to be bought with points as normal, but outside of the Force Organisation Chart and Rule of 3.

EG Guard gain an honour guard, buy a unit of kitted-out tempestus. They could have 3 tempestus squads and the honour guard one in a singe game, with the honour guard taking no slots, but they would still have to pay the points for them!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/17 07:31:14


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: