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.

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote:Given that framework - what would you guys, the avid and rabid hobbyists like to see in place of global campaigns?

First of all, never ever ever ever never ever do a campaign like medusa V again. EVER.

Complete waste of resources.
No one cares who did what across the globe. I don't play those people so they don't exist to me as far as gaming is concerned.
Campaigns should be local affairs against people you regularly play against. The outcome actually matters then.
We already know nothing we do is going to affect the outcome of the game, so don't imply that it will. Its tiresome reading the whining going on because some dweeb in south carolina cheated on his scores and now the universe didn't explode.

What players want (from my perspective)?

New models (Obvious really. Its not very hard to find a model that could be updated, I dont care which army. Pull a name out of a hat for all I care.)

New missions (you gotta keep this game fresh and this is one of the best ways to dedicate man hours in order to do just that)

Scenario specific rules for each army included for missions. No army should be left out.

If you MUST do a campaign, then something like those boxed sets from 2nd edition would be nice to see again. A few scenario specific objective markers, new scenarios and missions, perhaps a campaign scenario map. I realize GW doesn't do card buildings anymore, and that's fine. They were nice looking but didn't last long anyways sadly.

These could be easily released to coincide with a new army release (very similar to 3rd eds prevalent inclusion of race specific scenarios in each codex). Give the people playing the new armies something sweet to bit their teeth into (as long as you include scenario specific rules for each army that is fighting against them as well).

Judging by what we saw in 3rd ed, the campaign codex caused problems for keeping track of variant rules lists. Which is why I am assuming we no longer see chapter approved lists in WD anymore. If that is the route GW is going to take then GW has to provide the variant flavor in other ways to again, keep things at least seeming fresh.
I think the listed suggestions above accomplish that.

By contrast, I'm a huge fan of the global campaigns. I think it's too bad that they are gone. I read the old Storm of Chaos books and 13th black crusade books and I wish I'd been playing at a time where I could have contributed to that.

I think a replacement I'd enjoy would be a monthly White Dwarf article. Make up a piece of space with various races, whip up a website where folks can submit their battles (Nemesis Crown Style), and every month write a little bit of fluff to accomodate whatever's gone down. It wouldn't have to be much, just a page or so in the WD saying that the Forces of X are making gains, Y is dismayed and wants his troops to fight harder, etc.

I second Hellfury's ideas of new minis, new missions and new objectives, as well as Killkrazy's and Polonius' ideas of limiting the scope of each campaign (and therefore running several simultaneous ones). I think that even adding terrain kits that are specific to the campaigns but could be used later would be great. What I mean by a kit is that GW provides small bitz and gubbins while requiring the hobbist to provide the bulk of it, so that it's not such a huge outlay for Games Workshop.

For example, the hobbyist could need to provide four empty soda cans, several inches of 1" PVC pipe, and a metal vegetable steamer, and the GW kit would add all the IP-specific detail and cover up the unsightly parts.

Echoing what others have said, and hoping Chris and Dave are still listening, I would love to see campaign packs come back. These could be done in one of two ways. They could be race specific (e.g. Marines vs Eldar), or they could be campaign style specific (e.g. Campaign planetfall or campaign crusade).

Each pack could include a few unique objective markers, maps, and rules for new FOC's and variations on the common missions. A good example of these types of things are the "axis of attack" campaigns that the Flames of War people put oin their website, and these are free!

If GW did something like this that gaming groups could play through locally, then I think gamers would be all over it.

In the event that you DID decide to do some kind of world wide campaign again, then put it out as a campaign pack, make it a sector wide affair with each group's play representing the fate of a planet. Each gaming group would play the campaign once, and submit one result. GW would only have one round of results to tabulate, then they could announce how many planets the so-and-so crusade reconquered for the imperium.

It would certainly give people motive for some fun games.

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote:

two_heads_talking wrote:I was hoping Dave Taylor or any of our other GW staff would have popped in here and said something.. I am a bit disappointed that none have.

We only get a moment to breeze through the multitude of forums on the internet throughout the day in between projects, so we can easily miss something like this. Please don't get too disappointed! If there's a thread you would like us to specifically comment in just drop us a PM and we'll get there.

Cool, now that I know that's ok.. I wasn't sure if an unsolicited PM would be received in a cordial manner. And it was only minor dissappointment, you know like going to the grocery store for my favorite ice cream and finding it's all sold out.. (LOL)>>>


(edit) after reading through everything.. Thank you Dave and Chris for some very inside looks behind the curtain. I'd certainly like to see some of the older style "fantasy" linked campaigns. That had two armies pitted against each other where each battle's results would determine what would happen in the next battle. Including which army became the aggressor and which army became the defender etc. GW did these as smaller boxed sets that some new "special characters" just for the campaign pack and this would be a new way to market specific models, whether they be a Lord/hero or HQ slot for Fantasy or 40k.

This could easily be done within the White Dwarf and would be a great way to include all armies, even thought the campaign pack would focus on only 2 armies. Over time, you could cover all armies, with a focus on the "newest" army being released or you could also focus on the most "forgotten" or "oldest" army..

wash-away wrote:the last time I saw something like that was before I even started. I use to flip through the eye of terror magazine and think of all the cool stuff that I"d be able to use one day.

I havn't heard of any sinse then. Ardy boys is the only thing I know about. it sounds like they just put more effort behind games day and other big events that are for 'everyone' not just the elite gameing community.

It seems to me like they are trying to release either a new WFB or 40k army, a new edition, or a big expansion (Apocolypse) every month. In the past twelve months we've had Orks, High Elves, Dark Elves, Daemons, 5th Ed 40k, Apocalypse, CSM, Vampire Counts, all those new tools and paints for the slow months, and then some LOTR nonsense liberally applied in the cracks. The benefits of a larger budget. Back in the day, they used to talk about an army for three months after they released it, and release models throughout that time.

Kudos to Chris and Dave. Actually wading in here and providing intelligent answers is impressive. Not that i would expect stupidity from y'all, but some of the "answers" I have gotten in the past didn't rate the name.

Rules. Clarity and fast FAQ's. Updates to outdated codexes (I don't care HOW you spell it). I realize I am an echo, but the more people say it the more weight it MIGHT carry. Some people are here for the modeling. Some for the paint. I'm here for the dice.

I think that Iorek may be on to something. Maybe GW COULD benefit form outsourcing all the plastic, and just selling the IP products.

grizgrin wrote:Kudos to Chris and Dave. Actually wading in here and providing intelligent answers is impressive. Not that i would expect stupidity from y'all, but some of the "answers" I have gotten in the past didn't rate the name.

Rules. Clarity and fast FAQ's. Updates to outdated codexes (I don't care HOW you spell it). I realize I am an echo, but the more people say it the more weight it MIGHT carry. Some people are here for the modeling. Some for the paint. I'm here for the dice.

I think that Iorek may be on to something. Maybe GW COULD benefit form outsourcing all the plastic, and just selling the IP products.

I have a hard time ever seeing GW leasing there IP out or a 3rd Party willing to step up.

One Word..... Armorcast.

Eli: The Iorek post that I was refering to was discussing, in the relavent selection, the possible values of GW selling a kit that was IP specific. The insignia, the weapons, the bitz and gubbinz that make a GW kit a GW kit, and not just some random plastic waste from a IP pantheon with genetically-engineered-armoured-space-vampires (who said that first? doesn't matter, I'm stealin it) and Aliens. The end user (us), would then be responsible for providing the bulk of the kit to attach said gubbins to. The mass of the kit, if you will. I was showing some support for an idea not my own, but Iorek's. No one mentioned sale or lease of IP, but rather I mentioned the possiblity of sale, by GW, of kits that were IP specific.


*edited the first time b/c I sounded like a complete sphincter. Edited the second time b/c I keep forgetting that people seem to like it when you post why you edit your own stuff. Strange.

grizgrin wrote:Eli: The Iorek post that I was refering to was discussing, in the relavent selection, the possible values of GW selling a kit that was IP specific. The insignia, the weapons, the bitz and gubbinz that make a GW kit a GW kit, and not just some random plastic waste from a IP pantheon with genetically-engineered-armoured-space-vampires (who said that first? doesn't matter, I'm stealin it) and Aliens. The end user (us), would then be responsible for providing the bulk of the kit to attach said gubbins to. The mass of the kit, if you will. I was showing some support for an idea not my own, but Iorek's. No one mentioned sale or lease of IP, but rather I mentioned the possiblity of sale, by GW, of kits that were IP specific.


*edited the first time b/c I sounded like a complete sphincter. Edited the second time b/c I keep forgetting that people seem to like it when you post why you edit your own stuff. Strange.

I understand what you are saying I just can't imagine anyone who would be willing to do it.

Do what? I'm talking about GW making kits, not anyone else. I'm not talking about licensing IP, or any other company making GW stuff.

Player purchases "IP kit" from GW for, say, a vehicle.
In said kit, there are weapons, gubbinz, insignia, etc..., but no actual vehicle body.
Player supplies vehicle body.

What other companies are you talking about? In your post you were discussing leasing IP and some kind of 3rd party getting involved. I didn't mention anything of the sort.

Hmm, personnally I think a good campaign Idea would be similarily put out and played like the Battle for Macragge Starter set. (which was in fact a mini campaign to run you through the rules)

So you would get a campaign specific codex or booklet, possibly some items for customization or terrain stuff, some of the new models that were released for the campaign and finally a battle code pin that would you could fill out online and would track your forces and possibly hand you out assignments or certain tasks. Say like play a take and hold mission that would represent an attack on a hilltop or something.

That would be really cool and could be easily supported through white dwarf or little fact/update sheets handed out at the store when you go to check up on things. It would make the campaigns much more managable and easier to create or participate in.

Hellfury wrote:What players want (from my perspective)?

New models (Obvious really. Its not very hard to find a model that could be updated, I dont care which army. Pull a name out of a hat for all I care.)

New missions (you gotta keep this game fresh and this is one of the best ways to dedicate man hours in order to do just that)

Scenario specific rules for each army included for missions. No army should be left out.

Agreed. The only other thing I would like to see is alternate army lists that needs few or no new models. For example, I would love to see a 'Tau-wing' army consisting of just Crisis, Stealth and Broadsides battlesuits and Hammerheads. Most Tau players would likely be able to field such a force from the get go and those who don't play Tau could easily add a few units for a standard Tau Empire list. You would not have to worry about 3/4's of your army being useless.

grizgrin wrote:Do what? I'm talking about GW making kits, not anyone else. I'm not talking about licensing IP, or any other company making GW stuff.

Player purchases "IP kit" from GW for, say, a vehicle.
In said kit, there are weapons, gubbinz, insignia, etc..., but no actual vehicle body.
Player supplies vehicle body.

What other companies are you talking about? In your post you were discussing leasing IP and some kind of 3rd party getting involved. I didn't mention anything of the sort.

DOH! [Light Bulb Goes on] Ok now I understand, Sorry I failed my leadership test and have been subject to Stupidity when I read your earlier post.

Ratbarf wrote:Hmm, personnally I think a good campaign Idea would be similarily put out and played like the Battle for Macragge Starter set. (which was in fact a mini campaign to run you through the rules)

So you would get a campaign specific codex or booklet, possibly some items for customization or terrain stuff, some of the new models that were released for the campaign and finally a battle code pin that would you could fill out online and would track your forces and possibly hand you out assignments or certain tasks. Say like play a take and hold mission that would represent an attack on a hilltop or something.

That would be really cool and could be easily supported through white dwarf or little fact/update sheets handed out at the store when you go to check up on things. It would make the campaigns much more managable and easier to create or participate in.

I agree, I would like to see something like this or a Campaign Box or Books.

Eli: If I were you, I'd a kept messin with me. It woulda been funny. Glad you made the check on the re-roll, though. It IS a bit of an out of the box (is there a different euphemism for that phrase b/c I'm sick of hearing myself say it?) idea that Iorek had, so I can see where it is not readily apparent, esp. when issues of IP HAVE been explored pretty toroughly concerning GW.

To bring some closure to this thread, thanks for all your feedback. I've collected it and passed it up the chain so it'll get see by the eyeballs that could do something with it in an official capacity.

Failing that, we'll see what we can do with it at a more local level.

Thanks again,

Chris

Thanks for your time and considering our opinions, Chris!

Yeah, Chris we appreciate it. Let us know what kind of reception your carefully collected data recieves?