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.

Good luck mate.

let us know how it goes.

Ew, a narrative campaign that shuts down a good number of narrative armies.

Rather than have restrictions on perfectly fluffy, possibly narrative armies, have restrictions on what the campaign is narratively. For example, if you don't want superheavies, just give the reason superheavies couldn't come. "It's being fought on a delicate space station" or something.Or if you didn't want an armoured spearhead of Novamarines, explain why an armoured spearhead is a bad idea in the narrative.

Don't just say "Narrative campaign!" and then disallow huge portions of the armies available in the background for non-narrative reasons.

What if the narrative is that these armies were sucked through a warp storm and all the bigger things got smashed so all they have are basic vehicles and doods.

we get it you want to play your triple baneblades

 Desubot wrote:
What if the narrative is that these armies were sucked through a warp storm and all the bigger things got smashed so all they have are basic vehicles and doods.

we get it you want to play your triple baneblades

no I have no dog in this race.

But that makes sense!

In that case you don't need formal rules at all; real "narrative" players will stick to that narrative, regardless of whether or not formal restrictions exist.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Ew, a narrative campaign that shuts down a good number of narrative armies.

Rather than have restrictions on perfectly fluffy, possibly narrative armies, have restrictions on what the campaign is narratively. For example, if you don't want superheavies, just give the reason superheavies couldn't come. "It's being fought on a delicate space station" or something.Or if you didn't want an armoured spearhead of Novamarines, explain why an armoured spearhead is a bad idea in the narrative.

Don't just say "Narrative campaign!" and then disallow huge portions of the armies available in the background for non-narrative reasons.

there will be a story reason for no super heavies and unit limitations. I am still writing but basically imperium armies were just auxiliaries on a smaller transport ship lost from their fleet. the orks are a piece of a space hulk that broke off a larger rock. eldar are a exploratory force that came through a webway gate but the gate has crashed (non functioning at the moment) and tyranids don't see enough biomass to dedicate more than minimal forces, they barely warrant notice of the nord queen.

Desubot wrote:What if the narrative is that these armies were sucked through a warp storm and all the bigger things got smashed so all they have are basic vehicles and doods.

we get it you want to play your triple baneblades

yea some of the casual/ noncompetitive players (read only play open war and usually power level) just are not interested in anything with super heavies. most of them have beautifully painted models and big varieties of their chosen faction so this gives us a chance for great club pictures. leaving super heavies at the door and writing it in the scenario seemed the best way to get a lot of excited players. even out imperial soup players with baneblades and imperial knights seem excited for some basic just dudes fighting dudes games.

Yes, like I said, if there's a story reason, no need to formalize rules; people will be reasonable if they're truly interested in the campaign.

And that last bit is what I'm struggling with now; casual and narrative gamers who don't want to play with superheavies, despite being an intriguing and deep part of the narrative that I find very compelling. (It's why I play them, and also consider myself a narrative player.)

But I've already done enough damage to the thread, pm me if you wanna talk about anything! *flies away!*

No real need for formality but having the formality is nice so everyone is still on the same page.

Even with your restrictions, I have absolutely no clue why I can't have multiple Assault Squads in my Blood Angels army, or why I my Commissar can't stay attached to my Guardsman for more than one mission at a time.

Seriously needs working on. If you want to represent small armies, the points would do that, no need to put restrictions on how many LOW you can take.

And coincidentally any units that would normally fit in an army narratively just happen to be gone, because of there being some arbitrary reason from a meta-perspective (no Forge World). I mean, my Sabre turrets were kept in the same place as all my infantry squads, but suddenly they just vanish! The Vendetta mysteriously goes missing, but the two Valkyries escorting it turn up fine.

I dislike rule 4, but I could understand it, if you want to apply it narratively.

I think that rules 2, 3 and 5 are completely out of place. Narratively, there's no reason they should exist. Why can't my Scion Command Squad fight with my Scion infantry in every battle? Why can my Wyches make it to every battle, but their Raider transport can't? In fact, why can't my artillery regiment take more than one Basilisk? And heaven forfend they have a Colossus in their midst, because that'll just disappear.

Disagreed with. I don't see how this is narrative at all. Not having LoW/FW =/= Narrative. Plenty of narrative lists are made with LoW and FW units - a Knight House marching to war. The Death Korps of Krieg. A Super-Heavy Company (which are more common than Space Marine Chapters).
Why aren't these narrative?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Even with your restrictions, I have absolutely no clue why I can't have multiple Assault Squads in my Blood Angels army, or why I my Commissar can't stay attached to my Guardsman for more than one mission at a time.

Seriously needs working on. If you want to represent small armies, the points would do that, no need to put restrictions on how many LOW you can take.

And coincidentally any units that would normally fit in an army narratively just happen to be gone, because of there being some arbitrary reason from a meta-perspective (no Forge World). I mean, my Sabre turrets were kept in the same place as all my infantry squads, but suddenly they just vanish! The Vendetta mysteriously goes missing, but the two Valkyries escorting it turn up fine.

I dislike rule 4, but I could understand it, if you want to apply it narratively.

I think that rules 2, 3 and 5 are completely out of place. Narratively, there's no reason they should exist. Why can't my Scion Command Squad fight with my Scion infantry in every battle? Why can my Wyches make it to every battle, but their Raider transport can't? In fact, why can't my artillery regiment take more than one Basilisk? And heaven forfend they have a Colossus in their midst, because that'll just disappear.

Disagreed with. I don't see how this is narrative at all. Not having LoW/FW =/= Narrative. Plenty of narrative lists are made with LoW and FW units - a Knight House marching to war. The Death Korps of Krieg. A Super-Heavy Company (which are more common than Space Marine Chapters).
Why aren't these narrative?

after discussion with those showing interest and talking over how we as a group wanted a narrative campaign and keeping things more powered down

75 power/ 1250 still to be voted on

no named or counts as named characters

1 battalion limit

no lords of war

no repeated units excluding troops and dedicated transports

forgeworld models possible but proposes in group and participants decide. (example Malenthropes are probably getting thrown out being just too good/disruptive for the points)

I get that some foregeworld might be not unbalanced and that some lords of war are not overpowered, but the group as a whole when discussing the campaign got together and specifically wanted an event with not super heavies. originally it was nothing below 400 points but it was proposed and agreed that no lord of wars would be allowed in this campaign for a change of pace.

it was a 50/50 on letting units fight back to back but since some players are newer and have fewer models it has been amended there to encourage playing different units but not required. one guy in particular just started with his son, one plays deathguard one plays primaris only so we will probably relax the one per slot for them specifically to be able to play and have some fun.

on the last part sure a house of knights can be narrative as can an all terminator army can be fluff appropriate, but that really does not fit the story as written, and the participants specifically wanted something avoiding repetition. One example of the logic one player mentioned he has not seen swooping hawks in years despite several eldar players. another mentioned I as an ork player never bring my lootas or burnas anymore and we wanted to see armies of infantry plus a few tanks and maybe a walker or 2 but with wide differentiation.

Why aren't these narrative?

I think there is often a confusion between the word "narrative" meaning "non cheesy non tournament powered".

 auticus wrote:

Why aren't these narrative?

I think there is often a confusion between the word "narrative" meaning "non cheesy non tournament powered".

Much like the common assumption that fluffy = not powerful which is obviously incorrect.

G00fySmiley wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Even with your restrictions, I have absolutely no clue why I can't have multiple Assault Squads in my Blood Angels army, or why I my Commissar can't stay attached to my Guardsman for more than one mission at a time.

Seriously needs working on. If you want to represent small armies, the points would do that, no need to put restrictions on how many LOW you can take.

And coincidentally any units that would normally fit in an army narratively just happen to be gone, because of there being some arbitrary reason from a meta-perspective (no Forge World). I mean, my Sabre turrets were kept in the same place as all my infantry squads, but suddenly they just vanish! The Vendetta mysteriously goes missing, but the two Valkyries escorting it turn up fine.

I dislike rule 4, but I could understand it, if you want to apply it narratively.

I think that rules 2, 3 and 5 are completely out of place. Narratively, there's no reason they should exist. Why can't my Scion Command Squad fight with my Scion infantry in every battle? Why can my Wyches make it to every battle, but their Raider transport can't? In fact, why can't my artillery regiment take more than one Basilisk? And heaven forfend they have a Colossus in their midst, because that'll just disappear.

Disagreed with. I don't see how this is narrative at all. Not having LoW/FW =/= Narrative. Plenty of narrative lists are made with LoW and FW units - a Knight House marching to war. The Death Korps of Krieg. A Super-Heavy Company (which are more common than Space Marine Chapters).
Why aren't these narrative?

after discussion with those showing interest and talking over how we as a group wanted a narrative campaign and keeping things more powered down

75 power/ 1250 still to be voted on

no named or counts as named characters

1 battalion limit

no lords of war

no repeated units excluding troops and dedicated transports

forgeworld models possible but proposes in group and participants decide. (example Malenthropes are probably getting thrown out being just too good/disruptive for the points)

In which case, I would expect that normal 40k units that are ALSO "too good/disruptive for the points" should be banned too? Otherwise, that's just imposing unfair restrictions. It's like saying "Vindicators in the SM list are banned, but Chaos Space Marine Vindicators are fine."

I get that some foregeworld might be not unbalanced and that some lords of war are not overpowered, but the group as a whole when discussing the campaign got together and specifically wanted an event with not super heavies. originally it was nothing below 400 points but it was proposed and agreed that no lord of wars would be allowed in this campaign for a change of pace.

it was a 50/50 on letting units fight back to back but since some players are newer and have fewer models it has been amended there to encourage playing different units but not required. one guy in particular just started with his son, one plays deathguard one plays primaris only so we will probably relax the one per slot for them specifically to be able to play and have some fun.

Why shouldn't it be relaxed for everyone? Why can't everyone "have some fun" with whatever units they want?

If I was in this group, I'd have a lot more fun if I could have my Commissar show up every game to support my Infantry Squads, instead of them only showing up a few times because of some arbitrary rule. Hell, my COMMANDER won't even show up half the time, the commander who I've named, and given you fluff for, yet only shows up half the time?

on the last part sure a house of knights can be narrative as can an all terminator army can be fluff appropriate, but that really does not fit the story as written, and the participants specifically wanted something avoiding repetition.

Didn't you mean "fits the story as YOU'VE written"? I mean, I see no reason why an all-1st Company army of Sternguard Veterans (who take up as much room as a normal Tactical Squad) shouldn't be able to be deployed in this situation. I fail to see how me taking the same six units of plasma Scions in every game isn't repetitive, but me taking a pair of Sentinels is.

If the only real justification is "the participants want it", why bother formalizing it? It's what they want, they're already on the same page. Unless you're aiming to force other people into playing the game a certain way, why does this need to be written?

One example of the logic one player mentioned he has not seen swooping hawks in years despite several eldar players. another mentioned I as an ork player never bring my lootas or burnas anymore and we wanted to see armies of infantry plus a few tanks and maybe a walker or 2 but with wide differentiation.

So really, it's just a small game with a bunch of houserules to remove some of the larger stuff from the game, trying to meet the goal of avoiding repeated units, which HAPPENS to be tied to a narrative?

That's not a narrative game.

If you want to houserule your games in your club with these rules, that's fine, up to your club, but they're not "narrative" by any stretch of the imagination.

auticus wrote:

Why aren't these narrative?

I think there is often a confusion between the word "narrative" meaning "non cheesy non tournament powered".

Agreed, and that's an important distinction to make.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Even with your restrictions, I have absolutely no clue why I can't have multiple Assault Squads in my Blood Angels army, or why I my Commissar can't stay attached to my Guardsman for more than one mission at a time.

Seriously needs working on. If you want to represent small armies, the points would do that, no need to put restrictions on how many LOW you can take.

And coincidentally any units that would normally fit in an army narratively just happen to be gone, because of there being some arbitrary reason from a meta-perspective (no Forge World). I mean, my Sabre turrets were kept in the same place as all my infantry squads, but suddenly they just vanish! The Vendetta mysteriously goes missing, but the two Valkyries escorting it turn up fine.

I dislike rule 4, but I could understand it, if you want to apply it narratively.

I think that rules 2, 3 and 5 are completely out of place. Narratively, there's no reason they should exist. Why can't my Scion Command Squad fight with my Scion infantry in every battle? Why can my Wyches make it to every battle, but their Raider transport can't? In fact, why can't my artillery regiment take more than one Basilisk? And heaven forfend they have a Colossus in their midst, because that'll just disappear.

Disagreed with. I don't see how this is narrative at all. Not having LoW/FW =/= Narrative. Plenty of narrative lists are made with LoW and FW units - a Knight House marching to war. The Death Korps of Krieg. A Super-Heavy Company (which are more common than Space Marine Chapters).
Why aren't these narrative?

after discussion with those showing interest and talking over how we as a group wanted a narrative campaign and keeping things more powered down

75 power/ 1250 still to be voted on

no named or counts as named characters

1 battalion limit

no lords of war

no repeated units excluding troops and dedicated transports

forgeworld models possible but proposes in group and participants decide. (example Malenthropes are probably getting thrown out being just too good/disruptive for the points)

In which case, I would expect that normal 40k units that are ALSO "too good/disruptive for the points" should be banned too? Otherwise, that's just imposing unfair restrictions. It's like saying "Vindicators in the SM list are banned, but Chaos Space Marine Vindicators are fine."

I get that some foregeworld might be not unbalanced and that some lords of war are not overpowered, but the group as a whole when discussing the campaign got together and specifically wanted an event with not super heavies. originally it was nothing below 400 points but it was proposed and agreed that no lord of wars would be allowed in this campaign for a change of pace.

it was a 50/50 on letting units fight back to back but since some players are newer and have fewer models it has been amended there to encourage playing different units but not required. one guy in particular just started with his son, one plays deathguard one plays primaris only so we will probably relax the one per slot for them specifically to be able to play and have some fun.

Why shouldn't it be relaxed for everyone? Why can't everyone "have some fun" with whatever units they want?

If I was in this group, I'd have a lot more fun if I could have my Commissar show up every game to support my Infantry Squads, instead of them only showing up a few times because of some arbitrary rule. Hell, my COMMANDER won't even show up half the time, the commander who I've named, and given you fluff for, yet only shows up half the time?

on the last part sure a house of knights can be narrative as can an all terminator army can be fluff appropriate, but that really does not fit the story as written, and the participants specifically wanted something avoiding repetition.

Didn't you mean "fits the story as YOU'VE written"? I mean, I see no reason why an all-1st Company army of Sternguard Veterans (who take up as much room as a normal Tactical Squad) shouldn't be able to be deployed in this situation. I fail to see how me taking the same six units of plasma Scions in every game isn't repetitive, but me taking a pair of Sentinels is.

If the only real justification is "the participants want it", why bother formalizing it? It's what they want, they're already on the same page. Unless you're aiming to force other people into playing the game a certain way, why does this need to be written?

One example of the logic one player mentioned he has not seen swooping hawks in years despite several eldar players. another mentioned I as an ork player never bring my lootas or burnas anymore and we wanted to see armies of infantry plus a few tanks and maybe a walker or 2 but with wide differentiation.

So really, it's just a small game with a bunch of houserules to remove some of the larger stuff from the game, trying to meet the goal of avoiding repeated units, which HAPPENS to be tied to a narrative?

That's not a narrative game.

If you want to houserule your games in your club with these rules, that's fine, up to your club, but they're not "narrative" by any stretch of the imagination.

auticus wrote:

Why aren't these narrative?

I think there is often a confusion between the word "narrative" meaning "non cheesy non tournament powered".

Agreed, and that's an important distinction to make.

some of this is borderline personal attack man assuming a lot about me forcing players... not the intent. the group wanted something different, asked me to write it and formalize some rules. within that I asked for feedback on rules that would specifically make this more infantry less repetitive units more possible and avoid cheese). If you do not want to play in this format more power to you then don't, why are you even responding if this format does not interest you?

 G00fySmiley wrote:


some of this is borderline personal attack man assuming a lot about me forcing players... not the intent. the group wanted something different, asked me to write it and formalize some rules. within that I asked for feedback on rules that would specifically make this more infantry less repetitive units more possible and avoid cheese). If you do not want to play in this format more power to you then don't, why are you even responding if this format does not interest you?

Because this is an online public forum? You posted this specifically looking for and asking for feedback, you got it. Just because it isn't the feedback that you might have wanted doesn't make it a personal attack, nor does it mean that people shouldn't post in your topic if they disagree with you or don't like your ideas. People have pointed out (rightly so) that some of your rules for this campaign are poorly designed, prevent some very fluffy armies from being able to participate, and from a narrative standpoint don't make any sense. Hell, you've even said in this thread that some of your players are very new and don't have collections large enough to actually be able to participate given the rules you have created, and you have had to make special accommodations for them to be able to play. That should immediately be a good indicator that your rules don't work as written. If this isn't the type of feedback you wanted, tough cookies. Consider the criticisms you've gotten and adjust your rules to improve them, or ignore the criticisms and move on. We can't force you to alter the rules you make for your campaign, but if you post on a public forum asking for opinions about them, we can and certainly will point out if and when they are bad and poorly designed.

Agreed on others that this sort of heavy handed game wide restrictions aren't good. They actually generally INCREASE imbalance as so many highlander type of tournaments have found in past 2 decades and generally the worst armies gets hurt most...

If you want to restrict problem units better way would be to restrict specific issues rather than blanket restrictions that affect different armies differently. Imperial soup laughs off these, orks gets screwed, talons of emperor cease to exists as viable army.

Have you considered less hard coded rules and simply ask players to restrict themselves and mention type of armies that wouldn't be appropriate? Coupled with (lightish) restrictions for worse offenders this might work better than you think. Or maybe finnish people are just weird bunch but here actually just tournament package mentioning it's fluff based event with less hardcorre lists actually gives fairly tame armies as players actually ARE capable of self-policying if asked.

If tournament doesn't mention anything people will bring hardcore stuff. But if you specifically mention that the tone of tournament isn't intended to be super competive players actually can tone down without hardcore rules that could totally prevent even fluffy not particularly broken army to be even legal let alone even semi-playable.

Of course maybe you have tried this before and it failed. In that case ouch.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:


some of this is borderline personal attack man assuming a lot about me forcing players... not the intent. the group wanted something different, asked me to write it and formalize some rules. within that I asked for feedback on rules that would specifically make this more infantry less repetitive units more possible and avoid cheese). If you do not want to play in this format more power to you then don't, why are you even responding if this format does not interest you?

Because this is an online public forum? You posted this specifically looking for and asking for feedback, you got it. Just because it isn't the feedback that you might have wanted doesn't make it a personal attack, nor does it mean that people shouldn't post in your topic if they disagree with you or don't like your ideas. People have pointed out (rightly so) that some of your rules for this campaign are poorly designed, prevent some very fluffy armies from being able to participate, and from a narrative standpoint don't make any sense. Hell, you've even said in this thread that some of your players are very new and don't have collections large enough to actually be able to participate given the rules you have created, and you have had to make special accommodations for them to be able to play. That should immediately be a good indicator that your rules don't work as written. If this isn't the type of feedback you wanted, tough cookies. Consider the criticisms you've gotten and adjust your rules to improve them, or ignore the criticisms and move on. We can't force you to alter the rules you make for your campaign, but if you post on a public forum asking for opinions about them, we can and certainly will point out if and when they are bad and poorly designed.

I accept the saying how things are not agreed, but the wording there seemed like I was forcing things. again rules were already voted on by players and listed on page 1, we set all but the points vs power level we like doing odd things, hell in 7th there was an all vehicle/monstrous creature campaign. if you look at the initial post I asked for rules to help this specific format not "this is dumb and you a control freak for looking for formalize this" A moot point though as the group is there and we will have some fun with what we came up with. I hope you have fun with the game the way you want to play it while I do the same.

What you could do, is ask each player in the campaign to send you a list of 3-4 HQ choices, 6-12 Troop choices, 1-4 Elite choices, 1-4 Fast Attack choices, 1-4 Heavy choices and 0-2 Other choices, and then you decide if what they picked is fair/not OP and then they can pick their units from a pool for each game. You could even write in a short sentence saying this is all the player factions had in their ships when they were grounded. This way you could also add in FW units at your discretion (as some are actually quite fluffy for some armies)

Some interesting thoughts on this. I'm hoping to run something similar in the new year for some friends who are new/returning to the hobby. Hell, I've not even played any games since getting back in myself yet. I think we'll mostly be using my models for half a dozen armies, with some proxies here and there.

Table space will be at a premium (but some vertical terrain should expand the play area) so I'm thinking maybe just one or two transports, and maybe a tank or two, with focus on walkers, bikers and infantry. 75 Power seems like a good way to start, maybe even 50 to begin with the first round of battles to let us get the hang of the basics, then the occasional escalation if and when people decide they want to build and paint new stuff.

Very little of what I've got would I consider broken or particularly bad, and since the goal will be fun games with a bit of narrative thrown in I'm sure we can work out scenarios to balance things if they need it once we start playing. I'm thinking that maybe underachieving armies or units might get a temporary bonus to placement or stats or something, like "Sgt Pincushion's Guard have seen some stuff, man, this time they're keeping their heads down" and give them a bonus to cover saves or "the boyz might be dying left right and centre, but we've been grabbing their big shootaz when they go down and now there's enough for everyone!" and let them take more heavy weapons, that kinda thing?

Off-shoot idea, but why not just have the game where you build one large list (Think using Brigade) and then when you come to a game, select a number of forces from that. The Brigade acts as your military pool to draw from. so you COULD bring an entire terminator army, but once a unit suffers damage, it's damaged for the rest of the campaign. no force replenishment, once you lose the unit, it's dead. This will encourage a more varied list where you actually try to bring troops in order to have expendable bodies.

Tristanleo wrote:
Off-shoot idea, but why not just have the game where you build one large list (Think using Brigade) and then when you come to a game, select a number of forces from that. The Brigade acts as your military pool to draw from. so you COULD bring an entire terminator army, but once a unit suffers damage, it's damaged for the rest of the campaign. no force replenishment, once you lose the unit, it's dead. This will encourage a more varied list where you actually try to bring troops in order to have expendable bodies.

This basically requires big pool to be about size of expected games X size of army. Not quite but close as games tend to be very bloody often ending in wipeout. And could easily result in cumulative results where because of earlier games you lose in future which compounds issue. First few games could decide campaign leaving rest just rolling it out...(say you lose most of your anti tank weapons or best of bad anti horde weapons and are screwed against those in future)

You are basically suggesting playing a game of modern 40k but with only 2nd/3rd edition codex units available.

Coming up with rules to play 40k at a lower power level, with certain disliked classes of units banned, and then coming up with a flimsy pretense of a "story" to justify the rules is not a narrative game. It's a random pickup game with weak lists. If you want a narrative campaign then come up with a good story first, and only then start thinking about what (if any) rules are needed to make it work.

I think narrative campaigns can only work if the players (not just the organizer) put some effort into it, and try to commit to the story.
If every player comes in good faith, just saying "no min/maxing lists" should be sufficient. You do have people who don't see how some of their units are insanely strong, or on the contrary think some other army is completely OP (dakka has many of these examples…). But if a problem arises, and most players agree that a list is too strong, then you guys should be able to talk it out and tell the offending player to tone it down. If that guy is really there to have a good time and not try to crush the competition, he/she won't have problems with adjusting the list.
It's a lot less work than coming up with new rules, which imho will also be open to complete abuse anyway (you're not going to balance 40K with 2-3 additional list building restrictions). The only problem is that the restrictions become subjective, and therefore open to arguments, but it should work withing a group of friends with the same mindset.

And just to add from my personal case: my favorite army is Harlequins. With your restrictions, it's completely unplayable, and actually doesn't address the most powerful Harlequin builds (which are mostly troupe spams). You're just banning the fluffy, non competitive lists.

tneva82 wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:
Off-shoot idea, but why not just have the game where you build one large list (Think using Brigade) and then when you come to a game, select a number of forces from that. The Brigade acts as your military pool to draw from. so you COULD bring an entire terminator army, but once a unit suffers damage, it's damaged for the rest of the campaign. no force replenishment, once you lose the unit, it's dead. This will encourage a more varied list where you actually try to bring troops in order to have expendable bodies.

This basically requires big pool to be about size of expected games X size of army. Not quite but close as games tend to be very bloody often ending in wipeout. And could easily result in cumulative results where because of earlier games you lose in future which compounds issue. First few games could decide campaign leaving rest just rolling it out...(say you lose most of your anti tank weapons or best of bad anti horde weapons and are screwed against those in future)

You're not forced to take all of them at once, if you have for example only 20 raptors, there's nothing stopping you from taking 6 10 man units in the brigade and only fielding the 2 you have for one game, saving the rest for another mission. I'd be surprised if anyone honestly expected someone using this method to have every individual model. as long as they have enough models to field the army for that mission, then fine. This promotes as I stated bringing more troop choices in the game in order to have bodies on the field. alternatively, don't include troops in the brigade roster. it's assumed that each army has enough to field sufficient forces, only specialist troops and heavies are in limited numbers.

Tristanleo wrote:
You're not forced to take all of them at once, if you have for example only 20 raptors, there's nothing stopping you from taking 6 10 man units in the brigade and only fielding the 2 you have for one game, saving the rest for another mission. I'd be surprised if anyone honestly expected someone using this method to have every individual model. as long as they have enough models to field the army for that mission, then fine. This promotes as I stated bringing more troop choices in the game in order to have bodies on the field. alternatively, don't include troops in the brigade roster. it's assumed that each army has enough to field sufficient forces, only specialist troops and heavies are in limited numbers.

Yes but again this basically forces either grand army list be original army size X number of games or you don't have enough raptors to ensure that if they get wiped out couple times you are out of them(and with 8th ed if you lose it's basically wipeout). If that happens to be your major AT power you are screwed in future games.

The idea that casualties aren't available future sounds nice and can be done BUT it runs into issue either there's enough duplication it doesn't actually matter or you run into issue that you DON'T have enough duplication so if you lose game or two early you run into critical shortings in future games which expounds the issue.

If you have say 4 game campaign and grand list is big enough you can have 2 times same unit what happens if you lose first 2 games? Likely you have no more duplication. If you have 4 times unit...Well where's the difference?

Either you have enough spare that it actually doesn't limit or first games can effectively decide campaign as it's increasingly hard to recover from casualties and 8th ed being often loser of game=wiped out...

I have tried that many times and only time that worked at all was when it was map campaign and you had tons of duplication BUT not enough we were able to have everything everywhere so it was still possible to create short term lack but recovarable. Also campaign required one side to be able to actually aim to lose games with minimal casualties trading map control(they were falling back) for time to recover and get new tank companies moved into area before enemy tank battallions runs over my now seriously AT depleted forces.

 Peregrine wrote:
Coming up with rules to play 40k at a lower power level, with certain disliked classes of units banned, and then coming up with a flimsy pretense of a "story" to justify the rules is not a narrative game. It's a random pickup game with weak lists. If you want a narrative campaign then come up with a good story first, and only then start thinking about what (if any) rules are needed to make it work.

Indeed. Assuming everyone's on the same wavelength, a good description of the campaign setting and the opening dispositions should dictate what "should" be available to each army. For example, if the armies are all arriving on a new planet, then Craftworld Eldar should be starting off with light armies - mostly Aspect Warriors and light vehicle support - with Guardians, larger vehicles and support weapons arriving later, finally followed by Wraith units and titans if you go that big, as the conflict escalates. Space Marines would start off with Scouts on the ground and Marines inserted by drop pod, then moving up to gunships, and landing heavier equipment.

Imperial Guard might be already present (or representing PDF units). Their early forces might be mostly defensive, with infantry and artillery in trench lines or fortifications, then moving into a more offensive phase with armoured formations, reinforcements from different regiments, Knight households and suchlike.

If some matchups look like they'll be awfully one-sided, then you can mitigate that with scenario design and the use of different victory conditions for each side (for example, a Space Marine relief column might need to force a hole in Ork lines to allow them to meet up with besieged Imperial Guard, while the Ork Warboss is looking for a good fight; Marines get VPs for moving units off the Ork board edge, Orks get VPs for kills, with bonuses for characters, the enemy Warlord and more if the Ork Warlord slays his opposite number personally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you wanted to use a fixed roster for the entire campaign, I'd use something like the Injury Dice from Necromunda; Roll a D6 for each unit at half strength (or half Wounds if it's a single model) or wiped out, adding +1 if it's wiped out.
1: the unit is repaired/reinforced and is OK to be used in the next game
2-5: the unit is undergoing serious repairs/re-training and is not available for the next battle (you could add some permanent effect if you want here)
6: destroyed. Remove this unit from your roster

A method I was looking at for this "Grand brigade" idea and suffering casualties that affects future games for my own campaign was to make the "grand brigade" a pool of points and basically say that as many points as was destroyed in the game (rounding, and rounding down units that suffered casualties) is removed from your "Grand brigade" points pool. Some territories gained in the campaign can produce more points for your grand brigade, and every player gets a flat amount of points every campaign turn. That kinda helps the "my Army got wiped out one game now I have nothing" problem a bit.

I was playing a 3-mission narrative game a few weeks ago. Power levels just to write up lists quick.My buddy wanted to be under dog, so I wrote an extra 10, 20 PL than him.

First mission was his Rievers and Chaplain, vs my Army of tha dead, plus a Daemon Prince. I quickly realized I brought cheese....

So what I did was have the prince dart around, picking off reivers one by one, and saving the Chaplain for last. Made the game more cinematic at least.
For our next Narrative, I'm gonna be using a Lord of Corruption as my main character instead.

There is no way to protect a narrative campaign from people powergaming and attempting to win in list building.

And a restricted format will just make people cry, and believe me, they will.

Here's a few suggestions:

1. No named characters is a good start. Some are flatly broken. You could allow one named HQ but it has to be renamed (so there aren't 2 of the same person on the field at the same time), and it should be 300 or less points. You can also ban some characters that are so distinct and unique they couldn't be justified as separate individuals, such as Celestine. i don't care if it's Sisters McWings, it's just too unique of an individual to justify seeing 2 on the table.

2. I would say no named lords of war, and no lords of war greater than 500 points. Additionally, you should have to meet some narrative goal or be in some special scenario to allow their use. Bottom line is that it's far too difficult to control lords of war balance, i'd say ignore them altogether.

3. Don't use PL, people will game the hell out of it.

4. No duplicate units outside of troops is a good thought, but it's just too restrictive for a lot of armies. A better solution would be to create your own detachments that people can bring, so things are appropriately restricted in that way. Start with a Battalion base requirements and build from there.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
For those interested, after discussion with those showing interest and talking over how we as a group wanted a narrative campaign and keeping things more powered down

75 power/ 1250 still to be voted on

no named or counts as named characters

1 battalion limit

no lords of war

no repeated units excluding troops and dedicated transports

forgeworld models possible but proposes in group and participants decide. (example Malenthropes are probably getting thrown out being just too good/disruptive for the points)

I think this is a good start for some structured balance in casual games. I love bringing Typhus, but having him pop up and romp around in your setting most likely doesn't work with the narrative you are creating. With the 1 battalion limit, does that mean you can only use 1 battalion and not vanguard, or you cannot spam battalions? Either way seems pretty good for what you are doing, and the no repeat rule will dissuade the want for bringing things like vanguard detachments. There might still be a little cheese, but I think you have clamped it down pretty hard with this. I wish more people in my area were open to rules on campaigns outside of adding free units and upgrades. Hell, we had a +100k apoc game and it was like pulling teeth trying to convince people the next one needs to be power level. It's apoc for crying out loud!

A small escalation is starting up locally, it's Power level, full painted and WYSIWYG. Pending on the collections of your players, I think PL/WYSIWYG is a great way to go. Excluding things like, the guardsman throwing a grenade not having a lasgun or basic wargear that cannot be changed. It's hard to fit a CCW, pistol, bolter, and grenades on grey hunters without them looking a bit silly!