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.

What's going on, Dakka?

A while ago, my local gaming group and I developed a rule set that gives players a way to play out a campaign using both Battlefleet Gothic and Warhammer 40,000. So far, I haven't had a chance to play-test the rules. Anyone willing to give it a read-through and point out any errors I missed?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39867272/Invasion-40-000

Let me know what y'all think.
-Jordan

Overall I love these rules, and if you don't mind, might try them out myself at our game store.

I did spot somethings.

1) On the conquest table for 40k battles, you give a -2 modifier for only winning a moral victory, but I can't find any definition of what that is.

2) Also, while this is likely rare, when more than two players are fighting over a planet (say three races that can't ally), what is the point when one of the two attackers wins? It seems possible that when the third player makes planet fall for the defending player to have the fewest tiles remaining. What happens at the point where either of the two invaders controls more tiles than the defender, and how does one of the invaders defeat the other invader?

3) During an invasion mini-campaign, while the invader has control of very few tiles, two effects seem likely on the games. The first is that the invader will always have a point superiority. Say on a thirty tile planet in which the invader only captured two or three tiles on planetfall, the invader is going to have about a 28x50, or 1400 point advantage. At the same time the defender will control more of the vital tiles, so should have some advantages to defend against this (he will very likely have deployment choice, first turn, some additional points and a few units with added special rules). I think without play testing this it is going to be hard to know which side has the advantage here. I think the intention of the rules is to give the invader some early momentum to capture more tiles, but since you can only expel an invader by capturing all their tiles (there doesn't seem to be an advantage in abandoning an invasion) it might be very difficult to do so. I do like that as the mini-campaign progresses it should become more bogged down. Smaller planets might help with this as well.

4) I think there should be some sort of benefit of space superiority on the ground combat, even something as simple as a +1 modifier to conquering territories if your fleet won a fleet engagement in the system during that campaign round.

Thank you for the compliment and comments. Feel free to use the rules, hopefully you guys enjoy them. Pass 'em around, please. Hopefully you guys like the layout, too.

I don't know what a moral victory is either, it was in the Planetary Empires campaign booklet, so I included it, /shrug.

In this case, the most recent attacker (player "c," the originial defender being "a," and the first attacker being "b") takes on the role of the "attacker" and must gain at least half of the total tiles to force both defenders off of the planet. Player "b" can force player "a" off planet by controlling half of the total tiles, but becomes the defender to player "c," and must eliminate him completely. I may end up changing the mechanic if what I put in the rule book ends up blowing up in everyone's faces.

Ideally, the defenders should have the advantage in terms of what rules they're able to take advantage of, but attackers have a pretty decent points advantage. What you mentioned is exactly what I was going for: really difficult for invaders to get a decent foot-hold on a planet, but once they've got it, it's like trying to get rid of mold in an old house. Hopefully it'll actually turn out that way!

I decided not to directly link fleet engagements and landings because of the way the BFG campaign rules are set up. If you engage an enemy fleet instead of launching an invasion, you can hamstring the opponent by playing a more conservative game and not risking your own ships. For instance, if you and I would play the campaign together, you'd initiate an attack on me, and if we rolled up a fleet engagement, you can cripple my cruisers at range then disengage. You wouldn't get any benefit in terms of being able to repair your ships at the end of the campaign turn (end of the week or however long) by counting as owning the system at the end of the turn, but neither would I, and I would have severely disabled ships for when you did launch a planetary invasion. having a crippled fleet would make it very hard for me to defend against you, making it easier to get more assault points and more rolls to land on planet.

If you do use the rules, please please please PM or email me to let me know how they worked and how you all liked them.

All the best,
-Jordan