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.

My sons and I have been messing around this summer with a new (to us) format for sequencing and connecting multiple games to create an extended "mega-game" of sorts that plays/feels different than a traditional mega-battle/Apoc. game.

The idea is you play one game with mission/deployment determined as normal (but always utilizing random game length as per rulebook). When that game ends you immediately start a second game on the same table with the following guidlines:

1. Any models/units still alive on the table from the first game remain. Units (if any) from the first game that are in non-voluntary reserve are considered lost.

2. Continue player turn sequence as per first game (AND no stealing initiative in first turn of new game).

3. Each player may move any models/units from his second army he chooses onto the table from his board edge during his first turn of the new game or leave stuff in reserve as per normal.

4. Objectives and victory points from first game continue to be valid as appropriate and any new ones from the second mission become valid as well. So for example First blood will almost always be decided in first game, but points for being in enemy deployment zone are decided at end of final game, etc. If the first mission is "The Relic" then points for possessing it will be determined at end of the second game, etc.

(We have found that "Purge the Alien" makes a nice second game mission as it doesnt add any new static objectives onto the board and works nicely representing reserve forces from both sides being sent in to finish off the enemy or counter enemy reserves that have been detected en route.

5. You write two seperate army lists for each game and write both PRIOR to playing the first game. (We have been doing 1500 1st-1000 2nd or 1500-1500) You can do two lists from same codex( w/ appropriate allies as normal)or have two lists that are valid allies(as per allies chart). So you could fiel two SM lists, or a Smlist and an IG list, etc.

6. Game/terrain effects such as Night fighting status (if any) carries over from the first game as appropriate

Obviously this format takes time to play out, but less so then playing two regular games seperately because you dont have to put away all models and rearrange table at end of first game, etc.

It also plays out like a mega-battle in some ways but with less initial clutter allowing you to play it on a standar 6'x4' board with ease even if you are using Apoc. sized points totals.

It really plays into the narrative gaming feel as well as the second armies can be considered relief forces sent to rescue or bolster what remains of the initial force, or you can try to have your reinforcing HQ seek revenge for the warlord lost in game one, etc., etc.

It also allows you to do fun stuff like play the initial game with someone and then plan to have a third friend or new person on each side arrive later to play the reinforcing armies for the second mission in effect making a staggered team game, etc. Lots of flexability here.

For example our last sequential mega-game we played a 1500pt. initial game (The Relic scenario) in which I played 1500pts. green tide orks vs. a drop pod space marine list played by my son. My second list was 1500pts. of speed freaks assumed drawn to the sounds of battle and my other son played 1500pts. of Armoured company IG sent to reinforce his brother's ultramarines who had called for reinforcement.

Lots of opportunity to plan out intricate battle plans, what you think you might need in your second army as reinforcements, etc.etc. Do you pput objectives close to your edge in game one knowing you have a green tide of infantry coming on game two to swamp them, or do you have a fast moving reinforcement force able to deepstrike anyplace needed. etc.? SHould I have more marines in my second army or go with a true alied force like Eldar, etc.?

It takes a little forethought to figure out which two mission you want to string together (or if you want to simply continue the first), what army/scenario effects will/wont carry over, etc but we have found it a good alt. way to spend an afternoon playing a bigger game that isnt just Apoc. or a traditional mega-battle. It has a little more flow and progression of narrative...

Good times.

Sounds like a great idea and I hope you post some reviews on your games!

That sounds really cool, actually! At first I thought you meant a linked game mini-campaign, but that sort of rolling battle sounds like it could be wicked fun. You'd definitely need a lot of models to make it work (unless you counted on an army getting tabled in one round) but I think it would be a great way to spend the day! I'd love to read a report of one of these rolling megabattles.

We will try to do a batrep for one in the near future now that we have played a few and worked some of the planning issues and format details out.

I'd be curious to see anyone else's take on such a game in a batep a well...

This is a cool idea. My brother and I did a similar idea in a WHF game a while ago. We decided that late in the game an extra force of 500 points came on from a mass grave(undead) and a chaos gate(daemons) It added a fun dynamic to the game.

We will have to try this idea out soon. I could see this being very interesting in terms of who you pick for the first and second game as well as what forces each army consists of.

I like this idea. Would really make the game more engaging

My game group went almost exclusively to narrative character driven gaming many years ago. It was either this, or give up the hobby entirely. Things were getting a bit stale after a bunch of us gave up gaming at the stores (too many turds) and the shine came off the game as a whole.

We breathed new life into the game with narrative gaming where you can take a character or unit from one battle to another, assigning "points" gained to enhance certain characteristics gain an "item" or some such. It's far more detailed. immersive and personal than just pushing some figs around a table.

We've used the FW books as well as some home-brew stuff to great effect in this regard.