Running a 40k campaign at my club, Part 7 - Battle has been joined

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.

**Quanar**

Hello all,

I've volunteered to run the yearly 40k campaign at my local gaming club this year, in order to give the normal 'gamesmaster' a break, and I'd just like to get some feedback from Dakka about what I've got down so far.
Trying to make sure I don't overload you guys and galls with wall-'o-text rules, I'm breaking it up into several posts (and also because some parts aren't finished yet).

I'll be keeping the general format the same as the previous years - the campaign takes place over 7 weeks (with one game per week), with the first game being an 'introduction' to the campaign (a sort of multiplayer 40k-in-40-minutes deal) to get the players involved in the narrative plot but more importantly to meet players and arrange their games for the following week. The next two weeks consist of 1-on-1 games (what can become doubles games without much hassle), the central week is a flyers-only game (which I'll post more info on in a later post), followed by two more weeks of 'standard' games, and finishing with a big game on the 7th week.

Part 1:

Spoiler:

Link to Part 2: (1st and 2nd Missions)
Link to Part 3: (3rd and 4th Missions)
Link to Part 4: (5th Mission)
Link to Part 5: (6th Mission)
Link to Part 6: (Flyer/FMC-only battle)
Link to Part 7: (Replacement Off vs. Def mission)

**Powerfisting**

Offensive seems week and defensive seems too strong. I would opt to amend the force org for this campaign so that you can only gain fortifications via the defensive trait and skip the part about handing out allowances for fortifications. And boost offensive to 6" maybe? I feel like its week, but can't come up with anything that doesn't feel too strong.

As for the basics at the top, I feel like there is too much "unless you agree with your opponent first" in there. Dare I say it feels too casual? you might as well be playing pick up games and keeping track of wins/ losses unless you have a really impressive map/ point/ narrative to go along with it.

**Hashbeth**

so far they seem pretty balanced to me, but that will all depend on the missions.

If worries arise over the defensive trait ability, maybe the way to balance it would be to grant 100 additional points for barricades, but you HAVE to go second and deploy first (no stealing initiative).

**Nuwisha**

Hashbeth wrote:
so far they seem pretty balanced to me, but that will all depend on the missions.

If worries arise over the defensive trait ability, maybe the way to balance it would be to grant 100 additional points for barricades, but you HAVE to go second and deploy first (no stealing initiative).

I'd vote for your ideas on the defensive trait.

**Quanar**

Powerfisting wrote:
Offensive seems week and defensive seems too strong. I would opt to amend the force org for this campaign so that you can only gain fortifications via the defensive trait and skip the part about handing out allowances for fortifications. And boost offensive to 6" maybe? I feel like its week, but can't come up with anything that doesn't feel too strong.

Oddly, I was expecting people to say Sneaky was too strong.
Offensive kind of came up as the short straw as it was written last and I didn't have a specific idea for it (unlike the other two) so it ended up as three hodge-podge abilities. If I change it to 6", it's like infiltrating the entire army and still being able to assault T1, and for the Off vs. Off matchup, there would only be 12" between forces. Still, I'll be giving it some more thought.
The idea behind Defensive was to encourage people to use fortifications out of the club's cabinets, as they seem to sit collecting dust for a large portion of the year. I'm trying to avoid force org changes, due to Decurion-style lists ignoring it. I can certainly rein-in Defensive to a lower value, but I wasn't expecting a free Aegis + gun to make as much difference to a game as 10 free Razorbacks from a Gladius etc. and a penalty on getting first turn can be implemented in the missions.

Powerfisting wrote:
As for the basics at the top, I feel like there is too much "unless you agree with your opponent first" in there. Dare I say it feels too casual? you might as well be playing pick up games and keeping track of wins/ losses unless you have a really impressive map/ point/ narrative to go along with it.

I'll stick my hand up to being a through-and-through casual, and I'd wanted to avoid telling people they can't use their toys, but you're right, I think that part needs to go.

Thank you both for the feedback!

**Powerfisting**

Quanar wrote:
The idea behind Defensive was to encourage people to use fortifications out of the club's cabinets, as they seem to sit collecting dust for a large portion of the year. I'm trying to avoid force org changes, due to Decurion-style lists ignoring it. I can certainly rein-in Defensive to a lower value, but I wasn't expecting a free Aegis + gun to make as much difference to a game as 10 free Razorbacks from a Gladius etc. and a penalty on getting first turn can be implemented in the missions.

Thank you both for the feedback!

I hadn't thought of the decurions when I read that. it's probably a better call to do what you did in the OP for the defensive trait. Good job over all, though. I look forward to seeing more.

**Quanar**

Ok, time to post some more! Here are the first two 'finished' missions, although they both need tweeking (Ambush moreso than Comms tower I suspect).

As mentioned in the OP, which mission the players get depends on what they each chose as their "strategy":

Spoiler:

{Edit} I've altered the deployment zones in the Ambush! mission, should be a bit fairer (if slightly difficult to measure). Also some spelling corrections {/Edit}

**Powerfisting**

I love this so much. At first I was iffy, but now I see where you are going and I like. I like it a lot! Great job, man!

**Hashbeth**

Quanar wrote:
Ok, time to post some more! Here are the first two 'finished' missions, although they both need tweeking (Ambush moreso than Comms tower I suspect).

As mentioned in the OP, which mission the players get depends on what they each chose as their "strategy":

Spoiler:

Sneaky Vs. Sneaky - Communications Tower Sabotage:
A chance encounter between a pair of scouting parties performing recon manoeuvres near a communications relay station forces a sudden battle amidst confusion and surprise!

The Battlefield:
Set up terrain (a higher-than-normal amount is suggested), placing one Objective (the Comms Tower) in the centre of the table. Five other Objective markers are placed at least 6” from any table edge and at least 12” from any other Objective marker. Players roll-off with the player who wins placing 3 markers and the loser placing 2 (alternating placing markers, starting with the player placing 3).

Deployment:
The player who lost the roll-off for placing Objectives chooses a table quarter to deploy in, at least 8" from the centre of the board. Bearing in mind the Spy Vs. Spy special rule shown below, players then alternate deploying units, starting with the player who lost the roll-off for placing Objectives. Buildings (and any other Immobile units) are deployed first, and Independent Characters are deployed last.

Spy Vs. Spy – All non-Vehicle, non-Building, non-Gargantuan Monstrous Creature units that are not placed in reserves deploy using modified Infiltrate rules (12" from enemy, regardless of Line-Of-Sight, alternating deployment as described in the Infiltrate special rule), at least 6" from centre of board. Units cannot be deployed in opponent's deployment zone.

First Turn & Game Length:
Players roll-off for first turn. Neither player may attempt to Sieze the Initiative. This mission uses Variable Game Length (Rulebook p133).

Victory Conditions:
At the end of the game, the Comms Tower Objective is worth 3 Victory Points to the player that controls it.
At the start of a player's turn, if he/she has less than 3 Active Tactical Objectives, he/she must generate Tactical Objectives until he/she has 3 Active Tactical Objectives.
Slay the Warlord, First Blood.

Mission Special Rules:
The first turn uses the Night Fighting rules (Rulebook p135, this is automatic, there is no need to roll),
Tactical Objectives (Rulebook p136), Reserves (Rulebook p135), Mysterious Objectives (Rulebook p136), Spy Vs. Spy (shown above).

Spoiler:

Sneaky Vs. Offensive - Ambush!:
A violent push has broken through the enemy lines, following their leader's heroic exploits! But as the headstrong attackers surge forward they find themselves encircled in a cunning ploy!

The Battlefield:
Set up terrain as normal. After determining deployment zones, Objectives are placed as shown – One Objective 9” from each short board edge, one Objective directly in the centre of the board and one Objective at the centre of the Sneaky player's table edge.

Deployment:
Players roll-off, with the winner choosing a table edge to be their table edge. The Offensive player deploys first.

First Turn & Game Length:
The Offensive player gets the first turn unless the Sneaky player can Sieze the Initiative. The Sneaky player gets a +1 modifier to this roll (cumulative with any other such modifiers). This mission uses Variable Game Length (Rulebook p133).

Victory Conditions:
At the end of the game, each Objective Marker is worth 2 Victory Points to the player that controls it.
Slay the Warlord, First Blood, Linebreaker (Linebreaker is worth 2 Victory Points instead of 1).

Mission Special Rules:
Night Fighting (Rulebook p135), Reserves (Rulebook p135), Mysterious Objectives (Rulebook p136), It's a Trap! (see below), Who Wants To Live Forever? (see below).

It's a Trap!: Units belonging to the Sneaky player that are placed in reserves gain the Outflank special rule. In addition, the Sneaky player may nominate up to two pieces of Area Terrain or Objective Markers (in any combination), Area Terrain chosen becomes Dangerous Terrain (Rulebook p108) in addition to its other rules and Objective Markers chosen are Sabotaged! (Rulebook p135) in addition to its other rules (if such an Objective Marker is also Sabotaged! as a result of the Mysterious Terrain rules, combine the two into a single roll that deals D6 hits on a roll of a 1 or 2).
Who Wants To Live Forever?: Offensive units gain the Crusader special rule and any Offensive units within 12" of his/her Warlord (as long as he is not Falling Back) may re-roll failed Morale and Pinning tests.

The traits affecting deployment is a brilliant idea. If I do another campaign with people, I'll have to suggest it. Such a cool, fluffy way to handle it.

**Quanar**

Time for two more missions:

Spoiler:

As before, I'm looking for feedback on any aspect of the missions (balance, deployment distances, special rules etc.), but particularly would like a suggestion for an alternative name for the Big Guns Never Tire rule, tweeks to the deployment map of the All Along The Watchtowers mission, and a less wordy (or more straightforward) way of wording the placement of the objectives in Trench Warfare.
{Edit} I've added some wording to the Watchtower mission, to try and make up for the limited deployment space. It's taken me over my self-imposed limit on wordiness (i.e. fits on an A4 piece of paper), so any suggestions for something more pithy are welcome. {/Edit}

**The Riddle of Steel**

This is a very cool idea and I like what you've done so far. I think there are a lot of ways to adapt this idea for campaigns.

For the Watchtower mission, I think the deployment zones are a bit impractical. An 18" x 18" is a pretty small box for Defender, although it could work for very low-points games. Even 1000 points of Orks would not fit, I don't think. Unless the idea is to force the Defender to keep some units in Reserve, which would also be fluffy.

Same problem with the super skinny deployment zone for the Sneaky player. Although since the Sneaker gets to Infiltrate two units, maybe they can squeeze in.

I like the trench warfare idea. It might be cool if you could find a way to incorporate some of the artillery strategies of the Great War, such as the Creeping Barrage.

As for the Heavy Support ObSec rule name, here are some appropriate artillery quotes that could make a suitable rule name:

God fights on the side with the best artillery.
– Napoleon Bonaparte

With Artillery, War is made.
– Napoleon Bonaparte

Artillery is the god of war.
– Stalin

“Artillery adds dignity, to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl”
– Frederick the Great, king of Germany, 1740 to 1786

**Quanar**

The Riddle of Steel wrote:
For the Watchtower mission, I think the deployment zones are a bit impractical. An 18" x 18" is a pretty small box for Defender, although it could work for very low-points games. Even 1000 points of Orks would not fit, I don't think. Unless the idea is to force the Defender to keep some units in Reserve, which would also be fluffy.

Same problem with the super skinny deployment zone for the Sneaky player. Although since the Sneaker gets to Infiltrate two units, maybe they can squeeze in.

Yep, this is one of my main concerns, but I didn't know how else to do it. I could have made it so the defensive player is in one corner instead, giving them 36"x18", and the sneaky player 12"x24" along the short edge and 72"x6" along the long edge, but that changes it quite a bit. I think I'll do something to allow units that can't be deployed turn up turn 1 instead (but not things like flyers obviously).

I need to remember secondary-school math to work out the comparative areas...

The Riddle of Steel wrote:
I like the trench warfare idea. It might be cool if you could find a way to incorporate some of the artillery strategies of the Great War, such as the Creeping Barrage.

I did think about some "off-the-board" artillery rules, but I'm rather hoping two players who've chosen to castle-up (i.e. they picked "defensive") will bring enough artillery of their own. I'm trying to fit each mission onto a single piece of A4, but Trench Warfare does have a few lines spare for extra stuff.

**The Riddle of Steel**

I agree that your current Trench Warfare rules work well for two armies that chose to play Defensively. A Creeping Barrage would probably be a better fit for a scenario where one army is the attacker, trying to take ground from a heavily dug-in defender.

I'm looking forward to seeing the next set of missions.

**Quanar**

With the aid of some friends, I've just had a test game of Ambush (sneaky vs. offensive), and I'll probably shorten the offensive deployment by 3" and increase the sneaky by 3" (I was playing as the sneaky and got mullered, if anyone cares, but I think it was more down to me than the mission).

Currently setting up an All Along The Watchtowers, so we'll see how problematic the deployment zones are there.

**wallygator**

i like the ideas so far, but i was just thinking that your point with the trench warfare gets totally lost as you end up against the wrong enemy.

how i think you meant it to be played: The infantry running from foxhole to foxhole,trying to get close with each other/the victory point as artillery strikes everywhere, but it's manageable because of the coversave
what am i affraid of: my infantry jumps in foxhole, happy 4+ cover save. enemy is tau-ignores all cover. your nice scenario all gone..

**Quanar**

The Foxholes rule was added from a fluff-perspective rather than an attempt to shape the game - after days of artillery bombardment the ground is going to be torn-up with rubble everywhere, providing plenty of hidey-holes for infantry. But I didn't want to make it harder on players trying to move up by making everything difficult terrain. It's a rule to add atmosphere, there are plenty of armies that aren't able to get any benefit from it (White Scars / Ravenwing, Fearless armies etc.)
Ignores Cover is a thing. I can't make it not-a-thing without nerfing Wyverns, Thunderfire Cannons, Template Weapons, and anything Tau related. Players have to deal with it in normal games, so they'll have to deal with it in my missions too.

I've added some slight edits to the earlier missions, mainly Watchtowers and Ambush!, I've also colour-coded the text alterations for ease

Also, here's number 5 (nearly there now!):

Spoiler:

Defensive Vs. Offensive - Spearhead:
A concentrated push has begun in an attempt to break through the enemy's defensive line and strike at vulnerable supply lines and other targets of opportunity.

The Battlefield:
Set up terrain as normal. Players roll-off and the winner chooses a table edge to be theirs.

Deployment:
Starting with the player that won the roll-off to decide table edges, players declare all of which of their units and Independent Characters will begin the game in reserves. Once both players have declared, players take it in turns (again, starting with the player that won the roll-off) to deploy a single unit in their deployment zone. A player must deploy each of their Fortifications before any of their other units can be deployed. All of a player's Independent Characters are deployed last, taking a single deployment “turn”.

First Turn and Game Length:
Players roll-off with the winner deciding which player will take the first turn. If that player decides to take the first turn, their opponent can attempt to Seize the Initiative.
The game lasts for five (5) turns.

Victory Conditions:
During the game, the Offensive player can choose to move his/her units off of the Defensive player's table edge. These units do not count as destroyed, but will take no further part in the battle. Such units are described as being “in the pile”.
At the end of the game, the Offensive player scores points equal to the points costs of units in the pile that have at least 50% of their starting number of models, and also scores points equal to half the point cost of any units in the pile with less than 50% of their starting number of models.
The Defensive player scores points equal to the points cost of each enemy unit completely destroyed, and half the points cost of any enemy unit which is still on the board.
Flyers, Flying Monstrous Creatures and Fortifications do not count towards any of the above totals.
Each player also scores 100 points if the enemy's Warlord has been removed as a casualty at the end of the game.

Mission Special Rules:
Night Fighting (Rulebook p135), Reserves (Rulebook p135), Teleport Jammer (see below), Line in the Sand (see below).

Teleport Jammer – Offensive units arriving by Deep Strike may not be placed in the Defensive player's deployment zone before scattering (scattering into it is fine).
Line in the Sand – Offensive units arriving by Outflank may not finish the movement phase in which they arrive within the Defensive player's deployment zone.

{Edit} Ok, so I've seriously re-worked the victory point totals for this mission after The Riddle of Steel's suggestions / comments. I've also added limitations on Outflankers and Deep Strikers. I was also thinking of altering the deployment zones to 9" for the Offensive player and 15" for the Defensive player, any thoughts on that? {/Edit}

**The Riddle of Steel**

I think Spearhead favors the Offensive player. There is a mission like this in one of the old rule books (4th edition possibly, the one with the blue cover) and I believe the Defender gets two VP for each unit wiped out to help balance it. Because even units that have taken significant damage that move off the board edge give full VPs, destroying them needs to be worth more.

I know it gets more complex, but you may want to consider whether the points value of the unit impacts the number if VPs it is worth. Even something simple like 1VP for every 100 pts would help balance it a bit. Otherwise, if you wipe out your opponent's Green Tide, but let one Deffkopta get off your table edge, you lose, which certainly doesn't feel right to me.

Keep up the good work.

**Quanar**

Yeah, it's certainly the mission so far with the most chance of being imballanced. And I need to add something about Deep Strikers and Outflankers, so there will be some edits to it. The suggestion of a victory point per 100pts could well be useful, thanks!

Also, the Tide covers this itself for vp's - it's worth 11 when destroyed, but would probably end in an argument if it's only worth 2 for moving off the board

**The Riddle of Steel**

Ok, maybe tide was a bad example. But it could be easy to abuse if the attacker gets some single war buggies it Deffkoptas off the table while 80% of their army doesn't make it and still win, in the current rules.

Maybe give the defender some small pieces of terrain like tank traps and razor wire to place to help slow down the attacker. And I would not reward any VPs for being in the enemy deployment zone. They need to get off the table, otherwise the defender is doing his job of bogging them down.

I would like to play this scenario because it gives you something different to do besides hold objectives and makes you use different tactics.

**Quanar**

Ok, I've re-worked the 5th mission quite heavily, and here comes the last of the 1v1 missions!:

Spoiler:

Originally this one was going to be even simpler, but after writing the points costs = victory points part of the Spearhead mission I decided it fitted rather well here too.

One fairly unrelated thing that I noticed during one of the test games is that 7th edition doesn't seem to contain rules for assaults within multi-part buildings, so I'm going to dig out my 6th edition rulebook and add those rules as a houserule to the campaign. This of course leaves me thinking about other houserules to add, which will probably include a "discard utterly impossible Tactical Objectives" rule (even though I'm only using them in 1/6ths of the missions). Any thoughts on this?

**The Riddle of Steel**

We always play where you can discard unachievable Tactical Objectives. We found it to feel too frustrating, chancy (not to mention even more unrealistic than a standard Maelstrom mission) to continually draw objectives that are not applicable.

It is funny that you named your mission King of the Hill. I actually had a similar idea ( and same name!) for a mission I created based on your post here.

I like new Spearhead. I think it us fair as-is with no need to alter deployment zones. 36" is a reasonable distance for the Attacker to travel. On average, starting right at the deployment edge and moving and running (9" per turn) straight to the enemy board edge with no difficult terrain or moving around impassable terrain, it will take four turns. Throw in some shooting, some falling back, some seeking cover to slow them down and maybe a charge to speed them up (but then possibly being stuck in combat for the next turn), and I think you're looking at 5 - 6 turns to reach the edge, which feels challenging enough. Obviously vehicles and bikes can get there quickly.

**Quanar**

Ok, next part - in the middle of the campaign, as a "breather", a Flyer / FMC -only battle will take place, which usually (as in, the previous years when I wasn't running the campaign) tends to be quite fast-paced. The playing-card order is something from previous years, but altered so that one team doesn't get two goes on the trot.

As always, feedback is very welcome, as are any more suggestions for upgrades!

Spoiler:

As an unrelated side note, making the terrain for this campaign (some landing pads for the first game, and the bridges for this game) has made me immeasurably glad that I'm not trying to make a living as a carpenter (I can't saw straight for toffee!).

**Quanar**

I'm now two weeks into my campaign (for those of you wondering how it's going), and whilst it's mostly been positive, there have been some issues.

The main problem came this week, when the one-on-one games began. Five games happened, two Ambush, one King of the Hill and two Spearhead - and Spearhead turned out to be horribly unbalanced, it was a forgone conclusion in favour of the Defender in both games before turn three. So I've ditched it, and now need to replace the Offensive vs. Defensive mission. Given the lack of time before it's needed, I've heavily based it on the ITC mission format, with some tweeks obviously:

Spoiler:

So I'd quite like some feedback from Dakka, as I'll need to print / laminate several copies in time for Wednesday.
Thanks!