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.

I have an idea for campaign for my friends but I have never run one before and could use some pointers.
Here is what I have so far:
5,000 point master roster that each player will pull from for each battle.
Players WILL NOT be required to have 5000 points of models.
Each army will be given 500 points for a Inquisitor and bodyguard.
Each army will take an Assassin. Players will be allowed to convert Assassins to fit their army.
I will keep track of each model kill in battle because at the end of each battle the player will be able to roll to see if each model can be saved by medics and mechanics.
Medics and mechanics will add to the roll of each model and will stack depending on how many are in the army. [Example: 2 healthy techmarines in the master roster will give a +2 to your roll on a tank]
Once a model is lost, it is gone from the campaign.
As the campaign goes on, players will lose tanks and squads or only field partial squads and will not be able to field a full point game because of previous loses. Giving the other player a bigger advantage like that of a real war.
Partial and undermanned squads can be fielded or folded in other similar squads.
Terrain bought by players can be destroyed and lost like every other model.
Attackers and defenders can be given different force organization charts for each other for every battle.
I would like to use my Iron Warriors and IG as an NPC but I am not sure yet as to what extent. Should I use them to help the non-Imperium side or should I be the main protagonist to make everyone try and take the world from me while fighting each other?

What do you think I should add or take out?
What needs to be polished and clarified?
Thank you for your help

 Gyrfalcon110 wrote:
Giving the other player a bigger advantage like that of a real war.

This may be realistic, but it very often is a miserable experience. The advantages for the winner tend to snowball into more advantages and more one-sided victories, meaning the campaign is over in all but name and the rest of the games are just slogging through the inevitable to make it official. Or, more likely, the player on the wrong end of the early loss doesn't bother showing up anymore and leaves you with a hole in your campaign.

What do you think I should add or take out?

Take out the entire system. Just assume that all sides have sufficient "off camera" reserves to field a standard-size army and play normal games with appropriate fluff and mission objectives.

Done similar in the past. One thing I would recommend is some way for armies to reconstitute units or add new units. We used to use territories. Basically you started with two territories, each of which would allow you so many points per turn or access to building a certain class of unit. whenever you played, you would roll a random territory and each player would have to ante one territory. Winner would get to pick taking either the random or his opponent's ante, loser stuck with whatever the winner did not take. Still can have that snowball issue if someone has a string of victories as they have more territories, hence more points available to rebuild with and more options on what they can take when rebuilding. Another suggestion is to limit the number of games per week so that players cannot knock out 10 games in one week and gain a huge advantage over someone only able to play two games a week.

I posted my campaign ideas so that I could get helpful and constructive feedback. Suggesting I put in an award system for the victors and less of a gain for the loser would help the fear of snowballing losses would be helpful. Telling me to scrap the whole idea does not help improve the campaign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thank you don_mondo

Awarding points for each victory that tally up at the end might be a better way of showing a disadvantage instead of giving the victor more units to attack with. if you have multiple losses what would keep you playing if each one awarded your opponent more units to kick your teeth in with.