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.
2025/06/06 23:06:11
Subject: What Do you all Want from a Campaign System?
So, I have been rotating this horse in my head for a while and I can't get good feedback from the boys at my LGS because they aren't super interested in campaign play to begin with.
I have a love-hate relationship with a lot of GW campaign supplements when they release them for 40k and 30k; I love the Narrative focus on some battlefront but often it is just kind of an article recounting the events of a campaign as they happened in the fiction and a few missions that all say, "you could play these missions in this order. Or don't. The rules implications of them are largely irrelevant." I am enamored of the idea of a Necromunda campaign but I cannot convince any of my friends to pick it up with me
For me, a Campaign system feels like playing a lightweight eruogame in between games of 40k. So, you would play a game, get some inputs based on the outcome of the game, adjust some resources and then use those resources to make my guys better. People play escalation campaigns and I've been participating in the one my LGS does but that also feels sort of barebones to me. it feels like an "excuse" to get some games in and include players with smaller collections or play different armies rather than a game-ification of the list-building exercise. This is what I have so far:
Spoiler:
Campaign Set-up: Choose a point budget that is quite small; like 400-650 points. Players write a roster under that budget. As the point budget of games increases, you can add more guys. As the point budget gets reset over time (more on this later), players are only able to make forces out of the guys already in their roster. Your initial roster can't contain enhancements and
Units have 2 additional qualities to track: XP and Upgrade Points. XP is spent by units on battle honors; a set of abilities and special equipment upgrades that come out of a pool of options. Upgrade points are one example of Battle Honors. They can only be spent on upgrades to models, not new models BUT this value doesn't count towards the normal point budget for games.
Units gain 1 XP every time they participate in a battle. Different Battle Honors cost different amounts of XP
In addition, players gain and lose resources in different amounts throughout the campaign. The resources are: Material / Intel / Morale.
Players start the campaign with 2 of each resource and +1 of one resource of their choice. Then, randomly determine who will be the attacker and defender first.
Gameplay: To play a game, the attacker proposes a mission to play and an ante of some resources. The defender can: See that bet, raise the bet or propose a compromise by putting the same number of a different resource up for ante if they are low in one type.
Then, play out a game. The winner takes all, units that participated earn XP, players update resources and spend those resources on requisitions. Every time a new game gets played, escalate the point cost for games one stage.
By default, one "escalation" is just increasing the point limit for games by the same amount that players' initial rosters were worth. So if we start out playing 500 point games, the point budget for successive games increases by 500 every time.
Then, if one player gets forced down to zero of two types of resources, they lose that Arc of the campaign. Players can play as many arcs as they want. However, requisitions and battle honors are limited: there is one of every requisition and every battle honor available to all players. They only reset when a new arc begins. So if players intend on playing many different arcs, it may be in your best interest to "allow" one arc or another to end sooner than later.
Example Requisitions:
Spoiler:
Scouting Party - Costs 1 Material / 1 Intel / 0 Morale : Reset the current point escalation of the campaign. Players' rosters remain the same.
Crusade - Costs 1 Material / 0 Intel / 1 Morale : Escalate the current point budget once.
Recognition - Costs 0 Material / 1 Intel / 0 Morale : Gain +1 Morale. Give a Unit in your roster +1 XP.
Example Battle Honors:
Spoiler:
Reputation - costs 1 XP : grant the unit that buys this battle honor a +1 Ld aura with an 8" radius
Problem solvers - costs 1 XP : Units that buy this battle honor get +1 to combat resolution. (I'm mixing up my 30k and 40k right now, I know, I'm still in the brainstorming phase of this project)
This is very much a rough draft. If people have ideas for this, let me know. But my main question is the one in the title: what do you want from a campaign system and what games do those things well for you?
I went to Hershey Park in central PA this year, and I have to say I was more than a little disappointed. I fully expected the entire theme park to be make entirely of chocolate, but no. Here in America, we have "building codes," and some other nonsense about chocolate melting if don't store it someplace kept below room temperature.
2025/06/06 23:55:39
Subject: What Do you all Want from a Campaign System?
Make sure it doesn’t snowball.
If winning game one gives you an advantage in game two, you’re more likely to win game two. If that then gives an advantage in game three, you’re more likely to win game three. So on and so forth.
If you do let things snowball like that, be prepared for people to stop playing if they lose a few games.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2025/06/07 01:12:02
Subject: What Do you all Want from a Campaign System?
JNAProductions wrote: Make sure it doesn’t snowball.
If winning game one gives you an advantage in game two, you’re more likely to win game two. If that then gives an advantage in game three, you’re more likely to win game three. So on and so forth.
If you do let things snowball like that, be prepared for people to stop playing if they lose a few games.
super good point and certainly something I should keep an eye out for.
I guess I should have painted a better picture of the vision I had: the idea is that battle honors and requisitions form like a conversation with each other. I can gain a point advantage against my opponent but if the size of a game is super large, the advantage i get from having like 150 points against my opponent in a 2k game is less significant than it would be in a 1k game for instance. So if I have a lot of battle honors and a lot XP, I'm incentivized to take up as many scouting party reqs as I can. My opponent in that scenario wants the opposite - to leverage as many crusade cards as they can. This needs to be expanded on and I definitely need a healthy number of interesting reqs and battle honors to make the system feel whole.
I had considered brainstorming a like, "underdog" mechanic for players that are behind to catch up but i couldnt think of anything good and had the rest of the system hashed out at that point
I went to Hershey Park in central PA this year, and I have to say I was more than a little disappointed. I fully expected the entire theme park to be make entirely of chocolate, but no. Here in America, we have "building codes," and some other nonsense about chocolate melting if don't store it someplace kept below room temperature.
2025/06/07 08:51:47
Subject: What Do you all Want from a Campaign System?
Yup, games should get harder for players who win, not easier. Like in a video game, as you progress the difficulty doesn't drop, right? Winning is your reward and you must pay a cost (in incresed effort for example) to get it.
You can justify it in the fluff however you want (like any rules really ) for example a successful army has stretched supply lines or needs to spend more resources on passively ocuppying territory or to win the campaign you gather artifacts but they are cursed and the more you have, the more they sap your power.
Also, plan your campaign so that players can get games whenever they want in any configurations they can. Enforcing deadlines and specific matchups (like only playing against those who are your neighbours on some map) leads to a lot of forfeitures for some and boredom for others. Modern forces can strike basically wherever they want, so don't limit players in who, where and when and how they may play.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/06/07 08:55:45
2025/06/07 10:08:46
Subject: What Do you all Want from a Campaign System?
Cyel wrote: Also, plan your campaign so that players can get games whenever they want in any configurations they can. Enforcing deadlines and specific matchups (like only playing against those who are your neighbours on some map) leads to a lot of forfeitures for some and boredom for others. Modern forces can strike basically wherever they want, so don't limit players in who, where and when and how they may play.
This is crucial for adults with jobs and little time and stuff. If you have any campaign resource (like territories) make em abstract, not an actual map that needs special rules to move your gak around on and forces matchups.
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
2025/06/07 17:16:22
Subject: What Do you all Want from a Campaign System?
Powerfisting wrote: For me, a Campaign system feels like playing a lightweight eruogame in between games of 40k.
I assume you meant to type "erogame" right? I haven't tried that but I feel like it wouldn't fit the fluff for most of the armies.
One thing you want is for the winning armies to be challenged more while still feeling like they're ahead. One idea I had was that the underdog can get "reinforcements" from (fluff-wise) a different commander or front, but those units can't get any experience and just disappear once the battle's over. So it becomes narratively clear that the dominant army is now forcing other fronts to allocate resources to this one, making each fight tougher for them but hurting the overall war-effort of the enemy.
And likewise it should probably be established that while each player's army may be the "most important" part of their given faction, they aren't the entirety of it. That way you can say that even while there's a big stalemate going on between the Orks and Space Marines on the map, your own specific Space Marine army can be brought on for a special mission deep into Tau territory (while the rest of the SMs hold the line). Basically it gives you a lot more narrative flexibility in the matchups, which is important. You should be able to justify anyone fighting anyone at any time without jumping through too many hoops.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
2025/06/09 18:01:55
Subject: What Do you all Want from a Campaign System?
For me, a Campaign system feels like playing a lightweight eruogame in between games of 40k. So, you would play a game, get some inputs based on the outcome of the game, adjust some resources and then use those resources to make my guys better. People play escalation campaigns and I've been participating in the one my LGS does but that also feels sort of barebones to me. it feels like an "excuse" to get some games in and include players with smaller collections or play different armies rather than a game-ification of the list-building exercise.
Personally, my favorite thing about campaigns is just that they provide a sense of continuity between games. They make it easier to hang a narrative around a few games.
With that in mind, I find "leveling up" to be a lot less important/appealing than things like modifications to missions or to list building. Crusade is fun and all, but I'd gladly trade unit XP and battle honors for some rules that help determine which units I have access to during list building, or mechanics for defining the mission and battlemap of the next game.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
2025/06/09 18:09:09
Subject: What Do you all Want from a Campaign System?
) for example a successful army has stretched supply lines or needs to spend more resources on passively ocuppying territory or to win the campaign you gather artifacts but they are cursed and the more you have, the more they sap your power.
