Switch Theme:

Iron Man style campaign rules  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





In an effort to encourage the folks at my local game store to diversify their armies, I had the thought of applying the iron man concept (if a model is killed on the tabletop it's gone forever) to a campaign. I'm curious what folks think of it, and if the concept would lead to a fair campaign.

Similar to the Crusade rules, every player's Order of Battle is [infinite troop choices plus three dataslates of everything else in the codex]. Armies are created as normal, by choosing units from the Order of Battle.

However, if a model is killed on the tabletop it's removed from your Order of Battle. Permanently, and there's no way of adding units to the Order of Battle. Unless it's troops, if you lose three full-size squads of that unit you can't field them any more.

For example, the Space Marine codex has a dataslate entry "Apothecary". If in my very first game I put three of them on the field and they all die, I don't have any more Apothecaries for the rest of the campaign. I can field a "Primaris Apothecary" but if three of them get shot off the board as well, I'm just SoL when it comes to healing. If Azrael gets ganked three times he's not going to show up again.

For units with multiple models, assume you have three full-size squads: e.g., Ork Warbikers have a maximum of nine in a unit, so that's 27 bikers in your Order of Battle. If your first army fields a full squad and you lose 5 of them, you then have 22 bikers in your Order of Battle. Over several games your losses accumulate and eventually you're not going to be able to field bikers - hence the growing pressure to field different sorts of units.

A player is eliminated from the campaign when they can't field a valid army, e.g. all their HQ units have been killed three times. I would image that towards the end of the campaign there would be a lot of massed troop battles with the commanders well-hidden - as they should be. Perhaps you should always be allowed to field your lowest-cost HQ unit?

I can see this favoring armies that have good troop units, enhancing the value of snipers, and making that 'bring back a model' strategem invaluable. It also forces players to field different armies over the course of the campaign, as they lose the ability to field their favorite units. A lot of the players at my store have huge numbers of models so that's less of an issue around here, but how would it be in general?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/24 18:22:07


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I've been kicking around a similar concept for alternate Crusade rules. My main goal being to slowly whittle down my available units until I feel compelled to start a new roster. Normal Crusade is great, but you sort of run out of reasons to use a variety of units once you've leveled up a bunch of your favorites. Here's my rough outline:

* Start with the Crusade rules.
* Instead of the normal rules for creating a starting roster, you have have about 3,000 points (or power level) to work with.
* After each battle, roll a d6 for units that were completely destroyed. On a 1, they're removed from your roster. On a 2-5, they have to sit out your next 1d3 games. On a 6, they take a permanent injury from the Crusade injury table. This replaces the normal injury roll rules.
* You can't spend RP to add units to your roster, but winning certain Crusade missions lets you add a new unit. I like the idea of having a random table that determines what sort of unit you get. I.e.: Gain a unit with the vehicle keyword. Gain a unit with the Fast Attack battlefield role. Etc.
* I like the idea of having options to spend RP in different ways based on what units are still in your order of battle. Ex: You can spend RP between battles to have an apothecary treat one of your injured units. This either reduces the number of games they have to sit out by 1 or removes one permanent injury. Tech marines could have a similar rule for vehicles. Maybe including a scout or phobos squad allows you to spend 1 fewer CP when placing units in strategic reserves during the next battle because they scouted out a hidden approach. Etc.

*If at any point you are unable to field a 1500 (or whatever) point army due to an inability to fill out the minimum requirements of a detachment or a lack of healthy units, your crusade ends.

* Might be best to have the above rules replace the faction-specific Crusade gimmicks like conquering planets for Tau and acquiring territory for Drukhari. Maybe. Don't want the bookkeeping to become too much. Then again, I hate to cut out all that tasty content...

The overall idea is that your force will become smaller and more beaten up over time but also more powerful. So your late-game leveled up units feel like a necessity to limit your casualties and a reward for surviving rather than just being an over the top unit that discourages you from fielding other units.

That's my pitch. Here are some notes on yours:
* As you've pointed out, this is going to strongly favor factions that tend to die slower. So a glass cannon army like drukhari or slaaneshi daemons is going to be punished for their choice of faction. And within a given faction, some units will be discouraged over others. For example, tyranids will lose gaunts much more quickly than they lose warriors.

* Consider not perma-killing models unless the entire unit has been wiped out. This is less bookkeeping, and it can help mitigate my last point; killing 1 termagaunt is easy. Killing 30 termagaunts is... still easy, but less so.

This also avoids potential issues with partial units. Say my roster initially has a 10 man squad of kabalite warriors including a dark lance and some blasters. During a battle, I lose 5 normal splinter guys but keep my more expensive/effective models (the blasters/lance) alive. So how does that unit work in my next game? My codex says I have to have 10 bodies in the squad if I want to include the lance and second blaster. Do I functionally lose the entire squad because I didn't kill my upgraded models first? And if so, is that a bug or a feature?

Unless it's troops, if you lose three full-size squads of that unit you can't field them any more.

I'd delete this sentence. You're already encouraged to bring troops because they're needed for patrols/batallions, and you've already mentioned that players can have an infinite number of them in their rosters. As you've phrased the quoted portion, there's a weird incentive to field 29 gaunts (meaning they aren't a "full-sized" squad and thus you won't be locked out of using gaunt squads in future games.) Plus, the quoted section means you have to keep track of how many times you've lost a full-sized squad.

* Unless you and your gaming group happen to have extremely extensive collections, the cap on 3 copies of a datasheet per roster might give a slight advantage to the player with the bigger collection. For instance, one player might only own 2 HQ models in his entire collection while another player might have every marine HQ ever made. This would mean that the first player is very susceptible to being knocked out because his roster can only contain a max of 6 HQs. (Each of his 2 models fielded 3 times.)

* Similar to the last point, some factions have fewer datasheets than others. A harlequin player only has 2 HQ options, 1 troop option, and something like 8 datasheets in the entire codex. So a harlequin player would get knocked out more easily than someone who can field a larger variety of units.

* To me, a good game of 40k is usually a close game with both armies taking heavy casualties. So whatever the standard game size is that you intend to play, I'd expect to lose about 90% of that from my roster each game. Assuming that my starting roster was like, 3,000 points and the standard game size of the campaign was 2,000 points, this means I'd expect to lose 1,800 points in my first game leaving me with only 1,200 points. Meaning I'd be knocked out of the campaign after a single game.

So with that in mind, how many games did you want the campaign to last for? If you up the starting roster size high enough, you'll exacerbate the limited datasheet problem for factions like harlequins or mono-god daemons. You could consider playing smaller games or making models/units perma-die less quickly if you want the campaign to last longer.

* How would you handle units that get added mid-game? For example, if I have a tervigon birthing fresh gaunt squads that survive the game or the Parasite of Mortrex creating new ripper swarms. I guess daemon summoning might still fall into this category, though it seems unlikely to still be a thing in a few months.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/24 19:11:10



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.
 
   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy





I just have the feeling that it wouldn’t go well really. Some armies rely on like losing all their guys in order to win, and with that they’d just end up losing everything. Maybe with space marines/custodes, definitely not with some of the other armies out there.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I agree that if losing a model meant I couldn't use it ever again, I would play my army very differently, and probably lose.

If you're trying to encourage variety in the lists then you could stipulate that the dead units will need to be replaced using campaign points (or whatever you earn in the campaign, haven't looked at them yet). To do this, I would consider having the slots locked.

So, for example, you take a batallion and have 2 HQ, 5 troops, and 3 heavy support slots filled. In the battle, you lose 2 heavy supports, 3 troops and a HQ. These are now locked off - whatever army you take, 1 HQ, 2 HS and 3 Troop slots are blanked out - you can't use them, unless you buy them back with campaign slots. Note- the minimum HQ and Troop slots are never blanked out. Minimum HS, FA, Elite Etc. slots are, so you can't get round it by taking spearheads!

This would mean that you can either spend campaign points trying to get your HS slots back, or you can spend them on upgrades and make a fast attack army next time instead, or an elites based one.

This would encourage the variety you're after, without needing too much bookkeeping (or overly rewarding players who have huge armies to pick from vs players with a select few).

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy





I think 40k is just so based on killing that players will almost immediately run out of things that makes sense for them to have loads of like guardsmen.
I propose going back to the good old solution games like gorkamorka used very well, a game master. If you have issues with people being waac gits, then the game master can just tell them to chill it. While a game master can’t directly play, they can also make “ai” armies appear to fight both opponents at once and just create a much more interesting environment for games of 40k.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: