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.

Hey all,

I wanted to get the Dakkaverse's input on a set of rules for quick mini-campaigns I've been tossing around in my head. Basically, I got some ideas from a podcast a bit ago, and I like the idea of trying to set up a bunch of small rapid-fire games with the same opponent because it allows you to build some narrative, try out different tactics and wargear without having to take up too much time or rely on complicated rules and what-not.

Let me know what you think!

40k Mini-Campaign Template:

Here’s the gist.

As we all know, each tabletop battle in the 40k universe is generally a small snapshot within a much larger conflagration involving millions of troops and warmachines. To better illustrate this and allow for greater, but simpler narrative within the game, you and your opponent(s) can fight what is essentially a three-part battle over a single objective. Call it “The Battle for Phobos Outpost 5” or the “The Taking of Taros Comms Relay 17,” whatever.

In reality, most battles follow a similar pattern of a skirmish as the forces first encounter one another, then the initial forces receive reinforcements, then each side is able to engage itself fully for a final battle over the objective. This will be represented by a successive increase in forces with each game. The points totals will go up as agreed upon by you and your opponent, for instance 750, 1,000, 1,250 or 1,000, 1,500 then 2,000.

To reflect an army allocating resources and to add more strategic decisions to the game, each side will start out by making a list equal to the total points total that they will use in the course of the campaign. If it is going to be a 750-1,000-1,250 campaign, for instance, then this will be a 3,000-point list. In each battle, each side will make up a force derived from this list that meets force organization requirements.

Any units fully destroyed in the course of each battle remain destroyed and cannot be used for the remainder of the campaign. Units that are only partially destroyed can be fielded in later games under the assumption that they regrouped, healed or received some fresh replacement members. Likewise, vehicles that are damaged, but not either wrecked or exploded, are counted as repaired and may return in later games. Any independent characters that are dead at the end of any game cannot be replayed.

However, if one side’s losses leave them unable to field a legal army in later games – if for instance, one side loses all of its HQ and/or troop choices – it may field only the cheapest units possible to fill up its required slots on the force organization chart but those units may not be upgraded in any way. In the course of a desperate battle, some officers would have been promoted to higher leadership roles, but wouldn’t have all the fancy equipment of their predecessors. Meanwhile, if the force is short of troops, it would likely mobilize its wounded, the cooks -- any bodies it could find.

Any warlord who survives a single battle may choose to keep his warlord trait rather than roll for new ones in the next game. Any other unit such as psykers that have randomized abilities and that survive a battle may chose to keep those abilities rather than roll again as well. However, if a unit has several traits that they roll for each turn, they can only choose to keep all of them or re-roll all of them. If a warlord survives a second battle and chooses to re-roll traits, it rolls a D6 like normal for its warlord traits, but is allowed to pick from any of the three trait tables. If a warlord survives a second battle, and chooses to re-roll a second time, then it may add or subtract 1 from its D6 number and choose from any of the three tables.

The campaign:

Part of the goal of a campaign like this is to keep things moving and allow for rapid-fire games. Thus, the terrain is distributed according to the rulebook at the beginning – preferably with some large, interesting pieces in the middle that would rationally serve as the conquest objective of the three-battle campaign.
Scenarios are also rolled as normal, but a roll of six is always re-rolled rather than playing “the Relic.” Logically, if these two sides were really seeking this relic, then it would be the object of every battle, not just one. (Note: if you really love playing the relic, then fine, just play it three times in a row). Other than that, the random nature of the continuing battle can be explained by the changing priorities of each side as the fighting continues: “Try to take those positions with our flanking troops!” “Bring in the big guns!” “Ah, screw it, just kill the bastards!”

Likewise, deployment types will also be rolled every time but the same terrain will be used. Before the second game, players will automatically re-roll if they get the same deployment type as they played in the first battle. For the third battle, if the roll results in a deployment type that has already been played, then the players will deploy that way again, but switch sides.

The winner of the campaign will be determined by a cumulative victory points score.

So, whaddya think? Does this make any sense?

Sounds good, I can't see any glaring problems.

I both like and am unsure of the 'destroyed=dead' idea. It's cool and fluffy and forces people to play in a different way, but could lead to massively unbalanced armies in the later games. For example, if the initial 'list' included 5 upgrades tactical squads, and the player used and lost 2 in each game, then they are at even more of a disadvantage in later games, only able to take unupgraded (useless) squads in the last game. I'd certainly suggest playtesting it a bit before starting a proper campaign, just to see if it is possible to sustain something like that for a whole series of games. Certainly a good idea though.

I'd also say that, instead of adding victory points, you just give a score to W/L/D, as otherwise, if the first game is a massacre or one side gains a massive win, it could conceivably be impossible for the other side to win.

All in all, this looks pretty solid, so go ahead and try it. At best, you get a cool new format to play, at worst you still get 3 games of 40k in, which is never a bad thing.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to playtesting it. Part of why I like the idea is the added dimension of worrying what gets wiped out. In most individual 40k games, you're cool sending units on suicide missions, but in something like this (and also in real life) you probably wouldn't make that decision because you will need those troops down the road.

What you point out could be an issue though. If a player just decides to go all out on their opponents troop selections that could really unbalance things by the end. Then again, the tactic might then become to play light on troops in the first couple of games to save them for the end.

Having permanent losses is a completely broken idea. If you lose early then the impact of those losses gets worse and worse as the campaign continues, making it more likely that you keep losing (and lose by bigger margins with more units destroyed). It's very easy to set up a situation where a player gets behind early and has no hope of getting back into the campaign, but still has to keep playing with those garbage "cheapest possible" units (or drop out and ruin the campaign for everyone else).