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.

As topic asks, who will actually be playing the Firestorm campaign?

Had it been a lower price (I maybe could have justified $50 MSRP) I would have probably picked it up. It would have been used for campaign play since it's me and one buddy/possibly two playing.

Depending on how you go about constructing the forces, I certainly want/plan to.

 eekamouse wrote:
Depending on how you go about constructing the forces, I certainly want/plan to.

What are your requirements?

 auticus wrote:

 eekamouse wrote:
Depending on how you go about constructing the forces, I certainly want/plan to.

What are your requirements?

Nothing specific. I'm more just curious how Muster Points are going to work and how/if forces will grow over the course of the campaign.... and what (if any) restrictions will be put on force building. I'm pretty confident it will be fine. But, I don't want to have to buy a ton of models to get rolling.

(Although, I will likely pick up the Hammerhal box).

We alternate between path to glory and matched play leagues, the last one was path to glory so I'll be running a Firestorm Matched Play league next. So in other words, both of the above.

Will depend on when I have read it. Most likely I will not be using the map, as I tend to run my map digitally online.

My highest criterium will be simplicity. I have hosted many campaigns for different games now and have learned that most players are babies that need there hand taken. I even got messages on my phone asking how does that work (when you think "read the bloody rules")

If it is not straight forward with a minimum of bookkeeping I will not be using it.

Another criterium will be which armies have access. If to many from my playgroup are excluded we will not be using it.

I'm interested for sure, but wondering how well it will work if you don't have each player playing a different Grand Alliance. Doesn't seem like it really supports, say, 2 Order players (e.g., one Seraphon one Sylvaneth).

Campaigns have a hard time working when the storyline is ignored (space marine on space marine in "training missions", seraphon vs sylvaneth, etc

It takes a bit of hand waving.

We tend to just lump Order vs Everyone OR Chaos vs Everyone.

Usually Chaos or Order has vastly more players so you just create a narrative around that.

 auticus wrote:
Campaigns have a hard time working when the storyline is ignored (space marine on space marine in "training missions", seraphon vs sylvaneth, etc

It takes a bit of hand waving.

Indeed. Of course, it can be everyone against me in our group, since the other 3 guys usually play Order (Seraphon, Sylvaneth, and Kharadron), and I'm Chaos.

Our group will be playing Firestorm after finishing up the path of glory campaign. It would be cool to use some of the different narrative battles from GH2017 such a the siege and the 2v2 with the supplement. I think a world campaign is good for making narrative battles more organized.

Depending on turnout I may create 3-4 NPC factions that players sign up to fight for, with the faction that wins the campaign having rewards divided up among the players for that faction.