MrRaioh wrote:
You didn't make the draft rule document open to the public...

Brother Michael wrote:
I suggest offering some kind of small prize to the winner. Nothing too big (as it'll discourage sporting play and encourage min-maxing), but some kind of prize or trophy to justify the entry fee. Sure, you put a lot of work into it, but that wont justify the cost to your players.

 Tomb King wrote:

Brother Michael wrote:
I suggest offering some kind of small prize to the winner. Nothing too big (as it'll discourage sporting play and encourage min-maxing), but some kind of prize or trophy to justify the entry fee. Sure, you put a lot of work into it, but that wont justify the cost to your players.

The winner does get a prize. There will also be prizes for the unluckiest player and other various awards. 100% of the entry fee is in store credit given back to the players for participating.

Chancetragedy wrote:We did a multiple phase campaign last summer at our FLGS that spans an 8 page thread in the campaigns forum here
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/584361.page

I know you probably don't want to read through the whole thing but there are Various thoughts and rules things like that in there might be helpful for you. These are big time sinks but super fun. We went from averaging 8-10 people on 40k night to over 20 consistantly because of how enjoyable the campaign was.

 tjkopena wrote:
Off the top of my head I think there's some very common but very limiting concerns with these rules that you (the OP) should consider. I could be misreading the rules and haven't processed them in full detail, but these are a couple points I see to think about, in increasing order of severity:

1. Unless you're specifically going for very restricted 40k, or a slightly different skirmish ruleset, and i didn't notice, the starting points are extremely small and don't grow that quickly to standard-sized games.

2. Over any reasonable length of time, most people will want to change up their core and not be beholden to the same initial army forever.

3. With this kind of map and direct player-on-player attacks for territory, it's very awkward when players drop out or want to play more often than others.

4. With a map setup like that and the direct attack rules, most players will really only ever interact with the other players immediately around them, and they'll play those same people again and again. That's a loss of opportunity to play among a larger group, as well as not fun if you just keep getting hammered by the same person.

5. Most seriously, giving additional points and other major benefits for territories held creates a strong run-away leader effect, unless I'm missing how that's balanced out in the rules.

All of these will hopefully be taken as constructive criticisms and points to think about, to try and help make sure you get the most out of the effort you are and will be putting in. I certainly know what's involved.

For what it's worth, I've been running a number of 40k campaigns for a little while now. None super big (~20 players at most), but very successful according to the people participating. You can check out reports and rules for three of the most recent here, here, and here. They're a little different in that they're designed for quasi-tournament settings. Players aren't committing to be there all the time, and the time periods are shorter (a handful of monthly events, a weekend, or even just a day). So they're more abstract than most campaigns, but work well at mitigating some of the issues above by making a few tradeoffs of campaign detail for robustness and overall fun. E.g., holding specific sites of interest grants strategic benefits in the abstract campaign, not in-game effects.

 tjkopena wrote:
That's a pretty good idea. You could also let people use some of their action points to send an army back to orbit and make an attack anywhere across the board. It'd cost more than a usual attack, but could be worth it to them to hit particular objectives or something.