Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
What I mean by that is this: GW never substantially alters the 40K galaxy with any of its campaign results or fluff. Good examples are the Armageddon campaigns. The result is always something along the lines of, "The Ork menace was repelled, but at great cost to the Imperium." I think it would encourage players to participate in campaigns and add depth to the game if GW decided that one army or another gained a decisive victory. Again using Armageddon, if GW decided that, at the end of the day, the Orks pulled out a victory, they could add a temporary rule that would last for, say, a month or two that says that, since the Orks captured so much on Armageddon, they could now take an extra Heavy Support choice in their army. Another option would be to say that the Imperial Guard could take fewer Heavy Support choices or something along those lines.
I personally would opt for the former option, as it would have a more positive effect on the players. In the latter choice, IG players who didn't participate in the campaign might feel unfairly penalized. The rules would not be permanent, of course, but I feel it would be a way to show how the 40K universe changes with the tides of battle. It would also encourage players to go out and participate in the campaigns and do all they could to see that their armies received the benefits that would come with victory. Any thoughts?
Its an interesting thought, but int the end, no I dont think it would work.
Like you said, any player who didn't take part or couldn't take part, would feel unfairly penalized.
Add the fact that some players don't want to take part in campaigns, and there you go.
Plus, there would be no way to inforce the "results", so yes, while the players who feel that they were unfairly penalized dont have to follow the temp rules, it kinda makes it all a bit pointless.
Plus, not to mention the amount of fresh agruments and fights this would bring up.
What happens when a player who doesn't follow the temp rules, because he thought they were unfair comes up again a lass with her army of orks with an extra Hvy choice, because she's allowed?
This in itself wouldn't be a positive effect on players.
Want to chat? You can normally find me in the LO CHAT!
LO CHAT! JOIN US NOW AND BECOME A GOD OF BACON.
Good! However it might be off putting to new players. Another thing is how do you announce such victories, and resulting bonuses to the Playerbase? ( White Dwarf is not a valid option. ) All in all its a good concept, however A: Evil Empire... I mean GW wont do it. and B: It would be hard to execute on a global scale.
It's a good idea. I especially like the feeling of an interactive 40k universe.
But in the end it's too complex and expensive. For example, it would start a lot of fights about changing the rules for people who do and don't follow campaigns. Also anything too effective will tear apart the codices. They have been made with revised rules and heavy play testing. Another fact is that it would mean rewriting a lot of fluff in some cases.
"DICE FOR THE DICE GOD!"
And the almighty Dice God said to his followers "Thou shalt not speak ye words "anything but a one" For thou whoever'st speaketh this blasphemy will be cursed with thy rolls being of one".
I agree about it being a good idea but not a realistic one. For them to have events like that world-wide would get very confusing especially with rule changes. It's best just to have a campaign at your local game store and have minor rule changes/bonuses in that. Use your imagination and be creative. That's what GW wants. :cool:
Sounds like a house rule to me. A rule change like you suggested sounds like it could unbalance a tournament, but it would be a fun addition to a campaign.
Where's your Baritone Saxophone?
Actually, WizKids does this from time-to-time with their assorted games. A good example is a tourny called Faction Wars a few years ago. The tourny was centered around a huge battle for an old factory that produced Marauder II Battlemechs. The winning faction got a Marauder II in the next expansion set.
So, for example, if a Tau vs Guard campaign took place, and the Tau won, they could field, for example, new Guard units for Human Auxilieries. Or, if the Guard won, they might be able to field a new weapon based on Tau Railgun technology. It would infulence the flow of the fluff, would give players a concrete reward from the campaigns, and would make Games Workshop more money from the new minis they sell.
Burn the land and boil the sea. You can't take the sky from me.
Member of the Canadian Clan, eh.
Mech Tau Cadre: 2000 points, needs paint and magnets.
Paladins of Avalon (SW):-1500 points, needs paint.
I'm already interested in participating in campaigns, so I may not be the best example, but if they did have future campaigns which would affect the future course of the fluff, I would be even further interested in participating.
"They are my space marines and they shall know no fear, for they are fear incarnate." ~ Konrad Curze (Night Haunter), Primarch of the Night Lords Legion
"Adeo mori servus Imperator Fictus
Ave Dominus Nox" (So die the slaves of the False Emperor. Hail to the Lord of the Night.) ~ Talonmaster Zso Sahaal [Lord of the Night, p.68]
After thinking it over, I decided that you guys were right. It would be difficult to implement. Still, it would be an interesting thing to do in gaming groups where everyone was willing. I'd still like to see GW use their campaigns to change the course of the fluff in 40K. They don't have to go back and rewrite old campaigns by any means, but it would be nice to see something other than an eternal stalemate across the galaxy. While they wouldn't have to implement new rules (they could leave it to the individual gaming groups), I just want to see a more dynamic story.
I totally disagree that any world wide campaign should alter the game play itself. Now this is how I think it should be done. Instead of penalizing the Imperial Gaurd because it lost ground on ONE world, just let the story flow. You could say in the fluff that the orks captured armeggeddon and then move on in the fluff. Let the campaigns alter the story, not the one off games. Say that Chaos took the Cadia Gate. Then, from then on in the story let the Chaos be more powerful and influential fluff wise. Also it would be really cool to see several campaigns fought in a series. Like 2 for the Armeggeddon area. If the orks take it then the Imperials have to try to take it back or vice versa. That would be cool. I just don't think that it would be fair to most players and most would refuse to play with it anyway if it was a disadvantage to them.
<(^^)> <(^^<) (>^^)> ^(^^)^ Dance Kirby! Dance!