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!
The gaming group I play with used to be primarily a 40K audience. Few players (if any) would play Fantasy while I was up at the shop. To generate interest in the game, one player took it upon himself to introduce map based campaigns, skirmish battles, and other group playing activities to get people into the game.
Now, on most Saturdays, there are actually more Fantasy games than 40K games going on.
Recently, another player decided to start a map based campaign using the general's compendium as a guide. There are eight players involved in the campaign (myself included), with armies of Wood Elves (2), Ogres, Dark Elves, Orcs, Empire, Lizardmen and Vampires.
Each player is allowed 2000 points to spend on armies (broken up at the players discretion, ie, one 2000pt army, or two 1000pt armies), and another 500 points to be spent on small 'scouting' forces. Moving the armies around on the map, each player has an objective that's hidden from the other players, so no one knows what the other player is up to, plus there is a 'fog of war' effect, so you don't have omnipotent view of the battlefield.
We've been playing the game for 3 weeks now, and I have yet to play a single battle for the campaign. I think that in the time of the entire three weeks, only two battles have been played. It's very frustrating to me that one player puts all this effort into managing a campaign where nothing is happening. It seems this is more an excersize of moving little pieces of paper around on a map rather than actually playing Warhammer. Plus there's tons of paperwork logistics involved to keep track of experience, food to keep the armies fed, and up to full strength.
I want out of the campaign, and just go back to playing exhibition matches with my friends.
Anyway. I just wanted to vent that.
Has anyone else been involved in a campaign where they did more actual map and logistics work than actually fighting battles.
(I guess, personally, I think the best 'campaigns' are just narrative events where one or two battles are tied together through their objectives, and that's it. I'm not akin to these multi-month commitments requiring several players to be totally committed to it to make it fun.)
The Lustrian Campaign system can be completed pretty quickly, and with the 4 people that we had playing in ours on turn 2 there were 3 battles that broke out. I think that you could complete a Lustrian Campaign in an afternoon if everyone showed up and you did 1-2 hour rounds with 1000 point armies.
Food Logistics? Experience? Dude, just play a node-based game (details in Lustria). Much less work, each turn can be done very quickly, and it is easily adaptable to whatever area you want.
So no, I don't have this problem.
Ack, has your friend actually read the General's Compendium? 2000 points spread out over the entire map is ridiculous, as you run into this very problem. Each banner of yours is supposed to be 2000 points, and that forces in a lot more battles when people have no choice but to invade their neighbor's empire with a few banners. Also, you get more than two banners (not to start), unlike the node system presented in the Lustria campaign book.
It stands to reason that experience and food logistics overcomplicate a game. The idea is to have games that have meaning, while still having games. The General's Compendium style campaign is the best, by far, if you just use the rules presented in Chapter 2-3 of the book. Unless you have a lot of time on your hands and everyone is truely dedicated, don't go into the section with food and experience and injuring heroes, as its unnecessary.
The problem with the node system is you end up fighting the same person over and over again, since you only have two banners. That and the Lustria campaign book has a lot of rules that are great ideas, just they weren't all thought out as well as they needed to be. If you do try a node campaign, please don't do it in Lustria. Have somebody draw up a map and avoid experience and jungle fighting rules.
I really think you shouldn't give up on campaigns. You can stil have exhibition battles with another player who also didn't end up with a battle, just it doesn't count towards the campaign in any way. You all still show up to make moves on the map, you might as well play a game. I know how frustrating it gets, we once had a General's Compendium style campaign with 28 starting players on it (Valley Grismerie with four maps pushed together). Meeting once a week, there was a couple months where I didn't have a campaign game after taking out the nearest opponent and allying with the other. If you want a game really badly, declare war and send a few banners after somebody near you on the map.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, even if it's wrong.
Well, one of the other problems is that I've just recently started my Wood Elf army, and thus don't exactly have a lot of models to throw around. I think my total points I could muster with the models I have now would be around 17-1800, so I decided to make two 1000 pt banners (which is kinda nice, because I have one that is very shooty; GG, WW, Scouts - and one that is more fighty; EG, Dryads).
But there's no way I can compete with the lizardman player who has a cheezed out 2000 pt list with a super Jaba the Slann and a bunch of Skink Priests that runs around throwing 13 magic dice a turn (I only have the basic two dispel dice in both my banners, by the way). So I can't really go offensive without someone weakening the enemy first with an equally large, and cheezy army (you have to roll against a casualty chart to see if you get units back when they are lost in battle).
I guess it also doesn't help that there is only one General's Compendium to go between all of the players participating in the campaign.
What is a 'Node Campaign'? If there's a map involved, I don't think I'll be interested.
Last edited by MobiusPrime; October 27th, 2005 at 19:56.
From what I've read in the BRB, they chose to have rather heavy limits on special/rare/characters as a suggestion. If you implement some kind of limit it could make the campaign more balanced.
i have recently started my own campaign and ive set it on tiles. basically taking a map of the terrain and laying a hex grid on top of it. each player can have an unlimited number of banners (1250 for first 10 turns, 2250 for second 10) and banners can theoretically move 6 or 7 tiles a turn! (with under 100 tiles, there will be A LOT of games). ive set it up where strategy on the map is about 25% of the game, and the other 75 is in battles. so far i have 4 people in on it, and by week 10 im expecting over 50 battles! now the rules are scratch built by me, and i have every power to change them and move them around, so if it becomes too unbearable ill put a restriction on the number of banners allowed.
i thought so.
if you want me to post the rules so you can maybe use them (i dont have a problem with people ripping my ideas... copying is the greatest form of compliment ) or edit them to fit in with your campaign.
"how many autocannon shots at my deamon prince?"
"11 guns... im consolidating my army because nothing else can hurt it."
'' that seems excessive"
"not when you think about the damage that damn monstrosity will enact upon my feeble weakling humans. FIRE THE REALLY BIG GUNS!"