Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 21:21:28 GMT -6
We've been tossing around the idea of doing a campaign, so here is a thread for it. I'll pose an initial question because I think it is relevant, what faction(s) do/would you play in a campaign? Pick any number, with the idea of factions floating around its probably a good idea to take inventory of what those factions might look like.
|
|
mike
Butts
Posts: 628
|
Post by mike on Apr 24, 2015 1:02:06 GMT -6
DE Marines
I can throw together some allied CWE if need be.
|
|
|
Post by OneEyeRob on Apr 24, 2015 6:14:40 GMT -6
No option for GK? I'd be playing marines.
|
|
|
Post by OneEyeRob on Apr 24, 2015 6:14:53 GMT -6
No option for GK? I'd be playing marines.
|
|
|
Post by Russell on Apr 24, 2015 9:49:03 GMT -6
I'll admit, I felt a little dirty picking Tau. But I love it.
|
|
|
Post by Dougtrio on Apr 24, 2015 11:56:42 GMT -6
Ooh a campaign, count me in!
|
|
dex
neophyte
STATUS
Posts: 739
|
Post by dex on Apr 24, 2015 13:35:56 GMT -6
I was thinking about a campgaign structure with a little more book keeping where what happens in the battles matters going forwrd.
|
|
|
Post by Russell on Apr 24, 2015 15:22:29 GMT -6
You left out Crimson Slaughter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2015 15:28:21 GMT -6
I was thinking about a campgaign structure with a little more book keeping where what happens in the battles matters going forwrd. Pitfalls to consider: - How reliable are your participants? - Will your organizational structure hold up if someone misses a week? What if multiple people miss weeks or a single person missed multiple weeks? - Does the additional work equate to additional fun? Or will it just be a headache for you or for potentially everyone if the first two pitfalls take place? - Will the rewards or penalties stack to a point where it will become unfun for the opposing side? - Would your campaign vision be better served by a league structure? I've run and participated in a lot of leagues and campaigns and the ones that seemed the most fun on paper were also the ones that remained tragically unfinished, sometimes before they even started. And some of them seemed epically awesome. One of them even had photoshopped art like Lord Governor Bellavos of Alpheca III here: Awesome right? We even had a fully painted Galactic Empires board to go with it. We made it 3 weeks in before it fizzled. The first person to have time issues? The guy running the campaign. Haha. The simpler and shorter you make it, the greater your likelihood of running it to completion. You don't need book keeping to determine "The Eldar do not have access to Wraight Knights unless they rescue the Bone Singers in mission 1." You can always extend it or make it more complex as you go. I've tried to steer you guys too hard already. The reason why tournaments reign supreme over campaigns in the tabletop gaming landscape is because they are completed in a day and people move on with their lives. Try to keep that in mind when you craft one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2015 15:43:37 GMT -6
You left out Crimson Slaughter CS is just a supplemental version of CSM. I think Nick brings up a big point though, Orozon had an unequal dedication to its success. Some people were really into making a story, and others were less dedicated. With that in mind if we want to open the campaign up to everyone in CST, we need to take into account how much everyone is willing to invest into the narrative. MWG's new campaign has an interesting answer to that very problem with faction Warlords. The warlords are the most dedicated players, they control the directional narrative of a large faction (chaos for example). People who want to contribute, but can't make games consistently or don't want to submit narrative battle reports just jump in and help out a faction. That could be something like Two guys who can make a weekly or bi-weekly game serve as the Space Marine warlords. They decide what the marines are working towards, but say a guy who can only make a game once a month wants to bring his dark angels into the narrative and help out the Marine faction with a one-off narrative game against Chaos. Likewise, a non-warlord player could help out any other faction, say Orks appearing and aiding the Eldar one time in exchange for something they want. I really want to play a narrative campaign, and I would love that campaign to have a REAL narrative. I also don't want to prevent anyone in CST from joining though, maybe something like MWGs model would work?
|
|
|
Post by clint on Apr 24, 2015 16:15:21 GMT -6
I'm on with a combination of simple and faction warlords. Someone says "Clint, your craftworld has to destroy objective X in this game." and then that reaps some rewards for the next Eldar games. I want to be inclusive, and have it be exciting, but, again, we can't expect that it will go on for weeks and weeks. We're too spread out and there aren't enough tables for all of us to play every week. Plus lives, summer (sports leagues as having already been mentioned), and all the other things that will get in the way.
Or, we just trim it down to a few specific players and have a "trial run" and then after a bit of experience, open it up to more players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 12:35:21 GMT -6
*WARNING: Wall of Text Incoming*
Jeff's system of an open maps without tiles and looser rules of engagement were really fun. Some of the most enjoyable games of 40k I played were created with those rules in mind. Sometimes the games we played were also less thought out and needed direction. I'm just going to outline my thoughts on the things that would make returning to Orozon a better experience:
Faction & Warlords: Like I've talked about above I think it gives some players the flexibility they need, while giving players that want to invest in the narrative the ability to do so.
Planet Effects: We have a description of every planet in Orozon, and last time we didn't have any set rules for what fighting on a given planet would look like. I think just coming up with static rules that effect battles on certain planets would alleviate some of the creative burden in making a cool narrative, while also making those random pick-up games for the narrative feel unique and fun compared to just a regular 40k game.
Experience/Characters: Rules for making unique/special characters or units are something we had in Orozon last time, and I really enjoyed them. I hope we can still integrate that into this campaign but I think it might need to be steeped less in the narrative and community review, and more in a set of codified rules. The rule of three we used last campaign required alot of participation from everyone on the forums, and its flopped a few times as a result. Maybe using something like a "Achieve X objectives get a special rule from a list for a specific unit" type thing would be better. The kill teams specialist lists are a great for that exact use I believe. Special units/characters would be at risk of dying though, so making a super mega game stomping character wight back fire if he gets insta-gibbed (we could do something like roll a d6 when a special character/unit dies, on 1 they are permanently dead, and if they are instant-deathed then its on a 1 or 2).
Set Goals: I think the biggest thing required for success are set primary goals for the factions to work towards, and something that is the deciding factor of who "wins" in order to keep players invested and on task.
TLDR; Just a bunch of suggestions to make the campaign work.
|
|
|
Post by Nick P on Apr 25, 2015 14:10:49 GMT -6
I'll rock the Kabal, Craftworld, and Hive.
|
|
|
Post by jefferestinpeace on Apr 25, 2015 16:40:34 GMT -6
Great ideas all around! More structure is definitely needed, as I think more people will be interested in maintaining their books if we do end up with a "winner" based on Faction. I was even thinking that we could all throw a few bucks at this thing and give out various prizes at the end, like "Hardest Narrative Forged" and "Vegan Cheese" and what have you. However, I know that many of your various deities might frown upon gambling, in which case, don't worry about it.
There should be a larger Faction goal probably dictated by the mod(s), then player could team up within or without those Factions and narrative up some Sect goals (Eldar and Marines might have a collected interest in killing some Orks), and then Individual goals, probably more narrative-based and something to just build your missions off of. I dunno, probably (once again) too complicated.
Planet effects are groovy, but I still have that whole "but what if they don't wanna use them!" bug up my butt about it. I don't even know why; I can't imagine anyone really giving a shit. I'd be down with that.
I think an RPG element is probably necessary this time around too, as well as some sort of tangible method to develop your army. Narrative is cool and all, but rules are much easier to regulate. I'll take a closer look at the Victory is Vengeance stuff out of Horus Heresy Book 3 and see what might be cool to use. At first glance, those rules seem overly complicated, but they could be dumbed down without too much trouble. Combining that with both Kill Team and Planetary Empires might work. I'll see if I can't drum something up.
As far as listbuilding and army development, should we all start out with Highlander rules, unlocking more options as the games progress? Or is that too restrictive on fluff?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 10:41:29 GMT -6
I redid the poll to take inventory of what the factions might look like. if you wouldn't mind voting again this is just to see which factions will have the largest number of supporters. Pick the faction you are likely to play most frequently for (I.E. the one who's narrative you'd be the most invested In), even if you plan to play multiple armies.
|
|