Turn 4

In an attempt to get the ball rolling on turn 4 before the next apocalypse the reinforcements etc will be changing.

Firstly I don't think they are really working that well (time it takes us to work out vs what we get out of it) plus it looks like this campaign is going to be a lot more drawn out than I ever expected and this game system will break if it contiues too many more turns.

I won't bore you with pulls on my spare time moans - but somethings gotta give and this is at the bottom of the priority list.

so I give you all choices which are in the poll above, if I've worked out how to do it, otherwise there's an edit below

I've been mulling over a fix for the reinforceents but I don't have a solid one, that would actually make them worthwhile without an exceptional amount of work and re-writing - add the loss of a player and the map redesign I'm going to have to (even if storm steps up the rogue worlds will have to go, although that on it's own isn't too bad) and I'm more tempted to go for option 1 but it's all your campaign as well! When I had to redesign after the loss of a Dark Eldar player in the first campaign (what is it about them?), Taff ended up getting gimped by it - I kinda don't want that to happen again and would rather call it to avoid that happening a second time!

Either way it's up to you - you have all the facts - poll is open for 7 days in the event of a draw in the results i'll take the deciding vote.

I'll leave the poll open for 7 days.

This is actually quite a hard decision. Now obviously I was losing and my armies dying left right and centre so this benefits me, tee hee (maybe Eldrad sent a body double to check on the Ork outside who shot him through the head? - thats my story and Im sticking too it!).

The thought of a set army list quite appeals to me as it will help me focus on knowing what to paint, which is always a good thing for me!

Also would avoid any list tailoring (which there hasn't been any of tbf). But list taikloring is kind of fun

next random draw or known enemey. hmmmmm...

given what you said are you going to be OK to continue running this given what else seems to be happening?

Yeah I'll be fine to do it - just needs to be watered down somewhat. This is essentially what happens when you don't playtest things... *cough* GW *cough*

At least 1 vote means there isn't a split decision!

Consider the campaign scrapped and I'll draw names out of a hat for a tournament.

Everyone send me a 1750 list via e-mail and I'll pop a video of me drawing names when I have them all in, and go through the tournament set-up.

You will have it by the end of tomorrow. Half tempted to do a death wind army to take the proverbial,lol.

I'm quite sad, especially as this email/post is the first I saw of this; ill try and get mine to ya by tomorrow too

Me too...this is sad...i cant believe i missed this thread either! I gyess i wasnt keeping an eye on the bat rep forum...curse the forums emails nit notifying you of new topics as well!

Ill send you my list tonight...im sorry though because i was enjoying the campaign!!!

Guess I could have sent an e-mail round but don't your side bar hash mark things light up when there is a new post? Although this is technically all my fault as I posted this completely on the wrong board....

Unfortunately this campaign really is a victim of a lack of playtesting - I had intended to do a weekend runthrough with Alec man. Unfortunately the resource balance is off (highs are too high and lows are too low), add that to the map redesign and it feels like a stopping point to me. I want to open up allies now we've all got to grips with everything in 6th (not that it makes a blind difference to my nids.... WE WANT GENESTEALER CULTS!!!) .

I wanna do a job on the next one - I think this one helped to learn 6th with the constant army changes and what have you. I'd like to keep the ability to change armies to a degree as playing one force through months of a campaign can be tedious, I struggle to play the same list 2 weeks in a row! I was leaning in the direction of an escalation league type affair, although that's going to be very similar to "Taff's Painting Challenge"

Interested to hear peoples thought though...

Hobo - can you move this thread somewhere else, due to my inability to post in an appropriate place :-D

aye they do, but i obviously missed it somehow! not your fault at all, i should have paid more attention! Post is moved anyway just for general housekeeping purposes

how does an escalation league work?

For the record, i love this campaign - ive enjoyed it thoroughly...in 3 turns ive played it feels like a dozen battles

My thoughts on the next one are pretty much the same as always - what i would like/wish for is continuity and progression/regression for the units that live or die - i want a reason to feel particualrly proud or attached to a unit that does well and doggedly keeps surviving, whilst new units i buy to replace dead ones need to earn their place!

for example, my unit of the campaign without doubt has been my battlewagon boyz - theyve pretty much pasted everyone theyve met, multiple units a battle, and usually have remained standing at the end
It would be nice if they progressively got better everytime they survived a game. (a similar system to rts's like command and conquer, battle for middle earth etc where your troops gain levels and become a wee bit harder as they earn kills).

an easy way to employ this is to just allow people to top up their army lists back up to scratch as they would like to, but instead of resource points feeding this, reinforcements are free and instead you earn exp points to buff your troops or buy wargear

eg you win 15 experience points per VP you earned, and different buffs or wargear upgrades cost different exp points to buy eg:

Wargear:
- hunter killer missile = 20 exp
- flakk, frag and krak missile launcher = 10 exp
- vehicle self repair (5+) = 10 exp
- full set of grenade types = 15 exp
- 4+ armour save = 25 exp
- 3+ armour save = 50 exp
- 2+ armour save = 100 exp
- 5+ invulnerable = 60 exp
- reroll LD test banner = 45 exp

Buffs:
- +1 Ld = 20 exp
- +1 WS/BS = 30 exp
- +1 T = 50 exp
- fearless = 30 exp
- fnp = 60 exp
- outflank = 40 exp
- tankhunter = 40 exp

just for example. replacemtn troops, whilst free to recruit, obviously come without upgrades and dead troops lose their upgrades.
Of course the risk is the unit you upgrade dying, or units becoming too OP, but then, everyone has the same risks and benefits.

ANYWAY, enough fandexing...this method allows you to build different lists for variety when replacing units, , but also gives continuity, progression and rpg elements to it still.

One thing i wouldnt like is the ability to use a brand new list each time - thats definitely one thing this campaign had a big boost from the previous one on.

List tailoring really can spoil the fun i think, and its nice that you pick all comers lists and amend your starting list rather than redesign an uber list each time.
EG; i enjoy playing GK, but enjoyment facing 2 HQs with triple large pie plate ignore cover barrages every turn and an army of purifiers would clearly be limited as it would be over before turn 3!

I also think that people find the bat reps difficult as we've discussed before, so leave that voluntary, having only a post to state the result mandatory. should take the chore out of it (not that i mind personally...speaking of which, ive forgotten i was due to write the GK one again! doh!)

anyway, enough ramblings - as always, ill be totally into whatever you put together.

I agree with Hobo for the most part (what on earth is wrong with "pie plate" barrages?!!! ) but its all about balance at the end of the day - most of the wargear list above is standard stuff for my terminators so of no use in the highly unlikely event they survive but having said that maybe an upgrade of some description for 1 unit for the victor and for the defeated, maybe a 1 unit change from the standard list for the next battle if you wish?! There are many possibilities but you don't want to make it too overpowered - how about a rerollable warlord trait for example.......

I for one am against the experience system that Hobo described. It screams out to me that the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. Using the burna boyz as an example - they ripped through everyone. Now add an invun save to them (or there battle wagon) and it is even harder to kill. I was quite the fan of the one off bonus of picking up a trait from the opposing army. That gives the unit a boost but it is only temporary.

I am a fan of role playing games though. But in the computer games the enemies got progressively harder to ensure a balance. I would struggle to see how that would apply here. Perhaps the HQ or a character. But the whole army seems to lack balance.

Personally I would like to see this go another way. I am much more intrigued by still using the map system, but using the battle grounds as the bonus's. Risk is a great example of this.

- A map split into 6 sections (assuming 6 players).
- Each player gains a foot hold in one section but does not own it at the start.
- The remaining territories are split randomly to give potential to combine territories.
- Some of the territories give bonuses due to additional rules - factories, communications, star port etc...
- certain collection of territories give bonus's.
- Perhaps a bonus each turn based upon win or loss? They can be spent or saved up for something bigger?

The bonus's themselves could be similar to Hobo's idea such as defensive grenades, sky fire, guaranteed deployment/deep strike, rerollable dice, invu saves, additonal hull points or amour etc...

Escalations are definetely possible - especially if people are pushed for a more or less painted army. Or at least one that isn't grey/white/black. The escalation league might help to let people have time to do some painting? It may also be better for fluff as new units are introduced they can all be named etc...

I also really like the idea of having a pretty standard list. Maybe each battle the units are set but there weapons are not? So swapping a heavy bolter for a missile launcher? To maintain balance make it so the totals of the unit are not exceeded? So say swap a power fist for a las cannon. This will mean the army and the basic rules are the same even if the weapons are different i.e. - you can't make a tactical squad into a dreadnaught!

I can't think of a suitable fluff off the top of my head other than a signal or something similar was sent out and was picked up by all the forces. But they can only do what they have to do when they control the entire planet.

A 30 second version off the top of my head (deliberately using the armies of the 5 gamers rather than primary armies):

Necrons had woken and were attacking an imperial system. The Imperial Gyard met this force and radioed for help. The nearest forces - space wolves and Death Wing - came to their aid. As much to out do the other one as to secure the sector. The Necrons were not attacking randomly though and soon a secured zone was established, allowing the Necrons to awaken more of their kin and restart there investigation into an ancient gate way made during their war. A light flashed and the Dark Eldar cam through this newly awoke web way gate. So the forces of the galaxy fight for control of an ancient portal - the Imperium for pride, defence and potential understanding which might help the Emperor on his golden throne. The necrons fight to gain and understand the technology needed to regain their previous empire. While the Dark Eldar fight because they can, and there are plenty of slave ships to be filled!

Everything that everyone has said screams out - THIS WILL TAKE A LOT OF TIME - to write, to plan, to play test etc...Considering the last one was partly stopped due to time contraints this does leave me a tad worried!

All do-able but I'd have to construct it so that it resolves itse;f each time - the biggest drawback of the re-inforceent process is the "wait for people to play" "wait for batreps" "wait for reinforcements" until you can start the cycle again, which inevitable ends in e nagging people as it all holds things up so i'm going to try and make it more - free flowing no matter what. I was a fan of the man of match bonuses though...

I'd like to go more into the territory map type design (ala risk) it's a design issue though - just takes longer than the clip and snip planet system.

The exp bonuses just seem to lead to imbalances and whilst the risk is equal to everyone at the start - once you get that unit the bonus that allows it to single handedly wipe the floor with everyone else, it's gonna be really tedious after that. A mob of ork boyz with a 2+ save F'n'p and +1 Toughness or something like that - we'll find a way to break it. I' leaning more towards the territory rules/ bonuses like the first campaign - I have some playtest data for that an It'll be easy to implement those rules in my Sunday games to test the ones out we have't used.

I won't be looking at this properly for 2 weeks (coursework to do this comig week and a tourney to paint models up for the week after) so keep firing any thought (no matter how random and out there) you have on here and I'll sift through it later on and find whatever golden nuggets pop up

If I come up with anything more I shall let you know.

One thought though - does your work have scanners? If they do the map becomes easier as you do it once, print and photocopy it, and get Nat/Alec to colour it in. Or perhaps you could do it on paint? No one said these grids couldn't be squares/rectangles. Could be a very quick method of showing who is where. Especially if you don't have to generate nor remember names and just use numbers.

Just a thought.

yeah I considered the paint option - but I know I'll end up editing it over and over to try an make the lines nicer shapes and looking less like something a four year old did - which my first attempt would no doubt look like!

I'll probably end up scouring the web, stealing it from somewhere else and manipulating it for y own ends WAHAHAHAHAHA!

If you want help you know you can ask