I started to discuss with a friend of mine about how could these simple rules be implemented differently compared to what we are used to in earlier games (meaning lets build army of agreed sizes, meet up fight and leave home).
One thing that came to mind if mapped campaign ofc, where starting as skirmish and evolving to fullblown battle would be interesting. Then we started to think that what about make some really basic troops
5+ to hit 5+ to wound 6+armor and 1 wound, without any special rules as starting type. be it elf, dwarf, human, goblin in cinematic sense in game mechanic sense they all start the same.
Then you do exploration, research, building etc. say research heavy armors etc and stuff like that. evolve the game play as it goes and end up in grand fights
... something like this. what I would like from ulthua is brainstorm type suggestions what this could have, what kind of features etc. lots of ideas, lots of suggestion, wild things etc. No need to polish them, try to achieve any balance whatsoever.!
Simple or not so simple campaign
Simple or not so simple campaign
High Elves since Aug 2010: Tot /W / L / D - 100 / 75 / 23 / 2
Tomb Kings since Sep 2013:Tot / W / L / D - 31 / 18 / 12 / 1
Chronicles of Loriel's Glory and Shame
Tomb Kings since Sep 2013:Tot / W / L / D - 31 / 18 / 12 / 1
Chronicles of Loriel's Glory and Shame
-
Shannar, Sealord
- Very Helpful Elf
- Posts: 4031
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:10 am
- Location: Patroling the Sea Lanes
Re: Simple or not so simple campaign
Why is it that people seem to think this sort of thing is something that can be done only now because of AoS?
You could have done this any time in warhammer as well.
You could have done this any time in warhammer as well.
Re: Simple or not so simple campaign
I never meant to imply that this was only option because of AoS. ofc you could have done it before. We have done it actually played mapped campaign in our gaming club using 8th edition rules.Shannar, Sealord wrote:Why is it that people seem to think this sort of thing is something that can be done only now because of AoS?
You could have done this any time in warhammer as well.
Why with AoS at this given moment? Well naturally because people are active (some excited some really dissapointed) It is much more likely to gain input from community for this kind of project at this moment than it would have being during 8th edition (propably in any given moment). I don't prefer to invent wheel again thus having little help from others is welcome
Second thing is that in my opinion Warhammer 8th (or previous editions) didn't need much these kind of special scenario / campaign things to be interesting and appealing. Age of Sigmar certainly does. Rules are too simple for trying to make it wargame what Warhammer should be, simple enough to build anything else.
---------------------------
To the actual subject. We had another discussion with my friend and though about simple Heroes Might & Magic style approach where there is always a leader who has generic forces that can be upgraded, new forces recruited and campaign progress. Implementing simple experience system like hero gain exp for surviving, for wounding, for winning etc. and experience would be effective abilities / skills to be used in hero phase.
But then we actually though about some kind of co-operatiove game. Especially in my club I have tons of undead figures and it could be this semi rpg style game where one player is arbitratry and others control heroes and minions for those heroes. Game would progress etc.
Also a simple rules to implement "npc" armies. For example undead/beast etc could follow some simple directives. they move towards closest enemy, some stand still etc.
High Elves since Aug 2010: Tot /W / L / D - 100 / 75 / 23 / 2
Tomb Kings since Sep 2013:Tot / W / L / D - 31 / 18 / 12 / 1
Chronicles of Loriel's Glory and Shame
Tomb Kings since Sep 2013:Tot / W / L / D - 31 / 18 / 12 / 1
Chronicles of Loriel's Glory and Shame
Re: Simple or not so simple campaign
So you'd basically have it as a tribe of warriors, or some settlers, having to build themselves into a fledgling kingdom? It could work. Maybe a unit champion could earn the rank of 'Hero' and become your king, successful units could become elites and controlling territory (hexes on a map, maybe) would give you access to new recruits and needed resources. So maybe some areas would give you horses/wolves etc for cavalry, caves could allow you to attempt to trap and train monsters and that sort of thing.
You could have a wizard or two to start with, and maybe they'd have to miss whole campaign periods to 'train' new wizards, if you needed more.
It's certainly doable. It might also give you a mechanism to comp the game somewhat, by introducing a fatigue mechanic for Warscrolls. So you might have 40 Scrolls, but you'd only be able to deploy them once per however many turns or they'd suffer drastic penalties. That way people have incentive to use their units more carefully and not just try to flood the battlefield. *edit* you could also limit the number of scrolls per hex, to provide a similar mechanic for controlling unit spam - thus forcing players to divide up their forces in the late game and think strategically.
You could have a wizard or two to start with, and maybe they'd have to miss whole campaign periods to 'train' new wizards, if you needed more.
It's certainly doable. It might also give you a mechanism to comp the game somewhat, by introducing a fatigue mechanic for Warscrolls. So you might have 40 Scrolls, but you'd only be able to deploy them once per however many turns or they'd suffer drastic penalties. That way people have incentive to use their units more carefully and not just try to flood the battlefield. *edit* you could also limit the number of scrolls per hex, to provide a similar mechanic for controlling unit spam - thus forcing players to divide up their forces in the late game and think strategically.
Last edited by AD8899 on Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Simple or not so simple campaign
Oh, also, it might be worth having hostile tribes/monsters/mysterious dangers guarding some of the better resources. So if you want that 3 Warscroll's worth of iron for weapon or armour upgrades, you're going to have to fight your way through those berserkers....
The thing with grand campaigns is that it is inevitable that players will miss meet-ups sometimes, and as it's then not the done thing to invade their territory, it can leave a rival with nothing to do that week. If you have dangers that can be controlled by any other player, or the gamesmaster, then it's often a good way to ensure that nobody is left without an opponent of some kind at the weekly meet.
You could also have very strong opponents to subdue as a mechanic for recruiting new Warscrolls from outside your regular army list (defeat them and get a random chance of one of their scrolls joining your faction) - or that can be bribed to fight for you as mercs. So you may be a player that ends up in a part of the map with fewer combat resources than other players, but maybe you have access to gems or gold to hire yourself some muscle to make up the difference in the early game.
It could change the dynamics a bit if the fights get a bit 'samey', and also serve as a good way to include units you like.
Another idea (sorry, but I like stuff like this) would be to either have on the map, or make people able to build, shrines - giving them access to divine aid either from Sigmar, a Chaos god, or one of the other deities they may have knocking about in AoS. Maybe each shrine would allow you additional units of daemons, Sigmarines etc....or maybe they would give you cards to play that work like summons. So if you get into a bind in a game you can play your "Disciple of Sigmar" card and summon some Sigmarines to save you.
The thing with grand campaigns is that it is inevitable that players will miss meet-ups sometimes, and as it's then not the done thing to invade their territory, it can leave a rival with nothing to do that week. If you have dangers that can be controlled by any other player, or the gamesmaster, then it's often a good way to ensure that nobody is left without an opponent of some kind at the weekly meet.
You could also have very strong opponents to subdue as a mechanic for recruiting new Warscrolls from outside your regular army list (defeat them and get a random chance of one of their scrolls joining your faction) - or that can be bribed to fight for you as mercs. So you may be a player that ends up in a part of the map with fewer combat resources than other players, but maybe you have access to gems or gold to hire yourself some muscle to make up the difference in the early game.
It could change the dynamics a bit if the fights get a bit 'samey', and also serve as a good way to include units you like.
Another idea (sorry, but I like stuff like this) would be to either have on the map, or make people able to build, shrines - giving them access to divine aid either from Sigmar, a Chaos god, or one of the other deities they may have knocking about in AoS. Maybe each shrine would allow you additional units of daemons, Sigmarines etc....or maybe they would give you cards to play that work like summons. So if you get into a bind in a game you can play your "Disciple of Sigmar" card and summon some Sigmarines to save you.
-
Prince of Spires
- Auctor Aeternitatum
- Posts: 8273
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
- Location: The city of Spires
Re: Simple or not so simple campaign
One thing you could try is start with the basic warriors as you mention and allow each faction to purchase warscrolls after each game. I would divide them into the core/special/rare categories of an 8th ed armybook. And you're only allowed to either buy a core warscroll or upgrade a core one to special or a special one to rare.
You could then offer some benefits to the winning side, though you would have to pay attention that you don't unbalance things in such a way that once one side starts winning they keep on winning.
Rod
You could then offer some benefits to the winning side, though you would have to pay attention that you don't unbalance things in such a way that once one side starts winning they keep on winning.
Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!
Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91
Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
PS: Bring cookies!
Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91
Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
Re: Simple or not so simple campaign
I really don't mean to spam your thread, but some insights from previous campaigns....
There are three big issues that often crop up in campaigns (aside from boredom and people dropping out).
Rush: If you have a campaign based on a map, with a 'capital' or base or something like that, then there is always the temptation for some players (usually the better generals) to kill off the nearest enemy quickly. That means that Timmy the newbie might be next to Jack the mighty champion of death, and his campaign is going to be over very quickly. One way to counter this is to put players further apart, but this tends to make the early game boring. A better way is to grant 'militia' bonuses to an army fighting in its home hex (or square, or however your map works). So each player may start with 6 Warscrolls, but if they are fighting to defend their capital then they might get 6 more as 'militia'. That means that early rush isn't workable, but if the militia Warscrolls are kept fairly weak then it remains possible to take capitals later in the game. This also allows players to go exploring more, without worrying too much about defence in the early game.
Early Attrition: If one player starts to game in an area that happens to have more dangers than other players, they may get wiped out before they have a chance to develop properly. One counter to this is to allow the player to regenerate his starting Warscrolls. So if you lose one of your 6 original Warscrolls, then it will reappear at home base after a certain amount of time - meaning unlucky players don't get wiped out in the first week. You may want to allow players to swap out their protected units, maybe swap one unit per week or something, so that if they lovingly paint a new thing it doesn't die in the first battle and they can't use it again.
Opponent Boredom: Fighting the same guy over and over can get dull, and mapped campaigns tend to make you do that. It's worth looking at mechanics by which players can move more rapidly around the map in certain areas, so they encounter new opponents in a race for rewards. So maybe you're wedged in between Dwarfs to the north and Undead to the West, but you discover a tunnel under the mountain range that lets you go and explore some ancient ruins (for a reward) and puts you into contact with that Tomb Kings player. Or perhaps you can sail down the river faster than you can move on land, and that has you moving into the territory of your mate who plays Empire. Adding a way to change things up can really help with boredom and keep people engaged.
These are actually fairly simple mechanics to keep track of, and they can dramatically change the longevity of a campaign. There's actually a 4th big one, but I've forgotten....I should have written down my list.
There are three big issues that often crop up in campaigns (aside from boredom and people dropping out).
Rush: If you have a campaign based on a map, with a 'capital' or base or something like that, then there is always the temptation for some players (usually the better generals) to kill off the nearest enemy quickly. That means that Timmy the newbie might be next to Jack the mighty champion of death, and his campaign is going to be over very quickly. One way to counter this is to put players further apart, but this tends to make the early game boring. A better way is to grant 'militia' bonuses to an army fighting in its home hex (or square, or however your map works). So each player may start with 6 Warscrolls, but if they are fighting to defend their capital then they might get 6 more as 'militia'. That means that early rush isn't workable, but if the militia Warscrolls are kept fairly weak then it remains possible to take capitals later in the game. This also allows players to go exploring more, without worrying too much about defence in the early game.
Early Attrition: If one player starts to game in an area that happens to have more dangers than other players, they may get wiped out before they have a chance to develop properly. One counter to this is to allow the player to regenerate his starting Warscrolls. So if you lose one of your 6 original Warscrolls, then it will reappear at home base after a certain amount of time - meaning unlucky players don't get wiped out in the first week. You may want to allow players to swap out their protected units, maybe swap one unit per week or something, so that if they lovingly paint a new thing it doesn't die in the first battle and they can't use it again.
Opponent Boredom: Fighting the same guy over and over can get dull, and mapped campaigns tend to make you do that. It's worth looking at mechanics by which players can move more rapidly around the map in certain areas, so they encounter new opponents in a race for rewards. So maybe you're wedged in between Dwarfs to the north and Undead to the West, but you discover a tunnel under the mountain range that lets you go and explore some ancient ruins (for a reward) and puts you into contact with that Tomb Kings player. Or perhaps you can sail down the river faster than you can move on land, and that has you moving into the territory of your mate who plays Empire. Adding a way to change things up can really help with boredom and keep people engaged.
These are actually fairly simple mechanics to keep track of, and they can dramatically change the longevity of a campaign. There's actually a 4th big one, but I've forgotten....I should have written down my list.
Re: Simple or not so simple campaign
@AD8899 by all means please do! thanks for the input.
That was exactly what happened our first mapped campaign on 8th. Few got whacked up badly and effectively dropped out the game. Then it was multiple turns of cold war. Two big countries, both just waiting.
One of my friend suggested that we should take a week end retreat to just play this campaign. that way it might be rather good and aim for like 3-4 games.
That was exactly what happened our first mapped campaign on 8th. Few got whacked up badly and effectively dropped out the game. Then it was multiple turns of cold war. Two big countries, both just waiting.
One of my friend suggested that we should take a week end retreat to just play this campaign. that way it might be rather good and aim for like 3-4 games.
High Elves since Aug 2010: Tot /W / L / D - 100 / 75 / 23 / 2
Tomb Kings since Sep 2013:Tot / W / L / D - 31 / 18 / 12 / 1
Chronicles of Loriel's Glory and Shame
Tomb Kings since Sep 2013:Tot / W / L / D - 31 / 18 / 12 / 1
Chronicles of Loriel's Glory and Shame
Re: Simple or not so simple campaign
3-4 games might not give you time to play a campaign where you develop from basic troops as you fancied doing. You might be advised to save a more in-depth campaign for when you've got more time, and maybe more players.