Discussions that lead to this...

> I was kinda getting that from him. When he said something about changing it wouldn't really be 40k anymore, I was thinking "exactly"
>
> The game is just a tool.
>
> That said, I think I'd like playing regular 40k with him.
>
> I guess we first need to just figure out who wants to be "the guy."
>
> You interested, Jack?
>
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jack Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Ok, Hector sent me an e-mail saying he wasn't interested.  He was really the only one who wasn't interested in the RPG / Rogue Trader idea.
>>
>> Alright, so how do we set this up?
>>
>> We have a bunch of dudes with a bunch of ideas.  Now we need to decide on something.
>>
>> From: Warren D <acordia@gmail.com>
>> To: Jack Mitchell <jmitchell1979@yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Hector Miranda <gaptoothedidgit@yahoo.com>; Patric Thomas <patricthomas@gmail.com>; Billy Bartels <billybox@earthlink.net>; "dochejed@yahoo.com" <dochejed@yahoo.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Informal 40k campaign?
>>
>> Over all, I'm much more interested in playing in a system more like the one Billy is talking about where it becomes more like rogue trader (more RPG like) than modern 40k.  The general problem with 40k campaigns in the modern sense of the term is that there are rewards for wining fights and those rewards make it easier to win future fights.  This tends to lead to a "the rich get richer" setup and it quickly becomes no fun for the little guys to play anymore.  Now this isn't always the case, but its a frequent problem. 
>>
>> Regardless, I would rather see a system set up where 40k becomes a Co-Op game rather than a verses one since it would be something different.
>>
>> Warren
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Jack Mitchell <jmitchell1979@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Oh, ok.  I think there is a misunderstanding.
>>
>> I didn't mean a GM for each individual game.  I meant a GM to sort of hold the overall campaign together.
>>
>> Basically what I am envisioning is a formalized campaign system using Planetary Empires as a base, with some cool tweaks.  But, if anyone starts getting his ass kicked to the point that it's no longer fun for him to participate anymore, then the "GM" can step in and make it fun for him again.  Know what I mean?  Of course each player should have to deal with the consequences of his wins / losses, but the GM will think of ways to keep it fun for players who fall behind.
>>
>> That's all.  So, it will basically be a kind of formal league / Planetary Empires campaign, with someone there to moderate and keep things fun for everyone.
>>
>> Does that sound like something everyone can get on the same page about?  If so, I can start hashing the system out a little more.
>>
>> From: Hector Miranda <gaptoothedidgit@yahoo.com>
>> To: Patric Thomas <patricthomas@gmail.com>; Billy Bartels <billybox@earthlink.net>
>> Cc: Jack Mitchell <jmitchell1979@yahoo.com>; Kevin Kanner <kcdrums79@gmail.com>; Warren DeCuir <acordia@gmail.com>; Noah Potter <noah.potter.composer@gmail.com>; "dochejed@yahoo.com" <dochejed@yahoo.com>; Andy Rai <mosiroars@yahoo.com>; "mattjohnson@renderfuel.com" <mattjohnson@renderfuel.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:45 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: Informal 40k campaign?
>>
>> What if all we're interested in is a game of 40K?
>>
>> I think there can be something to a game, say for instance we have a Kill Team tournament. And, say I beat You, Jack and Jed, but lose to Kevin, Noah and Andy. For our campaign games, I get to go first against my wins, but go second against my losses.
>>
>> Going first can be a huge difference. I would be up for that. But, we start talking about GM and it doesn't sound like 40K anymore.
>>
>> --- On Wed, 9/21/11, Billy Bartels <billybox@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> From: Billy Bartels <billybox@earthlink.net>
>> Subject: Re: Informal 40k campaign?
>> To: "Patric Thomas" <patricthomas@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Jack Mitchell" <jmitchell1979@yahoo.com>, "Hector Miranda" <gaptoothedidgit@yahoo.com>, "Kevin Kanner" <kcdrums79@gmail.com>, "Warren DeCuir" <acordia@gmail.com>, "Noah Potter" <noah.potter.composer@gmail.com>, "dochejed@yahoo.com" <dochejed@yahoo.com>, "Andy Rai" <mosiroars@yahoo.com>, "mattjohnson@renderfuel.com" <mattjohnson@renderfuel.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 12:25 PM
>>
>> I think the idea is that which game we are playing is just the tool to achieve the narrative-based campaign in a 40k setting.
>>
>> One thing i like about a GM-based game is that if there are any rules questions, you can ask before you commit to a given move or strategy. Right or wrong in your assumption, you'll not get "gotcha'd" by the GM, as long as you ask ahead of time. If the GM isn't a tool (and Jack isn't), he'll let you know the likely outcome of various actions. It's a whole other game really.
>>
>> I think one cool thing is that to some extent, what game you're playing can be tailored (by agreement) to you, the player. If you're more interested in large unit actions, that's what you can play. If more small micro stuff, you can do that too. Or both. Or depending on how our narrative goes you could (theoretically) play both your Nids and Eldar/Dark Eldar at different times, to different ends. And I could play my Harlequin force alongside either Eldar or DE.
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Patric Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> Just to clarify is this going to be more like plantetscape, or more like deathwatch with some 40k games for the battles?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Billy Bartels <billybox@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Just for the record, I included Warren because I thought he might be interested, not because he was.
>>>
>>> I'd like a GM. I'd trust you to not just smash face and keep it even/real. I'd do it, but I'm not that good at 5th yet.  I have lots of ideas for campaigney stuff, but not sure I could pull off the rules side yet, as I'm a n00b at 5th.
>>>
>>> On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Jack Mitchell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, so it basically sounds like we've got the following on board for an informal 1 game every 2 weeks campaign
>>>>
>>>> Jack
>>>> Billy
>>>> Hector
>>>> Warren
>>>> Patric
>>>>
>>>> If there is anyone else, please speak up now.  I will remove everyone besides the aforementioned from all future e-mails unless I hear otherwise so as not to clutter your inboxes.
>>>>
>>>> I think that's enough to get started.  Umm let me start thinking about how to structure this.  I'm thinking maybe something based off of Planetary Empires, with more details thrown in, and other stuff that we can add for flavor like Kill Team games, casualty / experience carryover, etc.  I guess I'd like everyone to think of it as almost a GM run campaign... maybe we should have a GM?  It sounds like a good idea, but I personally want to game.  Or, if you guys trust me to be an impartial GM and gaming participant, I would be happy to play that role as well.  Obviously, I wouldn't do anything for my own benefit.  I'm more interested in telling a cool story than beating people up! :)
>>>>
>>>> From: Billy Bartels <billybox@earthlink.net>
>>>> To: Hector Miranda <gaptoothedidgit@yahoo.com>
>>>> Cc: Jack Mitchell <jmitchell1979@yahoo.com>; Kevin Kanner <kcdrums79@gmail.com>; Patric Thomas <patricthomas@gmail.com>; Warren DeCuir <acordia@gmail.com>; Noah Potter <noah.potter.composer@gmail.com>; "dochejed@yahoo.com" <dochejed@yahoo.com>; Andy Rai <mosiroars@yahoo.com>; "mattjohnson@renderfuel.com" <mattjohnson@renderfuel.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:43 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Informal 40k campaign?
>>>>
>>>> System aside, I just think that having a fluffy reason for fielding the army you've got would be good and add to the story. Which is really all I'm saying. If we're setting aside the competitive, there will never be someone hopelessly behind, as we can just make an adjustment and work it out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 20, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Hector Miranda wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This sounds much more complicated than I'm willing to get. It reminds me of the 'Territories' they used in the ABC league. Sounds good in theory, but it didn't always work, then you had people dropping out because once you're behind you stay behind.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the idea of facing and beating opponents to gain territories as in Mighty Empires. I like the idea of tieing games of Kill Team or Necromunda to games of 40K in a story sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Tue, 9/20/11, Billy Bartels <billybox@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Billy Bartels <billybox@earthlink.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Informal 40k campaign?
>>>>> To: "Jack Mitchell" <jmitchell1979@yahoo.com>
>>>>> Cc: "Hector Miranda" <gaptoothedidgit@yahoo.com>, "Kevin Kanner" <kcdrums79@gmail.com>, "Patric Thomas" <patricthomas@gmail.com>, "Warren DeCuir" <acordia@gmail.com>, "Noah Potter" <noah.potter.composer@gmail.com>, "dochejed@yahoo.com" <dochejed@yahoo.com>, "Andy Rai" <mosiroars@yahoo.com>, "mattjohnson@renderfuel.com" <mattjohnson@renderfuel.com>
>>>>> Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2011, 5:41 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay here goes:
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I think I thought of one way to deal with reinforcements (or force changes between games), one that rewards a victor, but doesn't penalize a loser.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd mentioned before that you could make a player draw their reinforcements from Troops, while promoting Elites (and FA and Heavies) from Troops. This doesn't work for all armies, but it could be a guideline. While as a reward, a victor could add a "toy." Either a named character, an HQ, a squad of Elites (or just better than troops), something special and fun.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think one cool thing about this is that as time goes on, your army list just gets wackier, as you have to play with what you have, not what you'd optimally have for a given mission. Also, I think armies could have not asymmetrical troop sizes, but also asymmetrical objectives. Sure, kill the enemy, but sometimes we could have more creative ideas of what "success" or "failure" look like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyhow, back to work.
>>>>> b
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 20, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Jack Mitchell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly the problem with forums is that no one uses them.  Let's just stick with e-mail.  If this ends up taking off, I will create another mailing list for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Billy Bartels <billybox@earthlink.net>
>>>>>> To: Jack Mitchell <jmitchell1979@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Hector Miranda <gaptoothedidgit@yahoo.com>; Kevin Kanner <kcdrums79@gmail.com>; Patric Thomas <patricthomas@gmail.com>; Warren DeCuir <acordia@gmail.com>; Noah Potter <noah.potter.composer@gmail.com>; "dochejed@yahoo.com" <dochejed@yahoo.com>; Andy Rai <mosiroars@yahoo.com>; "mattjohnson@renderfuel.com" <mattjohnson@renderfuel.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:31 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Informal 40k campaign?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, if we want to take this to a forum (and not clog email boxes), some friends of mine have a board we use for our D&D stuff. Actually, that was the intent, but we stopped using it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyhow, I started topic in the "Current Runnings" category called "40k Campaign"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.crymic.com/rpg/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cool?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Billy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 20, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Jack Mitchell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, cool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, as Billy said, everything is open to discussion.  Nothing hard and fast.  If it's awesome and both players agree, just do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was just throwing some very rough ideas out there.  Anyone is welcome to contribute what they think might work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also agree with all painted, for the most part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, if anyone here is totally not interested and doesn't want this discussion cluttering up your inbox, just say so and we will remove you from the cc list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Billy Bartels <billybox@earthlink.net>
>>>>>>> To: Jack Mitchell <jmitchell1979@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Hector Miranda <gaptoothedidgit@yahoo.com>; Kevin Kanner <kcdrums79@gmail.com>; Patric Thomas <patricthomas@gmail.com>; Warren DeCuir <acordia@gmail.com>; Noah Potter <noah.potter.composer@gmail.com>; dochejed@yahoo.com; Andy Rai <mosiroars@yahoo.com>; Matt J <renderfuel@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:15 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Informal 40k campaign?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I CC'd two people I think might be interested as well. Including one, Patric, who had this to say:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah i would have interest but the Tyranid being removed seems odd, there is always another part of the fleet coming it is never like they are the only ones on the battlefield.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I could go into a big, long email about different ways to handle that, but I'd rather just say that in our conception of this league, everything is up for a reasonable discussion (as opposed to Rulebook Nazism).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And painted. Bring painted stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Billy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Jack Mitchell wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello.  This is an e-mail to "the confirmed".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Billy and I have been bouncing ideas back and forth for a fun, very informal campaign system for 40k.  I was thinking it might be a lot of fun to start a very loose, informal league or campaign, sort of along the lines of  planetary empires.  We could come up with games and scenarios by mutual consent, even if they're imbalanced or whatever.  Some games could be Kill Team, some games could be Planetstrike, etc., everything moving towards some final campaign goal.  Almost kind of like a hybrid of Necromunda / 40k / RPG.  The idea is to bring the "cool" back to the game.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would there be any interest in this kind of thing?  I personally would be able to commit to one game every two weeks, but I think we could be flexible with scheduling if we were to move forward with it.  Any thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Attaching a copy of an e-mail with Billy about the idea of casualties / reinforcements carrying over game to game so you can get an idea of where our heads are at.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines, but, instead of drawing reinforcements from elites, I was thinking that maybe any squad or vehicle that survives or recovers to half strength or better becomes "hardened".  Each time the squad becomes hardened, they get a single re-roll in any phase of the game - ie, the entire squad could re-roll failed to-wound, failed to-hit or failed armor saves.  Hence, a squad that survived three consecutive games (unlikely!) would have three re-rolls per game to reflect their status as elite veterans.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe once they get two re-rolls, they can trade it in for some special skill like furious charge, stubborn, or tank hunters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your idea is good, but, it would not impose a penalty on armies that chose not to take any elite choices.  It also doesn't factor in fast attack, heavy, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still hammering it out, but I am thinking maybe we just make a straight roll to survive being downed after the game and then a certain amount of points allocated towards either replenishing decimated squads, buying new squads, or buying new equipment.  For example:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Space Marines start with 1000 points, survive on a 3+, get 250 pts of reinforcements between games
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Imperial Guard start with 1250, survive on a 5+, get 500 pts of reinforcements between games
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eldar start with 1500, survive on a 5+, get 250 pts of reinforcements
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tyranids start with 1000, survive on a 6+, get 1000 pts of reinforcements - if they ever get tabled in any single fight, they are simply eradicated from the campaign
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Orks start with 1250, survive on a 4+, get 500 pts of reinforcements... trying to think of a downside for them, if any.  Something having to do with their bickering and infighting.  Maybe your reinforcements come in according to some really unfavorable reserve schedule in-game to represent the disorganization inherent with a force of drunk belligerents.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And so on and so forth.  Just a little something to differentiate the armies from each other and make them "feel" different from each other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For vehicles, I am thinking immobilized is auto-repaired as it shouldn't be too tough to replace track on tanks or get the anti-grav drive working again.  Perhaps 25% of the vehicle's cost to fix all destroyed weaponry.  Destroyed vehicles can have 50% of their points value salvaged (to be used towards vehicle reinforcements only) on a a die-roll corresponding to each race's infantry recovery roll.  Exploded vehicles are just gone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ha, I said I didn't have time to write out a full rules system, but it's starting to look like we might hammer one out in our correspondence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I liked your post about handicapping, by the way.  It's a good idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 

Our Story Thus Far...

Despite everybody saying forums are bad, I'm going to use this one anyhow for my 40k campaign. I like the expediency of email, but I also value the (semi-)permanence of a board like this to refer to old stuff that happened, and not have to sort through 50,000 emails to do it. So, the way this will work is that any time I post anything important, I'll just email a link to here.

Anyhow, just played my first game of my work-in-progress RPG-style 40k campaign with my son Trey. It was cool, he got into the whole mindset of "be your character," making good decisions about how/when to expend troops and when to fall back and fight another day. So, if you'd like to participate, let me know. 

Here's what you'll need. Basically. the game is going to start with a Kill Team. The full rules are in the Battle Missions book, but to sum up it's this: 200 points and three models get USRs (from the Basic Rulebook). To add to the flavor, make sure to pick either a squad member or sargeant-type to be your main character, and name him. In fact, name them all to keep track of them, and add to the drama when one bites the dust ("Oh crap, they killed Russell!"). Over the course of the campaign your main character and his inner circle of survivors from his original squad will gain equipment, rank, prestige, etc due to his success (or experience) on the battlefield. 

I'm using an old wound chart from 1st edition to determine what happens to casualties after each fight, so frequently you'll get your wounded back. Sometimes they'll be diminished in some way, so you'll have the opportunity to replace them with fresh meat, or take the penalty and let them come back as at some point, just like your main character, they'll get promoted to squad leader or whatever is appropriate to your Codex.

Top

Re: 40k Campaign

by jayluna » Tue May 01, 2012 5:11 pm

What's happened so far. Trey picked a Fire Warrior Shas Ui (Lightsword) for his guy. He was leading a patrol of Fire Warriors in a Devilfish. The USRs he picked were Feel No Pain (on Lightsword), Nighthawk had Night Vision, and Rageforce had Fearless.

His squad was on a routine patrol on a beach on a newly-conquered planet of the Tau Empire. Their transport's sensors picked up some odd energy readings just off the off the beach in a forest, so they moved to investigate. A voice boomed in all of their heads that they were trespassing on sacred ground and they should leave this place immediately. Since they are not easily scared by such tactics, they pressed farther into the wood... and all hell broke loose.

Unknown to the Tau was that this was one of the fabled Maiden Worlds of the Eldar. A Farseer and a group of Exodite Rangers were in a shrine in that wood doing some research on the whereabouts of the former colony here. When the Tau pressed the issue, they needed to respond. The Farseer unleashed an Eldritch Storm on the Tau craft, spinning it around face the other way, while the Rangers sent a volley of sniper fire into the rear armor of the 'Fish. The craft immobilized and lost its missile system in seconds. 

The proud Fire Warriors emerged from their craft and opened fire on the hidden rangers as best they could and brought down two. After an exchange of fire that left only three Warriors standing the voice again came to their heads and said that they should cease this needless bloodshed and leave this place before more Tau died. The remaining Fire Warriors collected their comrades and drug them down the beach and radio'd for pickup. Defeated.




Nighthawk died

Top

Re: 40k Campaign

by jayluna » Tue May 01, 2012 5:24 pm

Correction to last post, the thing that killed all of the Fire Warriors was that the Farseer charged them and cut through one group like a hot knife through butter.

Of the wounded, only one died: Nighthawk with his blessed gift of night vision. Lightsword's commander was unhappy with the defeat, but gave him a chance to redeem himself before being busted back down to Shas 'la. Lightsword was put in charge of a group of stealthy Pathfinders and Kroot and charged with repairing the lost tank and returning it to their base. An Earth Caste engineer was sent along with them to perform the actual repairs. After landing another Devilfish up the beach, the commando group snuck up the downed craft and got the engineer to work... quietly. One of the Ranger patrols heard a noise and moved to investigate, but it was too late to do anything about it. The engineer fired the ship's engines and spun it around to bear on the exposed Rangers, who were lit up by the Pathfinders' marker lights. The Kroot were snarling, eager to fight, but again the voice came in all of their heads.

"Well done, young ones. Take your ship and leave here, we have no quarrel with you."

So they did.

In his triumphant return, Lightsword was awarded an XV-8 Crisis Suit for his future battles, and his trusted second, Rageforce was promoted to Shas'ui of the squad.