|
Post by LizardTau on Jul 22, 2010 15:18:50 GMT -5
well the last was my first time playing warhammer at all. I did like it, yeah the movement did make it hard to get at some people. and yes people not being there messed up the objectives. I kept trying to get at high elves who werent there and the camp, but every time i asked people were saying i had to attack different people for the camp so i was confused lol. But i did start after if had started so i may not have got the full story.
|
|
|
Post by justice7ca on Jul 23, 2010 9:23:45 GMT -5
an idea for a campaign.. feel free to shoot it down, change it up.. anything. Just feel like brainstorming something today.
Using warhammer lore, this would be an Order vs Destrction campaign. The armies whom do not belong to Order or Destruction may align themselves to a side of their choice. Once the decision is made the choice is final. Empire however must take Order, as Chaos Warriors must take Destruction. Tomb Kings are neutral so they may choose a side.
Campaign is a set of five battlefields. Set up like
City (Order) -> Relic -> Open Field <- Relic <- City (Destruction)
Campaign Victory Condition: Capture and Destroy the enemy city
Battlefields:
Open Field - Standard setup, even forces; Elimination / VP's to win
Relic - Objective scenario, capture the relic for one full turn. We can take a relic site scenario out of the new rulebook. The relic however should be under the control of the defender.
City - Siege, this should be a large, epic battle. The warhammer vets here could brainstorm how to go about putting together a massive fight for the final endgame. Perhaps everyone is involved in one game, or maybe 2 defenders vs 4 attackers and a larger table...
Campaign Sequence: Once the open field has been captured by a side, the next fight will take place at the next battlefield.
To capture a battlefield: More battles must be won than lost Example: 5 battles taking place, 2 draws, 1 Order victory and 2 Destruction Victories. This means the battle shifts one battlefield into Order lands as Destruction pushes forward.
Relic Power: A city may not be sieged while the Relic is held. It generates a magical barrier over it's owners city and yields the following benefit: Any unit within 12 inches of the relic has a 6+ Ward Save. This goes for both friendly and enemy units.
CONTROL OF BOTH RELICS: If one faction controls both relics, the relics then fuse and grant a 6+ Ward Save to all members of the controlling army. The 12 inch rule from the Relic still applies for anyone near it, so enemies may gain the relic ward by marching within range.
Setting up a battle: The initial (first) battle does not have an attacker or defender. Matchups are made randomly by rolls and challenges as per previous campaigns.
Once one faction has won a round, they are now the 'attacker'. Attackers may choose the matchups out of available players.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 23, 2010 10:07:14 GMT -5
hmmmm..... some cool ideas here.... I will be stealing most of them
|
|
|
Post by stonecutter on Jul 23, 2010 13:57:54 GMT -5
Yes, some really good ideas. The law vs chaos (good vs evil) concept is one that has been difficult in the past but the new alliance rules make it a lot better and also limit the effectiveness of certain armies in an alliance such as druchii and skaven. Who knows, I might even get motivated to start assembling Empire for a new campaign ;D
|
|
|
Post by justice7ca on Jul 23, 2010 14:33:50 GMT -5
more brainstorming...
The Relic's should yield a power to help one faction further their pursuit toward the final siege.
Additional ideas: The battlefields could be arranged in any pattern... four relic sites, different paths to the enemy city. Factions may split their forces but you must record which armies take which paths. Example: Daemons and Orcs take the north path, while the Chaos Warriors and the Dark Elves take the southern route.
Campaign start idea: Both factions start with all of their armies back at the city, and move out to 'capture' relics they deem worthy of capturing. Each faction takes its turn, and any time there is a 'conflict', it is decided on the battlefield based on which armies are available.
I'm not sure how to handle 2 armies vs 1 army; some penalty should occur to the 1 army holding the ground against a larger force.. but a full out 2 vs 1 might be a bit one-sided (unless the Relic he's defending is extremely powerful, for example).
I think a dynamic campaign like this would be a lot of fun, especially if it was all clearly laid out, a map made (your map last time was awesome), and a posting of where things are between weeks. There would also need to be a mechanic for allowing players who are not there every week, to somehow fit into the game sessions.
and lastly, i would love to see each faction group together and talk strategies before making decisions. Call it the 'war council'.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 23, 2010 14:53:26 GMT -5
Well hopefully we'll be able to learn a few things to make it go smoother this time... the alliance rules I think will make this go much better for the 2 vs. 2 or 2 vs. 1 battles...
having Order vs. Destruction will make it ALOT easier to manage if someone doesn't show up... well, as long as someone from the team shows up it should be okay! (if all of the forces of destruction aren't present that could be a problem, but I doubt that would happen)
|
|
|
Post by danydaigle24 on Jul 23, 2010 16:17:02 GMT -5
Frank ask Scott and Tommy how Empire rocks in new edition ... I love them! I would be moore then happy to be your ally...
|
|
|
Post by redshirt2375 on Jul 23, 2010 16:22:23 GMT -5
WFB meets WAR
|
|
|
Post by justice7ca on Jul 23, 2010 18:44:31 GMT -5
WFB meets WAR pretty similar! I must say, i was influenced!
|
|
|
Post by LizardTau on Jul 23, 2010 18:59:51 GMT -5
sounds interesting i would try it, although i couldn't fight dave, since we would both be on the side of order lol
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Jul 24, 2010 11:24:57 GMT -5
I'd definitely be interested if I have my warriors in and together by then.
|
|