This Blog is focussed on Warhammer Fantasy and primarily on battle reports. The battles were either friendly games or from the campaigns that are running in my gaming group - for details see www.waaaghkhazgarde.blogspot.com
Everything on this blog is my own work unless another author is accredited.
Comments are more than welcome!
Monday, 24 March 2014
Rules for a Warhammer Campaign
This post contains full rules for running a Warhammer campaign, designed by myself, that is currently running in my gaming group. Any comments are more than welcome!
Hi, fun to see a campaign of such detail and depth! I am curious to see how it works out. I am considering starting a campaign with my gaming buddies as well, I am still thinking about the format though. My biggest fear in this type of campaign is that it can become unbalanced. Each victory will lead to more territory, more gold and easier battles.. this can become a chain reaction if not handled right I believe. I took a look at your batreps (which are cool! Thanks for posting!) and with all reapect, you seem to walk over your opponents rather often (sometimes literally *grin*), what is to prevent you from becoming too powerful and the games no fun for the others?
Thank you! I know my regular opponents' play styles very well and am able to change my own; this and the huge number of choices available to the Greenskins always keeps my opponents on the hop. And I guess I play well too ;)
You're right about the "power creep", this is my biggest concern at the moment. The campaign is on its seventh round (we're taking a break at the moment). How's your German? It's detailed on my other blog, but even if you don't speak the language you can follow the maps. The Orcs are definitely winning, and if I continue to win my battles I will almost certainly win the campaign.
This leads to the philosophy of the campaign - should it be a "neverending struggle" or should it have an end? I'm not really sure myself, both have advantages and disadvantages. Having an end gives you tactical targets - you ARE the Duke of Wellington clearing the French out of Spain or General Patton attacking Germany and your goal is conquering France or Berlin. On the other hand, as you say, it's no fun for a player to be reduced to a small corner of territory and three and a half armies...
When we start up again I will introduce a random events table which heavily penalises the winning player (me in this case), with possible disasters including bad harvests, orders getting lost, bandits and mutinies, and rewarding the losing player with the same events but in reverse. I will also make the Strongholds more expensive if a player owns five or more.
I'm also considering introducing "Independent Kingdoms" as myself and my opponents can also put Daemons and Warriors of Chaos, Wood Elves and Skaven on the table.
Giving my opponents a free Stronghold to protect their core territory is also a solution, although that might only delay the end.
Do you have any ideas? I's be very happy to hear them! And be sure to post on your campaign once it gets going.
Hi, fun to see a campaign of such detail and depth! I am curious to see how it works out. I am considering starting a campaign with my gaming buddies as well, I am still thinking about the format though. My biggest fear in this type of campaign is that it can become unbalanced. Each victory will lead to more territory, more gold and easier battles.. this can become a chain reaction if not handled right I believe. I took a look at your batreps (which are cool! Thanks for posting!) and with all reapect, you seem to walk over your opponents rather often (sometimes literally *grin*), what is to prevent you from becoming too powerful and the games no fun for the others?
ReplyDeleteThank you! I know my regular opponents' play styles very well and am able to change my own; this and the huge number of choices available to the Greenskins always keeps my opponents on the hop. And I guess I play well too ;)
DeleteYou're right about the "power creep", this is my biggest concern at the moment. The campaign is on its seventh round (we're taking a break at the moment). How's your German? It's detailed on my other blog, but even if you don't speak the language you can follow the maps. The Orcs are definitely winning, and if I continue to win my battles I will almost certainly win the campaign.
This leads to the philosophy of the campaign - should it be a "neverending struggle" or should it have an end? I'm not really sure myself, both have advantages and disadvantages. Having an end gives you tactical targets - you ARE the Duke of Wellington clearing the French out of Spain or General Patton attacking Germany and your goal is conquering France or Berlin. On the other hand, as you say, it's no fun for a player to be reduced to a small corner of territory and three and a half armies...
When we start up again I will introduce a random events table which heavily penalises the winning player (me in this case), with possible disasters including bad harvests, orders getting lost, bandits and mutinies, and rewarding the losing player with the same events but in reverse. I will also make the Strongholds more expensive if a player owns five or more.
I'm also considering introducing "Independent Kingdoms" as myself and my opponents can also put Daemons and Warriors of Chaos, Wood Elves and Skaven on the table.
Giving my opponents a free Stronghold to protect their core territory is also a solution, although that might only delay the end.
Do you have any ideas? I's be very happy to hear them! And be sure to post on your campaign once it gets going.
Feel free to pinch any of my rules by the way ;)