NagoyaHammer.com

Preparations are underway for a new warhammer campaign for 2012 hopefully to kick off somewhere around march. Admiral Badruk and myself are hard at work building what we hope to be a solid framework for a fun and flavorsome campaign.

Warhammer Risk:
This campaign will focus on fluff and narrative rather than cheese lists and winning at all costs. So we expect all you excellent fellows to field decidedly Fluffy lists.

Each player will have 3 generals, occupying a location that will act as the players Head quarters on the campaign map. Each general should be named should also be represented by 3 different models. How you choose to equip your characters is entirely up to you.There are no restrictions or constants on items and they may vary from game to game. Players may name notable lieutenants also, if they are so inclined. Characters can never be "slain" and Head quarters can never be taken.

You are free to create and vary any army list free of restriction for your games, other than it must be lead by one of your 3 generals.

EDIT :Named characters may not be taken.

Each participating player is their own faction and will begin the campaign occupying 5 locations of the campaign map. There will be no free locations.

Players owning more than one army maybe include all of these armies into 1 faction. Player are free to choose any faction to fight in any engagement. If this is the case name a general from each army.

Each location will be named for narrative and referencial reasons, and have flavor text detailing its backstory.

Win a game and you gain control of the opponent's territory closest to your HQ. Lose a game and your opponent gains control of one of the locations closest to his HQ. Player with the most territories at the end of the campaign wins.

No penalty for inactivity. territories remain.

p.s This should be close to the final version. Still working on it

Honestly, I would say 'dont make any exceptions for specific armies' to begin with. Wait and see how things play out. For starters, it will encourage players to try something different with their forces rather than relying on their Swordmasters or Dragon Princes to win the game for them. Once you start making changes for one army, you will have to do it for every army. If it becomes apparent that something needs changing, then by all means do so. Players tend to get very defensive over their preferred armies (check out M_i_J's reactions in the Eldar Contingent threads in the 40k section for example). Start from a universal set of rules with the understanding that if they need to be changed then they will be, rather than listening to everyone whining about their own army before you even try it.

Other than that, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

I'd kinda like to try out the new campaign book with siege rules.

p.p.s Don't piss on the fireworks, if bonuses and campaign advancement is not your thing, or you think is a bad idea. Please do not hi jack the thread/troll/flame or otherwise hamper forward progress of the campaign.

Well, that counts me out then

. For starters, it will encourage players to try something different with their forces rather than relying on their Swordmasters or Dragon Princes to win the game for them. Once you start making changes for one army, you will have to do it for every army.

right you are, no tampering with army book rules is best.

I'd kinda like to try out the new campaign book with siege rules.

Blood in the badlands campaign book was one of the things we were considering for the campaign. Would really like to run it but thought it wouldn't work with the community here. It would be very cool if we could actually run it. But it involves a lot of commitment from the players to meet regualrly and play often. It is also very punishing to players who lose i.e characters can get injured, lose stats die or get taken hostage. Still it has some very good ideas that we would to borrow.

oh and sieges also require castle terrain.

Well, that counts me out then

aww, I had such high hopes for you though.

Irony of irony, I have castle terrain. not sure if it is enough though, haven't seen the new rules

it wouldn't work with the community here. It would be very cool if we could actually run it. But it involves a lot of commitment from the players to meet regualrly and play often.

This is the prime reason an overly complex campaign will be hard going. Remember KISS.

And to echo Prim's sage advice , if you are going to set limits etc then having exceptions to said limits is immediately gonna put folks off. As to the limits themselves, limits on Lords heroes don't really phase some armies (i.e. Gobbos. A Warboss = 65pts) but could severely hamper others (i.e. Daemons. A Greater Daemon starts at 450). Likewise the minimum core. How about rather than hard restrictions on units, giving small advantages to Armies that choose to follow them.

Then, of course, there is the whole physical/fiscal aspect too. Most people have their minimum 25% core painted up and ready to go but asking them to add 300 more points is a bit of an ask, both in terms of painting and cash outlay. That's 100 goblins, ya know! Even with unit fillers it's a bit of an ask for some folk.

Sorry if that seems like 'pissing on your fireworks' (BTW What the **** kinda idiom is that?) I am only trying to help.

BTW I'm not saying I won't play in a campaign, just it's hard to commit to something like this for a such a long time. With last year's campaign it didn't matter if folks took a break for a month or whatever, it was just a little motivational icing on the cake.

Special and Rare units will have limits placed on the number of models that you can field ( maybe) . This is to represent the smaller elite forces of your army. Since we are aiming for fluff, we'd like to see variety, so no 60 grave guard/ 50 phoenix guard death stars/ multiple monsters/ mega cheese artillery. Trying to find a balance that levels everyone out, is very difficult so bear with us.

So this means that you won't be using any of those mortars you bought?

I am all for the campaign, but my 2 dollars ( because I'm worth that much baby!) is that you guys should strive for simplicity. That doesn't mean things can't be intriguing and strategic, but they need to be easy to understand and easy to field. If you can write a campaign rules that are easy to follow and swallow, I think further this campaign will go.

Good luck!

Well Jus and I are working hard to make a fun campaign aimed at mature gamers interested in the story line of their characters.

If folks do not like it they can give productive advise on how to solve problems not point out why things are not fair for their army.

BTW I'm not saying I won't play in a campaign

Oh, thank goodness. A Warhammer Fantasy campaign absent Mike the Pike? ... UNTHINKABLE!

Now that I am back from work and have a bit more time to sit down and finish up from my first post.
When I thought about the whole core themed idea, I looked around for the internet to see if any other people had ideas on this, and lo and behold:

http://www.warhammeraz.com/pmwiki.php?n=Paws.CoreMain

The CORE COMPETENCY aspect of the league will mean that each army will have to have 900 points in CORE troops (High Elves 600) and 700 points or less in CHARACTERS. This is a twist that will modify the way people build armies.

(Phoenix Area Warhammer Society)

Only they have it now at 2400 points a game - 900 points of core. If you look around, you'll find that they use this setting for both tournaments and on going leagues. So far, word is that its very successful and has been around for about 5 years. Alot of people seem to think its all the rage. So I thought it would be a good idea to give it a try over here. We've pitched the idea to a number of forum members and have received mostly "yes, might like to try,"

Admittedly, a one size fits all limiting restriction on specials, rares, and characters, that levels the playing field across 14 factions is a rather ambitious addition to the original core competency guide, and something that has been on and off the drawing board for the last 2 weeks. The idea was that options would open up as players win games and gain territory. But like I said, nothings set in stone, so keep your pants on.