Warning: rambling

First question first then: what type of "campaign" do people want to play?

Narrative - Imperium vs Chaos

Pretty self-explanatory, I'm sure most players own an army for one or the other, if they don't then the odd army here and there can probably be written in as a disruptive element.

Too cliché?

Gaming based on a loose tree system depending on the outcome of each round, in an ideal world, players would submit a short piece of fluff about their army which might influence missions. Would be aiming to not have everyone playing the same mission each "turn".

Narrative - other

Pretty much as above, but either one or two different sets of protagonists in place of the above, or more free-for-all like Medusa and EoT, ie all races are involved.

Empire building

Planetary Empires (with or without house rules) played in teams might work as we can play a lot of games over the days. Could be a strict system, or could be GM'd so that missions are themed to the two players playing each other/ongoing storyline.

Team tournament - tournament

Split players into 2+ teams and play against different opponents contributing to a team score. Would be tournie play based in terms of missions etc

Something else?

Ideas?

Other thoughts etc for the above?

When I was having a mulling over in my head, i envisaged something along the lines of a team doubles tourney with narrative elements.

Essentially split into two teams (order and disorder?), a tree system, but with points. I think you would need more structure, because if someone wins their battle in one game, then goes to play a different player for their next, they will need something to account for different results.

Ether team tree, with slight benefits, or set missions, with benefits.

Making sense?

Socaddict wrote:Essentially split into two teams (order and disorder?), a tree system, but with points. I think you would need more structure, because if someone wins their battle in one game, then goes to play a different player for their next, they will need something to account for different results.

Ether team tree, with slight benefits, or set missions, with benefits.

Making sense?

I think so.

I guess this depends on whether people want to play with bonuses based on how the previous round/games have ended - I was going to ignore that as a "too much book-keeping for a weekend" issue, but if there's demand then it can be incorporated

Alternatively, if we're going to have a great big apoc game or similar on the sunday or monday, just tally up each round, and use that total w/l/d score for some smallish benefits for that game?

Socaddict wrote:Alternatively, if we're going to have a great big apoc game or similar on the sunday or monday, just tally up each round, and use that total w/l/d score for some smallish benefits for that game?

That seems simpler. Always better to err on the side of KISS

(non participant speaks)
I love the idea of a planetary empires thing.. e.g. the left flank of the planet ,that you've been depending on X to hold up, has failed meaning the next game you all need to get your funk on (maybe swapping who was going to face who etc)..sounds really awesome... but also way to bloody complex to do in such a short time frame....Has anyone managed to run a full planetary empires thing through the duration of 2 days, 6 game lengths (60 actuall games potentially).. awesomeness but an adminstrative night mare for the lunch rush of planning (very guard ) Most awesome- most likely to go totally wrong.

@kmb: If the two (or however many) teams started with the map split equally, then it'd be a matter of who controlled the most tiles at the end. Whether or not it uses any resource rules would be another question (I ordered PE yesterday to see what's what). Players could even play 2v2 for 2 tiles at a time and stuff like that potentially.

I agree with Baragash there, if you've got a system that works straight out of the box then we should use it - thereby reducing arguments and misunderstandings - if you make it very simple with good vs bad and split all the resources in half...

By the way If you need more tiles etc I’m happy to put my hand in my pocket and I’m sure that Mr K!ng and Taumaul will lend out tiles from there sets.
If you need any assistance on the day I’m also willing to help out.

I have a set myself, although its not painted.

I'm not saying that's the way to go, was just trying to "flesh out" that option in response to kmb raising some potential issues.

Having said that, kmb making me think about it a bit more does make me think that the bottom two options are the "easiest" basis to run for a weekend.

Well I read the Planetary Empires rules last night, and IMO I think it's potentially exactly what we need for the weekend.

In summary, for those who haven't got it:

• The losing side gets a small points bonus per tile they're losing by
• The winning side gets to counter this by capturing key territories (manufactorums, shield generators etc)
• There's a cumulative penalty for trying to capture more than one tile in a round, so it still requires luck for one side to get a beating (you roll after the game to try and capture if you win)

Unless anyone objects, the system would be my choice. There'll be 5-7 games played each round based on current sign-ups.

The only modification I'd suggest is setting the base points at 1500 (PE has a "whatever you decide" clause on pretty much everything).

That would only leave the questions

1. Whether there's anything else anyone really wants to see done, bearing in mind it's 1-3 days
2. What scenarios we want to use (just the rulebook, all battle missions, some battle missions, planet strike, cities of death etc)
3. How we want to decide the scenarios (random table, mutual agreement etc)
4. Whether people use any army they want, or if we have an Imperial vs Chaos setting
5. Any other thoughts?

I've also got a small narrative idea, but I'd rather save that for the day as a surprise

Over to the floor.....

Battle Missions! They are wicked!

If possible, rather than rolling to see what mission is played, have each tile having its own mission which has been decided beforehand & the attacker gets to be the attacker (for example, a tile has the SM 'hold the bastion' or whatever it's called, and the defender plays as the SMs, and attacker gets to raid it, no matter what the armies actually playing are). The missions should be kept secret until someone invades a tile!

edit: spelling

Bara, if we go with PE as proposed, do we lose the Apoc game/s?
Would still like to have this involved.
Otherwise
1. outnumbering. 2 0r more people can team up to attack a vital tile, which in turn can be defended by 2 or more.
2. Something like LH said, each tile has a pre designated source book (Battle missions, cityfight, etc) then role ranom for mission.
3. Random
4. Good v Bad, use the battle missions table to see who can and cant ally.
5. Dirty!!!

Apoc game(s) will still be part of it, I'll have to think about how it's going to score though.

1. No issue with this, if people want to play 2v2 games they're more than welcome to. Will think about whether it needs any specific rules for the format.

2. (and @ ljundhammer) one for every tile might be a bit much, but it does tally with the idea I didn't reveal above, so something like that will be incorporated