Ok, having completed the 1st campaign, let's all start thinking about the second one.



I'd love to hear people's ideas for improvements. If we list our likes and dislikes of the 1st one then hopefully we can find a way to keep the good bits while improving on the bad bits....

I'll start with a few:

Map: worked for me, let's use it again. Saves getting all new and it doesn't stop us renaming provinces and/or the types of missions played, or even VPs for them.

Armies: Having one list for the entire campaign was boring and very restricting. While I think players should stick to one army type, I think a free reign on the list should be allowed. That way people can play test their armies, forever trying to improve them, and use the campaign as a testing ground for their GT armies if they are going.

If people wanna gear up to take on a particular army on the map, then fine. The defending player can also do the same so it's equal. I personally will not being looking to do that, as a general list is required for the GTs, and that will be my priority over the camapign itself.

Rules: Very holey Chris did a fine job on these but there is room for improvement always. Blitz was a much better option that Beach Assault for one. Fighting armies no one owned for a province was another 'hole'. And 10vps for the central province was a bit rich I thought. Do we even need VPs, just a total number of provinces might be a better way to see who is leading/winner.

Missions: The more special missions the better for me, without going overboard. 5th ed might be different, and the standard missions there might keep us entertained enough at 1st. But maybe we can have some sort of mechanisim to allow province special missions to be added later.

Playing Frequency: Some guys can't make it to the club every week. This is not a gripe, just an observation But I also know that those guys are able to play other nights of the week. If we list everyone's tele/mobile numbers here then surely we could resolve a few more matches that way.

Ste has a table set up perminantly, JB has one, Gav and I can open the office for us or anyone else to play also. So what we need is people to make some extra effort to make sure their matches are all resolved that week. Obviously if you have 3 in a week, even I would find that hard to complete them, so it's not always going to happen. But just the odd extra game, a few times, or even if u miss the club and just get one more in, it will keep things running smoother.

OR we go the other way, and allow more time to resolve matches and play campaign games less frequently.???

They're my main points... I'm sure we can add loads more into the map and rules tho to make it even more juicey.

I agree with most of that. The availability of players is a bit tricky.
Hopefully V5 will have some special missions as I agree the more the better. Also I would advice anyone thinking of draughting the rules to take losts of time and try and think about every angle.

I guess you know I will always disagree with varying army lists.

As I have stated many times before:

1) People who can afford the most figures have a huge advantage. (AKA Wallethammer)
2) It minimises the challenges and tactics

As for myself, you guys have only ever seen small parts of my chaos legions. Wallethammer is not an issue for me, but is for many of us particularly with the price of living going up and most of us having families to support. Why should they be penalised? If your going to argue this point, I want that question answered.

Its also having to make a balanced army, that must fight on all terrain, on all missions, against all enemies that’s the challenge. I believe in Tactics and Adaptation, not changing your list make it as easy as possible against specific opponents.

My current campaign list excelled at ranged combat, but was poor in jungle and city fight. I had no problems with this (this was how I designed it!), I just made sure I fought when and were I wanted. Added an extra dimension to my game 

I guess Nige and I will always be polar opposites on this point.


Moving on, the central province, both been city fight and worth 10 points dominated the last game. Did anyone even try to dislodge a Nidzilla list from it? I know I didn’t, I doudt my list could of taken Ste on in a month on Sundays! Ste’s brave early move, rightly won him the campaign.

Its probably worth making this a standard zone, worth 5 points. Still an important zone to capture, but allowing all forces to have a chance. City fight for the central zone clearly favours Orks, Nids, etc and penalises Imperial Guard, Tau, etc.


Its worth putting in a number of extra specials into another few zones. Interesting stuff like ‘The Great Wall: Owning this zone allows you to block a single attack per game turn, your opponent must choose another player to attack. May be used on any zone you are defending, but only once per game turn’. ‘Comms system disruption: After deployment, but before the first turn, move one of your opponents units 6” in a direction of your choosing. May not be used to turn vehicles round (interrupting there deployment location does not mean there stupid enough to put weak rear armour facing the enemy!)’. Plenty of other ideas if you think about it.


The point system was confusing for me. I would suggest a cumulative points system.

A fixed time limit. Without a time limit the whole campaign becomes irrelevant.

Good points.
What do you mean by Cumulative points?

Typhus wrote:I guess you know I will always disagree with varying army lists.

As I have stated many times before:

1) People who can afford the most figures have a huge advantage. (AKA Wallethammer)
2) It minimises the challenges and tactics

1) Anyone can use any of my models, and I'm sure there are others who would d the same. I can't think of anyone in our group who puts their family first anyways. Gav will say he does, but let's be honest he's never short of models. Infact I think you are the one who buys the least amount of models Si

2) No one gets an army list spot on 1st time. This is my biggest issue. Not only do you become bored with the same list quickly, you can't adjust ur army to continually make it better. If I am not able to develope my list and improve I won't be playing this time. I need to have the freedom to change it and try it out. We aren't all playing an army we've had for years. Most have new armies and want to explore them

Reading that back it sounds like I,I,I want this n that, like some spoilt child. All I'm trying to say is, there are new rules coming, and many people have a new army. People are not going to get a list that they are happy with 1st attempt, or maybe even 2nd or 3rd attempt.

I can't see anyone, other than maybe Gav again abusing this to make a list to combat a certain army. I mention the GT becoz last year i play tested many lists to finally come up with the generic one I had. I certainly did not pull it from the dex on anywhere near the 5th attempt.

That all said, if you are winning the campaign I will reserve the right to field 2 Bloodthirsters and whatever else I think will destroy your army, so you best gear up too hehe And if anyone else wants to try and make my games with them even more challenging by gearing up also, please do, the harder the game the better as far as I'm concerned. That bit I really do mean

Had a long reply wrote, decided it wouldn't promote peace and harmony on this thread so dropped it. Guess we will have to see what everyone else thinks.

Cumulative points is simply keeping a running total of points gained each week. Say you had 10 points last week, this week you lose a province and only have 8 points, your cumulative total is therefore 18 points and carried forward to the next week, etc. Makes capturing and holding high point/risk provinces all the more important, even for a few turns

Why not make a 2000 point list up to use in the campaign. That gives each player an extra 500 points worth of figures to swap out of his 1500 game list. The 2000 point list cannot be changed in anyway shape or form.

Remove the victory points from each realm, and simply make it the person holding the most territory at the end is the winner. By all means have certain territories that have benefits over others.

Why not add a random event table which we roll on when entering a previously unexplored realm. This could be anything from finding that the realm is already inhabited to losing a random unit in a blizzard.
How about being able to form alliances with other players? This would simply allow you to move through your allies realms to attack any neighbouring realms. But be warned alliances can be broken at any point.

The map is great, but I think we should look at the Mighty Empires set and make each realm hexagnal and make it so that it was a sphere, ie like a world atlas. That way noone can ever get trapped in a corner.

If we make the map big enough we could each start with several realms with a central realm as our city.

Do we really need to enter an existing players realm to fight over it? In the early stages we could all make a move then randomly decide who we fight. If you win, your pin stays in. If you lose you remove the pin.

Typhus wrote:Cumulative points is simply keeping a running total of points gained each week. Say you had 10 points last week, this week you lose a province and only have 8 points, your cumulative total is therefore 18 points and carried forward to the next week, etc. Makes capturing and holding high point/risk provinces all the more important, even for a few turns

Works for me as far as I can see we agree Si is right, the longer you hold the higher valued provinces the more points you earn. That is your objective. The only thing we don't want to happen is that they get so far ahead quickly they can't be caught. So point margins need to be a smaller increment. Everyone fighting over the same 5 point province also, is going to cause chaos. We need possibly 2 of the same value on the map maybes?

I also agree that these areas of high value should be standard missions on normal terrain to give everyone equal chance of getting them. Wow! we agreed again Good innit

taumaul wrote:Why not make a 2000 point list up to use in the campaign. That gives each player an extra 500 points worth of figures to swap out of his 1500 game list. The 2000 point list cannot be changed in anyway shape or form.

This I still see as too restrictive. I couldn't include all the options I might want to try in only another 500points, sorry

taumaul wrote:Remove the victory points from each realm, and simply make it the person holding the most territory at the end is the winner. By all means have certain territories that have benefits over others.

Yes,my original thought. While Si's idea is definately an improvement over the current system, it still means certain areas are worth more on the map. Some people on the last map couldn't even reach the 10vp never mind even fight for it. This would irradicate any need to reach a certain area on the map and less likely to have people feeling trapped.

taumaul wrote:Why not add a random event table which we roll on when entering a previously unexplored realm. This could be anything from finding that the realm is already inhabited to losing a random unit in a blizzard.

This I like. It means that every province could be different for everyone, and even yourself on a 2nd visit. I still think terrain should be determined in advance by the map, but this table could have everything from special missions, through granting abilities, to lost units in the blizzard.

taumaul wrote:How about being able to form alliances with other players? This would simply allow you to move through your allies realms to attack any neighbouring realms. But be warned alliances can be broken at any point.

Alliances didn't seem to popular last time :/

taumaul wrote:Do we really need to enter an existing players realm to fight over it? In the early stages we could all make a move then randomly decide who we fight. If you win, your pin stays in. If you lose you remove the pin.

I like the 'Risk' gamestyle we have now though. But your idea seems to help stop the fact you might end up fighting the same person a few times. Seems a little wrong somehow tho

The alliance is purely a verbal alliance, it doesnt involve their armies its just giving consent to move through their realm.

In the last campaign an alliance meant you joined table top forces to battle a common foe. This is just a "hall pass" so to speak.

Best thing for making decisions on the new campaign is to offer up key topics for voting on.

I think there has been some already discussed that we can now offer up:

1 - Army Size:

1a) No limit, you can make 1500 points from anything in your codex (with the condiion that you may only change your list by one unit and only after 3 weeks).
1b) Make a 1500pt list from a 2000pt list.
1c) Make a 1500pt list and stick to it throughout.

2 - Points System:

2a) No vps on provinces, just a total number held at anytime.
2b) 5vps for main areas which are just normal missions giving all a chance.
2c) No change, keep it as it is.

That will do for now. Let' get all the votesin for these, then we can go onto the next priority topics.

1b and 2a for me please.

1a and 2a for moir

1b & 2a for me.
I think the idea of picking your 1500pts from a fixed 2000pts is more realistic as in most battles fought during the last 1000 years there is always a certain amount of reserves to hand which gives the commander in the field some flexibility

just one more thing on the army size:

1a allows anyone to do 1b and 1c if they want to. And while I wouldn't want to restrict other people choices either , I won't be playing the campaign with any great amount of frequency if its either of those 2. As stated it doesn't allow me the experimentation my list requires during the crucial few months between 5th ed's release and the heat's of the GT.

How about this then; as an condition to 1a. You may only change your list by one unit and only after 3 weeks? That is probably more restricting in the short term that having a swapable 2000pts which does allow for gearing up for an enemy.

I've added that condition to the poll that I have just discovered how to do on the forum. You can now vote annon. if you like without posting, or post and state your choice and reasons. Check out the other '[Poll] campaign #2' threads on our forum (sorry Gav and Ian.... plz can you make ur choices again... even if they are the same... cheers).

This thread can continue as the campaign #2 improvements thread. What would we like to discus next? I like the random table idea. If we all think that is next, what type of things would go on it, and how would it look/work?

What about a narrative ladder campaign? so you have a set goal (take city) and a number of fixed possible outcomes dependant on the game results? This way we could allow teams and Allies?