Mak's Warhammer Fantasy Campaign

I would say, minimum 1 core choice, one basic bolt thrower or stone thrower allowed, counts as a core choice, but not the 1 core requirement. May purchase 1 hero.

I'm fine running into 10 archers 10 spearmen and a bolt thrower if there are points, but with 100 point villages, almost all of us will be fielding one min core unit, which is probably as it should be.

So if you attack a (human player) village you'll face 10 archers or something.

If you attack a town, you'll probably get a bolt thrower and 10 archers.

A city and you might get spearmen, archers and stone thrower.

Those seem about right for (free) defenders. What do the others think?

If allowing basic warmachines (even if not allowed in the normal army book) they would be BS3 Ld 8? Ld 7? The basic elf statline is way more valuable than a human. And what would Bruce use? Bruce, are there skeleton bolt throwers or stone throwers in your book?

Oh, and also, probably for a later campaign because it will be a little too complex, we should revise the quest/treasure tables.

For quest, you have to roll a 12, then an 11, then on a 11-66 table for an event, and then on another table to maybe get something useful, or maybe die.

For the treasure, you roll a 12, then a 12 and then many of the items don't make a ton of sense. (Yeah cloak!)

Sean, I'm not trying to pick on you with this, but we should all work on something that makes it a little more likely to get something useful. The way the scouting works, I think it would be statistically impossible to level up during quests to Level 4 and become a lord.

The Questing tables and level up chart things were still being developed. I was and am still trying to convert that.
The scouting chart for sure needs tweaks, I'lll have everyone fill give comments on what they think should happen for changes when we are done.

1 core requirement is ok I think, how people choose to defend their settlement is up to them. As a leader I want maximum effect using war machines but yes a proper representation of the inhabitants should be on the battle field. Perhaps the people flee or can't fight... don't know but it will be looked at further.

the basic stat lines for a core unit will be used for the crew of the Basic warmachines.
Dwarf or humans= Warrior or state troop
Dark Elf= Warrior
Vampire counts= Skeleton Warrior

hmmm well head for the barns everybody skeletons cant hit any part of a barn or maybe even a castle who knows I just know skeletons arent know for hitting things

couple of random notes here

1st next sunday is out for me saturday should be fine though,
2nd putting a core before the warmachine makes since to me but I dont mind it either way
3rd hopefully Ill have at least 1 unit of skeletons painted by the next time we meet, who knows I might get it all painted by the end we shall see
4th anyways for us multi army people to get in a 2nd army of our even if its just a few units
5th I finaly found my wolf tails for at least some of my vampires(the wolf tail tailesmans are very useful it turns out)
6th we really do need to revamp some of the charts a little and the quest chart a ton
7th of the armys present vampire counts is probaly the worst off on the map but I suppose not by much(lacking scouts, loseing their best way of adding units, and the none substance), dwarfs would be the next worst off but at least they have scouts

thats all I can think of if I think of anything else Ill post it

actually, the dwarf/human alliance makes them very powerful. Anytime you can combine the best of 2 army lists, you have an advantage over a single army list.
As for the settlement defenses? I have a suggestion.
village: every race has core infantry of some sort, a unit of 20 and a champion(village elder/hero) seems about right.
Town: most fantasy towns are viewed as having some defensive structures or they wouldn't have grown to be a town. My suggestion there would be 2 core and a warmachine/rare and a hero to lead them, maybe a little more if you want some randomness for independants.
City: 3 core 2 special a rare, one or 2 warmachines and a lord to lead them.
Fortress: a full 2000 point list. Players should draw up a generic defensive list that will always be used. This would make fortsess' more desirable to find.
Keep in mind, I believe that these structures should never be easy to take. I t would give people a reson to spend the 100gp for diplomacy. On that I would suggest a table. +1 per extra 100gp spent, -1 for a town, -2 for a city and -3 for a fortess.

These are more suggestions for the next campaign than this one, but they would work well enough for this one as well.

Nice thoughts all around, but we knew this 1st ever campaign was gonna be bumpy. I really like the foundation and, as others have pointed out, there are a few tweeks needed to enhance the experience.

Overall I'm quite pleased at the flow. The players involved are all good sports and that can mean a ton in a campaign setting.

I agree with Crobar. Our alliance of Dwarf/Empire is a bit advantageous. At the onset it was my impression that all sides were to have "alliances" of 2 or more human players, so we came together as traditional "good" guys... ah well...

Bring on the next turn!

The only problem with upping the defences of a town, city and fortress to those levels is that we'd have to drastically increase the points cost to build those structures.

Right now a fortress costs 400 to build, so that would make the game incredibly defensive if that would give you a 2000pt defensive force. We can't make building settlements cheaper than building the actual forces themselves.

While it makes sense to have those type of forces defending the different settlements, I think it may have to be up to use to garrison banners that we have bought in a city or a fortress to defend it.

One thing that we could change (for next time) pretty easily is the variation on the independant settlements. An independant fort can be between 200 and 1200, a city 300 and 1800? We should probably narrow the band so that you can't get as lucky and roll through a city with only 300pts defending it.

Maybe we could also not find forts anymore when scouting, only villages towns a cities. We have to pay 100 per turn to support a fort, who is supporting the independant fort. Well, thoughts for next time.

JMarv wrote:

Maybe we could also not find forts anymore when scouting, only villages towns a cities. We have to pay 100 per turn to support a fort, who is supporting the independant fort. Well, thoughts for next time.

Well for the fort the owner could abandon it and your forces take over. So next upkeep you would have to pay or loose it.

One thing to keep in mind though for Fortresses and Cities is that even though it is only a 300 point force it actually is more along the lines of 600 points.... or at least that is how GW considers the defender to be. Basically a defender is as capable as twice the amount of points it actually is. so times 2. And it is mainly because of the huge advantage of being behind walls!

We have a lot to consider when we sit down after this campaign as things considered its going a lot better than I thought it would with all the random chances people have to find stuff, and the list will only keep getting bigger, we probably should keep a list of things we need to go over somewere no clue were

This campaign is going really well. I agree that settlements should cost at least as much as the force defending it. Makari is right, I haven't read the new siege rules, but under the old ones, half the force defending as attacking was considered a fair fight. I t might work best for the next one that nothing bigger than a town could be randomly generated. This puts most of the fighting between players. Don't get me wrong, I tend to try to be a peaceful player, not starting anything, but definately finishing it , but this is about battles, the rest is a means to the end, giving us a something to conquer .
I played a campaign once were settlements lost a lvl after a battle, something like that might be interesting as well. As for the dwarf/Empire alliance, if the banners where just one race, it would be more fair. You could have a dwarven and Empire banners running around, possibly the same for settlements for what they could build and what defended them. Just a thought.
Also, what do you think of Capitals being more heavily defended than norm cities? I like what Sean is trying to do with Warhammer quest, but I do like my Dark Elf widgets and such. May put in a structure that can be built to research race specific items. You get so many points toward a specific item per turn and if the place is taken by another player, all research is lost. How fast or slow the research is would be up to the person running the campaign, in thi case Sean.Of course, it would be the same rate for everyone to keep things fair .

Capitals do get more points than regular cities. 250 for other cities and 500 for the capital.

I like the free defending forces levels, they are some resistance instead of just rolling through, but if you want to defend yourself you need to station banners (or troops bought through a barracks) there if you want to really defend them.

I agree that what Sean is trying to do with the magic items is a fun twist, but unfortunately it seems to A) not occur frequently or consistantly enough or B) let any of us get our specific magic items. We can all work on this after this campaign to change the quest/treasure chances. And that leveling thing to let our hero up to a lord is never going to happen, just takes too long. Maybe we should switch to some kind of XP earned in battles fought.

I was also thinking in the beginning that there would be dwarf banners and empire banners and dwarf cities and empire cities, and that we'd only be on the same battlefield in multiple banner battles. We can switch that up next time.

The Original Thought was to have experience based on battles and have quests be a semi important part of the campaign for you characters.

The tables are still being worked on for Quests and magic Items. Questing will be an option for a character during a turn but he can't lead a banner he goes it alone. But you had to know where a ruins where.

I will be using the Warhammer RPG and Quest ability charts for leveling as a guideline.

JMarv your dwarf that became a gold master also had some attributes increase.

I am working on teh revisions for next campagn and trying to get something going to keep this one afloat for now. And I do appreciate the willingness to make this thing work and I am getting great feedback too!

Ooooh, what attributes went up?

I dont think there is a problem with multi race banners But to me if one team in the campaign has its all teams should be able to pick a 2ndary race(support race if you want) that you can have a limited amount(maybe 1/3 of your total points) be. This adds to the game and give people more options, but its just another idea to talk about after this campaign run is over

I actually do kind of like that Idea but not really possible for some people as not everyone has two armies that would fit together...

What I was hoping for was a team membership sign up thing similar to what Jmarv and Marc did to help cover absentees. I prefer to keep the stuff intermingled for simplicity sake. Does this mean that things can get unbalanced uh yes yes it can which is why I am glad noone went with Chaos Warriors and O&G Allies. Can you imagine having Night goblin Fanatics, Chaos Warriors, Tzeentch scorcerors, and Rock Lobbas to contend with?

Yes this subject will be covered more for the next campaign, and hopefully we will not see duplicate armies again, not that it is a bad thing but I like diversity!

see there is were I disagree even if your saying high elves and choas there could be plenty of reason i can come up with that they would work together, so I dont see were that is trule a problem, they just need to come up with a good reason, and that was another reason to put some sort of cap on it for those that choiuce to not use or cant use a 2nd army but yes this is more of a later topic but hey we can statt working on these type of things now to lessen the time that is spent between campaigns

I think it would be better to end up with single race empires, or separated alliances.

Yeah, you can come up with ways to have team skaven/chaos, or team orc/chaos, or team lizardmen/wood elves. But I don't like the unbalanced road that takes us down.

Empire/dwarf certainly has some advantages, mainly my warriors and Marc's knights. But it also has things like "who's warmachines do you want to buy?" as we both have very similar things in that department.

I like the teams for scheduling flexibility, but I'd rather it be team dark elf/dark elf or orcs/goblins or something like that.

On another aside, didn't we originally talk about making our moves around the board online at such and then scheduling matches that fit our schedule? What happened to that concept cause I liked it. Was the problem the dice rolls?

The Fluff is at least somewhat important and I would rather not stray too far away from seeing an unlikely alliance....

The program I was looking to use for the online portion hasn't panned out...
I'll try and keep up on doing that and of course if anyone has any suggestions I am open to it.

I have to say I prefer doing everything in person personaly

In person is the best, but for many of us committing to a regular time is difficult. This is probably one of the reasons there are five of us (six plus Sean) that are playing.

Many more of us have fantasy armies. Remote moves might open up a larger audience to the campaign.

The biggest advantage to online is that we are not limited to the number of hexes Sean owns . He can create a map online, each hex has a unique identifier, and we can make our moves based on that.
As for the dice rolling, my programming skills are very rusty, so I doubt that I could write something up. Besides, I am not sure Visual Basic is still in use . But if anyone else could, it would be a simple program, even though most programs have trouble with true randomness.

You're right Dave, that open limit of the map would be a nice advantage online.

I can make excel or matlab generate random die rolls pretty easily, the only problem is that the programs would be local on people's computers with no way to verify the results other than maybe webcams.

Just look online for dice rolling codes. You should be able to find some that leave a trail and will let you know what your opponents have done.