I was flipping through the back pages of my 6th edition rulebook and decided that I wanted something more from my warhammer. The answer in the book was campaigns. And then I recalled the warhammer simulator. I was wondering who would be interested in participating in a warhammer campaign over warhammer palace. I would post map updates and global events and you would fight each other over the warhammer simulator. Now this could be a problem with time zones seeing as some of us are in the Americas and Oz but most of the users on this site are in a European country. I am fairly busy at the moment but I can always find time to be a ump/gamesmaster. Though I can probably squeeze in some games in the weekends. I think this would be a great chance for those of us who are into the hobby and game but don't play that often/ don't want to brave a GW store for fear of the locals.

Anyone interested?

I'm interested. I don't know if I'll participate, but I'll consider it seriously. It could be a good opportunity to bring some interest back to the Palace. And it's been a looong while since I last played, so I'd love to renew my relationship with Warhammer.

As for the time zones, I don't think it'll be that much of a problem. For example, I live in the GMT -5 zone, so if someone in Britain wants to play a game from 5 PM to 9 PM, that means noon to 4 PM for me. Perfectly feasible during the weekend.

There could be a problem with Australia, though.

Do you have all your relevant armybooks and the 7th edition rule book?

It's a good idea - I was wondering if somebody would suggest this after the simulator was "discovered" - and I'd be interested, but what with school restarting I don't know how much time I'd have available to commit. So I'm considering as well.

It's a cool idea. Uni in September, driving lessons, blah, I'd still give it a shot. Worst that can happen is that people say "whoops, can't do it after all," after all.

Don't have much time anymore, but I can always to it on the weekends.

looks likes weve got 5 so far.

Burro Boskov

There is *always* a problem with us. That's okay, as I don't have time anyway.

I'll watch matters closely, though.

Well I was thinking that I could update it every weekend if possible. I would like to get started soon however this month is quite busy for me. But I can always find time on a weekend to GM. I would like to take a more active role in the campaign but some people might get a bit annoyed with a GM having a army in play. I was thinking we could do it with people PMing me/posting their army orders and lists. And I would have a master map or we could have a public map. Depends on how "realistic" and secretive you want it to be.

Rough rules are as follows (on a public computer and the 6th editon BRB is not on hand)
We will use the banner system to represent armies. As much as I would like large scale massive battles I realize due to time restraints and the fact that we are using a computer program as a medium that the battles should be no more than 30 mins to 1 and half hours. so I am proposing The maximum banner size to be 500 points. However player can combine banners for final battles such as a settlement attack. But most games should be 500 points are lower. However the begining army size is 2000 points. So players should make a 2000 point list and split that up into banners of 500 points or less.
Make a regular legal 2000 point list 0-1 lord choice 1-4 hero choices 3+ core etc
However your choices of Warmachines and wizards and the like will be limited (will post limitations later)

Then split the total list into smaller banners of no more than 500 points. The lord choice you choose from the 2000 points will represent your overall general, essentially the leader of your forces. If the lord is killed then your remaining hero choices will squabble over who will be the next leader. And there may be a chance that your force will disintegrate into rival groups.

I need to go to a meeting now but i will post later

Chili not like. Bad medicine.

• Splitting a 2000pt army into 500pt forces gives the opportunity to make vicious 500pt lists. If someone deployed a reasonably balanced Border Patrol-style list against me, and I simply put down a tooled-up Oldblood on a Carnosaur, what chance would they have?
• I for one find big battles much more fun.
• The save function allows people to use whatever time they have over the entire week to complete their battles, so time isn't such a constraint.
• Any character or unit that cost more than 500pts would be unusable.

Does anyone have that new Mighty Empires thing? It seems to me that that would be perfect.

Unless we're going to make this more of a warband/Path to Glory thing (which would also be cool), I firmly advocate less restrictions, simpler rules and bigger armies. The campaign system should be a vehicle to play normal games of Warhammer, and then use the results to affect the map.

I agree with these points. I don't think the splitting up thing will work so well. The save function allows us a lot of flexibility even if it does risk dragging out battles indefinitely.

Mighty Empires could work, but how about a good-ol'-fashioned Border Princes campaign?

D'you mean the Border Princes campaign in the back of the 6th Ed. book, or the Border Princes campaign in the General's Compendium?

6th edition, because I've never read the Compendium. The battles are larger, the restrictions are loose enough and it still has a campaign feel to it.

I dunno, I've always disliked the rules at the back of the 6th Ed. rulebook because of the ways they screw with army selection. For example: suppose that for my general, I selected a 2nd Generation Slann (myself), and then for my capital, I selected a Temple, and used this to add a 4th Generation Slann to my army. I've got 8 levels of magic and the 2nd Gen ability, most other players will only have 1 wizard in their army, and he's even unlikely to be a Lord (it's even quite possible they have no wizards, if for some reason they really needed a high-Ld general and didn't get any Temples or Wizard's Towers in territory selection). In this example I am intentionally exploiting the system, but supposing I took the 2nd Gen as my general and then rolled a temple as one of my random territories: it's a choice between the Twin Frogs of Death, or writing that territory off as a loss. I'm using Slann as an example here, but it works with pretty much every element of the army: the harsh limitations of the original set mean that if you manage to get round them using your territories, your opponent is highly unlikely to have the necessary defences unless he rolled the same territories as you. Paper-scissors-rock, kinda thing.

It always struck me that, being an appendix, that was a part of the rules they just didn't really playtest.

Those rules, which hail from the Dark Times of 4th edition, were designed initially with random territories. Which had the opposite effect, with Undead (and later Vampire Count) armies being unable to field their vampire generals, as they had no Temples.

That style of campaign works real good for historical gaming and the like, less well for the magic-heavy and intricately balanced world of warhammer.

I have the General's Compendium, if anyone would be willing to use those rules (or would like them explained): I think they're much better (and quite close to KingTut's original proposal). Although I must warn anyone else off buying that book: it is the worst quality product I have ever bought from GW. The pages are apparently made from scrap card, and started falling out about 2 days after I bought it. Which is a shame, 'cos the actual content is pretty good.

call me crazy: but are any special rules needed?

Can't you just each challenge a player at your borders for possession of a territory? Have a basic map, with 'roads' or links or whatever between each territory. Then play a normal, unrestricted battle and the winner takes the opponent. Say at the end of the campaign the player with the most wins.

In simplicity is perfection. ;)

Yeah, like Swordsalot said. No need to over-complicate in the sake of realism.


As for myself, I don't mind playing border patrols, but it'll be pretty limitating on the magic side. I'm not a big fan of magic, but some people will be unhappy.

That's pretty much what the GC rules are, except that you have individual armies that move to capture the territories, and difficult terrain that can slow you down in some territories. The more territories you have, the more armies you can field, but the larger a border you have to defend. Capturing mountains doesn't give you rare choices and capturing woods doesn't give you special choices: it's just more territory = more armies. You can add special rules for unique territories in at your own discretion if you want, but they're much rarer and less unbalancing.

Indeed :angry:

Simplicity is good an all, but sometimes its nice to have the extra little boost that the special rules entail.

I'm in possession of Mighty Empire Tiles, just two though. Thank you White Dwarf.

That said, through an article in the same White Dwarf I can basically understand the rules of the campaign, except for a couple of the opening phases, if we want to use that.

Burro Boskov

the map
I have done a bit in paint to make borders stand out and the starting locations.
I think it is too big a map personally but it was the best i could find. The starting locations are there only as a guide

I think its a warband campaign or swordsalots idea but with money generated from territory. Money can buy points,mercs,experience and magic items or somehting like that.

The current quality of the map isnt that great but i can work on that this is here just to give you all an idea

Uh... the link just takes me to the main photobucket page.

Same here.

whoops



the nine is covering a border line (the "tail" of the nine to be exact)

Ah, this is the General's Compendium campaign map. Just so you know, the river banks are meant to be separate territories. It's hard to see, because the border line runs through the middle of the river itself.

You can download a full-sized adobe acrobat version here.

I've played this campaign before, in the real world - we didn't finish, but the map and rules worked well. Most importantly of all, the rules don't really require an umpire or gamesmaster - in our case, all we'd need would be someone to update the map, and adjudicate on difficult terrain rolls.

I'd be happy to explain the rules in full if there's interest in them. Otherwise, if someone has a simpler solution they'd prefer, I'd be happy to go along with that too.

Does it have to have 9 participants? Or can you say leave them out?

I read their little campaign report on the American website about this, and they had all these ally rules. Wouls we use those? and if so, what are they?

Also I got the impression that the size of the battle didn't matter, just who won or who lost. This would solve the problem about varying times for games and what not, being able to play a full 2,000 or 500.

Burro Boskov

@ Chilli regarding a previous post The reason I was staunch about 500 point games is that it would only take an hour or so. I dont mind playing above that but it gets a bit more complecated

To all: I dont mind being the updater of the map. Just I need to know whose playing. And if you are playing post with your army, your Timezone and What number/ colour you are using.

Chilli I would greatly appreciate it if you could post the rules.
Then we can all finally agree. My goal (if a little unrealistic) is to get the first turn started by the weekend.

The ally rules are optional, but simple: they allow allied armies to act as if they were part of the same empire, moving through each others’ territories without capturing them, retreating into friendly territories where they would otherwise be scattered, defending friendly territories from enemy attacks, and lending support to allies’ battles. You can declare an alliance at any time, and end it either by announcing its termination in an honourable fashion, invading your ally, razing your ally’s territory or refusing to provide support for an allied battle.

The size of battle doesn’t matter much: the system works around ‘banners’, which represent individual armies and have to be of an agreed points level (so we could set it at 1000, or 1500, or 2000 or whatever). Banners can:

• Move: any banner can move into an adjacent territory, conquering it if there is no other banner in it and fighting a battle for it at the end of the campaign turn if there is a banner opposing them. Entering or leaving difficult terrain (mountains, swamps, or crossing a river) requires a roll of a 3+ - on a 1 or a 2, you end up Holding instead.
• Hold: just stay where they are.
• Fortify: Hold their position and dig in, giving them an extra 200pts and some defended obstacles if they are attacked while they are still holding their fortified position. If they move away, the fortifications are lost.
• Raze: put the territory they are in to the torch. It loses its value as a territory (so you cannot count it when counting the number of territories you posess), and any special rules it has if it’s a special territory: if it’s a bridge, you destroy the bridge and break it into two territories like any other river section. Banners that raze can either hold their ground or retreat from the razed territory after they’re done.
• Recover: Spend their turn rebuilding a razed territory, restoring it to its former state.

Campaign turns proceed thus-wise:

• Write down orders: everyone decides in private what their orders for that turn are going to be.
• Execute orders: everyone’s orders are carried out simultaneously. If two enemy armies have orders that would make them pass each other (‘swap’ territories), they fight instead: they dice off to see who gets to make the attack, and who has to hold their ground.
• Fight battles. Only one banner from each side can fight in a battle, but banners in adjacent territories can 'support', each lending 200pts to their side. This can be stacked with multiple supporting banners/fortification. If the supporting troops are allies, the allied commander can choose to use troops from his army, and actually take part in the battle, although he may only use Core troops.
• Retreat/Scatter: Banners that have been beaten have to pull back into the nearest territory controlled by their empire. If they have nowhere to retreat, or if they were Massacred, they Scatter instead – they are removed from the map, and if the empire is still large enough to support them at the end of the campaign turn, they regroup at the capitol.

You get to field one banner for each 3 territories you possess, with new banners appearing in your capitol at the end of your campaign turn (when you count the number of territories you own). Everyone starts with one territory and one banner: the original territory (which you choose, has to be on the edge of the map, and may not be a road, river bank or special feature) is your capitol. The only way to take someone out of the game is to conquer their capitol and destroy all their banners.

There are territory- and army-specific special rules: these are all pretty mild and simple, but all completely optional. The relevant army-specific ones for us so far are (I’m guessing):

• Dwarfs treat mountains as open ground.
• Lizardmen can cross rivers without a test.
• Orcs and Goblins can ‘forced march’ one of their banners each turn: on the roll of a 4+, they can move 2 territories instead of 1. On a 2-3, they only move 1 territory, and on a 1, they don’t move at all.
• Bretonnians cannot break alliances except by being honourable and announcing it. If anyone breaks an alliance with them in a dishonourable fashion, all the Bretonnian units in every Bretonnian banner gain hatred against the armies of that empire.
• Tomb Kings can retreat in an orderly fashion even if they are Massacred, and if they have no friendly map sections to retreat into, can retreat into an adjacent unclaimed map section instead, claiming it as if they had moved into it normally. They are only ever Scattered if there is absolutely nowhere (friendly or unclaimed) for them to retreat.

The rules look good, Chili, but I have one question about the banners: do they all have to be the same size? So, if we start playing 2k, do we have to have 2k games the whole way through the campaign?

As for starting it this weekend, perhaps a little unrealistic. I have to say, though, that whenever we do start it, it's probably going to be slow. As Benedictus said, there is always a problem. And it's back to school time. So this is going to be a very drawn out campaign.

EDIT: Also, are there any restrictions on which armies can ally? Right now I don't see anybody who looks too friendly with the greenskins. :(

The banners have to be the same size, but we could alter them part-way through the campaign if we found that the points value we selected was too big/small. Just so long as at any one point the banners are all the same points value, the system should work.

There is an allies 'chart', which tells you which armies can ally with which. O&G are allowed to ally with Tomb Kings, and if I used my Skaven, you'd be allowed to ally with them as well.

Alright, thanks for the clarification. Could you perchance post the allies chart?

Thats weird considering the first fluff pages in the TK book are about the kings hatred of the O and G.

I agree - I was under the impression that greenskins and tomb kings weren't friendly because they ally list used in border patrol (I believe it's the same one used in doubles tournaments) doesn't let them be allied.

But i wouldn't mind being orcs and goblins either for this campaign. If you want a partner.

What I figured was something COMPLETELY different.

We could do something where the banners just represent forces, or large armies. But we could play in small games, saying that this would be the decideing point of the battle. Get what im saying?

And instead of always having 200 points from allied armies nearby, it would be 10% more.

What is this sounding like? It would certainly give us a chance to sized battles depending on how much time we have. As long as we agree that it should always attempted to play 2000 points, we can give those who have little time a chance to have some flexibility.

How ich bein that sound?

Burro Boskov

@Burro That would be more timerealistic but not nearly as much fun IMO
And tomb kings would be at a disadvantage if i was to play games less than 2000 points.

Does anyone want to have a money system/resource?
Like you could pillage and raze a territory for x amount instead of generating y amount each turn.

I just don't think it would fit in this kind of campaign. We should try not to make it to complicated. If it becomes very popular, we could do it again, but for now, I think we should leave it as the system is.

What is the system?

Burro Boskov

It's okay, KingTut, I'm not desperate for a partner. I was just considering my prospects. Plus, I reckon it'd be more fun the wider variety of armies we use.

As for a resource system, it doesn't seem strictly necessary - your number of banners depends upon how much territory you control, which incorporates resources of a sort. That's simple enough for me.

Burro: I agree with KT here. That would not be as much fun, and as we all have limited time anyway I don't think it would effect any one person much more than anyone else. We could always have the points values of the banners be adjusted as time goes on.

Alliance table attached. It loses lots of its 'maybes' for a map-based campaign (it's designed for a later part of the book about multi-player games, and the alliances that are listed as 'maybe' are only different from a 'yes' when you have two generals fielding allied armies on the same board, so I've listed them as 'yes'), so it kind of lumps everyone into 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. But it works as a rough guide.

Ok so this is what I understand.
We are using the GC rules
We are allowing "alliances" however the table is unfluffy in certain aspects
@ztech is the only(possible) player who is outside The GMT -1 to +3 time zone

But who is actually playing? and what armies are they using?
Thragka, Chilli, Burro and I seem to be the only definates.

I will use Tomb Kings if the standard banner size is 2000
Orcs and goblins or Empire if it is anything less.

I can update the map with orders. I will tell people once i have completed my own order card (or we can have a third party collect order cards and update the map/send me a email or PM with everyones orders). Depends if you trust me or not. Im playing for fun not to win.

My time zone is GMT +2

Y'know, I think I'm going to try using Skaven. It fits better with being in the Border Princes, and the idea of being able to vary my list without having to paint another 100+ skavenslaves appeals.

So yeah, count me in, with Skaven, voting for 2000pts banner size.

Oh yes, and the easy solution to an alliance possibility you think is unfluffy: just don't agree to it if it's proposed.

Are we using the army special rules? And are we using the six special territories?

The special territories are:

• Iron Claw Camp: armies fighting battles on this map section must roll a dice to see how they are affected by the resident greenskins.
  1-2: no effect
  3-5: lose 2D6x10pts, or gain 2D6x10 if an O&G banner
  6: lose 2D6x25pts, or gain if O&G.
  The effects only apply during that battle.
• Malko: an army defending Malko gets to play as the defender in a Siege scenario instead of a normal pitched battle. Malko also counts as permanently Fortified, so the defender gets a bonus 200pts to his army.
• Tor Anrok: Controlling Tor Anrok gives the following advantages:
  1. Armies that begin the turn in or adjacent to Tor Anrok automatically win Don’t Pass in the Night rolls (the roll to see who gets to attack who if two enemy armies would otherwise pass each other by), as it functions as a watchtower.
  2. Armies that begin the turn in or adjacent to Tor Anrok may choose side, whether to deploy first or second, and whether to take first or second turn.
  3. Battles fought over Tor Anrok allow the defender to place a tower in his deployment zone in which he can place a single wizard. Tor Anrok gives the wizard double range on all his spells, and lifts all LOS restrictions on his spells.
  4. Elves of any type get a free extra spell for one wizard in each of their banners as long as they control Tor Anrok.
  If Tor Anrok is razed, the first two advantages still apply.
• Aldium: If you control Aldium, you may take an additional Special or Rare Choice in your banners, but must still stay within the points limit for your army.
• The Warrens: the Warrens count as Difficult Terrain (like a mountain or swamp). Battles fought over the Warrens are not pitched battles, but a special scenario called Rock Labyrinth, where lots of jagged boulders break up the battlefield giving the advantage to fast cavalry and skirmishers. Human armies can conscript the local bandits when fighting over the Warrens, gaining 100pts bonus to their list. This is the only special rule that is lost when the territory is razed.
• Geistenmund Hills: A banner must roll a 3+ to move into the Geistenmund Hills, or else remain where it is out of fear. Any battles that take place in the Geistenmund Hills are not Pitched Battles, but a special scenario called Battle in the Barrows where random undead come out of barrow mounds and attack the nearest enemies. Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings players can make tests to control these undead. The territory loses none of its rules when razed.

The other race-specific rules that we might be concerned with are:

• Skaven: Skaven Banners may opt to Move Underground. They are removed from the map: two turns later, they can surface in any Razed territory on the map on the roll of a 3+. If there is no Razed territory to surface in, or if they roll a 1 or a 2, they must either resurface in the territory they submerged in, or resurface at their capitol.
• Empire: Empire get an extra 50pts of additional troops and an extra defended obstacle when they fortify a territory.

(more available on request)