The campaign will be following the Planetstrike progression as set out on p. 28 of the book. As this is designed for a 2 player scenario, we will be having 2 separate match-ups, with the winners of each facing off in a final showdown. It should be completed by the end of February or March (tbc).
The match-ups -drawn randomly by Darren and Gavin - are:
Forces of the Imperium v Walkers Genestealers/Orks v Mechanicus
Darren has suggested that with an odd number, he and Symes can rotate as to who plays which mission (as available) vs Mechanicus. Martin may of course wish to revert to Eldar for this campaign...
Each player has 2000 points plus handicap differential for each mission. List are not fixed; you can build whatever army you like, based upon mission and mission role. You may also play any type of army - battleforged or unbound.
As this campaign is based around the use of fortifications, you will need to select options from the datasheets in the book. Tau fortifications are excluded, as we do not have any Tau players. I have donated my aegis defence lines and bastion to a general pool that can be drawn upon; there are already other fortification options that can be shared. I have a Fortress of Redemption, Wall of Martyrs defence line with emplacements, a Firestorm Redoubt, and Vengeance Weapons Battery which I will be selecting from (in the first instance). Players may construct/use substitute models if they wish - we are not playing cash-hammer - but substitutes must be build according to scale, so please look carefully at the pictures in the book for an idea of how big they should be. For example: I think that I will need to have 4 of my wooden void shields to represent the void shield generator pictured in the book, Martin may need to have 2 or 3. For the first battles, the role of defender has been drawn by the Imperium and Genestealers/Orks respectively.
Victory in each mission will win a player 1 campaign point - and the right to the victory bonus for the next mission. I would suggest that the losing player choose the right to defend/attack in the next mission, to avoid being excessively disadvantaged across the whole campaign.
As missions can be drawn, there is a chance that there might be a need for a tiebreaker game - in this event, mission 6 should be used.
To add a little more reality to the campaign, I would like to propose that defending players be allowed to design their own battlefields; namely, decide the terrain layouts that they wish to use (including where they wish to place any fortifications that they will deploy, as per specific mission rules). Attacking players should be apprised of these layouts at least 48 hours before any battle, to allow them time to choose how to meet the challenge (i.e. through army selection). This will allow for a degree of simulated intelligence. Please make sure that battlefields are not designed to create unwinnable scenarios - I would suggest that we discuss arrangements for spacing impassable terrain. It is worth remembering that in some battles the defenders have to move to score points, so poor battlefield design could prove self-defeating!
All comments on the above are welcome.
I appreciate that some players may get battle-fatigue matching off against the same opponents too frequently. I suggest that agreed friendly weeks or Silver Towers be scheduled in as/where needed to avoid this.
I have played through the first mission of this campaign. The fortifications (all free and as many as required), terrain and six objectives are all placed by the defender.
I would like to suggest that we put a restriction so that the objective markers must be placed 12inches away from any fortifications (and 12inches away from each other) as placing an objective on top of an armour 15 bastion is a massive advantage for the defending player.
The campaign will be following the Planetstrike progression as set out on p. 28 of the book. As this is designed for a 2 player scenario, we will be having 2 separate match-ups, with the winners of each facing off in a final showdown. It should be completed by the end of February or March (tbc).
ReplyDeleteThe match-ups -drawn randomly by Darren and Gavin - are:
Forces of the Imperium v Walkers
Genestealers/Orks v Mechanicus
Darren has suggested that with an odd number, he and Symes can rotate as to who plays which mission (as available) vs Mechanicus. Martin may of course wish to revert to Eldar for this campaign...
Each player has 2000 points plus handicap differential for each mission. List are not fixed; you can build whatever army you like, based upon mission and mission role. You may also play any type of army - battleforged or unbound.
As this campaign is based around the use of fortifications, you will need to select options from the datasheets in the book. Tau fortifications are excluded, as we do not have any Tau players. I have donated my aegis defence lines and bastion to a general pool that can be drawn upon; there are already other fortification options that can be shared. I have a Fortress of Redemption, Wall of Martyrs defence line with emplacements, a Firestorm Redoubt, and Vengeance Weapons Battery which I will be selecting from (in the first instance). Players may construct/use substitute models if they wish - we are not playing cash-hammer - but substitutes must be build according to scale, so please look carefully at the pictures in the book for an idea of how big they should be. For example: I think that I will need to have 4 of my wooden void shields to represent the void shield generator pictured in the book, Martin may need to have 2 or 3.
For the first battles, the role of defender has been drawn by the Imperium and Genestealers/Orks respectively.
Victory in each mission will win a player 1 campaign point - and the right to the victory bonus for the next mission. I would suggest that the losing player choose the right to defend/attack in the next mission, to avoid being excessively disadvantaged across the whole campaign.
As missions can be drawn, there is a chance that there might be a need for a tiebreaker game - in this event, mission 6 should be used.
To add a little more reality to the campaign, I would like to propose that defending players be allowed to design their own battlefields; namely, decide the terrain layouts that they wish to use (including where they wish to place any fortifications that they will deploy, as per specific mission rules). Attacking players should be apprised of these layouts at least 48 hours before any battle, to allow them time to choose how to meet the challenge (i.e. through army selection). This will allow for a degree of simulated intelligence. Please make sure that battlefields are not designed to create unwinnable scenarios - I would suggest that we discuss arrangements for spacing impassable terrain. It is worth remembering that in some battles the defenders have to move to score points, so poor battlefield design could prove self-defeating!
All comments on the above are welcome.
I appreciate that some players may get battle-fatigue matching off against the same opponents too frequently. I suggest that agreed friendly weeks or Silver Towers be scheduled in as/where needed to avoid this.
I have played through the first mission of this campaign. The fortifications (all free and as many as required), terrain and six objectives are all placed by the defender.
DeleteI would like to suggest that we put a restriction so that the objective markers must be placed 12inches away from any fortifications (and 12inches away from each other) as placing an objective on top of an armour 15 bastion is a massive advantage for the defending player.