PDA

View Full Version : 1v1 Campaign



DarkTerror
26-08-2008, 23:34
I'm trying to start up a 1v1 campaign with a friend for kicks. What I'm looking for is an interesting way to do this without it getting stale. Not getting stale probably means it will be rather short, but if you have an idea let's hear it!

Warboss Antoni
27-08-2008, 01:10
Run multiple armies agianst each other, basicly have 2 sides with a set amount of armies each.

Lord Obsidianus
27-08-2008, 05:33
WD had a 40k campaign a while back that was 1v1.

It hinged on an escalating point structure(with kill team games thrown in every few games; could be represented by warbands rules) with a unique twist on scenario selection.

each battle had 3 choices of scenario, in this case it was based on what type of armies were playing and who currently held initiative(had won the last game).

If one player had won a neutral scenario the game before the next game was from their preferred column.

If a player won their preferred scenario the next game was their preferred again.

If a player won the other players preferred then the next game was a neutral scenario.

This was all laid out on a chart beforehand with each set of scenarios(player A, Neutral, Player B) predetermined from the start.

Each battle also had a victory reward that usually influenced the final battle.

Each game also had a point value associated with it with the final battle being worth an obscene value(game one game 2 Points while the final battle was worth 20); whoever had more points from winning games was the overall victor.

If you have the time this is a really neat type of campaign that can also have a good narrative and storyline attached to it.

snurl
27-08-2008, 05:47
Introduce random events, which may or may not happen before or during each battle. Floods. Rampaging Dragons. Feral armies. You name it.

505
27-08-2008, 19:54
GW had some old campaigne packs for 5th ed??? anyways they were designed for 2 basic armies (HE vs DE HE vs Dwarf are the two I have) anyways they all have special chars and are built around a story the more you win the more benifits you can earn.

Avian
28-08-2008, 11:12
I have a set of rules for a little 1 vs. 1 campaign on my website: A Little War in the Borderlands Campaign (http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/avian/downloads.php?f=campaign_littlewar)

WallyTWest
28-08-2008, 13:34
I think I got your solution! I did this all the time a cupple years ago.

Find a copy of the 5th edition Battle Book (you might want it for the scnereos, if not then flavor). On page 144 they have a short bit on campaigns that is worth the read. Rick Priestley at the time advicated playing 4 off games. The reason being its more important to complete your first campaign than to make it big and complicated (if you want to play another, then just start a new one.)

Scouting, Raid, Ambush, Big Battle

Scouting - Small point value game, use warhammer skirmish or warbands.
Raid - Medium game, use warhammer skirmish or warbands. Scout winner is the attacker.
Ambush - Medium game, use warbands or wfb to represent. Attacker is the raid looser. (trying to even the odds for...)
Big Battle - Large game, use wfb @ 1500-2000 points.

Apply penalities ahead of time that will effect the big battle. Ie, if he looses the gun powder supply he is limited to 0-1 war machines. If the black coach is destroyed in the raid, he may only field 0-2 vampires in the last battle. Play for a friendly weiger of 250 points. The winner of scouting may place terrain in the last fight.

"This way of linking games together really changes the way battles are fought, as players have to consider the long term effects of their actions rather than just the result of the battle itself." - Rick P.

I like 4 long campaigns. At one battle a week, its a whole month of gaming. Just long enough it can be played, just short enough it does not drone on too long.

Ethlorien
28-08-2008, 14:02
Yeah, we've done this before. Using multiple armies work, but so does just adding other elements: random events, third party NPC armies into the mix, stuff like that. When your army is broken up over four or five smaller forces across a large map, it's usually good enough.

Lordsaradain
28-08-2008, 14:50
Heres an idea:

Each player makes 4 different army lists and then fight 4 battles. The remaining troops (ones that have either fled off the board or remained alive) from the two first battles then face off against each other, while the remainders of the 3rd and 4th battle also face of in a seperate battle. Then the survivors of all the battles face off to determine the winner of the campaign.

Depending on the odds before the 5th and 6th battle, a scenario should be chosen or designed so that both players will have a fairly equal chance of winning.

Units that have suffered many casualties should be allowed (or forced if brought down below minimum unit starting size) to merge, but will not be able to contin more than one command group, excess command models are replaced by normal rank and file.

Multiwound models should either start subsequent battles with the same amount of wounds they had remaining in previous battles, or regain all wounds depending on what players decide.

Armies left without a general should be able to either use a unit champion as general or be allowed to swap one model of choice for a mundane equipped character.

The rules could off course be expanded or changed, if anyone wants to continue, feel free to! ;)