PDA

View Full Version : World Wide campaigns:



Cap'n Umgrotz
03-09-2006, 23:54
Should the imperials be counted as a single faction? I think so, otherwise it gives them two "shots at the bigtime" so to speak.(Currently space marines and guard are two seperate factions)
Not that they ever would be, GW doesn't like the imperials to lose too much.
Well, what do you think?

starlight
03-09-2006, 23:56
What about SoB (or the other Ordos for that matter)?

I'm for Imperial = one faction.

Cap'n Umgrotz
03-09-2006, 23:57
I assumed they were currently counted as Imperial Guard...
I wonder would they ever do it though?

Gensuke626
04-09-2006, 00:01
i would agree, except for 2 points. The first is that the Imperium are the official protagonists (Not nessecarily good guys) of the 40k universe. As such, crippling defeats could potentially throw fluff off balance. to me, this explains why Armageddon and Eye of Terror were draws, The side of Evil did very well...but you can't just kill off Armageddon or Cadia, they're too iconic. With Medusa, it's a world no one had heard of, so it can be killed.

Now the other thing is that, as in Medusa, The Marines and the Guard had completely different objectives. The marines had to stop Chaos from completing their dark work, while the Guard was there to escort refugees off the world...

In a sense, yes the Imperium has 2 shots at getting glory, but If GW keeps setting up campaigns like this then you can look at it as "Ok if they both do good, then all is well...but if Chaos wins, then the Imperium loses, and if the Imperial Guard fails to rescue enough refugees, then the Imperium as a whole suffers...so it's much less 2 chances of winning but two seperate victory conditions that failing either could have dire consequences for the Imperium. That's how I see it anyhow.

Asi the Red
04-09-2006, 00:08
Hey ya'.

I like having them seperated because, like Gensuke626 mentions, they've got completely seperate objectives most of the time.

What I wonder about is where do you lump the Witch/Daemonhunters? Do you call the SoB's and GK's Marines, or toss them in with the guard? Do you give them their own category, giving the Imperial side three chances for victory/defeat?

Cap'n Umgrotz
04-09-2006, 00:10
Fair one.
But I think somehow the loss would be written off to a large extent. I also dislike the current Imperial centric 40K we have intensly. So I'd like it if they could lose.
EoT was ridiculous because if chaos won, that was it, game over. Apocolypse, Rhana Dandra, Da Big Fight, whatever. So they couldn't win. Obviously. Same with SoC in fantasy.They were both really stupid ideas. So yeah, in that case you're right, but the campaigns should be more like Medusa V, or better yet armageddon (minus the cheating) where the result is important, but not world shattering. I mean, the eldar loss condition was pretty damn nasty, the ork one was really nasty, whereas imperials get a)loss of honour or b) some plebs dying.(Not to spit on the guard, I think they had a really fluffy and cool objective, but important overall?Not so much.Not pollute the webway or lose a special character important.)
See where I'm coming from?

VetSgtNamaan
04-09-2006, 01:35
I think the biggest problem with the campigns is that well they always seem to set up chaos as the big bad attacking with overwhelming numbers then like somehow at the end nothing ends up changing really. If they had a realistic ebb and flow to the battles then I would take them more seriously.

If chaos really has the edge on number and humanity is so easily corrupted even on cadia then they should be walking all over the servants of the 'false emperor.'

Cap'n Umgrotz
04-09-2006, 01:49
That always bugs me too.
I mean, how many traitor marines could be left at this stage?
10,000 max?
Against the entire imperium, plus about 50% of the Orks in the area on any given day, the Eldar (most of the time), necrons and probably Tau aswell?
Bleh. Makes no sense to me. Armageddon I liked because it has had an effect on the background, and the outcome was a good one.

chaos0xomega
04-09-2006, 04:03
i would agree, except for 2 points. The first is that the Imperium are the official protagonists (Not nessecarily good guys) of the 40k universe. As such, crippling defeats could potentially throw fluff off balance. to me, this explains why Armageddon and Eye of Terror were draws, The side of Evil did very well...but you can't just kill off Armageddon or Cadia, they're too iconic. With Medusa, it's a world no one had heard of, so it can be killed.

Now the other thing is that, as in Medusa, The Marines and the Guard had completely different objectives. The marines had to stop Chaos from completing their dark work, while the Guard was there to escort refugees off the world...

In a sense, yes the Imperium has 2 shots at getting glory, but If GW keeps setting up campaigns like this then you can look at it as "Ok if they both do good, then all is well...but if Chaos wins, then the Imperium loses, and if the Imperial Guard fails to rescue enough refugees, then the Imperium as a whole suffers...so it's much less 2 chances of winning but two seperate victory conditions that failing either could have dire consequences for the Imperium. That's how I see it anyhow.

While they do have two seperate objectives, everyone knows that the IG will end up being commandeered by an Inquisitor for something else anyway, or the line will blur and SM and IG are working on eachothers objectives. And there objectives weren't that different anyway. Once the campaign started, all what I was reading about in the weekly updates was stuff abou the IG attacking Necrons, or attacking Death Leapers, or doing other some sort of thing, and the SM were doing the same thing although mostly focused on Chaos. They could be the same faction no problem, just give them multiple objectives.

cailus
04-09-2006, 06:18
I'd simply stop the international campaigns. For want of a better phrase, they suck big sweaty donkey ********.

BrainFireBob
04-09-2006, 08:37
CSM have various means of increasing/replenishing their numbers- one of which was that they'd "reincarnate" in the Eye like Daemons over time.

And splitting the Imperials splits the imperial victories. Marines and Guard both did well in Medusa. Combine their victories, and they easily win.

Armageddon seemed to me at the time to be fairly fair- and it ended up a draw. Such cheating as occured was due to reporting bugs.

Eye of Terror was a weird situation- they tried to run it on several fronts, and it didn't ebb and flow quite how they expected- and so Storm of Chaos had a pre-orchestrated order of events, tweaking campaign events to help Chaos succeed- Chaos was STOMPED in Storm. In Eye, Chaos won Cadia- and some other planets- but loss badly in space, as I understand it. The Imperium also won some planets, but not the key one, but they dominated the system of the key one.

So, the Gate's smashed, but not decisively, and the timeline isn't advancing past 999.M41 anyway. What happens in 1.M42 is anyone's guess. Clear winners in EoT there were not, unless you state conditions (On Cadia? Disorder. In Space? Order. Etc.)

Effectively, Chaos had more key victories, not more decisive ones. So, in 40K terms, Chaos overall had a "minor victory" in Eye, as I understand it- though in certain locations it was a Massacre!

There's not been a higher agenda, excepting for Storm, which actually kept it close the entire time (or tried to). So I don't see the issue.

People seem not to realize that while many noobs play SMs, so do many, many experienced and skilled players. Apparently, it's the "silent majority" of 40K gamers. . .

Da Reddaneks
05-09-2006, 02:51
i think captain umgrotz is dead on point. Sisters, marines and IG may have slightly different objectives but they are largely the same. i had not thought of that before umgrotz. very out of the box thinking there. i like it.

Chem-Dog
05-09-2006, 03:19
I don't think it would be unreasonable in a large campaign (like Armageddon or Eye of Terror) to assume that the varying Imperial factions would be working towards a unified common goal, this may well have small variations, where the greater Imperial goal would be to protect a planet or system certain forces may be concentrating on particular goals, for example, a detachment of SoB's might be tasked with holding/taking a site of religious significance and their success or failiure would have a distinct effect on the effort of allied troops around them. Marines might be shock troops who attack inside enemy lines with Shock & Awe™ tactics and quickly withdraw but their efforts will affect the strength of the enemy attack thus making it easir for troops like the Imperial guard to hold a line, or even advance.

Even the Inquisition would have the same basic goals, they might be specifically interested with preventing an Alien meance, Daemonic intervention or som Apostate Cardinal, but the end result is that they win, the Imperium is better off, they loose and the Imperium suffers.

Basically, record the results seperately to work out what each individual race/army/codex achieves but for the final result, win or loose it should only be considered which team you play for.
This way even if every single Imperial Marine army wins every single battle the other factions could still be responsible for dragging it down to a loose.

Mos
05-09-2006, 09:26
I'd keep them seperate at all times, purely because if you added all the space marine victories/losses and all the imperial guard victories/losses together under one entry (and remember, they're two of the top 4 most popular armies, so there's a lot of players in those factions) they would have walked away with Medusa without there even being a fight. I know Marines ended up winning anyway, but at least it looked in question for the better part of the campaign.

Mojaco
05-09-2006, 10:17
Medusa is the first where they are split up. Before they worked together under the banner of forces of order against the forces of disorder. So it's been done. But I suppose they wanted to try this and see how people felt about it.

Personally I prefer the order vs disorder approach. Makes for a nice "we versus them" feeling, which is lacking at medusa imo.

10th clancannach rangers
05-09-2006, 16:42
I thought that the problem with Medusa V was that it was like a great big tally of how many victories each faction had won, you didn't really get a feel for how the campaign was going or where anyone was.

Glabro
05-09-2006, 17:50
, but the campaigns should be more like Medusa V, or better yet armageddon (minus the cheating) where the result is important, but not world shattering.

What? What do you mean cheating? I mean, I am sure that in this wargaming hobby of ours there are no such people that are capable of doing something so despicable as cheating on an unsupervised Internet game. I mean, itīs so hard to report a battle, why would they go through all that trouble to report? I am sure they all did play three legal battles each day of the campaign.

And even if there were, there are so few such people on the Internet that surely they wouldnīt have any real effect on the results at all!

Emresh
05-09-2006, 18:05
I think they should be lumped together as "Imperial" with the players determining any faction specific sideplots that go on with their narratives (then again, I think that the Imperium ought to have a single rulebook sized codex as well, but that's a different topic all together... :p .) Though, having them separated along the lines of "Radicals" and "Puritans" or something similar could work.

mooserehab86
05-09-2006, 18:19
I think Marines and Guard should be separate, as they *supposedly* had very different objectives in the campaign. I do think they should have specified where WH and DH fit in though.

My main problem with Medusa V, as well as with all the worldwide campaigns, is that it has very little effect on the game. I almost feel that there is no real reason to fight. In the case of Medusa V, the world is going to be destroyed no matter who wins. Sure, as far as fluff is concerned, the Imperium wants to evacuate its citizens and stop Chaos from doing whatever they're doing. However, I don't see the campaign results as anything that would influence our hobby. While it's possible that it could happen, I doubt that GW will, for example:

1. Create rules for Ygethmor as a daemon prince in the 4th edition Chaos codex, if Chaos won in the campaign
2. Put the Death Leaper in the next version of the Tyranid codex, if the Tyranids won
3. Get rid of the option for one of the Eldar craftworlds, if the Eldar lost
4. Get rid of the rules for an Ork special character as well-known as the one involved in this campaign (forgot his name), if the Orks lost

I suppose there is a chance that the campaign may influence the future of the game in a minor way (Eldrad supposedly died in the EoT campaign - does anyone know if he is/isn't in the upcoming Eldar codex?), but it would be nice to see some evidence that what we do in these worldwide campaigns is acknowledged by the GW staff and taken into account when they write the new fluff.

bob syko
05-09-2006, 18:21
The imperials being one faction sounds good to me, if they had ifferent goals then maybe but they all want the same, kind of.

BrainFireBob
05-09-2006, 19:02
Eldrad's confirmed in the new 'dex.

Kriegsherr
05-09-2006, 20:18
they should make different campaigns for different races.... cramping all races into one campaign (or unto one small planet) is making the whole story part quite trashy.... they better made somehow linked minicampaigns of two races against each other.... and count victories for this campaign even if the enemy doesn't match.

Chem-Dog
05-09-2006, 21:03
I'd keep them seperate at all times, purely because if you added all the space marine victories/losses and all the imperial guard victories/losses together under one entry (and remember, they're two of the top 4 most popular armies, so there's a lot of players in those factions) they would have walked away with Medusa without there even being a fight. I know Marines ended up winning anyway, but at least it looked in question for the better part of the campaign.

Breaking it down into percentages would elliminate any actual numerical superiority, If Marines won 28% of their battles, drew 11% and lost 61% and IG won 58% drew 2% and lost 40% and the Inquisition won 47% drew 12% and lost 41% you would simply add the W/D/L scores together and divide it by three to get a combined totals of 44/8/47. It would then be a simple case of stacking each races's results against this.


they should make different campaigns for different races.... cramping all races into one campaign (or unto one small planet) is making the whole story part quite trashy.... they better made somehow linked minicampaigns of two races against each other.... and count victories for this campaign even if the enemy doesn't match.

The problem is, with so many different sides you'll never get it so everybody's happy, you can't say Marines will only be fighting Marines, because many people don't have those particular troops or an opponant with one of those forces.

Even if you have a complete system in war with all races/armies in various places you would have to have a good reason for any race/army to be able to fight any other army.

mooserehab86
05-09-2006, 21:13
Eldrad's confirmed in the new 'dex.

Okay that really makes me annoyed. I like Eldrad a lot, but that's not the point. In the "official" EoT campaign, the GW staff members in charge of fluff said that Eldrad died! This really goes to show that these campaigns have no influence on the future of the hobby.

I realize GW never said that the outcome of their campaigns will affect the game itself, but I think they would be MUCH more interesting if they did. It would give us, the actual players, a sense that we have at least a little say in what GW does.

Kriegsherr
05-09-2006, 21:52
The problem is, with so many different sides you'll never get it so everybody's happy, you can't say Marines will only be fighting Marines, because many people don't have those particular troops or an opponant with one of those forces.

Even if you have a complete system in war with all races/armies in various places you would have to have a good reason for any race/army to be able to fight any other army.


no I meant, if two opponents fighted each other that weren't opponents in the campaign fluff, their losses/victories would just be splitted and counted to the two different mini campaigns.... not very WYSIWYG I know

FoolsJourney
05-09-2006, 22:03
It may not be possible within the current GW mindset for worldwide campaigns to influence the fluff massively, but it could influence subsequent campaigns.

As an example, a universe spanning campaign could end in a major victory for the Nids in one sector. The following campaign book could then have the Tyranids being the dominant force and scenarios about cleansing cities and agriworlds of them. Elsewhere the Traitor Legions could have caused a major rout on the Imperium, and so the following campaign has the Ordo Malleus against not only Chaos but Imperial Guard too as a result of their betrayal in that sector.

The campaign book could begin with a 4 page summary of the state of the system as a result of the previous campaing, with scenarios and battles that ensue as a result.

Glabro
05-09-2006, 22:32
Okay that really makes me annoyed. I like Eldrad a lot, but that's not the point. In the "official" EoT campaign, the GW staff members in charge of fluff said that Eldrad died! This really goes to show that these campaigns have no influence on the future of the hobby.

I realize GW never said that the outcome of their campaigns will affect the game itself, but I think they would be MUCH more interesting if they did. It would give us, the actual players, a sense that we have at least a little say in what GW does.


Umm, and just how badly exactly did the Eldar lose in EoT to deserve to lose their most prominent special character? Oh, thatīs right, they didnīt, they were the most convincing winners of their own warzone.

Eldradīs death had absolutely nothing to do with the campaign results, and I for one am glad to see him back for that reason.

mooserehab86
05-09-2006, 22:34
That's a good idea. Not only would it make any given campaign more interesting to play in, it would create a kind of anticipation for the next one too.

Cap'n Umgrotz
10-09-2006, 23:50
I like the idea of linked campaigns!
That's really great.
They could do it over a sector!
It'd be fantastic.
I think a hive fleet invasion of a sector would make for a brilliant campaign.

Splagbot
11-09-2006, 00:10
Eldrad: I see darkness in my future random Eldar.

Random Eldar: Bugger, that sucks Eldrad.

Three weeks later.

Random Eldar 1: Eldrad's dead, what hope is there now.

Random Eldar 2: I know man, him dying sucks ass.

Eldrad: It's alright guys I'm not really dead, I just went on holiday.

Random Eldar 1 and 2: Cool.

Bringing Eldrad Ulthran back sucks ass, he was a stale character who got a fitting end.

UnRiggable
11-09-2006, 03:10
That fluff is fantastic, the things I would pay...

GrimZAG
11-09-2006, 03:31
I wouldn't want campaigns to dictate, no matter how small, changes to the hobby, i suppose it wouldn't matter to me as i don't use special characters anyway