Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

2,270 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I am here today to ask for a bit of help from you, my fellow Heretics, on the matter of playing GM for a Campaign. After years of playing at the same shop I've been asked to run the yearly Spring Charity Campaign for Warhammer 40k. The Tournement only has three major requirements as puit forth by the shop owner.

A) Good Linear Storyline that connects all the matches
B) A simple ranking system that tracks players progress
C) Good prizes at the end for the Victors

As you can imagine I've already put quite a bit of thought into how I'm goiung to undertake this gigantic task; considering that roughly 40-60 people enter it every year. I've aready worked out a basic storyline based on a recent Campaign book I was reading off a third party website. Therefore I'm here to ask a few questions and seek your advice on the matter.

1) How would you go about organizing 40-60 people? Excel spreedsheets for tracking progress or rely on the players to inform you of who won/lost.

2) How to fit a Ladder style Tourney into a Campaign setting?

3) Finally any rules that I should consider putting into place prior to holding the Tournement.

I look forward to hereing from you :)

443 Posts
What are entry requirements? Fully painted army? Imho that should be one of the things that should players should get some points for, at least at a table top standard.

About tracking players. You should have both, you need a fail proof system so no one bitches around at you or their opponent. If statistics are important, make print out with info that they will fill out in the beginning and the end of the match both need to sign it and submit it to you after the game.
The print out can include anything you see useful for yourselves or the game.
Also make sure to throw in some simple rules like no food,drinks on the table.

90 Posts
Hello my friend!
Always love to see campaigns still being set up at the locals rather than relying on the mass tournaments for a story. I used to run a few at my local back in the day and always found it enjoyable!

First off, it would be really handy to know what you have so far in terms of stories or ideas. It’s easier for people to offer assistance when we know as much as you do.

But going off what you have given us, just a few questions and ideas:

Excel will be your friend! Trust me, it is a life saver. Get the two players to come to you at the end of the game (or you to them) and take down the score then and there. Do not try and remember the scores or write it down on a bit of paper. It is surprisingly easy for bits of play to float off into the sunset.

How exactly were you thinking of scoring the campaign as a whole? Are you going on faction or just each individual player? Using both is a great way to reward the overall winners as well as those truly exceptional players (with or without cheesy lists!)

How exactly are you going to structure the campaign? Are all races against each other, or do you have only a few factions, meaning anyone can join a faction regardless of race. And how long is the campaign supposed to be? Are we talking a day/weekend or are we saying over several months?

These questions will really affect how to get a structure to the campaign scenarios and story. If you are planning to do it over several months, I’d suggest having set deadlines on ‘games turns’, for instance, 1 – 2 weeks. At the end of the game turn, calculate which faction is currently winning, and move the campaign in that direction. For instance, A is currently beating B, therefore B will be on the defence. From here you could say that B is now launching targeted strikes to break the attacking force of A, or that A is pressing for a grand assault against B to try and finish them off.

But as I say, this completely dependant on what exactly you have planned for the campaign. Having the story is half the battle, knowing what to do with the story and how to logistically fit it into real life games wins the war.

Haha…rules and restrictions is always tricky to manoeuvre. The key here is balance, if you take something away, you have to give something back.
I would suggest that the first few games/game turns, you put restrictions on lists, and then escalate it from there. You want to make sure everyone is having a good time, and that everyone who wants to enter can do! So having small pointed games can get everyone involved, while bigger games can isolate those who don’t have the models to join in. However, caution is advised whenever you think about putting restrictions on something, restricting lists can make you king to some, and public enemy number one against others.

I’d suggest doing a simple force org chart, such as 1 HQ, 2 Troops and perhaps 1 slot for the rest. From there you can escalate and add in the other slots. This limits the amount of spamming that can occur, which is usually the core of anything cheesy (I say usually, this is obviously not always the case).

Some may also argue for a limitation on allies. This would stop the god awful Tau/dar and other nasty tricks from becoming the bane of everyone’s life (especially yours as you will have to put up with the complaints from everyone else). However, this can lead you down a slippery slope, and in some cases really harm the playing ability of an army (Sadly our fallen brothers, the CSM and DE would feel this the hardest).

However, one thing that I would seriously consider is the banning of escalation or stronghold assault. I will probably get flak for saying that but in my honest opinion, the inclusion of these will cause more harm than good. Stronghold assault is less of an issue than escalation, but I feel that if you ban one, it feels weird not to ban the other. It only takes one little so and so to bring a Lord of War, and everyone will cry cheese. There are ways to deal with them, but it is not worth the hassle to have them stomping round the board and making people burst into tears. Those models were designed for apocalypse and so should stay there.

GW at the main tournaments always run the “Must be fully painted and based” rule. I feel that is a little harsh. I can see their point of view, but in all honesty, the majority of players don’t have time or the patience to have a fully painted army. I’d stick to what Stormxlr suggested, reward those who do with points, but don’t make it compulsory.

They are just a few of my thoughts and opinions on the matter, feel free to ignore them. But if you want advice I would be happy (as I am sure others will be) to give you a hand!
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.