ARBBL

So Mantic have released some updated/expanded guidance on running a campaign, and this time it’s map-based, which as I’ve mentioned before, certainly gets my vote. Having read the details, looked at the mechanics and had discussions with a few people about the pros and cons of these types of campaigns, it was suggested to start a discussion on it, so here we are.

I should probably start by saying that I’m quite keen to actually have a TWD campaign (it might encourage me to paint up my survivors!) and if there is any interest, please just chip on in.

Before dumping all of my thoughts down about the pros, cons, mechanics etc etc, it’s probably worth looking at the start and end points of the campaign. Mantic’s recommended starting position is;

a. We need 2-6 players and suggests a minimum number of turns equal to twice the players.
b. Each player choosing a group from a different faction/or faction specific group.
c. Each player should choose a group worth up to 125 pts (150 pts in the original campaign rules). Survivors in your group cannot change (unless they die, or if some other bonus allows it). Equipment cannot be exchanged but can freely be swapped between survivors between games.

Starting Groups may not:
a. Include any character worth more than 50 pts.
b. Include any models from other factions although neutral models may be recruited into any faction as normal.
c. Include custom survivors
d. Purchase any equipment card costing more than 20 pts.

My thoughts are that this sounds all very reasonable; 125 pts will get you 3, 4 at a push, thoroughly average survivors with some equipment and provide a reasonable base from which to start your journey into the post-apocalyptic world. The only point I’d query here is around limiting players to specific factions. Given that we’d more than likely play the experience rules (each surviving character receives a red die bonus and their cost goes up by 3 pts. The die can either be put into a group ‘pot’ or allocated to any of their characteristics), and standard characters are likely to develop at different rates, should we ignore the faction symbols and create our own? The pool of potential characters that you meet on your travels and available for recruitment increases. Further to that, I’m not sure that many of us are invested enough in the comics or TV series to want to recreate it with that level of accuracy and there’s an argument that characters are only aligned with certain factions because of when they met them – we’re playing in an alternate version. Plus, there are only 4 factions (2 of which are viable as stand-alones) and these are not balanced in terms of numbers.

Thoughts and opinions?


Jumping swiftly to the end, as I think it’s important to have a defined goal (along with a timeframe) for campaigns, the guidance recommends the player with the most territory wins. Seems reasonable, however, as territory depends on a dice roll after winning or drawing a game, it perhaps doesn’t tell the whole story. Nor does having a group with the highest points value (you get more points for territory, supplies and wins etc) but it might be a little closer. That said, if you see one group running away with it, people can tend to get a little despondent and interest subsequently wains. Campaigns I’ve run in the past have had a larger, multiplayer scenario at the end to decide the overall winner, with things like territory and points conferring bonuses going into the decider, giving the leader an advantage but allowing individuals that didn’t do so well/or who had a run of bad luck to still have a fighting chance to win. The best of both worlds maybe?

I’ve being mulling over the bits in-between as well but will post those thoughts in a little while. Very happy to hear everyone else’s thoughts and opinions in the meantime…

Some of the bits in between…

Every map-based campaign need’s map. Not rocket science, but the type of map is important. Having looked at the suggested/enclosed map with the rule, it’s got potential but further to discussions with Dave and Sven, I believe it could be a little better.

I like the hex-based nature but think the starting positions could be better, especially if participants want to get to some of the good stuff around the major city (which is in the top right corner – bummer if you start bottom left…)



First question I suppose is, should there really be 1 cluster of special locations or should they just be spread around the map in a random manner? A lack of one would certainly stop a rush for the area or benefiting whoever got lucky enough to start the game there. If it should be kept, should it be in the centre of the map or down on side? Either way, it allows all players relatively equal chance of getting there at the same time.

Given that players will start spread across the map and their location in relation to others is only really of consequence if they are both contesting the same hex (after every win you get to expand your territory by a blue die, and a red die if you draw) as opponents for each campaign round are drawn randomly (unless they’re contesting said same space), I thought the following might work:
The basic map could be marked out at the start of the campaign, either physically with a set of tiles (a la Mighty Empires) or by some electronic wizardry, only showing starting positions and major features such as rivers, interstates and forests. Special locations could then be hidden – if using a tiled map, tiles are placed faced down until a faction moves into them (similar to the Fallout board game) or placed in a bag (or a more technical solution!) with blank tiles and drawn when a faction moves into that space.

It might seem a phaff, but it could create the sense that your crew doesn’t know what is out there and would neutralise every starting position – no one would benefit as there is an equal chance of stumbling across a beneficial location during the end phase (assuming that you won/drew!). There might well be a rush and conflict when someone finds something good, which is just what you what…

The recommended campaign turn is as follows:

1. Arrange Games
2. Campaign Events
3. Play Games
4. Post-Game Sequence
a. Update Map
b. Life and Death
c. Supplies

All fairly self-explanatory really… …logically I should start with 1 and work through but it might be worth starting with the post-game sequence, as that has could have a significant impact on the arranging of games…
…I’ll have to mull over some more.

I don’t know enough about the specific game mechanics but can perhaps offer some comments on general campaign stuff.

I agree with your take on the factions, namely bin the restrictions and choose who you like, I’m envisaging this is your own setting and the rules are just the framework for that. I think Sven mentioned it last week and would be much more elegant solution than my suggestion, namely you can just use the base character cards and rename with your own characters names.

As to a defined campaign end there’s some options that as the arbitrator you could use, I like;

-first one to grow their community to X amount of survivors
-first one to hold X amount of territories / named territories (like the hospital or national guard depot)
-similar to above but point up each map hex and the one to reach a territory point target (points would need to be very much finger in the air, example a hospital could be worth five whereas a “blank” is merely worth one).

It’s difficult to know what will and won’t work as I’ve not played too much of the game. You will know more with regards to starting points to create your group etc

Not sure if it’s workable but I would like to see stuff like the ability to gain random survivors to your group as part of the reward structure for games, or even a random event system (now that I’ve said that I seem to recall there was a deck for that so that’s cool).

I’ve ordered some bits so I’d be keen to get involved.

Only just saw your second post.

I think you’ve nailed the map positioning stuff, I’d go with a central area of releativley “rich” hexes and each player starts in an outlying area. The map is probably too big as it stands, whilst it’s great in theory to be battling over this vast area you could never actually meet another player’s group. I’d go far as to suggest that the map should be pretty small, maybe a central area of 5-10 hexes and then a gap between it and other player groups starting hexes, as little as one or two unclaimed hexes. You get straight into the action then.

I would like to see some risk reward decisions to be made on when choosing what hex you wish to explore. A hex closer to your home base would be much safer to explore but if you want to explore that juicy hospital hex half way across the map then maybe some kind exploration event table type thing, modified for the number of hexes you have to travel. This is all very much off the top of my head but I think you get the general idea.

If I could borrow survivors I'd be up for giving this a go.

Perhaps the objective could be based around securing things you need to survive? So maybe capture a petrol stash, food and medicines?

The Post-Game Sequence (Part 1)

First up, many thanks for the comments and ideas, plenty to think about and work in to the house rules. I like the idea of using the mechanics of the game and setting it in our own setting and the current list of characters can be used independent of faction. I’m not sure if I read it in other campaign rules, but I like the idea that if one of your characters gets killed ie; comes back as a zombie or properly dies in the ‘Life and Death’ phase, you can’t re-hire that character (or it’s derivatives) and change its name, they’re gone. For good. Unless you are retiring your whole crew and starting again from scratch but that’s for later.

Points scoring is interesting. I’d thought that either as a tie-breaker or just for bragging rights, we ought to keep track/score how many zombies and survivors each crew kills! Maybe there could be bonuses (or penalties!) for having the most blood-thirsty crew…

What have you ordered Dave?

Anyway, back to the first part of the Post-Game Sequence – Update the Map.
As eluded to already, the winner of a game immediately gains a blue die of faction markers (1-3) which must be placed on the map to expand their territory – this can be both occupied and unoccupied spaces. Players that draw a game get one red die each (0-2) of markers. Players that lose, quite rightly get nothing other than retreating to lick their wounds, bury their dead and count the cost of failure.

Special Locations – As identified in the earlier posts, there are a variety of special locations that each confer certain bonuses for the player controlling that space. These range from allowing a group to recruit custom survivors to being able to buy gear that costs more than 20 pts (Gimme, gimme, gimme: UZI & Silencer! ). Also, if you control all the spaces in your home territory (the coloured spaces surrounding & including you home location/starting point) you can recruit characters of any points limit and upgrade characters you already have to different versions of themselves (paying the difference in points). So with this in mind, I think you’d need at least a space between faction territories. You would also need, on average 3 wins to expand your territory to gain this benefit.
I can see initial expansion being slow (as it might well be given the sudden apocalyptic situation) but once you get your engine built, you should be racking up the points/wins, or at the very least, giving you opponent a good shoeing. It may provide interesting different tactics – do you go for slow and solid expansion, or make a bee-line for bonus tiles to help you shape your crew or to deny your opponent’s their bonuses?
For every uncontested space (excluding your home location) that contains one of your faction markers, you gain 5 points that turn. This, along with other points bonuses, will be covered in the Supplies instalment, but was thinking, should you get a further bonus for occupying an opponents home location (ie having kicked them out of their stronghold!)?

Contested Spaces – Hopefully, there will be times when one player wishes to claim a space on the map already controlled by another player, or two players wish to claim the same originally unoccupied space. When this happens, the space is contested, and rather than randomly draw an opponent for the next round, the players must battle each other with the winner taking the space. Although not mentioned, if it’s a draw, I’d expect the original controlling player to hold and the attacker be repelled, and if both went for an unoccupied space, then both withdraw. If it’s a special location, its rules are not applied until the battle is decided. If several players contest the same space in the same turn, it’s time to roll out a multiplayer game!

So what happens if one player gets attacked more than once during a campaign turn over 2 or more spaces? The rules state that the games should be played in a mutually agreed order and only their final game of the Campaign turn counts for the next Post-Game Sequence.
Whilst I can see why the rules recommend this (ie not ganging up on a player and potentially eliminating them from the campaign – will probably become a little clearer in the ‘Life and Death’ section) it doesn’t sit well with me. I’d like to see all the games count – a sort of high risk, high reward type affair. Maybe a blue die for the first win and a white die for each subsequent win that turn. This way, players will have to weigh up the possibility that attacking an opponent multiple times might actually make them more combat ready and hence a little stronger. Or maybe the player being attacked more than once, has to split his crew (doesn’t have to be equally so could mix and match depending on the battle) so no two characters get more than one outing – so a case of having to spread your forces to cover your expanding territory and apportioning your manpower to where the threats lie.

The group fighting more than once will probably be able to take advantage of the Under-Dog bonus that allows the group with the lesser value group (in that particular battle) to gain a red die for every full 15 pts difference between the two groups. These are gathered into a pool and can be added to any attack or defence roll although no more than on die may be used on a single roll.

As always, thoughts, ideas and opinions always welcome. Next-up will be Life & Death and Supplies. Or general campaign discussion…

I think I’d agree with most things that have said to be honest, I’d only like to add thoughts on the following:

If you get attacked in 2 places, I’d say you’d need as the defender to decide what is most important to you and withdraw from one section. Perhaps this could confer an added dice when you try to take it back? My thinking is you’ve still got a small band of survivors and have to choose your battles!

I’d also like to see some of the scenarios come into play, perhaps they could be chosen by the person that has the weakest band if they wished?

Not had much time to read through, or much experience with the game to comment much, but any idea when this would likely be happening?

Still very much up for joining in if timings work out.

Ronq wrote:I think I’d agree with most things that have said to be honest, I’d only like to add thoughts on the following:

If you get attacked in 2 places, I’d say you’d need as the defender to decide what is most important to you and withdraw from one section. Perhaps this could confer an added dice when you try to take it back? My thinking is you’ve still got a small band of survivors and have to choose your battles!

I’d also like to see some of the scenarios come into play, perhaps they could be chosen by the person that has the weakest band if they wished?

Good points. I understand the concern over a small band of survivors and ensuring that you don't get yourself wiped out early on. I think you should have the choice of spreading your forces out (in whatever split you prefer) or you can choose to forfeit the one particular battle to concentrate on the other - as you say, you need to choose your battles. This could also be mitigated to a degree by your point around using scenarios which could include a points limit and I also think that it will probably take until campaign turn 3 at the earliest before players are able to directly attack each other territory and hence required splitting of forces so by that time, and assuming that you haven't sustained too many heavy casualties, your group should be of a reasonable size.

I totally agree with having some of the scenarios in the campaign. I've being trying to figure out whether they should be at set rounds in the campaign (sort of following a narrative thread) or whether they are more focused to specific areas/tiles or situations. I was toying with the idea of maybe using some of the single player scenarios, certainly if we have an odd number of players or people can't make certain campaign rounds, but also, if for example, you are the first crew to get to the prison, you could have to successfully complete 2 or 3 of the story missions (which would include a couple of solo missions and one that requires someone to play the '3rd party' prisoners) before you could claim the tile. Then if anyone tries to invade the tile, some of the Woodbury missions could be played in defence of said tile. It would probably be worth sitting down and 'table-topping' a few campaign turns to square away the mechanics and potential issues before going live.

Tom wrote:Not had much time to read through, or much experience with the game to comment much, but any idea when this would likely be happening?

Still very much up for joining in if timings work out.

Tom, not too sure at the moment, but given that Necromunda is in full flow and there is only 6 or so weeks until Christmas, I'd say that it would probably be best started early in the New Year - that would also give us time to sort out some of the campaign mechanics.