Very nice Bissler I did not read everything
but sure will do.

Reflections on the campaign:

At the risk of sounding like I'm patting myself on the back, both myself and my brother thoroughly enjoyed playing the campaign. Maybe that isn't surprising though because we both love the game and fighting numerous Epic battles is at the heart of the campaign.

What was surprising to me was that, after several bad results early on for the Marines, how close the campaign ended being. I was delighted that at the start of battle 9 that either of us playing could have won the entire campaign.

Rules-wise there were several amendments made during playtesting, most notably the change of rules for a tactical withdrawal. The support and advice offered to me was invaluable and very much appreciated (see below). While some rules were tweaked, the basics of the Epic War! system are unchanged and seemed to work well. I could have added further complexity to the system by introducing supply lines and the like, but the intention was really to design a relatively straightforward framework for playing campaigns. I wanted to keep the main focus on the battles and the game of Epic which I regard as the really fun part and not the system itself. Whether I was succesful in achieving this is for others to judge.

I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to read the rules and followed the campaign. In particular, I'd like to thank Irisado, Mordoten and Caregadras for taking the time to provide positive comments on my campaign threads. I'd also like to offer special thanks to Ulric, DNME, and Magnus Illuminus, all three of whom provided excellent feedback and great suggestions for rules amendments. It was very gratifying to see that there were people who were interested in my little project and were engaged enough to want to offer their advice to the betterment of the system.

Finally, I can't finish without acknowledging the help that my brother Martin provided during this project. 9 battles over the course of 5 or 6 weeks is a big ask and it was invaluable to have him here to battle against and to playtest my system. I really couldn't have done it without him.

I'll be looking over the rules during the next few days and see if any further tweaking is required, thereafter I'll repost the rules with the relevant changes.

Cheers!

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Well done! Nice too see it finish, thin I have another year to go with mine lol, got 2 battles to add. But already thinking off other ideas for campaign. my system pretty complex and would of benefited from several generals on both sides to help play the battles. Having seen your results the objectives and battle result points seem outweighed by breaking points.

Hi DNME,

That's a shame that you've still got so far to go with your own campaign, hopefully next time you will be able to get more generals to play.

You're absolutely right, the break points make up a huge chunk of the VPs for the campaign. Really the campaign objectives perform the same function as the objectives in the game do. The way to look at this is that in a normal game of Epic you have 8 objectives but to win the battle you are going to have to kill/destroy a significant number of enemy units. All I've done is take that basic model and expand it for tens of thousands of points, tweaking it slightly in order that the points gained for winning battles do not make it too easy for the campaign total to be quickly achieved.

The main effect of this was that I realised a little too late that I need to play more conservatively. Quite often in the past I have won a lot of battles by performing a smash and grab on enemy objectives late on in the game. Such tactics can involve heavy losses but succeed in winning the battle. When playing the campaign you can't afford to do that because you need to preserve your forces for later battles. I'm quite pleased about that because I reckon that's the way a general should think, about making the most of his manpower rather than recklessly charging them into enemy strongpoints to seize an objective.

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

The reason I highlighted it wad because the way to win is with kills not via strategic means. The old addage of seizing ground vs destroying armies. With your system its more get kills not so much seizing the objectives.

Hmm, it's an interesting point. I could up the VP threshold and make each Campaign Objective worth maybe 20VPs each so they carry more weight? My only concern is that the current system worked really well in playtesting with us both able to win in the last battle and I don't want to do something that would imbalance the whole campaign.

What do you (and anyone else) think?

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Where are the campaign rules?

Excellent that it worked good.
A close result is the best provement that the Campain works so far.
Now everybody can modify it if wanted.

Without reading the rules(completely) how did you managed the casualities for example :
a detachment of LR looses one tank.
did you use it with 2 tanks in further battles OR put it in reserve?
I can´t really remeber but we talked about that once.

Were there situations where several armies attack one opponent?
If yes in which way did you handle it?



There will be some more questions coming

Hi Epaminondas,

To save you trawling through another thread, I've attached them here. I am going to be reviewing these over the next few days so they may change again soon, but I don't think they'll change significantly.

Thanks for expressing your interest, comments, criticisms or suggestions are all very much welcomed!

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Cheers Ulric, appreciate that! Also, I am more than happy for people to adapt the rules as they see fit, I'll just be pleased for anyone to have used them in any way they see fit!



If you lose a battle your army is completely routed and everything goes into the reserves (via "in transit"). If you are victorious in battle the decision is yours as to how to proceed for that army. You can fight on with what you have, or you can voluntarily disband the army if you feel they are too weak to be able to stand up to another battle. If it is the latter, it's the same situation occurs as if you lost the battle. If you fight on, you have to fight with what is left, but break points will have to be recalculated.

eg. You have 6 Land Raiders left in your company. Normally the loss of another 1 Land Raider would break the company. This is hardly realistic as the company would have realised they have to battle on with reduced resources. Instead the break point would be reset to 3, meaning the company wouldn't break and morale checks wouldn't be required until you had lost another 3 Land Raiders. This is explained at greater length in the rules.



There weren't any as it is forbidden. What we did have was the situation where 2 Eldar armies had enough movement to attack 1 Marine army. The Eldar player had to decide which army he wished to attack with first. Assuming the Marines defeated that army, the Eldar player could then move the other army in to attack in the next turn.

You and I had discussed allowing multiple armies to attack the one. The solution we came up with would be that it could happen but that the battles would be fought one after the other. Given that it still meant different battles would still be fought - albeit in the same turn - I thought it simpler just to outlaw it.



Look forward to it, keep 'em coming!

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

You don't need to adjust the rules. Its the difference in tactics. Napoleon went for territory and cities where as other generals fought to destroy the armies. In my campaign we have decided who ever takes the first city wins, whereas originally it was just a general campaign with the cities and manafactoriums being objectives that give more supply or troop points. Also we planned a long campaign althouh the paperwork is alot. And it is starting to look precarious in several ways

I like your description of the tactics. But it does make me wonder if putting options in for victory conditions might be an idea.

For example; the victory conditions as stated at the moment would be a "carnage" campaign. But one more based upon the territory with higher points for campaign objectives would be a "conquest" campaign... It's food for thought, cheers DNME!

Sorry to hear that it looks as though there are problems with your campaign, hope you can resolve these and that you can continue on without too much difficulty.

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Its ok its just a case of time scale 1 battle every 2 weeks if lucky, but usually one a month if lucky
so 1st to capture a city seemed a good resolution.