pseudonyme Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 Dear fellow AoS lovers, I am rather new to AoS, in fact I had my first game last week which I enjoyed a LOT. We played what I see as the introduction/tutorial Skirmish battleplan : Clash at dawn. It was Stormcasts vs. Deathrattle. The result was a well-deserved spanking of Sigmar's soulless golems My partner in crime living one sea away (this traitor moved to our ancestral enemy land, and home of GW), I wondered which battleplan we could play next time, and what narrative we could use to flesh out those games? I was very inspired by some discussions (some campaign reports and the Open play let's read for the most part). And because I am an analytical person who like to over-think anything, I wondered if I could come up with a simple system to "narratively" link battleplans together depending on the outcomes of games. The goal is absolutely not to produce a straight jacket system, but more a loose system of guidelines to help people (like me) with no skills in writing a proper immersive narrative campaign. The basic principle is: the players play a game, depending on both the outcome and the battleplan type, they decide together between different options. Let's take an example. For the first game, the players play Treasure hunt (from Skirmish expansion). The options after a Grab objectives type battleplan could be: in case of a major victory: Ritual battleplan type, Escort battleplan type, Defender battleplan type in case of a minor victory: Escort battleplan type, Defender battleplan type, Ambush battleplan type At the end of the first game, both player agree to go on an Escort battleplan: the winner of the previous game trying to get his treasure back home (or to a sacred site to perform a ritual). The possible battleplans after an Escort battleplan type could be: in case of a major victory of the defender: Ritual battleplan type, Siege battleplan type in case of a minor victory of the defender: Defender battleplan type (with both players at opposing sides of the battlefield), Siege battleplan type in case of a minor victory of the attacker: Defender battleplan type (with the looser at the center of the battlefield), Siege battleplan type, Pursuit battleplan type in case of a major victory of the defender: Pursuit battleplan type, Skimrish assassinate battleplan type Let's fast-forward a little: the attacker wins a minor victory in the Escort battleplan (from a narrative point of view the attacker cripples the defender army but not enough to prevent him to reach his castle), the players decide to go on a Attacker vs/ Defender type battleplan. The defender wins a major victory and they decide to go on the skirmish assassinate scenario yada yada yada, and in the end, everyone kneels to Nagash (guess which faction I play). I thought that thanks to all your experience, we could come up with a basic battleplan mapping. By battleplans, I also consider the AoS Open War objective cards (which I do not have (yet)). I went a little further on the battleplan map / tree / generic rules, but I prefer to wait for some feedback (basically: is it relevant or not?) before posting a 317 pages long post. So what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramer Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 35 minutes ago, pseudonyme said: Dear fellow AoS lovers, I am rather new to AoS, in fact I had my first game last week which I enjoyed a LOT. We played what I see as the introduction/tutorial Skirmish battleplan : Clash at dawn. It was Stormcasts vs. Deathrattle. The result was a well-deserved spanking of Sigmar's soulless golems My partner in crime living one sea away (this traitor moved to our ancestral enemy land, and home of GW), I wondered which battleplan we could play next time, and what narrative we could use to flesh out those games? I was very inspired by some discussions (some campaign reports and the Open play let's read for the most part). And because I am an analytical person who like to over-think anything, I wondered if I could come up with a simple system to "narratively" link battleplans together depending on the outcomes of games. The goal is absolutely not to produce a straight jacket system, but more a loose system of guidelines to help people (like me) with no skills in writing a proper immersive narrative campaign. The basic principle is: the players play a game, depending on both the outcome and the battleplan type, they decide together between different options. Let's take an example. For the first game, the players play Treasure hunt (from Skirmish expansion). The options after a Grab objectives type battleplan could be: • in case of a major victory: Ritual battleplan type, Escort battleplan type, Defender battleplan type • in case of a minor victory: Escort battleplan type, Defender battleplan type, Ambush battleplan type At the end of the first game, both player agree to go on an Escort battleplan: the winner of the previous game trying to get his treasure back home (or to a sacred site to perform a ritual). The possible battleplans after an Escort battleplan type could be: • in case of a major victory of the defender: Ritual battleplan type, Siege battleplan type • in case of a minor victory of the defender: Defender battleplan type (with both players at opposing sides of the battlefield), Siege battleplan type • in case of a minor victory of the attacker: Defender battleplan type (with the looser at the center of the battlefield), Siege battleplan type, Pursuit battleplan type • in case of a major victory of the defender: Pursuit battleplan type, Skimrish assassinate battleplan type Let's fast-forward a little: the attacker wins a minor victory in the Escort battleplan (from a narrative point of view the attacker cripples the defender army but not enough to prevent him to reach his castle), the players decide to go on a Attacker vs/ Defender type battleplan. The defender wins a major victory and they decide to go on the skirmish assassinate scenario yada yada yada, and in the end, everyone kneels to Nagash (guess which faction I play). I thought that thanks to all your experience, we could come up with a basic battleplan mapping. By battleplans, I also consider the AoS Open War objective cards (which I do not have (yet)). I went a little further on the battleplan map / tree / generic rules, but I prefer to wait for some feedback (basically: is it relevant or not?) before posting a 317 pages long post. So what do you think? Are you looking to create something like this? It’s straight from the general handbook 2016. Or do you want some more choices for the winner? If so maybe the firestorm campaginbook is a solution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pseudonyme Posted May 4, 2018 Author Share Posted May 4, 2018 More or less that, but with more options, no loop, and a somewhat loose approach (no specific battleplans or number of battleplans), to flesh out your army/warband. I guess I should read the firestorm rulebook which could be exactly that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaldoBeardo Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 20 hours ago, pseudonyme said: More or less that, but with more options, no loop, and a somewhat loose approach (no specific battleplans or number of battleplans), to flesh out your army/warband. I guess I should read the firestorm rulebook which could be exactly that If that's too restrictive, I'm not exactly what sort of system you're trying to come up with? If you're after a narrative type deal, then just pick a scenario that fits the narrative. Systems kinda go against the core idea of narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pseudonyme Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 In my mind, specific battleplans are somewhat restrictive in the long term. What I am trying to come up with is way to make sense of « generic » battleplans outside of specific campaigns like Malign portents. It is rather clear in my head, but I guess I might have over thought it. I’ve put below my first and incomplete draft. Rules of fluidity and common sense: Any battleplan outcome should propose at least 2 options More or less like GO, a battleplan type outcome should not propose the same battleplan type as an option (i.e. a ritual battleplan cannot be followed by another ritual battleplan) All the players involved are civilized and agree on the next battleplan To give more weight to outcome, a symmetrical battleplan should be followed by an asymmetrical Mapping the battleplans First step, let's split the battleplans into 2 main categories: Symetrical battleplans: where every player has the same objectives Examples: Treasure hunt, Grab & Hold objectives, let's brawl in the middle of the battlefield… For symetrical battleplans, there is generally 2 outcomes possible: major or minor victory for one of the contestant I would suggest that after any symetrical battleplan, it would be better from a narrative point of view to play an asymetrical one Asymetrical battleplans: where players have opposing objectives Examples: more or less every battleplan with an attacker and a defender like Ambush, Escort, Siege… For asymetrical battleplans, there is generally 4 outcomes possible: major or minor victory for the defender, major or minor victory for the attacker As a general rule, we can consider that you can have more or less any symetrical battleplan after an asymetrical battleplan Next, and more or less finally, we have to split the different battleplans in generic types defined by both their mecanics and narrative aspects. This is what I came up with from the GHB 2017, the Skirmish rulebook and Legion of Nagash battletome, I will update it with your contribution): Edit: See below posts for more accurate advanced taxonomy I will certainly continue on my own, if it appears to only be relevant for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chord Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 I did something like this. It used the campaign rules from All-Gates, it was a three battleplan campaign. The winner of the first then took certain roles during the last two battleplans. And the winner of the second battleplan got an advantage going into the third. The campaign rules include Units of Renown rules which added strategy as killing off your opponents renown units meant they didn't get the bonus next battle plan. The gist was the first battleplan the two armies were vying for an artifact. The second battleplan the loser of the first was attempting to sneak into the camp of the winner at night and weaken their army so that in the third battleplan they had a better chance of stopping the artifact from being destroyed/used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pseudonyme Posted May 9, 2018 Author Share Posted May 9, 2018 I should check those all gates campaign rules even if my initial idea is not providing rules like that. Do you think it is relevant to make a generic system, or usually people create their own mini or big campaign on their own thanks to their experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chord Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 I think having a generic system that categorizes all the battleplans and helps people put a campaign together is a great idea! The All-Gates rules are more for generals and regiments of renown. They work best without allegiance abilities etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pseudonyme Posted May 11, 2018 Author Share Posted May 11, 2018 @chord thanks for the reply. I will continue next week as it appear that I am even lazier at home than at work, which is quite impressive I must confess In the meantime, do you think the taxonomy (symmetrical/asymmetrical and the 6 battleplan types) is good or should be tuned/extended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chord Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 4 hours ago, pseudonyme said: @chord thanks for the reply. I will continue next week as it appear that I am even lazier at home than at work, which is quite impressive I must confess In the meantime, do you think the taxonomy (symmetrical/asymmetrical and the 6 battleplan types) is good or should be tuned/extended? I think the taxonomy is a good start as-is. I can't recall all of the realm gate war battleplans but I believe that covers most. there are a few oddball ones but those don't need to fit in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pseudonyme Posted May 11, 2018 Author Share Posted May 11, 2018 Ok thanks. Will start updating it next week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pseudonyme Posted May 11, 2018 Author Share Posted May 11, 2018 Or this afternoon... 2nd draft taking in account: Skirmish, GHB 2017, Legion of Nagash, Flesh eaters court, Disicples of Tzeentch, Malign portents and open war cards. Concerning the taxonomy, I think the ritual might be not relevant and the attacker vs defender too wide in scope. Instead of those 2 battleplan types, should « objectives defense » (i.e. Skirmish’s Vortex of power) and « territory defense » (i.e. GHB 2017’ Through the breach) be more relevant? If you have any battletome campaign book and 10 minutes to spare/waste, feel free to fill the battleplan types with the battleplans Symetrical battleplans Let's brawl in the middle of the battlefield like there is no tomorrow Major victory possible outcomes: the winner performs a ritual, the winner chases the looser, the winner hold and defend his position, more or less any battleplan Minor victory possible outcomes: the winner performs a ritual, the winner hold and defend his position, more or less any battleplan Examples: AoS battleplans: They came from below (Malign portents), The twice death (Malign portents), Heralds of woe (Malign portents), Starstrike (GHB 2017) Skirmish battleplans: Clash at Dawn (Skirmish), The well of souls (Malign portents) Battletome battleplans: Skeins of fate (Disciples of Tzeentch) Open war objectives: war of attrition, kill the messenger, glory seeker, king slayer Multiplayer battleplans: Two became three (Flesh eaters court), night March (GHB 2017), more or less each triumph & treachery battleplans (GHB 2017) Hold objectives (ruins, altar of madness) Major victory possible outcomes: the winner performs a ritual, the winner is escorting his new found artefact/reasure, the winner hold and defend his position, the winner go back home and wait for a siege Minor victory possible outcomes: the winner hold and defend his position, the winner is escorting his new found artefact/reasure, the looser chases the winner Examples: AoS battleplans: Dark omens (Malign portents), scorched earth (GHB 2017), battle for the pass (GHB 2017), Duality of death (GHB 2017), Total conquest (GHB 2017), Knife to the heart (GHB 2017) Skirmish battleplans: Seize the relic (Skirmish) Open war objectives: field of glory, invasion, take & hold, drawn & quartered, burn and pillage, the comet Multiplayer battleplans: race to destruction (GHB 2017), the meat grinder (GHB 2017), changing priorities (GHB 2017), the traitor (GHB 2017) Grab objectives (treasure, artefacts) Major victory possible outcomes: the winner performs a ritual, the winner is escorting his new found artefact/reasure, the winner hold and defend his position, the winner go back home and wait for a siege Minor victory possible outcomes: the winner hold and defend his position, the winner is escorting his new found artefact/reasure, the looser chases the winner Examples: AoS battleplans: Skirmish battleplans: Treasure hunt (Skirmish) Open war objectives: the prize, Treasure hunters Multiplayer battleplans: Asymetrical battleplans Territory defense Battleplan examples: Assassinate (Skirmish) Defender victory Major victory possible outcomes: Countdown, Assassinate (skirmish) Minor victory possible outcomes: Attacker vs. Defender (players on opposing sides of the battlefiels), On the run Attacker victory Major victory possible outcomes: Attacker vs. Defender (defender surrounded by attacker), On the run Minor victory possible outcomes: Attacker vs. Defender (players on opposing sides of the battlefiels), On the run Examples AoS battleplans: through the breach (GHB 2017), against the horde (GHB 2017), fleeting fealty (GHB 2017), to bind the storm (GHB 2017), the relief force (GHB 2017), the Great Wall (GHB 2017) Skirmish battleplans: Assassinate (Skirmish) Battletome battleplans: Turn the tables (legion of Nagash), ancient warriors (legion of Nagash), Banquet of magic (Disicples of Tzeentch) Open war objectives: Multiplayer battleplans: trapped in the middle (GHB 2017) On the run (Ambush, Escort) Defender victory Major victory possible outcomes: … Minor victory possible outcomes: … Attacker victory Major victory possible outcomes: … Minor victory possible outcomes: … Examples AoS battleplans: Blood moon rising (Malign portents), The key to victory (GHB 2017), the beast run (GHB 2017) Skirmish battleplans : Fragile cargo (Skirmish) Battletome battleplans: Stirring the nest (Flesh eatesr court), On the hunt (flesh eaters court) Open war objectives: Multiplayer battleplans: Objectives defense Defender victory Major victory possible outcomes: … Minor victory possible outcomes: … Attacker victory Major victory possible outcomes: … Minor victory possible outcomes: … Examples: AoS battleplans: Skirmish battleplans : Vortex of power (Skirmish) Open war objectives: Multiplayer battleplans: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.