Another Event: Konor Campaign
Hello
All,
I
ran an Apocalypse Style battle at Goldmine Games, so instead of posting, I’ve
been busy building and preparing for this event. It was a lot of fun. We maxed
out attendance, played 4 full turns, the game was dynamic, and came to a clear
result.
Just before packing it all up to the shop...
Just before packing it all up to the shop...
All ready to go...
The
short version is:
Loosely
(very loosely) based on Market Garden, the Imperial forces start at the edges
and fight toward each other. Chaos starts in the center and tries to keep the
Imperials from linking up. Additionally,
each player was assigned a profile that affected their deployment, the
detachment org to use, and their victory conditions. I went to a great deal of
effort to make sure that the Chaos and Imperial profiles were not simply mirror
images of each other, and the profile objectives would interact well.
The
game brief is 2 pages and there are 12 Profiles to choose from.
I
have a few thoughts… (WARNING: EXTREME SOAPBOX GRANDSTANDING AHEAD)
What a great exercise. I really enjoyed designing the scenario. I’m old school
and at this point of evolution with my hobby, a “Narrative” only kind of guy.
This
is a scenario….
I
don’t know what this is….
There
were many elements in the event that broke the standard 40k game paradigm,
1. The irregular shape of the battle area
2. Deployment was sequential by player and
the deployment zones were all over the place
3. Force Profiles determined what
detachment a player could take, and what the force should be built to do
4. Clear Objectives WITHOUT any gamey
definitions (“Take the Bridge” means TAKE THE BRIDGE, not occupying an
arbitrary coin within 3”) and at the end of the game the player would tell me
whether he achieved it
By
creating these special conditions, I knew I had stretched the players' tolerance
for shenanigans. To their credit, they
all came with an open mind and completely played in the spirit of the day. It
was fantastic. They all had
complimentary things to say about how the narrative scenario was designed, and
how it played out.
Here
is the event brief, with the map, all the rules, and profiles:
LINK HERE
One of the guys, Cody, took a video of the game from his POV...
LINK: Venomous Wargaming
(Thanks Cody!)
And some game photos are near the top of the Goldmine Games Page (for now)
Goldmine Games Facebook
One of the guys, Cody, took a video of the game from his POV...
LINK: Venomous Wargaming
(Thanks Cody!)
And some game photos are near the top of the Goldmine Games Page (for now)
Goldmine Games Facebook
From
the “What could I do better?” side…
FIRST
While
the Imperial players could achieve the objectives for their individual Profiles,
overall victory was not possible. Now, I don’t know if I would change that if I
ran it again, because if player experience hinges on achieving their individual
objectives, I could simply remove the Overall outcome from the stakes. That
would mean simply tightening up some of the objective descriptions.
OTOH
– if I tweaked some of the deployment zones, I think overall Imperial Victory
would be within reach. (but either way, I
need to tighten up some of the individual Profile Objectives)
Now,
I played a lot of historical boardgames with my Dad when I was growing up, and “winning”
those games usually meant just getting a better outcome for your side than the
actual result. For instance, in the game “Afrika Korps”, by Avalon Hill, Rommel
and the Germans are going to lose, but winning in this context was defined as “can
you extend the fight longer than Rommel did?” WIN!
However,
I don’t think that player satisfaction is possible if there is no historical yardstick
to measure against. (in short “Losing is Losing”) So, talking myself in a
circle here, I think changing some of the Imperial deployments is needed.
SECOND
I’m
not going to post pics of during the game because of the many, many unpainted miniatures. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve
had a great time and everybody has been courteous and fun. However, when you
invite people into “your” definition of the hobby, they bring “their”
definition of the hobby. Working on the last 2 events has really brought that
home, and posting on this blog about my own little Imagi-Nation has clearly
suffered. Watch this space…
Thanks for reading!
Once again, looks fantastic. Good job flying the flag for real scenarios!
ReplyDeleteThanks,
DeleteI was inspired by looking at how much work GW did to build the Konor Campaign. Great web support, pretty web pictures, but then the scenario just went flat. Credit to them for going most of the way, so I figured I'd give the local guys something worthy of playing rather than "line up and shoot"
Great set up & your right about how every-bodies take on the hobby is different many a time I've faced half built unpainted models & while that's something you just have to except there is no point of photo's.
ReplyDeleteI would also agree that take the bridge should be take it & not just a little bit of it.
Hi Frank,
DeleteI can have fun at a table with almost anyone, but there is always the pull of the small core group that sees the table the same way.
...and while I see the necessity of pinpoint objectives for "tournament" play, how else would you score it? I'm years past that, and in Narrative Games there is no need to limit a game with that specific set of adjustments.
Will
Spetacular display as usual, I love your work on preparing these things. I'll go check the links!
ReplyDeleteThanks Suber,
DeleteVenomous Wargaming's video is sort of a summary right now, but he said that a full report will be up in a few days, if you are interested.
I really enjoy "setting the stage" for these things.
Thanks for your take on narrative gaming, Major. That's something I'm trying to inject in all the games I run.
ReplyDeleteOne question: I run Ogre (sci fi tank combat) using the boardgame rules with minis and 3-D terrain on a large hex mat. For objectives, I designate a piece of terrain, like a factory or a power plant, and tell the player, "Capture [or guard] the _______ by having at least one unit in the hex and no enemy units in firing range of the hex at the end of the game." Does that sound workable to you?
"I run Ogre (sci fi tank combat) using the boardgame rules with minis and 3-D terrain on a large hex mat."
DeleteOMG - I KNOW, that nuclear missile that detonated immediately after launch causing an "own goal" blast on the defenders from your Millcon Report was AWESOME! I'm a big fan. If I didn't leave a comment, I meant to. I'm still laughing.
Your objective rules definitely sound reasonable and workable. In the context of Ogre, as a hexed game and scale, designating a hex (and adding some conditions) makes perfect sense. I was poking specifically at a 40k game trope. In a "standard" 40k game, players usually set out between 4-6 objective markers. The markers are coin sized, and the rules say a player controls the marker when a unit is within 3" of it. So you will often see the absurd situation of a large terrain feature (like a building or hill) that is 12" across (or more) having this small coin in the middle, and the player who manages to put an edge figure of a unit just inside the 3" diameter now "controls" the entire terrain feature. Just one of the many things that drives me crazy about 40k.