Can You Stop the Campaign 'Snowball' Effect?

Campaign games in tabletop wargaming are great fun, and great for making stories, but what can you do when one side starts winning a lot and the dreaded 'snowball' effect ruins the fun?
Official Tabletop Minions t-shirts: bit.ly/merchbunker
Help support the channel on Patreon: / tabletopminions
Follow Tabletop Minions on Twitter: / tabletopminions
Like Tabletop Minions on Facebook: / tabletopminions
Check out the website: www.tabletopminions.org
Chat, ask questions, and communicate with Atom

[@markvaughan3171]

You could build rules into your campaign like the desert war in WW2. The retreating / losing army was always retiring towards supply dumps whilst the advancing/ winning army was struggling with extended supply lines.

[@-1subswithoutuploadingavid621]

Yeah, r.i.p Rommel

[@christiank7428]

One simple way of doing this is forbidding the dominating player(s) to change the army between battles, while the others can adapt to it.

[@-1subswithoutuploadingavid621]

Christian K That's probably too strong of an advantage, in my experience of playing Pokémon. If your opponent builds a team to counter you then you're dead, and Pokémon is less reliant on team building than 40k for example

[@christiank7428]

@@-1subswithoutuploadingavid621 Actually it has the side effect, that armies tend to be more balanced. If you don't want that, or the game you are playing is working only like rock scissor stone, then it is too hard. But from my experience even in wh40k this is only a definite win against a pretty unbalanced list. It is not a rubber band or blue shell, both players still have to react or at least can prepare for the possibility.

[@azuritet3]

I always liked the Last-Stand style of asymmetrical game. One player is going to lose and their score is determined by how many rounds they last. A victorious army captures an enemy supply point and discovers that it is a clever trap. Now, surrounded on all sides, they valiantly fight to the last man against overwhelming odds.

[@korniestpatch]

This is why I love the idea of Kill Team. As soon as someone gets to that snowball you launch a quick kill team to try and stop that

[@Livingdead170]

also in terms of the self defeatist attitude you mentioned, I remember playing shadow war and one of my guardsmen was captured by sisters of battle in a store campaign, I almost just gave the victory to the guy but another player convinced me to go for it, had the greatest saving private ryan (pretty much everyone was wounded trying to save this guy) style match ever and won and ended up being my favourite part of the campaign and one of my favourite war gaming moments period

[@rodneykelly8768]

I once ran a "Silent Death" campaign that addressed some of those issues. First, neither side used their entire force. I limited the force to X number of ships. When the players asked why they couldn't use all their ships, I told them that they were off doing other missions. Second, I made the victory conditions objective dependent. Third, the objectives were randomly assigned. My favorite scenario was this, one player had the objective to recover a stasis box from an asteroid belt. The second player's objective was, "You are on patrol, when you see a group of ships heading toward an asteroid belt. Investigate, and find out what they are doing." Sure enough, just as soon as the two groups got into range of each other, they opened fire. During the after action review, I asked the first player if he had recovered the Stasis box, and I asked the second player if he knew what the other players mission was? The collective answer was no. I further added insult to injury by telling them that they could have both been successful with out firing a shot.

[@tabletopminions]

Silent Death was a great game. We used to play the hell out of that game in the 90s. My good friend Peter has actually run it at the last two Tabletop Minions Expos, and a new generation of players have really enjoyed it. Thanks for watching!

[@BB-hc9jj]

That is actually brilliant 😂

[@jamestipton7872]

@tabletop minions there’s a tabletop minions expo!!!!!! Man I hope you see this. I would love to go. Your channel rules man.

[@hamoclease]

can't emphasise enough the value of creating a story with mates over a couple of beers and some plastic models. My group still talks about some really entertaining 40k games from 5-10 years ago involving close character battles and how the results impacted following missions. 'Forging the narrative' is one of the most rewarding components of the hobby and I think it's something that is often overlooked.

[@Maethendias]

im not even playing any "tabletop" but this is just nice to listen to while tabbed out

[@rastamann2009]

What we do is at the end of each game have a discussion of the implications of a game, develop a story and set the stage for the next game. Then we come up with a new set of objectives, and even a scenario some time. That way, no matter who won or lost, we are actually telling the story and not really worrying about the campaign victory. We do like open ended stuff, though

[@NOLMAD6]

rastamann2009 wow that similar to what we're doing, the snowball started to happen and the we dropped the winning condition and now it more story driven. Their still and end goal but it may not happen as we first plan. That kinda fun as the battles drive the story forward and their impact to the final battle.

[@rastamann2009]

NOLMAD6 yes, we found that out pretty soon and have been playing that way for some 10 years now. It’s awesome that it also drives us to play multiple systems and scales set in the same setting. For instance, we’re playing a campaign set in 40k that has Epic, 40k and now kill team, will have likely some battlefleet gothic and has even gotten us a game of Dawn of War over the internet and a couple of card games of warhammer 40k conquest. Will eventually involve us is a game or two of one of the roleplaying games as well :)

[@NOLMAD6]

wow Rasta, that a varied amount of content. our game system, heavy gear Blitz, it did have an RPG system. but our campaign mostly focused on the tactical battle around one location. small and big battle have an effect on the story and the final battle. I think our group wants all the progress to matter for the final battle, to have all the win losses effect the final amount of force each of us can deploy. Still haven't work that out but it if their any updates I'll try to track down these comments and give an update

[@rastamann2009]

NOLMAD6 that would be awesome - I myself have been working on a sector map for our campaign setting, i’ll drop a link here when I’m done, but could be a while. One suggestion for the final battle could be that each victory for one side grants one re-roll/50 points or some such small benefit. But you can also track units and for instance give a unit a +1 to hit/save once in the final battle to reflect their veterancy.

[@AzraelThanatos]

One thing I've liked to do is use a supply line setup for a lot of games. For example, with a mass battles game, we put together a "refresh" rule that combined with the hex map. The further you were from your home base, the more difficult it was to replenish your forces. Meaning that your forces pushing into the opposing territory would start having issues where the elite units they were getting experience to improve would be whittled down as they were used if you would play to aggressively. If you played to defensively, you would end up losing ground and not have places to push those forces to recover and a lack of the XP to improve your units. If you did poorly in a battle, you would still have fresh troops for the next, but not the units that would have been improved unless they survived and you could replenish them...which was a once per round check that happened at the beginning of your turn. The replenishment also worked to "heal" heroes and monsters...

[@Battury]

Keep track of two types of "points" to gain during the campaign. Victory points are given to the person who wins battles, and you win the campaign once you get enough of those. The person who loses gets "Desperation Points" which can be used to buy boons for the coming battle. Victory Points can also be spent on boons, but they're costly and the boons are very minor. This is just a fun way of adding extra depth to a campaign. You get to think tactically in between battles too.

[@SamOnMaui]

When I was learning to play Go, I learned it was good manners to end the game when its unwinnable rather than playing it to the bitter end. Basically, "I value your time, and this game is no longer going to be mutually enjoyable/interesting." I've applied this to my wargaming (Company of Iron and Warmachine), and the other players appreciate it. I think we'd do that for campaigns.

[@JadeDude1973]

I did this in my very first 40K game. My last remaining model was running away from a CC-oriented Dreadnaught, and I had no way of Wounding it (6th edition.) Much more fun to shake hands and eat pretzels. :)

[@TravDadGamer]

I have tried this, but sometimes my opponent (and friend) gets annoyed. He believes that I'm being a sore loser, when I feel like it's the opposite: that I'm being a gracious loser. Am I sad that I've clearly lost? Yes. Am I taking my toys and going home to pout? Not really. A back n' forth fight that comes down to the last die roll is a great experience. Let's face it, though, many game sessions (especially ones with RNG systems) have a clear winner after a few rounds. Is there a chance to pull off an amazing comeback? Yes. Am I willing to invest another hour in hopes of maybe beating the long odds? Nope. It's late and a long ride home from the FLGS. Let's shake hands, joke about one-sided stompings, and go home.

[@TheRunesmythe]

This is actually a great idea, so long as both parties agree to it. Personally, whether I'm on the winning or losing end, if I can see that the game is just going to drag on until attrition finally ends it I'd be perfectly fine with the idea of simply agreeing the game is over, saying "good game" and moving on because being forced to continue on when it feels like pulling teeth isn't fun to most people.

[@tabletopminions]

It just makes a lot of sense for campaigns. Then you can start again, and see if you get a more balanced and engaging result. Thanks for watching!

[@JadeDude1973]

If someone thinks this makes you a sore loser, that person probably had their black heart set on tabling the shit out of you. IMHO.

[@BlizzyThe4th]

your intro is really satisfying. the dice roll at the end

[@funguy398]

Gorkamorka deal with this by some ways. Both players get toofs after fight. Weaker mob get more toofs. The bigger your ork mob the more tax toofs you have to pay them. And if your ork mob have an ork with a lot of leadership skill he must challenge your ork nob to become new nob of a mob, and one of them could die or get injury. Plus you could join forces with other weak ork mob. And there are epic ork characters who could join weak mob, but they take a lot of toofs.

[@kennethmacneil686]

I and my friends had loads of fun with Gorka way back when. One of the few games where we really didn't care who won, as long as it was a grizzly awesome fight. Teef make da world go 'round!

[@cordial001]

Good advice at the end there especially regarding not playing a campaign as an introduction to a game. We are in our second mini campaign now for Kill Team, but everyone had 3 or 4 warm ups before we went at it for real. I know it's not unique to KT, but I like how your roster has depth to it, almost by default, making those early losses not sting so much. Also, in the between-game recovery round just how hard it is to actually have your team members die/get deleted. In our first campaign, winning came down to the last game - even though one person had won the lion's share of games, so everyone was still invested and that's always awesome.

[@hermannlagrange803]

I personally enjoyed the campaigns in 'Dawn of war: Dark crusade' where each faction fought over control of the planet. The planet was divided into sections, each with a unique resource or tactical advantage. I like the idea of players fighting for these areas and gaining long term benefits, like the ability to summon reinforcements at a certain point or be able to field one extra troop or something. How do you think a campaign like that can be converted from a digital format to a more traditional table top approach? It would have the potential to fuse the best parts of table top and PnP RPG I think.

[@NullStudiosGaming]

Absolutely, I'm going to be doing the same exactly kind of thing with a friend. Going to develop a map, have key points of interest to on it along with other territories to capture/defend and try to have each army get stronger over the course of the campaign as well as having strongholds and other kind of things.

[@jonstachon4921]

Thank you! I am planning a game linking my Star Wars RPG with my Star Wars X-Wing and Star Wars Armada minis. Great video!

[@ImFenster]

I never play competitive campaigns. I prefer having like a GM side and a 'player' side for campaigns. Kinda like PvE.

[@jasongriffin4790]

Your videos are really informative and entertaining! Awesome to listen to while I'm painting my stormcast.

[@chrisyc2k]

This is extremely helpful as i'm now embarking in my first ever Campaign next month.

[@SkHATEy]

Here is my idea on campaigns. Play "best of five" (essentially first to three wins). The campaign can be over in three games if on side dominates, or it can go to four or even five games which will be very exiting. Every games should be on equal terms, only the fluff changes depending who wins. I.e. if one side has two points, the scenario for the third game can be that they are attacking opponents base hq...

[@tabletopminions]

That’s basically the ‘ending early’ situation I talked about, and it’s a fine solution. Thanks for watching!

[@Rathmun]

As one army pushes farther into the other's territory, you could give the defender more static fortifications, let them set up part of the terrain during their deployment, or even expand their deployment zone farther across the table. It's going to be a lot harder to attack, even with superior numbers, when the defender has that much control over the table from the start.

[@xenoserum]

I like the rubber banding effect, you get in things like Bloodbowl/Necromunda/Mordhiem etc where the player that doesn't have as good a rating get's bonuses "buffs" so to speak like extra experience for being an underdog or free players and I like that as sort of can even it up and sort of keep games level ish

[@korrul]

Really liked the vid. From experience, people tend to not see the mechanical consequences of a campaign reward system. Which is natural, but leads to campaigns not endings Being a designer by trade, there is a small thing I wanted to do for some time, which is... Guidelines, of sorts? Like general types of campaign systems/mechanics with explanations about how they affect gameplay and how to tweak them to fit the groups expectations I've became a viewer fairly recently because of Kill Team, but if it's something you might have a use for, I could make it as a contribution to the community, as this chanel is bringing me a lot of joy :)

[@Las3r_Cat]

I'm trying to find a way to organize a 40K campaign that uses games of both Kill Team and 8th edition at different times, and this video actually pointed out something that I hadn't considered. I've played a couple of campaign-type games myself, but I've never organized one before.

[@magnuslauglo5356]

I'd suggest adjusting the goals/victory conditions to take this into effect. If you've had a few games where Side A has done very well and Side B has taken much heavier casualties, come up with a game where the survivors from Side B need to stay alive and get from one side of the board to another, or maybe get to a rescue point somewhere and give Side A, which has many more men, a series of challenging and specific victory conditions.

[@TheAurgelmir]

I would say: Take inspiration from the "Open Play" cards from GW for AoS and 40k. The Ruse and Sudden Death cards are very good equalizers.

[@JadeDude1973]

I can't tell you how warm and fuzzy that OGRE shirt makes me feel. :) Ah, the good old days of Steve Jackson and Apple II...

[@cdwizzerd]

im doing the killteam campaign with my local GW, so this was super helpful. thanks dude

[@xornxenophon3652]

Well, there are several ways to prevent this: 1. Is there a constant stream of new units (recruits/supplies/reinforcements)? If yes, the weaker player will get parts of his losses (or even all of them) replaced. Therefore, he will be stronger than before, relatively speaking, even if the victor gets the same amount of reinforcements. 2. Can the weaker player go on the defense, occupy strategically important locations or digg in (fortresses/minefields/trenches)? 3. Are there mercenaries that may be hired by the weaker side? Are there third parties that may intervene and support the weaker side? 4. Is there a maximum amount of units that can be fielded (food supply does not allow more than xy units to move forward)? 5. Can the weaker player block some important path (fortress guards the only path through the mountains)? 6. Can the weaker player employ a naval blockade against further progress of the winning side? 7. Could the weaker side just retreat from province x (employing scorched earth tactics) and thereby buy time to rebuild his army? 8. Do not let the armies fight to the bitter end but let them chose whether they want to retreat the rest of the army at any time (and get a penalty for being pursued by enemy cavalry).

[@joshuawilson8804]

I've been testing a campaign rules with Starship Troopers Miniatures, where the Marines have a huge pool of resources but what they have is what they have. The Bugs can generate more bugs after each battle, hidden movement, and unlock bigger bugs as the Marines try and blow up the nests on a campaign map. Even NPC villages that whoever is attacking that NPC the other player controls.

[@CD-zd6zr]

Imperial Assault might provide an excellent template in to how to handle a wargame campaign. Both sides gain resources, but the winning side gains more. In addition, the next scenario is harder for the winning side to win.

[@politicalsheepdog]

Back in College we had an Epic Space Marine campaign map of a Planet and Each side had so many units for battle over the planet. Each battle was around 4,000 pts or so. We completed 3 battles and then we all graduated. That was a fun time. I found myself being defeated during the 1st battle and just retreated to the next battle Grid where I had Titans waiting and then I won a battle. So I think using strategy and digging your way out is more fun than giving one side or the other anything to level the playing field.

[@M6nst6r6]

I think a little bit of planning and game design can solve this problem easily. First, divide all battles between skirmish and battlefields\sieges. Structure campaign that before each big battle\siege there is a series of skirmishes. They don't affect each other, but can add recourse einforcements to big battle. Big battle will decide how campaign will go forward, also can be used as score for players. This structure will provide fair chance for losing site to get back into the fight, and won't make things one-sided.

[@robinmaxime4417]

Another positive ans useful vidéo, that's suite rare on KZbin!

[@robbielast6118]

I've played multiplayer campaigns where every few rounds some teams were eliminated and controlled NPCs in future matches. Worked really well for us. The Blood Bowl Inducement system also works pretty well.

[@redcrest3643]

My favorite campaign was based around the theme at the winning army of each game would be pressing further into enemy territory in an attempt to kill their king. This was represented by the losing player getting a 10% points bonus on the second game, and a 20% bonus in the third. If you could kill the enemy general when they had a 20% advantage, you won the campaign. Usually who had the advantage accordianed back and forth a few times before someone got on a roll and won.

[@lazerjayzer9981]

When I do campaigns I have a nice syssystem to stop unfair snowballing where after 2 or 3 games lost in a row, an additional objective is added which is secure an area by say, 15 turns in after that, 4 or 5 squads of the losing player's troops will drop in whether the area is secure or not.

[@Seelenschmiede]

Always remeber: an army hitting bad luck would retreat. So ending the campain is not bad, it is logical.

[@xornxenophon3652]

I just wished someone had told that to the russians in 1940...

[@Derpy-qg9hn]

@@xornxenophon3652 Well, it's not like they had anywhere to retreat to.

[@TheCimbrianBull]

8:34 "... it's more of a rubberband than less of a blue shell..." I'm going to use that expression in various situations just to confuse people around me! 😀

[@TheGoblinZero]

For skirmish campaign's we have a single resurection test. 1 if a figure dies in the game treat it as normal per rules 2 after the game roll a d6 on a 1 figure stays dead anything else he has survived but he will take 2 rolls on the injury table and takes both injuries (these can not be recovery or death) those are rerolled 3 if they die a second time in the campaign they are then permanently dead Using these rules it seems to help the unlucky players from falling to far behind and keeps everyone in competition for the lead at least through the first few rounds.

[@sillysailor5932]

It's best to link it in to the narrative. In a real war the losing side is usually on the defensive. We usually simulate this by terrain and set up. So attack will have advantages in models but defender better cover etc. Depending on how far he is behind you can allow things like booby traps and minefields the attacker has to cross. Or victory conditions is defender just has to hold out to win.

[@Jfedele1]

Yo I don’t play any table top games but I love your videos man. Thanks

[@mekquake5879]

Hey dude, i really enjoy your videos and i really wanted to ask, could you make a video on the variety of ways that you do campaigns? i'd be really interested to hear how you organise yours :)

[@brandonsmith8024]

My friend and I have a couple loose ongoing campaigns that we add to every time we play. Necrons fighting Orks for control of an ancient tomb world, and the winner gets the territory being fought over for our first one. And our second one started off with Grey Knights killing Guardsmen after a daemon invasion to cull any influence of heresy, which in turn made the commanding officers of that army develop a particular hatred for Grey Knights. In one of those games Kaldor Draigo took a Volcano Cannon to the face. But I love the narratives we create with those campaigns and the rivalries that the models in our armies develop.

[@LordMuzhy]

I loved the Mario kart reference lol

[@zephyrstrife4668]

Gonna be honest, the core rulebook for Warhammer has some good rules built into it for a campaign setup. Varied missions with differing objectives per side can create a wonderful experience. Things like having players with large armies and multiple heroes splitting their forces among their generals or even keeping some squads or troops in reserve to replenish defeated ranks. Even just doing a campaign using the "Start Collecting" boxes for Warhammer Age of Sigmar can make for good Dawn Of War style campaigns if the group bands together to create an overworld with territories to conquer and defeated players can join the faction that defeated them... perhaps without hero units to represent the fact their general has been defeated. But that's just my take on it. It all depends on what everyone finds fun.

[@ezekiellytle3884]

the intro reminded me of a 4 year campaign we played in DnD

[@zephyrstrife4668]

I like the idea of playing a wargaming campaign, never had the chance to myself... but I do eventually want to try it. From the Warhammer Age of Sigmar core rulebook it comes with some really cool campaign scenarios. Anything from the Spearhead scenario where the armies are coming head to head and have several units in reserve that reinforce on later turns, to special rules for cavern-terrains that restrict the movement of flying units. Having a campaign where the scenario would be that two armies are battling for a territory and if the defenders can repel the initial assault, the game is over... but if the attacker wins the initial attack it then moves to another special battle that hopefully keeps the power even and fair. Though I do believe with AoS when you do a game like that it recommends having both players divide their armies into thirds so that you're not just throwing all your weight at once.

[@richtheunstable3359]

the underdog bonus and scenario's where you only used some of your gang were great in 90s necromunda lost 5 gangers and got outlawed in the 2nd game and lost my heavy bolter in the next. Still could compete as I had the hardest 4/5 survivors going would get slapped in a gang fight generally but run rampant in a raid.

[@JTMC93]

I find that Relicblade has a really cool solution to the snowballing issue. Basically the difference of points from the baseline of the game becomes a bonus pool of psuedo-influence to spend on limited re-rolls and bonuses. And, IIRC, the one with lowest points gains extra psuedo-influence based on the points difference between them and their opponent. Super late edit here... My own game prototype has a mechanic where a player can acquire resources outside of the actual game when they start falling too far behind to represent them taking advantage of areas other groups are leaving behind and ignoring to try and find some little extra stuff that was maybe missed or wasn't important before. Like say... Finding a random water chip that an underground colony just put up a request for. Or finding a recipe for a soft drink that no other team looked for because they didn't see how it could possibly be valuable.

[@DocStocks8427]

So I’ve had a blast with campaigns, particularly 8th ed Warhammer fantasy with adapted versions of Mighty Empires from the 6th ed General’s Compendium. Also Journeyman Leagues for Warmachine.

[@jamestipton7872]

I like the way you talk man lol. “Cut of the guys gib” and “he’s eyeballin me”. I do that same stuff. It’s funny because it’s a inanimate object. Ain’t lookin at anyone, but he’s looking at me weird and has to die. I get it. It’s funny

[@CrimsonSlug]

This can easily work for plot. i.e. the winning player has pushed the loosing player back so much they have bunker-ed down in a defensible position. Next match loosing player can set all the terrain as they are picking where to run to.

[@josephficklen7393]

Its always enjoyable to see someone come back from a defeat, but sometimes the "snowball effect" is just reality. I can think of lots of real wars where one side never really recovered after a major defeat, look at the Royalists after Naseby in 1644, the Jacobites after the Boyne in 1690, and Napoleon after the 1812 invasion of Russia.

[@davyheijlands1956]

Maybe a bit bland, but we play a 40k and Necromunda campiagn using a Risk or another custom map with territories on it. My friends can pick a faction or gang and will get a specific main overall objective to complete during the campaign. The map itself is arranged in a way you need to gather intel or a certain resource to progress your objective, but there are also resupple depots, trade posts, hive cities or citadels on the map the players can try to take for extra resources. It's great fun to have a map serve as visual aid on the side while playing a 40k or necromunda campaign battle. Every session we play about 4 matches on 2 tables. We start small (500 points) and after each match players earn points which they can use to buy new units. The funny thing is because everyone has their own secret win condition its not about getting the biggest army or winning each battle, but reading the worldmap and collecting clues to fullfill your mission and knowing when you 'have' to stop another playerr to prevent him progressing his objective. Its great fun and with with both campaigns we are gping strong for 12 month now.

[@manelcanos979]

I can remember a campaign rule by games Workshop in which chaos forces doubled alliance forces in points. Lesser value armies’ objective was cause more damage than his own value in points before been defeated. An adaptation of this rule could be interesting in campaigns with this snowball effect problem.

[@MasticinaAkicta]

In hearthstone, yes a ditigal CCG deck game, you get the same problem. Yes, there are no campaigns but there are some very powerful decks. And once you see a few of the cards come out... you know you are in trouble. So what are you going to do? Just concede? Walk off? Or if you are bound to loose going to just give the world a show. Mentally the knowledge you probably loose sucks but... if you are willing to set aside that feeling you at least can make it the most beautiful show in the world. And yes sometimes, things don't work out for the supposed winner and you still somehow win with a losing army/hand. Also you can learn by watching others play, so if you loose you still can learn things. So why not?

[@charlesrowan1978]

sound too artificial/forced. If your getting your butt kicked fight a fighting withdraw and evacuate what force you can.

[@whisperchainsaw102]

the simple and easy solution is to fully reinforce both players armies at the end of each mission in the campaign. that gives the same chance of winning after each round. Another good blue shell option would be to make the losing player the defending player and let them have more control over the terms of the fight for the next round.

[@DZSabre]

to build on Mark Vaughan's comment. Give the loser a resource boost and the winner a resource drain. Basically, the idea is that the winner has to extend his supply lines and leave units back to secure/defend key positions or supply depots. The loser, on the other hand has been driven back and the defending armies are consolidating so they can draw on a larger force pool in the area. I wouldn't do this for every scenario in a long campaign but maybe breaking the campaign into sets of three scenarios. After each three, the points go back to being equal and the winner of the subset of scenarios gets a resource boost or tactical advantage. This will discourage players throwing a game just to get the immediate resource boost for losing a game since it may prevent them from getting the greater campaign bonus after that set of scenarios.

[@kalisthenes6650]

I have been gaming for over 30 years and seen and designed my fair share of campaign rules over that time. Strange Aeons however, has the best campaign system I have ever seen in a skirmish ruleset. Of course it’s built right into the game, but there is no reason it couldn’t be adapted to suit any other type of ruleset. To summarize, each battle consists of a player force and a matched NPC force. This essentially assumes a much wider conflict than just the forces represented by the player base so that when one player is trying to accomplish an objective say to loot a rare artifact or to hold an essential crossing, the force arrayed against them is made up of a similarly matched enemy force played by any opponent. Only the active player gets the rewards (or penalties if you so wish). In this way you force a narrative for the force led by your general and can trace their ascent or descent to glory or glorious defeat avoiding snowballs and the need for rubber bands.

[@ajdynon]

Not sure if leagues and campaigns count as the same thing, but one of my fondest wargaming memories was a 40k league over a decade ago that worked on a handicap system, so the more you won the less points you got to play with, and conversely if you lost more than you won you got more points.

[@grzegorzbarczewski3853]

I think the best solutions are part of the story. If reinforcements are explained by the story, the campaign can be more interesting and complex. There are so many possibilities, from little events to turning points, e.g. another side joins the war because it is afraid of the winner's growing power

[@orangeblack1285]

How about putting in a smaller/short mission where the superior force is over extending and the other player can in a more fun then balanced way try to, for example sabotage facilities, cut supply lines and such. The superior faction does not loose anything on a loss but the other player has the chance to win back something that helps him keep up if he wins.

[@mrbanana69]

When you lose a player in blood bowl on your first game... Know that feeling. I think GW does a lot to help level these things

[@13thBear]

What I think you have described is the real world situation of warfare. A player in a campaign has to think of long term as opposed to "just this one battle." The commander has to know what condition his troops are in and adjust accordingly. If "just this one battle" is going badly for him, he needs to decide what he needs to do to remedy that circumstance. That might mean he has to begin withdrawing troops from the battle and establish a defensive posture before he can re-take the initiative for offensive action. He needs to make this decision long before he has lost a sizeable portion of his available force. If he has lost a sizeable portion of his troops, he needs to withdraw as rapidly as possible conserving as much of his forces as he possibly can. The decision then falls upon his commander's resources to do what is necessary to save the battle line as best as possible. Sometimes the circumstances are so bad that the only reasonable thing to do is surrender and let the chips fall as they may. Review of the campaign scenario then needs to take place to determine the failure of the campaign. It may have been badly designed to favor one side or the other. It may be an extraordinary run of bad luck that caused the early defeat of the losing side. Whatever. A "snowball" doesn't run away for no reason at all.

[@LilacMage]

Another thing is to makesome of the reward for "winning" temporary. Yes your army held the objective witch is...lets say medical supplies that lets you reroll to save a wound or something after the game or a small supply of mines so you can place a mine field later. When you use that resource its spent.

[@vinylrabbit7295]

I have played a lot of skirmish games that are campaign based, Gorka Morka, Necrumunda, I think the best system out there is the new Kill Team system where the better your troops get the more expensive they get and you pay for your troops every battle. This forces the better team to have fewer members and the benefits for those experienced troops generally are not worth the extra cost for them. The next best system is Gorka Morka.

[@bignickenergy3525]

I've seen campaigns go all over the place. From a 40k campaign with a single clear winner two weeks in to me winning a blood bowl season despite having a player die in nearly every game and have the least number of leveled players. It's amazing how crazy it gets

[@stormelemental13]

The snowball problem is one of the reasons why I like cooperative rather than competitive games. Specifically, I like running, DMing, roleplaying games. I get to create tactically challenging encounters for my friends to play through and we are all playing together rather than against each other. If someone gets an advantage because they did particularly well during an adventure, the group is happy rather than wondering whether we should end the campaign early.

[@Mrphilipjcook]

Objective based games (treasure hunt, etc) can probably limit those huge losses etc. Seems more natural than rubber banding or whatever.

[@ryanhouk3560]

Two scenarios I'm thinking might work for longer campaigns 1 the last stand. One side is an unstoppable army. The other side stands to face it anyway. Victory is determined by kills not lives lost. Examples, the fall of reach, the Alamo, thermopoly, or even the allied invasion of nazi Europe (now the last stand guys are the bad ones) 2 promotion race. Your general starts as a leader. The other side is the same rank with same forces in the same army. They take turns playing their character, or the bad guys, but it's a race to who gets more glory and promotions first. Each promotion can come with more forced

[@daringdarius5686]

Been playing a little over a year now, and my friends have been playing for about a year. Been thinking of making my first campaign, and as a test wanted to make it a 4-round battle (that we may quit if it goes horribly wrong). I immediately realized snowballing might be an itsy bitsy problem in mine, as a lot of the rewards are "set" as in: The winner regains 'X' amount of troops for his "troop" units, while the loser gets 'y' (smaller amount) back. My solution was to introduce something not unlike a blue-shell, but at least a little more... subtle. I have a spare 600 point Ork army from my Assault on Black Reach set I never used, and the campaign I'm thinking of setting up would be a 1600 (defenders) vs 2000 (invaders) point army, where the defenders would typically gain more "reinforcements", as they are on home turf, but their reinforcements may not be, let's say, well suited to the battle. It's more of "what you have" (example: you gain 2 squads of tactial marines with only bolters, but you lost your devastators last time and the enemy gains a Predator... you wil lend up gaining more points total, but it may not be what you need). Moving forward, my idea was to have a random interruption: if the defenders had more than a 500 point difference in army size, I would follow the rules as normal, BUT, I would tell the loser: in the next battle, one of the objectives will have a secret number of orks (only the emperor knows why) hiding out, ready to blitz the closest enemy. The orks have been in hiding, since their last Warboss told them to hide until the "signal" was given. Only on turns 2-3, the loser may commence to yell out loud "WAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHH" and the enemies will come flying out of the pre-ordained objective. They will target the closest enemy unit, based on center of unit, not models. With this knowedge, I hope the loser of the previous round will use the first turn to do some poke damage, but mostly sit inside his transports and standback from the objectives (the orks will be given the "hold objective" ability so if they come out, there is no point anyways). Once the orks come out, they will make decisions and actions to act around the orks as the orks will shoot and murder the loser as well as the winner of the previous rounds. I thought this would be a fun way, that wasn't a complete blue shell because: A) the loser has to humiliate himself by screaming "WAAGGH" in the shop B) the objective is NOT chosen by the loser, it is pre-ordained by a third party (I will point to the objectives labeled "1", "2", "3". I will then ask a random person n the shop (the store owner if no-one is there) to write down on a piece of piece of paper, and hide it from everyone's eyes immediately) C) It will add some spice, that can both be helpful and backfire. This will only be as a last result, and again, I'm trying to make it a shorter campaign, long enough for people to enjoy it, but not too long to bore and make people want to smash their heads against a wall as they fall behind. The orks may only attack on the 2nd or 3rd match (if it comes that quickly). If the loser somehow STILL stays behind, or if the tables are flipped, I'm still thinking about it, but I have some Dark Angels that will have been exposed to something akin to Scarecrow's "fear toxin". They will deployed in a similar matter though from orbit (they are about 500 points) randomly decided by directional dice AND the inital spot will be chosen by the loser in this case. I know this is a long ass essay, that is also a month late, but any veteran Campaign players: please tell me if you think this sounds fun and any tweaks I should/can make. Thanks in advance :)

[@dannyeccles1894]

I can vouch for the defeatist attitude. A mate of mine has regularly beaten me in shadespire and I often loose a guy very quickly, sometimes I feel like calling it very soon in but I do my best to ignore it. Sometimes I even manage a close loss. Lol

[@ryandodson1460]

Can't wait to start a big campaign game but this is very good advice going into it. I just get too lost in the narrative

[@elronman]

Just have victory bonuses be a percentage of the opponents pool. Large pools will be worth more and more people will focus those out front. Lower ones can get a huge boost If they take out the larger one. It would require tweaking but this could easily be the way to balance this. Heck don't even force the player to take their opponents resources, (otherwise you'll want to spend them immediately). Just make it a bounty system based on their resources and what they bought. Maybe have higher bounties introduce new challenges, like new foes that ally with your enemies. But killing those foes gives unique resources. This would also allow the game to progress instead of the players fight over scraps.

[@balazszsigmond826]

I was thinking about this for a while now. My friend and I are planning a campaign sometime, and since both our free times are limited and precious, we would not prefer the "end the campaign" approach. So I was thinking, if someone is the underdog because of snowball effect, he could decide the next mission to remedy the situagion. For example: initial landing, the offensive player fails miserably in its attempt to build a base of operafions, loses most of its assault or siege forces, and the campaign is effectively lost. Losing player tells winning player, he wants to sabotage another landing zone and try again there, thus evening out the losses a bit. Say loser loses again, campaign is surely over, no second attempt at invading is done. But this freeform approach encourages out-of-the-box thinking and ingenuity. The balancing factor is, both players have the same freedom and of course, it is always debated. We might be foes on the battlefield, but as players playing a fun campaign, we are the closest allies.

[@TiberiusWallace]

I heard a friend played in a campaign run by a guy who DM'd rpgs and he designed the map in a way that had the early loser having to regroup on a tile. The narrative of it had it being the lands of a people sympathetic to that army's cause because they had beef with the faction who defeated them in the last game. This gave them a free restock of one unit, no upkeep costs and one 16 man special unit or two 8man common units which he could recruit replacements for after future battles if he had the coin. The downside was that those units wouldn't gain any leadership of effects of the main army. The race chosen

[@ricktedder4749]

One way is to allow each player to regroup after a massive defeat but only give them the option to do it a set number of times say twice over a five battle campaign that way its not something they can rely on for every battle and if you restrict what they can add to the army by either using a percentage table so you have to loose a minimum 25% of your main force to trigger a regroup option then have options based on how large the loss is to what units can be added or use a dice roll table to decide what units get added, just an idea

[@kenbennett4556]

I am still a wet behind the ears noob when it comes to 40K, granted this was just a one off game but played against a 6 man Space Marine kill team recently against my AD Mech team, I used the "pre built" team from the starter box and literally got wiped out doing a mind blowing 2 points of damage the entire game. So if it had been a campaign I would have been out right from the start. It was suggested later that maybe allow me to know what I am facing in the next week so I can better prepare. but even then I am not sure how to put a team together that would be more effective. I am trying to expand my Ad Mech force, I now have a 5 man Sicarian Infiltrator force (suggested I build them that way) as well as more Skitarii. But that is not my only option I can do a T'au kill team quite easily. Apologies for hijacking a thread about campaigns. Hopefully I can get some suggestions as to how to put an effective team together when and if we start one. Just to let you know ahead of time I am on a fixed income and while I can buy more models if needed it will take time depending on what and how much. (I bought the Sicarians but traded my Kill Team terrain for the added Skitarii)

[@jonathanthompson4734]

Are there any systems for 40k? I know there's like a hexgrid which GW might have binned by now though I could just draw it. I do know of the badap war campaign, a fan one and maybe an official one. Just wondering if there were others

[@TheRunesmythe]

Though I've never experienced this, I can definitely see it becoming a real problem if you're locked in to a long-term campaign; I know that personally, if everyone involved still wanted to slog through I'd grit my teeth and bear it, but I think its a far better idea to either try and keep things fun or end things before they get too painful. I can't recall if they made it to the 2nd editions rules or not, but one possible solution (and one I personally like) are the rules presented in AoS for when one person has significantly more miniatures on the table than the other; some sort of "Sudden Death" scenario where the outnumbered side gets a condition (as an example, kill the opposing general) that still makes it plausible for them to win, meaning that they could then receive some sort of victory bonus that's beneficial to them even with their weakened forces. The other idea I like is to add in some sort of "reinforcement" rules that take effect before the start of the next game; it could be based on some sort of points system awarded after each game, or it could be based on the number of miniatures each force has left but whatever this case it would definitely allow for someone who suffered severe casualties to stay in the game.

[@elcamnino7]

In any Battletech campaigns I run we have a set battalion/army of equal BV for the entire campaign. Then each player would choose which company they have available at each game. That way you don't lose your entire battalion; only whichever units you risked in the mission. If units survive, they can be used in other battles, but you may not have time to repair the mechs or heal the pilots. Each force is also allowed a one time purchase of a mercenary force to bolster their company in one of the battles.

[@josiahernst9103]

I see that Mk-V Ogre shirt, sir. I didn't know anyone else still played Ogre

[@tabletopminions]

OGRE had a very successful Kickstarter back in 2012 to produce 6th edition. You can still find the 6th edition non-Kickstarter box in most good game stores. Thanks for watching!

[@papasmoke2479]

Best birthday present ever

[@luisbermudez4756]

In a Necromunda campaign my buddies and I played back in the '90s, the snowball effect wasn't so much that some of us got demolished early on, it was more of the fact that my brother's Heavy - with what turned out to be the best weapon - got lucky rolls on his skills and got the winning combo, making him star player extraordinaire! He ended up winning a lot due to the fact that that character alone could take down multiple enemies by himself, gaining more xp than the rest of the characters, etc.

[@witlessfop36]

This happened to me in our Napoleonic campaign (we each had a different European country. 28mm, involving thousands of figures, played on 2 6’x15’ tables, each battle lasting several weeks). Going against the French player meant I was hilariously outnumbered and outgunned but I gave him the runaround and nearly pulled off a famous victory but the writing was on the wall and after several months I surrendered. That was a couple of years ago and the thing is still going, although I no longer take part (I wanted to explore other games). Campaigns themselves can become snowballs if you let them.

[@repairmanbruce7318]

Nice vid, as usual, mate. Done quite a few campaigns in various wargames, as well as maybe way too many RPGs. You picked the key issue, IMO, with the problems of snowballing. The various groups I have been in for these wargaming campaigns have ended up needing rules for reinforcements, on the basis of interior lines of supply, i.e. you lose battle 1 and the enemy is now advancing into your territory, meaning that you can muster some reinforcements from that territory - maybe not your best troops, but potentially hordes of less superior troops. In addition, 'lost' units from battle 1 may in some cases be reformed, once their panic and retreat has ceased, so having recovery rules can work nicely, albeit with some level of risk and losses from genuine casualties/deaths. The other dimension that emerged in some multi-player campaigns was sort of unintended but perhaps not surprising, in that adjoining territories for third players would offer alliances to send supporting troops to aid the 'losing' player as a means of stopping/slowing/weakening the 'winning' player in their advance on the third player's territory. These strategic and theatre operational issues really added a further dimension to the purely tactical problems of most 'one-shot' tabletop wargames, although they do require someone to run the campaign as an objective and neutral arbiter to supervise timing and results of these off-table events. Publishing the saga of events happening concurrently in each phase of the campaign is a lot of fun for all involved and can give the whole experience a real sense of drama, which makes the thing worth doing for all involved.

[@zyphier]

I think some of this depends on number of players. Rubber bands work better in store wide map campaigns, or slow growth games where 4 or more players are present. Because in such a situation getting everyone to agree on a Reset is harder, and not always viable

[@maxxon99]

This is a complex issue because it's fundamentally about conflict of interests. I've seen this even in cup style games. Even though each individual game is starting from scratch and as fair as any one off game, the people who have lost the first few games in the cup know they no longer have any real chance of winning the whole thing and consequently lose interest and stop playing. You weren't planning on having an elimination style tournament, but it effectively becomes one. There's a number of ways to combat this (like escalation cup where later games are worth more), but it's definitely something to take into account. In traditional campaign style the problem is that part of the players WANT the snowball effect. They feel its their reward for doing well in the initial rounds. So if you implement something to stop it, those players might feel they've been cheated out of their well-earned spoils, and stop playing. This is based on a number of misconceptions, but it's what a large number of players want from a campaign: win a game, get a nifty bonus for your next games. They don't really want to advance on the map, they don't want a medal, they don't want a harder challenge next game -- they want more toys to beat their opponents with. I have never seen a "warband" style game that really solved this. For a campaign to succeed, you have to give ALL the players a reason to continue. Personally I've found that the best solution is a strong narrative where each game really is different. That keeps players coming back just to see what's behind the next corner. But that really takes a gamemaster to run the campaign.

[@allandeering9542]

Failure based progression system that slows the stronger you get. You learn from your mistakes, after all. For example: BS 3 character must miss 3 shots before rolling to get BS + 1 or a shooting skill. BS 4 miss 4 (or 8, whatever) shots etc. Character that gets wounded a lot gets extra wounds or toughness etc after healing or get hatred/revenge special rule against character that hurt them (or their friends). Winning team might suffer less damage and get rewards .. but losing team learns, gets hardier (and gets angry). Could be scaled up to squads/units as well I'm sure.

[@CanadianFH]

Showing my age... Back in 5th Ed WFB there was a couple of campaign supplemental rules in the core set. Your army was built around a standard core common to all players and supplemented according to territories held. Well if a player was significantly behind another in territories they could launch a raid instead of a normal battle and it would force the defender to use only their core and the value added by the territory they risked losing. Basically you can use a bit of common sense and say that a military force is generally smart enough to know they are out matched and will avoid pitched battles and start using guerrilla tactics.

[@kostismetallo8697]

Now I can tell people that I've had many one night stands.

[@redzabo1]

I prefer to add in a NPC-type enemy that's independent of the main players, such as feral Orks or Tyranid...bugs, something instinctive that would simply attack whoever. You can use these wildcards to help balance the game a bit.

[@Z1lj1n]

I think if one player linda defeats the other without a y losses maybe the next game can be a type of siege whete the winner has to attack a heavily fortified position controlled by the losing player

[@RonnocFroop]

A couple ways of dealing with this that I've seen are from Blood Bowl and X-Wing. In X-Wing, there's a campaign where what scenario you play next depends on who won the last game, and it's balanced so the losing player has an advantage, except for the first and last games. In Blood Bowl there's a system called Petty Cash, where you receive some money you can spend on things like temporary players or a wizard. You get more the further your team value is from your opponent's so that no matter how badly things have gone, or how well your opponent has done it's always a relatively level playing field.

[@ollep9142]

Blood Bowl is great in this respect. Not only does, as you state, the game even out at the match level. It's also helping lesser teams catch up and add rewards *after* playing against a better opponent, even if they lost.

[@leonleese4919]

I looked at how I was loosing. Firstly it was a 6 players on each side game. Napoleon v. Britain 1815 (no Prussians). I played Wellington. I was the only good player on the Brit. side, with five beginners. Napoleon had 4 good players out of his 6. The campaign map 1970 Ordnance Survey Wales/Shropshire border. What I did wrong🤓 II Corps, General Hill, Cavalry Screen covering all the bridges 1 Sqd. Per bridge. Corps deployed 1 mile to rear. I Corps Wellington, cavalry screen North of II Corps, no opposition. II corps meets all of French army. Gen Hill decides to stand😢

[@DJeremyBrown]

Interestingly enough, one of the good things about Planetary Empires is that it gave a bonus to the underdogs in an attempt to kill the snowball effect.

[@wezab]

I once played a game of chess where the dude was handing me my A#@e on a platter. So I changed the game to suicide chess. I swapped my Queen for his, I swapped a knight for his castle and swapped a white Bishop for his. At this point he didn't seem worried but when he checked my King with his castle I moved towards it with the king. This blew his mind and I won the game because he stopped out thinking me. I think this should become the option in campaigns. As Uncy Atom says, focus on something specific, like all the troops. Castle a tank and move from unit to unit of infantry. Try to do it so the enemy has to expose themselves to more than one deadly weapon if they want to stop your tank. Get one bloody defeat in against the enemy and bugger the objective for that game and you could change their thinking.

[@padanfain7466]

Starting a game with no chance of winning - Necrons 3rd edition. I used to start games thinking 'Can I play well enough to draw this game?' Of course when 5th edition came out, everyone got utterly slaughtered.

[@samanthalacroix2687]

Normally the campaign systems adjust experience in favor of the weaker team. I know in the last one I was in the lower valued team got a resource bonus and more experience. I do recommend a maximum or cap on point value in a game to keep someone from dropping a 300,000 gold team on one that is down to 60,000. I found that by prorating experience rolls and giving a participation check to people kept off the table still allows them to get a little better PLUS acts as a safety net in case the higher team gits rick rolled. As a general rule of thumb I cap on the table no more than 150% of the weaker teams value (not counting any "fan factor" on either side and an escalating maximum value. In Blood Bowl, I have it as 80% + (20% x number of games into the season) so that is 100% for the first game till it hits 300% (my cap) at game 11. Of coarse disposables don't count but are capped at 50% of value on the table with a minimum of a single star player/ matched pair. It is not hard to balance things out and still reward a high performing player.

[@54jb3r7]

There are a lot of ways. You can increase rewards for the underdog players and even decrease rewards for stronger players winning over weaker ones. You can simply skip giving significant or any gameplay advantages for winning campaign games. You can have mechanics allowing players to gang up on the leading player.