This is something I just quickly cooked up while in the bathroom.

If Babaganoosh / Gadge see this - do please weigh in.

This system makes use of X-wing and Imperial Assault, the scenario is a two or three way campaign around a contested star system, with multiple small moons/planets containing outposts.

So make a hex based gridmap. say 20 by 20.



In 3 points, Rebel base, Imperial base, Scum base. Reb and Imp can be Frigate, Scum can too I suppose, else asteroid base.



another 6 points. small outposts that can be claimed to generate reinforcement points.



Each player starts with 6 100 point squadron lists, and one 300 point epic list. No uniques shared, and additionally a main base defense force of 150 points space, 40 points ground. (and yes, no uniques shared).



They start with 3 40 point IA squads. No uniques shared.



In order to try claiming an outpost/capturing a crippled frigate/asteroid base a large ship that can hold two crew must be used to drop a skirmish team.



Each base grants 10 requisition a turn, which may be used to reinforce any outpost or main base up to 40 points, any squadron up to 100 points, any ground squad up to 40 points, any epic group up to 300 points, any defense squadron for the frigate/asteroid up to 300 points.



Each "squadron" moves at 3 move per turn. Each "epic" battlegroup moves at 2. The main base does not move.



Squads/squadrons do not stack unless they are attacking an epic, no more than 300 points a side may be brought in.



The Frigate / Base / Asteroid base is whatever you can/want to use as a base model, but players should agree on stats for each before hand. I amthinking 200 points to spend on the ship myself, using rules for either a badass turbolaser covered base or the space rocks frigate.



If a squadron/squad is completely wiped out, then new ones can be bought with reinforcement points as generated. Lost uniques stay lost or may be bought back at double their point value rounding up.



For movement on the meta-map, roll off for who moves first, and go clockwise around board. Or Anti-clockwise, whatever you want to do.

To do: Special outpost rules

Boarding epic ships?

Ordnance pools?

I forgot for attacking the big space base/immobile ship: Ship starts in deployment zone/edge of play and does not move. It may however carry a lot of guns. Additionally it may not be destroyed, only crippled. Unless of course the players agree to allow the ship to act like it's got a dial, if it's a ship not a base... Bases VS ships is something the players can agree on I guess.

Further note, this can be upscaled/downscaled based on whatever design you want.

Example. maybe you want to spend ~150 points on an epic ship + escorts, 3 100 point lists, and 3 40 point skirmish squads for IA. and use your epic ship as the "boss"

Move the amount of planets down to ~3 and have it on a 15X15 hexgrid.

really, want feedback based on how people would think this would work as a metacampaign.

One key difference could also be the outposts giving different outputs when captured, but having a persistent skirmish mission/map / output.

I dont play Imperial Assault but if i knew someone with it i'd be more than happy to link games of it to games of xwing and likewise armada

Armada is the great white whale that I skipped on, figuring that either x-wing or armada would work with IA but not both.

Still, in terms of having a meta grid with set maps on planets, X-wing and IA skirmish integrate together easily.

Narrative requires a little bit of work but is at least doable.

Armada is the great white whale that I skipped on, figuring that either x-wing or armada would work with IA but not both.

Realistically Scum would also just not have enough power to field whole fleets of big warships like the 2 navys can do (Imperials a lot more than rebels, as the resource base is so much bigger - Rebels are constantly on the run).

Neither is it in Scum's interest to do so.

Exactly, small pirate raids and merc action is where it's at.

At GW i ran the wierdest combined campaign weekend ever.

Sales of both BFG and INQ were not strong enough to merit either system having a weekend of the hall to itself and i was tasked to run both on the same weekend

The *easy* thing would have been to keep them seperate but Che and I decided to make it so that the fleets could proivde intel and orbital support for the inquisitor warbands and the the warbands gaining artefacts could get the fleets re-rolls

it worked surprisingly well actually.

It would have been very easy to add in 40k games in the middle ground

When you say that no uniques are shared are you saying 2+ of your Imperial Assault squads can't use the same unique characters? That would be difficult for Rebels, they only have 3 non-unique units.

When you say that no uniques are shared are you saying 2+ of your Imperial Assault squads can't use the same unique characters? That would be difficult for Rebels, they only have 3 non-unique units.

That's the general idea yeah. I may need to re-think it a little but the general idea is troops led by the odd hero either side

Looks really interesting! I'm also working on a campaign with my brother, but it is very different from this.

If I were you I'd make sure to include a bunch of different locations in the hex-map. For example; outpost, comm relay, Junkyard/Space factory, asteroid mining site, trading post, Prison, power station, etc. Maybe give them different bonuses/incomes, but I think you want to make them different so that you're fighting over different locations each time. This also gives you opportunities to be creative with IA missions, I think.

You may also want to give players a choice of missions they can execute - raid, capture, recon, space superiority, infiltrate, etc. with each having a different effect on the tile you're playing in. So that you're not playing deathmatch each time.

I would consider getting rid of movement ranges on the hex map, and instead just let players send squads where they want, except the enemy home base. There should be some limiting factor preventing people from directly attacking player's home bases and knocking them out early. Could be an artificial rule, like 'you can only attack the enemy base if they control less than 3 locations', or something that works more naturally with the game, like having bonuses for home defense that make it impractical to attack without overwhelming numerical advantage.

You should also give a lot of thought into the economics of the campaign. How many battles do players fight per resource cycle; can they replace losses at a sufficient rate, maybe introduce a way players can preserve ships in battle (like running away off the edge).

Think about how the campaign is going to end, also. If one player gets a substantial lead, is it possible for the other players to turn the odds? Can one player be knocked out early? I think how it reads now, what you'll end up with is one player becoming economically dominant at some middle point of the game, and steamrolling to a more or less unavoidable victory after that point - which is fine, but I prefer for all players to have a reasonable chance to turn things around at any point up to the end of the campaign.

When you say that no uniques are shared are you saying 2+ of your Imperial Assault squads can't use the same unique characters? That would be difficult for Rebels, they only have 3 non-unique units.

That's the general idea yeah. I may need to re-think it a little but the general idea is troops led by the odd hero either side

You might want to think about limiting it to Red card uniques, and allow Grey card uniques to be used in a limited number of squads. That would give Rebels a little more flexibility without changing the way it effects the Empire or Mercenaries.

I agree with a lot of the problems Babaganoosh has pointed out, it will steamroll one sided with little chance of turnaround at the moment, an i was looking at different base bonuses / fixed base maps.

I don't yet have enough experience with IA (only just got it) to really balance tooooo well but Radarman's suggestion seems sound.

I do want to keep hex movement in, allowing the interdiction of raids on bases via space. As for turning it around.... yeah. Need to think on that.

I feel I should point out: I know my original post with the meta campaign idea has flaws/holes/bits that can be fleshed and improved.

That's why I posted it. Many hands etc, if anyone sees something that can be fixed, improved, balanced appropriately etc please do come forward.

Constructive feedback is constructive.

One way you could control the economy to mitigate steamrolling is to have a relatively hefty base income, either from your home base, or a flat guaranteed income for being in the game.

I think that if you go with a 3-player campaign (Rebel, Imp, Scum) you should also make a provision for players still participating in the game if they get knocked out. Maybe they could just do harassment-level raids, or exist as a largely neutered force until the campaign is over.

Say 25 points for the base? and a further 15 points as non-base buildup per turn if they have no base. Which may appear at any edge (minimum 50 point force).

That sounds about right; of course the specifics should probably be determined in some sort of playtesting, before you kick off a full-blown campaign.

Another mitigating factor you might implement is a requirement to garrison the spaces that produce requisition points for you. That way, as players gain more territory, their flexibility decreases, and the amount of forces they can devote to offense is reduced. That sort of mechanic may also need to be fine-tuned to make sure that players can actually win, though! Just how you don't want an inexorable steamroll from a mid-point in the game, you don't want an endless see-saw back and forth.

Speaking of which, having three players in the campaign also kind of favors that sort of see-sawing; when one player looks dominant, the others gang up until no-one is dominant... rinse and repeat. Frankly, a two-player campaign would be much easier to run. But I would understand if you're dedicated to a 3-way between the playable factions. In the campaign I'm working on, we decided to go with the two primary factions being the main opponents in the campaign, but allowed each faction to 'recruit' mercenaries to fight on their side - the Scum and Villainy faction. Individual players have to be either Rebel, Imperial, or a Scum mercenary working for the Rebels or Imperials (so there is no Scum/Rebel or Scum/Imperial mixed list on the table).

Well, the Garrison idea is interesting, but unless it has some kind of random creature attack mechanic on the base.. (hmmmmm) i could argue it's just manned by noncombatants - and a raid by someone else auto-takes it.

The limited pool of troops/ships is interesting and i might change the mechanic around that. in which case it'd probably be 600 points/160 points (xwing and IA)

It might work around the hero vs mook comparability problem also.

Yeah I'm not 100% sure on the garrison, in terms of whether you'd really need it or how it might affect the campaign.

I'm curious, how much fighting do you imagine per resource cycle? Just one space and ground battle, or however many the players get themselves into, or something?

Well, right now a lot of this is drawing board. I typically expect no combat in the first three turns, then skirmishes in space., with battles heating up after a few planets are secured.

I'm even considering fixed list "themes" I.E. One of the 100 point lists has to have a big ship with two crew. It carries the IA group. Maybe it has discounts on crew cards.

One list could be an interceptor group. Moves 4 spaces on meta map, all ships must have boost. Maybe save points on engine upgrades or discounts on boosted ships.

One list bomber group - cheaper ordnance.

Or... not. Or maybe they pick a group type, and the bonuses with that group...

Lot of drawing board space.