Like Ronnie Corbett, this campaign was short and not so sweet.
The actual mechanics worked perfectly well. That's because there were hardly any mechanics. When we began the campaign I was worried that it would stalemate with each side winning every other other game but three massacres later we had the shortest possible end to the campaign. I guess this is why playtesting is necessary; you never know what is going to happen.
So if the rules went right, what went wrong?
The problem was that neither of us really got into the campaign. I think this was because it was so short, that tabletop issues affected our enjoyment of the games and that the campaign rules didn't impact upon the tabletop games enough. In order for a campaign to feel special it has to make the tabletop battles different from one-off games. This difference could come in various ways, whether it be rules for troops gaining experience, altered missions and scenarios or unique models and characters. Each game in the campaign should feel different from the last so that the players seem to be actually getting somewhere. We had none of that.
Still this campaign did have one advantage over the the majority of campaigns I have played in the past; I finished it.
I'll take all these thoughts on board when I come up with my next set of campaign rules.