Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I recently became addicted to 40k and in a short span of time have turned 3 family members on to it as well. So, there are currently 4 of us with the latest addition (just ordered his CSM army) having around 500 pts. We're all still new to the game and have tried to keep our games small and short for the learning curve and time consumption. I was wondering if anyone out there has suggestions of what type of scenarios to play with 3-4 players, as this will be our most common number.

This past weekend we played with 3 of us and decided to play objectives as it seemed the most fair to prevent a 2 vs 1 scenario. It was fun, but I am just looking for input to see how you guys play.

Here are the army lists with a general # of points available:

Ork (1500)
Eldar (1000)
Space Marine (1200)
Chaos Space Marine (500 - 600)

Looks to me like the Orks and Chaos should team up to take on the Eldar/Space Marines as the point totals are fairly even.

1v1v1v1 games can be insane. Start each person at a corner with the same points value and place an objective (or cluster of them) in the center. It can lead to some seriously awesome games.

Or some really lame ones. Ive seen/played in some games set up in that fashion that went horribly bad for 1 person.

Usually ends up with somebody getting tag teamed from the start.

Mad Rabbit wrote:1v1v1v1 games can be insane. Start each person at a corner with the same points value and place an objective (or cluster of them) in the center. It can lead to some seriously awesome games.Or some really lame ones. Ive seen/played in some games set up in that fashion that went horribly bad for 1 person.

Usually ends up with somebody getting tag teamed from the start.

both are correct if the game isnt played in the right spirit then it can be bad

Maybe it's cause my friends tend to prefer fun over winning. It's far more fun to charge into the middle than to make cheap alliances to get a good player out of the game early. We save that crap for Risk.

Tazok wrote:Looks to me like the Orks and Chaos should team up to take on the Eldar/Space Marines as the point totals are fairly even.

We have been planning this set-up since my little bro decided to go with CSM (I play da' Orks!) I think 500 pts each with your team suggestion is the way to go.

From the replies, it seems like you guys think objectives placed toward the center of the map is the way to go. Last time we played (w/ three players) we tried to have an objective on each quadrant to be "fair." I guess no matter how you place the objectives or set the points, it is expected that someone will get double teamed. Or at least, that scenario always has an oppurtunity to arise. Am I correct?

OK - so we have suggestions for four player games only. How bout three players? Anyone ever mix force organization requirements to have a 2 vs 1 game? It seems if one guy has 1000 pts and the other two have 500 each, they will be outgunned after taking their mandatory troop choices. So do they share force organization? I would just try different games, but being very green to the game (no ork pun intended ) I am afraid of just making lopsided, time-wasted scenarios.

Also in the team games, should we mess with force organization there? (for example: each teammate only has to have ONE troop choice instead of TWO) I wonder if this would give us oppurtunities to field some extra elites and make the game a bit more interesting. Please let me know what you think and thank you for the replies so far!

Insane cross army synergies mean that you need to be very, very careful doing 500 and 500 vs 1000 type scenarios. For example, Fortuned TH/SS termies are 10 different kinds of cheap.

Generally I'd say 1 FOC to a side. This prevents one side bringing in 6 Heavy Support choices or the smaller forces being forced to spend most of their points on troops.

Also, as far as objectives, placing one and only one in the center makes for an excellent bloodbath type game. A free for all with only 1 possible winner and no draws (closest unit wins) means that the games tend to get intense.