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.

Ok, I recently had a 4 on 4 game (3000 pts each.) that took about 5 days to finish. (so many arguments.) but I had this situation on the 4th turn

Chapter master moves to join an allies dev. squad that was getting pounded with pinning tests. but apparently, I can't lend my LD to that squad.

Is this true?

Sol

As a general rule, a unit uses the highest LD value in the squad when taking Morale and Pinning tests, regardless of source. Unfortunately, the rules don't really cover games with multiple opponents per side and how they do or do not interact.

Captain Solon wrote:Ok, I recently had a 4 on 4 game.

Chapter master moves to join an allies dev. squad but apparently, I can't lend my LD to that squad.

Is this true?l

The main rules don't really deal with allied games of that sort so this situation is something you should have thought about before the game. Same goes for using an allied transport or using any of your special rules to benefit your ally.

I'd certainly allow using that LD value if we had agreed on ICs joining allied squads to start with.

GW should Right some more then just 1on1 game rules.

Edit: spelling

"write" . a wright is an engineer

They get waaay too complicated to balance fairly however, even DH/WH with current SM throws up some horrid combinations (VUlkan sisters, for example) that i doubt the thought of.

They seem to prefer to leave that to other people, or for you to use the Apocalypse ruleset. Which i hope you were using at 6k a side?

actually it was 12k a side,(i.e. 24k points total.) but now, we didn't.

I'm the only one who has read the apoc ruleset. so it was kinda.. unlikely.

probably why the game took so long.

Yeah, 6k aside means youve got 2-3 Force Org charts to worry about, and more importantly no BIG weapons to kill lots of stuff quickly....

I'd suggest they give Apoc a go - it is much, much, much more straight forwad for big games. In addition try to have a narrative theme, kill em all games, even with token objectives, are much much much less fun than if you are fighting for something more interesting!

-sigh.-

I would have too. but noone plays it here. :/

now

QUESTION TIME FOR NOSFERATU.

how does 3000 x 4 = 6000?
Each side had 12k a side.

It was 24,000 pts.


we were playing living objectives, which is my idea. it's actually really fun.

I thought it was 2x2, 6k each - my bad. The thought of doing 4 on 4 anyway, never mind at that level, without it being Apocalypse just seems...nuts to me.

Captain Solon wrote:GW should Right some more then just 1on1 game rules.

Edit: spelling

Ha.

RustyKnight wrote:

Captain Solon wrote:GW should Right some more then just 1on1 game rules.

Edit: spelling

Ha.

I agree with RustyKnight

RustyKnight wrote:

Captain Solon wrote:GW should Right some more then just 1on1 game rules.

Edit: spelling

Ha.

Made me laugh.

Gwar! wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:

Captain Solon wrote:GW should Right some more then just 1on1 game rules.

Edit: spelling

Ha.

I agree with RustyKnight

Especially when I included the correct spelling....