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 want to know how many of you play multiplayer games, like 3 or 4 player free for all games I figured they weren't that rare, but I'm finding out that almost no one plays them

My group used to play nothing BUT multiplayer games. This was back when we had multiple players and only 1 table, so it was really the only reason we could get everyone to play. Nowadays, our group is smaller and we have a second table so it's not hard to get everyone a turn without doing team games or free-for-alls. Games with more than 2 players always tend to take WAY more time as well, as it overcomplicates the turns and really bogs down the flow of the game.

yeah thats me, im in the middle of nowhere with no club or shop so its just a piece of ply wood in my basement with like 5 guys

I would highly recommend finding the space to run a 2nd board. You're still leaving 1 person out, but if your group is really into it the odd guy who sits it out should still have fun watching or reffing the game.

40k is really at its best when it's just 1 v 1. Team games will either over-expose the weaknesses of your army/list, or completely neutralize them because you're allied with another army that can take care of those weaknesses for you.

I have found that the best way to do a 2v2 game is to not decide on the teams until everyone has written a list. It keeps people from tailoring list or making overpowered combinations.

It's better to share a FOC in multiplayer games too, and also don't go too big. A 1000-1500 point multiplayer game (per side that is) is much more fun than a clumsy 2000 point game on a standard table.

Also remember that race bonuses such as orders and bubble effects do not affect other races, so a Lord Commissar will not give 12" LD10 to say allied Gretchin.

OK thanks

I tend to find that free-for-alls don't work out so well, but I love tag-team games or even massive Apocalype games with however many players a side.
I dunno, the problem with free-for-alls tends to be that they stop being free-for-alls and turn into impromptu ganging up. Maybe that's how it is, but that kinda ruins it sometimes.

I play multiplayer games a lot with 2 of my buddies. I build a hexagon table so that we were each deployed equidistant from each other.

Generally its a lot of fun, but some armies just dont work as well in multiplayer games. In fact, any army that cant take a lot of punishment, or has to assault to win, is at a disadvantage. Plus theres always a little bit of ganging up. As long as you go into it knowing there are faults, you can still have a really fun game

Also its important to not that the in-book missions DONT work. You have to create new missions to work for three+ players. Preferably one that forces conflict, so that no one can sit in the back unmolested

yeah, we usually play on a 4x8 with standard misions

2v2 is great fun, 3v3 even more so.

Only problem is they take FOREVER.