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.

My friends and I dont have the money to field large armies yet so we play kill games with 200pts each on a 12' by 8' table. I play Eldar, friends play Dark Eldar, Chaos Daemons, Space Wolves, and Dark Angels. Its been pretty chaotic but a whole lot of fun the only problem is that the game was made for two armies, not five xD. So I need help with two things:

1. Normal missions don't really work so we would need a game type that kept everyone against each other.
2. How do you resolve combat with more than two sides that isn't confusing! Its kind of boring and unfluffy to have one guy wait outside of combat until someone dies so how can this be worked out if multiple armies find themselves in the same fistfight?

Anything addition you guys can come up with would be cool too!

200 pt games are pretty much Killteam games. You should look that up.

That's what were using but its not designed for 5 players

You should look up the Carnage rules. That's designed for four all fighting each other and would probably work for five. It also deals with the multiple close combat issue.

Any way you slice it you're adding a layer of complexity to the game so its not really going to ever feel like it was 'made for it'. If you've ever played a board game thats supposed to be everyone vs everyone (like Risk or whatever) you'll know that you'll never keep it like that. Its part of the strategy to team up against people, eliminate them, then deal with your pseudo-allies. Maybe someone cleverer than I can come up with a mission that avoids this.

As far as multiple combats it doesn't seem too bad just using the rules as is for melee with more than 2 units. It tells you how to move, pick targets, etc. The only issue is how to determine who takes morale checks. I suppose you could either do lowest number of wounds inflicted looses and takes a check, or highest number of wounds inflicted wins and all others take a check.

How about a card activation rule. Get 1 card for each model in your force
Ace high, go in descending order call out the cards, so start with
Ace if someone has an ace they can activate 1 model next call out king
Again if someone has a king they can activate 1 model

Eg Steve has 5 models, so gets 5 cards (king, jack, 9, 5, 2)
Dan has 3 models so gets 3 cards( queen 10 and a 3)
Call out ace nobody has Ace so call out king Steve activates his
Leader with his king
Call out queen Dan activates his heavy
Call out 10 Dan activate his ganger
And so on
If both players have same card have co order ie first is hearts then diamonds
Then spades then clubs

We've been using Treachery from WHFB for some 500-1000 point game, and we've had up to 7 people in it... It's been a blast, and would probably work just as well for 5 @200 pt, but you have to work it out as you go, as the rules need some translating between WHFB and WH40K

Its kind of boring and unfluffy to have one guy wait outside of combat

Thats how the actual game works though

I agree with Bharring about using the Triumph and Treachery rules but slightly modified.
Easy for who goes first (just shuffle cards and each pick one that is your card for the game and shuffle and draw for turn order)
For close combat and shooting you have to choose an enemy so can only shoot at 1 person and only fight 1 person in combat.

Not the most fluffy but is the easiest way to avoid confusion