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've been in games where there was more than one player on each side, and I proposed a rule that was rejected. Maybe someone could try it out and report how it goes.

A | B
------
C | D

If the layout of the table is divided into four quarters, as shown above, the players starting off in squares A and B are allies going against the alliance of the players starting off in squares C and D.

I think it would save everybody quiet some time if, instead of each player moving separately while the remaining 3 wait for their turn, that the player in A and the player in D get to play their turns at the same time, and then the other two get their turns. That allows for semi-separate games with the majority of everybody's focus being on the player opposite them.

"But what if A wants to shoot at D, and D hasn't fired their shots yet?" you may ask. "How does that get resolved?"

You roll off to see who shoots first, or alternatively go by Initiative.

This game type could allow for greater involvement by all players at the same time, and more teamwork and interaction within the teams because one of them will always be doing something.

So is this for a game of two teams of two or for a 4 player free for all?

It is intended for two teams of two, but it might work for a 4-way fight assuming you're not allowed to target the person starting right beside you in the first turn.

The way I've always played team battles, is that every army treats other armies on their team as AoC (regardless of alliance matrix); and everyone on the team resolves their actions simultaneously, so player A and B would both move in the same Movement phase, shoot in the same Shooting phase, etc. The only part that gets wonky is the psychic phase, but we've been playing 1d6 per side, and the players decide how to split up the pool.

 Happyjew wrote:
The way I've always played team battles, is that every army treats other armies on their team as AoC (regardless of alliance matrix); and everyone on the team resolves their actions simultaneously, so player A and B would both move in the same Movement phase, shoot in the same Shooting phase, etc. The only part that gets wonky is the psychic phase, but we've been playing 1d6 per side, and the players decide how to split up the pool.

That's pretty much what we do, sometimes allowing warp dice to be shared by allied players. Basically, you treat a given side as though it were a single player who happened to bring two AoConvenience detachments. Or more depending on how many formations/detachments there are. It seems to work reasonably well and avoids non-standard interactions.

For instance, the OP's suggestion might lead to a situation where a do-or-die unit like dark eldar trueborn want to shoot up an enemy unit after deepstriking in their transport. But then their opponent wins the roll off to see who gets to shoot first and simply blasts the trueborn and their transport apart. The result is that already risky, squishy units are harder to deliver with less control over their turns. Meanwhile, deathstars that can take a punch are further incentivized because they don't really care whether they shoot/assault before their opponent; they'll survive the shooting and win the assault anyway.

@Lionheart713: While it seems like your suggestion would save a little bit of time in some situations, it probably gains some time back as you pause to resolve who gets to resolve their psychic stuff/shooting/assaults first (and this happens twice each game turn because B and C would have to do the same thing after A and D were done with their turns). Plus, you get all these weird interactions like the trueborn being blasted apart before they can shoot or warp spiders assault moving away from a unit that wants to charge them.

It's fun to discuss, but I don't think it really works out as presented.

Lionheart713 wrote:
It is intended for two teams of two, but it might work for a 4-way fight assuming you're not allowed to target the person starting right beside you in the first turn.

I was asking because why are 3 people waiting their turn in a 2v2 team game? 2 people should be moving at a time because they are a team

Right, In a 2v2 game, using the OP's example, Player A & B would be taking their turn together while C & D wait, then C & D take their turn and so on. What kind of crazy game only plays half it's models per side per turn?

That is probably why the idea got rejected, because it is practical for Team play.
Now if you want to get a 4 player free for all involving temporary allies, that's another thing altogether.