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.

Is there a ruleset out there, official or otherwise, that tweaks the game for 2v2 play? I could probably make my own home rules fairly easily, but it'd be great if there was a template me to work off of.

We've just generally treated it as one giant game. Side A/Side B, standard IGOUGO format.

ccs wrote:
We've just generally treated it as one giant game. Side A/Side B, standard IGOUGO format.

Same here, with shared CPs and limitations on their use (max once per phase, ...) as if one side were a single army.
Basically a standard game (2000 points) with only one exception: max 2 detachments per player and rule of 2 in place (total of max 4 detachments per side).

Similar here. It's just a large game, with each side being one army. We added a few rules:
- Each player gets a warlord trait, but only one of those is the 'real' warlord who counts for slay the warlord
- CP are shared between players, but they only get 3CP for battleforged once
- No aligning of army lists between allies beyond knowing their faction.

You really should switch players from both teams, instead of both players from one team taking a turn. If both players from one team focus fire on one player from the other team his army is pretty much gone, and the game is over for him.

Why would you focus down one player, including all their troops and characters over taking out the biggest threats from both armies?

 Jidmah wrote:
Why would you focus down one player, including all their troops and characters over taking out the biggest threats from both armies?

Because Tiger Dan's decided to be a dick again & we've decided to put him out of our misery.
Because once again Tiger Dan's brought a tiny force that'll wilt under serious firepower & yield alot of easy victory pts.
Because sometimes Dan's tiny force IS the biggest threat.
Because once again Tiger Dan's playing stupidly & presenting himself as the prime target.

Dan btw was a real player in our group. We called him "Tiger Dan" for his penchant for bringing 3-5 Tiger tanks in our WWII games. That's it, 3-5 of the biggest tanks his lists would allow. No support, no infantry if he could help it. No tactics or common sense either - he'd run his Tigers into the wide open/other terrible positions/etc. He was also highly resistant to taking good, practical, advice from fellow players & rarely coordinated things with any teammates. Then, as his precious tanks blew up, he'd begin pitching a fit. The less tanks he had the worse he acted.
He was often quickly reduced to spectator status.
There's no doubt in my mind that this play style & poor behavior would've extended into other minis games if he'd played anything but WWII....

I know players like Tiger Dan, except our specimen plays pure harlequins
In those cases, I don't see blowing him off the board in one turn as something bad

The biggest issues of 2v2 or larger games is that one player can ruin the game for more than one player.