Switch Theme:

Games with more than two players  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

Hey!

So guys, friends of mine played a 2x1 game today (2x1000p vs a 2000p army) and the 2000p guy massacred the other two. I'd like to know if there are any kind of official or fan-made rules for 9e to make such kind of game more balanced and fun for everyone? And what about 2x2 or free for all (four 1000p points)?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/18 21:02:03


40k, AI & BFG: / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / MCP: X-Force, X-Men, Brotherhood of Mutants, Avengers

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

These tend to be things you make up as you go along really.

I recall one game there was 6 or 9 of us around the table with something 2-300 points each. You basically started within close combat distance so turn 1 there was no combat allowed, it was purely moving around to get into position.

It was crazy and one of those situations where everyone is trying to form little alliances against each other and after a turn or two most people are dead in little duels and such.



The 2 V 1 you did is a similar approach, you can do two separate armies or one single army controlled by two. Two united armies can be very powerful on their own if the players build and play with their strengths and weaknesses in mind.

   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant




San Jose, CA

Who went first?
Did the two players play as a team or each have their own phases?
   
Made in pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

Racerguy180 wrote:
Who went first?
Did the two players play as a team or each have their own phases?


The 2x1000p team, but they barely scratched the other team during their first turn (it was SoB+Eldar vs Necrons).They played as a team, sharing phases and stratagems uses (e.g. if the SoB guy used Command Re-roll in the Shooting phase, the Eldar guy couldn't use it during that phase).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/18 21:04:47


40k, AI & BFG: / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / MCP: X-Force, X-Men, Brotherhood of Mutants, Avengers

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I love these kinds of games. The thing to remember is they aren't a super competitive choice often. The army made with a similar purpose with all the parts supporting each other will often be stronger than two smaller, varied lists especially if they aren't made to support each other and are instead just two different armies working towards the same goals.

People often don't take that into account. Sometimes two players will have different ideas on how to set up their forces and how to use them, the solo player has no such backseating or clash of ideas to worry of. Though that is why I love those games as they can feel so good from an atmosphere perspective.

I've done them a lot and they are always great fun, just don't take it too seriously. 2 v 2 games are lots of sun as well. You can be working together but try and out do each other to accomplish things like rivals as well, many laughs can be had.

The amount of time in those games I heard " Don't go in there, I got them ! " Just to then see my team mate get rolled and I've had to say.." So..you got them yeah ? "
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Team games are good fun. Usually we like to make them more of a narrative play thing.


One game i did was me with 3000pts of custodes vs. 2 different 2kpt armies.

The 2 smaller armies has different goals though. The harlequin player wanted to assasinate my characters, and the Black Templar player wanted to get me off the center of the table.

To make up for the smaller points total in my army, any of my vehicles that were destroyed were allowed to rewpawn on the following turn.


In order for me to win i had to have at least half my characters alive and more points worth of models within 12" of the center of the table than the enemy (so basically i had 2 conditions to their 1, but they were also competing against each other).


JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





That's the spirit. I always loved in my team games when the space marine player would tell me running guard to advance on the positions and " Protect him ".

The amount of time I was asked, from a Marine player, " Hey, can you protect me ? " Is beyond my memory to recall but it's been often and made me laugh every time. I guess they just feel safer with hundreds of regular joes in front of them and the enemy but honestly I always thought they should have been protecting me.
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





 AngryAngel80 wrote:
That's the spirit. I always loved in my team games when the space marine player would tell me running guard to advance on the positions and " Protect him ".

The amount of time I was asked, from a Marine player, " Hey, can you protect me ? " Is beyond my memory to recall but it's been often and made me laugh every time. I guess they just feel safer with hundreds of regular joes in front of them and the enemy but honestly I always thought they should have been protecting me.



Apocalypse/Kill Team/40K: Orks, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Space Wolves, Necrons
AOS: Ogor Mawtribes, Sons of Behemat (using Mantic/3rd party giants)
Blood Bowl: Skaven, Humans, Orcs, Goblins, Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves, Undead, Necromantic, Snotlings, Vampires, Lizardmen 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





That's about the size of it.
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Me and my buddy played a game of GK v Eldar with 4 players leading 1 detatchement worth 1k pts each and it was great fun.

Same factions on both sides, Shared CP/Srategem/psychic pool so no doubling up on psychic or strats. We would discuss tactics but basically your buddy would ultimately decide what to do with his units

I think issues might arise if you basicaly start using it to get around battleforged...
Like if I brought a CWE expert crafters spearhead stuffed to the gills with MSU firepower while my friend brings 1k of kraken genestealers.. That would be terrifying to behold.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in gb
Lead-Footed Trukkboy Driver






They work better when it's an even number of players to each side, in a very cut and clear 2v2, 3v3, etc.

An outnumbered player has twice as many brains to outsmart, and twice as many eyes to spot and act upon their mistakes.

More "free for all" type games almost always end up with the more dangerous player getting ganked early and then the survivors duking it out to finish.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




It doesn't work because of the core rules. Literally one player could just get annihilated by their opponents. If you want to do it you need more than just house ruling, you need a whole new system.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Considering most times when we did it it was to let a new player use what he had with a more experienced player we never had any real big issues with the team games.

As with lots with GW games as long as you aren't cut throat can work out fine. By not cut throat I mean not super competitive. Which should be easy enough with friends, which is all I've ever done this with.

Edit: Multiple player free for all type games I don't like as much as usually someone ends up being kingmaker. Though I'd argue it isn't always the case that many heads make it harder for the single player. It could if they were all experienced or even work well together but a solo player may only have one set of eyes and mind but he also can have one set plan and synergy baked in with his list that many players just don't always do. Just because its a team doesn't mean they are good at team work.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/19 06:40:03


 
   
Made in pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

Ok, guys. Thanks for your input.
We might try 2v2 games instead of 2v1

40k, AI & BFG: / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / MCP: X-Force, X-Men, Brotherhood of Mutants, Avengers

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





2 vs 1 games are fine. In our group the better player(s) have the advantage regardless of which side they are on. Two players may have an advantage in coaching each other and being able to focus on only one type of enemy, but a strong single player usually coordinates an overall plan better on his own. It works both ways. Have fun.
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler





1v1v1 games can work if you use a mechanic to stop ganging up and force players to diversify. I've played games where you score a VP for killing an enemy unit, or 2/3 VPs if you kill a unit from each opponent. Likewise, 1VP for flipping an objective but say 3VP if you flip an objective from each player in that turn.
I'd also recommend a decent number of objectives so it doesn't just end up being a giant maul in the centre...

   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






For 2 v 1 games, you can either make the side with two players as a single army, or have separate armies, with their own warlord, relic, etc.

We used to organise multi-player games on the big "feature" tables at Warhammer World. Once, we had two Marine players and a Tyranid player. The Marines each deployed as normal, then had a movement phase each. After that, they Tyranids deployed by Deep Strike all over the table, and it devolved into a series of free-for-all skirmishes all over the board.

We had a 5-player Horus Heresy game on the J'Migan Bridge table - the Ultramarines and Imperial Fists deployed in column along the road, then the Emperor's Children, Death Guard and Night Lords deployed on both flanks in an ambush.

There was one game we played where Orks were attacking an Imperial Guard defensive position; the Guard deployed on a short edge of the table, the Orks about 24" in from the other short edge (on a 6' x 4' table) and on turn 2, the Marine reinforcements arrived behind the Orks.

For "ordinary" 1 v 1 v 1 games, I try to space the deployment zones out equally around the table. I've also seen a scenario where player 1 only got Kill Points against player 2, player 2 against player 3 and player 3 against player 1, so each player was trying to attack the player to their left while defending against the player on their right.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





So, I generally play with a total of 3 people and we do 2v1's quite often.

What we've found is the single force (2000pts vs 1000x2pts) is far stronger than the two smaller ones, as the larger has can design a cohesive army and aura effects etc are better.

Here's how we balance it:
- the team with two players gets two warlords (and their warlord traits)
- each team has a single objective pool, the players decide what at the start of the game
- the team with two players can create "detachments" as if they were a single army for the purposes of Command Points
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: