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.

Not sure if this should be rules or not. Anyways I have been wondering how to handle team games with 4 players. As it seems that potentially 20 orders falling on a teams head would be a bit much.

Last time we played a team game we limited our orders to 5 for each player and said they lost an order for every 2 models killed.

That doesn't seem like the best solution. I would like to hear how you guys have done team games and multiplayer games in general specifically how you handled the order pools, initiative, etc.

Thanks!

There are rules for a regular 2v2 tournament in the ITS missions. Each player gets half the alloted points for the mission (maximum 200 per player) so that limits the amount of combos you can pull off.

I've done 2v2 but that's all multiplayer wise. I couldn't imagine doing odd numbers of players though, I doubt it would work well. In the 2v2s that I've done however, each team was still only 300pts, so 150 each. They worked out fine as each person has ~8 models and maybe 1 HI but never tags. Doing 300 pts per player could cause difficulties though as there will be a significant advantage to go first. I wonder if it would work if you only had one team member active at a time. So there will be one active and one reactive from each team at anyone time. May be interesting.

There ARE ITS rules for 2v2 games (even up to 400points PER player) - you alternate players - so turn 1 with a 4 player (2v2 = call them A, B, Y. Z) goes Player A, Player Y, player B, Player Z, new turn).

It's not something I do, though. I relegate the "team" games to those involving round leather balls and much man-hugging - I don't do that either.

What were your points? I would do 500 points per team max.

I have run a 6 person free-for-all where each player could bring up to 50pts and they had to assassinate/capture/extract (depends on factions,PanO/Haqqislam had to extract, Ariadne/Tohaa had to capture and Yu Jing/Nomads had to kill but each player was aware of only their objective not the other players') a VIP. It actually worked out pretty well and towards the end it basically played like an RPG with alliances and betrayals.

Sounds like the Hunger Games scenario rules there Guarder.

They're running that at Gencon apparantly, wish I didn't like on the other side of the Pacific or I'd hit it up

Sandinistato wrote:
I would like to hear how you guys have done team games and multiplayer games in general specifically how you handled the order pools, initiative, etc.

Generally, I'd be a bit more points conservative per player (unless you've got a huge game on an 8' x 6' table or something planned), but I wouldn't choose to artificially restrict orders.

Order pools: Can just be handled as separate combat groups.

Turn order: Well, you can let each player in a team go sequentially, but my preference is to letting members of the same team take a shared turn, as it feels more "team-like".

Initiative: Make the players pick one "chief" Lt per side to roll for the initiative - Strategos L3 is only applied if this Lt has it, but is applied to all opposing players. Strategos L2 works for any Lt, but only applies to their own player as normal.

For three or more sides, I'd have everyone roll off. Order players by:
- Number of attempts needed to get a passing WIP roll (as this saves problems with what happens when multiple people fail the roll)
- Then the number they roll when they pass. If this results in a tie, have roll-offs until there is a clear winner (but this won't count towards their number of attempts). Crits are only compared against people with the same number of attempts, so critting on roll 3 won't beat someone who (merely) passed on roll 1 or 2.

Let the winner pick their preference of turn or deployment, then let the second player pick their choice from the remaining options, then third, etc. Then, after everyone has picked one, let the first player have his/her pick of the remaining options in the other category, etc.

For example, four sides A,B,C and D all roll in a matching order:

A picks to go first.
B picks to deploy fourth
C picks to deploy third.
D picks to go second.
A picks again, deploying second.
B picks again, going third.
C is forced to go fourth, having no other option.
D is forced to deploy first.

Forward Observers: If taking shared turns, team-mates can use each other's FO marks.

Loss-of-Lt: Assessed per player, not per side.

Retreat:
1) Assess retreat per player with:
1a) One player in retreat on a team counting to end ITS scenarios
1b) Some greater number of players (half/all) ending the scenario
2) Assess retreat between all players on a team.

~~~~~

I think that covers most of the issues that might need addressing.

As an alternative to the above, I'm currently putting finishing touches to the first section of a 'gamesmaster' type system for Infinity, which I hope will be a great way of representing Infinity combat between two spec-ops teams in civilised/city areas. You have a two player game as usual, but with an extra player controlling the civilians and security/defense type forces which would be called in to respond to such disturbances of the peace!

Think something like Grand Theft Auto in terms of how it works, with a 'threat' indicator that fills up as civilians in the area get attacked, explosions go off etc. This might start with local, pretty ineffective 'rent-a-cops', but as these get killed soon armoured response teams turn up in vehicles, even eventually police TAGs or gunships if you continue to go postal. This makes it that much harder for both sides to complete their objectives, but also adds a lot of immersion/narrative, and I'm hoping the feeling of 'Ghost in the Shell' of these conflicts taking place in a future city.

I'm just finishing painting up some minis for it and playtesting the rules, but hopefully will have something to post on Dakka for it soon.

 Pacific wrote:
As an alternative to the above, I'm currently putting finishing touches to the first section of a 'gamesmaster' type system for Infinity, which I hope will be a great way of representing Infinity combat between two spec-ops teams in civilised/city areas. You have a two player game as usual, but with an extra player controlling the civilians and security/defense type forces which would be called in to respond to such disturbances of the peace!

Think something like Grand Theft Auto in terms of how it works, with a 'threat' indicator that fills up as civilians in the area get attacked, explosions go off etc. This might start with local, pretty ineffective 'rent-a-cops', but as these get killed soon armoured response teams turn up in vehicles, even eventually police TAGs or gunships if you continue to go postal. This makes it that much harder for both sides to complete their objectives, but also adds a lot of immersion/narrative, and I'm hoping the feeling of 'Ghost in the Shell' of these conflicts taking place in a future city.

I'm just finishing painting up some minis for it and playtesting the rules, but hopefully will have something to post on Dakka for it soon.

Wow that sounds great! I bet it would be awesome in a campaign also. As previous actions could cause the factions to have more " heat" on them and local security is raised.