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.

Ok, I am not a fan of team games at all, but we have a big club here with limited table space so we often end up playing team games.

Anyway, I was using my Guard against a combo of chaos Daemons and Orks, and I was pretty much wiped out turn 2. I had two vendettas left and a couple of random infantry men, and the bloodcrushers had not even come on board yet! That was the worst ass kicking I have ever had in 40K and the only time I have lost with new guard. The combination of those two armies is just out of control. They compliment each other so well.

I was running a competitive mech Guard list too, complete with mystics for deep strike defense, and massive anti infantry capabilities. But it was a total mismatch, I had no chance.

I try to tell my buddies here that team games are not how the game was meant to be played, but in the end I just have to accept the fact that we simply have limited space, even with 6 full size tables, we still can't accommodate everyone.

So sometimes we end up with the dumbest combos, such as people fortuning s.shield termies, tyranids with tau, etc. It is just dump, IMO, and breaks the game system. It makes me miss the LA battle bunker, my old gaming haunt, where there was a glut of table space and everyone could play a good, one on one game.

How do other people feel about this? Do you feel it throws the already questionable balance of the game further out of whack or do people like team games?

I have the same problem. The guys in my group have had good experiences all the way around. The key for us is to only play with people who are thinking of you as much as you're thinking of them. My buddies Brandon, Chris, Louis & Greg always do right by each other because we all communicate what we're doing before we move, shoot, etc. We never get in each others way and we always have fun.

In reference to your question about balance, we've never had problems... Mainly because all of us field all-comers lists so basically everything works out. Guard are on one side of the table and tyranids are on the other. They don't really cross paths very much. I'd put a unit of CC warriors or a carnifex in the middle of a gunline to provide support but other than that I stick to my side of the table. We have strategy, we each have our defined roles, and constantly communicate what our collective goal is. Personally I've had a good time (when power players and lawyers aren't around).

I actually just played a 1500 point, 2v2 match yesterday (6000 total), with Orks and CSM on the "evil" side and SM and Guard on the "good" side. Now before I go on, I have to say that there is no balance in 40k. You have your power lists and you have everything else. After playing RTS games pretty competitively for years, I laugh when people say they play competitively with their min/max lists in this clearly broken game. I try to find that fine line between having a fun list, but one that can win at the same time and is an enjoyable experience for everyone. (Unfortunately the new CSM codex is garbage)

Anyways, I feel that 2v2 takes a lot more strategy and thinking power than 1v1. I find that in 1v1, the game is almost scripted due to the army play styles. For example, Orks vs IG. Everyone knows the Orks are going to run at the IG gun lines, and the game is just going to be determined by how many orks make it to the line. Yes, I may have over simplified it a bit, but thats whats going to happen.

With 2v2, and preferably 4 different armies, everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, whether its in numbers, CC, elite troops, artillery, etc. Just yesterday extra thought went into our table quarter deployment (we got 2nd turn) to protect certain troops (like a trukk with Ghazghkull and painboy nobs), hide others, and spread 130 units out. In movement I know I had to make decisions where it was going to be one army or the other shooting at me, depending on which side of the building I moved on. I had to determine whether or not X player would decide to shoot at my prince across the table when there was 100 orks charging forward in front of him. In shooting I had a ton of fun giving my ork teammate cover by shooting down transports set to intercept him, deepstriking behind enemy lines to destroy artillery units blowing his boyz to pieces, and covering the ork boyz flanks by adapting to deepstriking units with my mobile army.

On their side, aside from a bit of artillery the first 2 turns, they decided to lay everything into my CSM rhinos and troops. By end of their turn 2, I had lost probably 75% of my guys on the field. However, I was laughing, because while they decided to concentrate everything on my 3+ save units, my ork teammate was wagghhhing with Ghazghkull and assaulting in turn 2 with 100 orks. Needless to say, his orks slaughtered everything in their path, gaining 11 of our 16 kill points, easily winning us the game.

I know this was a bit of a long post, but I really feel that team games are much more complex and dont have tactics written in stone. Yes, there are deadly combos like the OP said, but seeing how it was a team game, what was your teammate doing? If the daemons got in your face turn 2, your teammate should have helped you blast them while they sat like ducks, or he should have shot the incoming orks. If you had a bad teammate or bad table setup, you cant say that team games as a whole are bad because of a poor experience.

Anyways, Im going to end the post since its long enough. Thats my view on it.

This is exactly how team games should be played. People working together, regardless of who loses how much. It's about TEAMWORK, just like you said.

My opinion is that team games should always be played with weird scenarios. It doesn't seem like fun without some sort of objective/story behind it beyond just "grab these objectives" or "kill the enemy."
Sometimes we put together siege type games on the warhammer fantasy boards at the bunker. Trying to get into a castle defended by tau is just hilarious.

We have random free-for-all matches in my house (4/6 people living together have armies), and barring the orcs walking into guard gunlines and then getting tabled by the other guard player.


Still, great fun, and sometimes the chaos marines beat me in the face, and the orcs just sneak up behind them and win.
Managing deployment zones is essential, however. Also, some rules are nerfed to the ground. (see and they shall know no fear units being assaulted while still technically falling back, which shouldnt happen normally)

@Reece: did they outnumber you points 2:1 also, or was it just bad luck on your end?

Reecius wrote:Ok, I am not a fan of team games at all, but we have a big club here with limited table space so we often end up playing team games.

Anyway, I was using my Guard against a combo of chaos Daemons and Orks, and I was pretty much wiped out turn 2. I had two vendettas left and a couple of random infantry men, and the bloodcrushers had not even come on board yet! That was the worst ass kicking I have ever had in 40K and the only time I have lost with new guard. The combination of those two armies is just out of control. They compliment each other so well.

I was running a competitive mech Guard list too, complete with mystics for deep strike defense, and massive anti infantry capabilities. But it was a total mismatch, I had no chance.

I try to tell my buddies here that team games are not how the game was meant to be played, but in the end I just have to accept the fact that we simply have limited space, even with 6 full size tables, we still can't accommodate everyone.

So sometimes we end up with the dumbest combos, such as people fortuning s.shield termies, tyranids with tau, etc. It is just dump, IMO, and breaks the game system. It makes me miss the LA battle bunker, my old gaming haunt, where there was a glut of table space and everyone could play a good, one on one game.

How do other people feel about this? Do you feel it throws the already questionable balance of the game further out of whack or do people like team games?

team games are really fun and open up the possibility of bigger and more thematic battles. That being said I have a few questions for you:

1. What was the size of the game you played(points) and what size table was it played on?

2. Did each side use One force org? IF you as the guard player only had one force org then the other side should only have one regardless of if they are using multiple armies, etc. Did they share one? etc. Matchingnumber of force orgs per side is a must.

3. Did they randomly get paired or did they show up planning to play together and min/max their forces to work optimally. Orks and Daemons combined in normal games was not intended when those codexes got designed. I'd suggest Apoc. for such combinations especially if your playing 3000pts.+

Eh (shrug)
why not?

As with all things they should be thought through. This would enable people to AVOID situations where Tau and Nids are in the same boat. Get a story or theme behind it.

Team games can be fun, but it's not how I'd like to play EVERY game. Remember, you don't have to always play teams either - you could come up with a three-way scenario and play everyone against each other. As a rule, in team games I'd suggest...

1. Same number of force organisation charts per team.
2. Same number of points per team.
3. No 'crazy' unfluffy matchups.
4. No cross-use of special powers within the team (no fortune on the termies, for example)

Also, how big are your 'full sized tables'? If you can find a suitable divider, you could cut them in half and play smaller points, and thus double the number of people who can play one on one.

You'd have to use small forces - but 500pt or 750pt games are quite acceptable on a 3x4 or 4x4 space. And you'd probably get more games in a night too...

I'm not big into 'team games' with my clubmates (mainly because most of them have trouble with the 'team' part of it (and fight as individuals, generally by one of them holding off their forces letting the other get creamed by BOTH opposing players first).

There are some players I'll team up with, but outside of apoc (and a very good reason there), it usually doesn't happen often.

Team games can be fun... once in a while. Team tournies can be fun once or twice a year.

The game was 2K per side.

Maybe I am just being a soar loser, but it was really ridiculous. Turn two I had more targets hitting my lines that would have been possible to stop. Warboss on bike, screamers (which murder tanks) trukk boyz, blood crushers, etc. ALl the while lootas are mashing up my units.

There was just nothing I could do to stop them. I have banewolfs roasting orks, a Russ, demolisher and a bassie all rolling direct hits, but still, it barely even slowed them down. Literally, by the end of turn two, all I had left was two Valks and a handful of surviving infantryman. I have never been rolled that quickly in a game of 40K. It was like a tidal wave hit me. I think I could have done a few things to play better and at the least slow the slaughter down, but not much.

The synergy of the two armies was just over the top. Try it some time, it is inane. The combination of fast, Orky hordes and lootas with Daemon elite units all hitting you turn two is overwhelming. I can't think of any army that could have handled that. And, both players are good with good lists. I woul dplay against Orks a lot differently than I would against Daemons with my army, the combo of the two was just nasty.

My point being (besides belly aching) that team games get around the weaknesses of armies. I like one on one games. I see games here were guys are using eldrad to fortune assault terminators, or joining the HQ from their army to a squad in another army. It just creates too many balance issues for me.

Maybe I am just too competitive for my own good. If other people like team games, then that is fine, I am happy people enjoy their hobby, but it just is not for me. Once in a while I like a low points level team game so long as the teams are similar armies. But when you have a combo like Nids and Tau, that makes no sense but create awesome synergy, it just feels dumb to me.