2v1 Game Modifications? - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Aesthete honorableSimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    541
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    69 (x2)

    2v1 Game Modifications?

    So, first off I don't really knwo where to post this, I was going to put it in the Campaign section but it looked like that was only for Medusa stuffs, so here was my next guess.

    Frankly I have a lot more stuff than my friends because I've been collecting for a longer time, and I would like to play larger armies but my friends have been playing mostly for less than a year, so they don't have very much (and we're all still in high school so we don't have time for good jobs etc. to earn money) so I was wondering if there's a good way to play 2v1 with the 2 being different armies that can't legally ally. Theoretically they could just combine their forces and play one army if they could ally, but I also play against Tau alot and they can't really ally with the Emperor's forces. Thus, I was wondering if there's a good way to point/FOC hadicap the single player against the two players. So far I've been playing just that the 2 players have to split a FOC, which has been working out a little ebtter than the first to games I played, but the problem is that each army can just specialize in what they're good at and have the other army take the other half (this usualy works out much better than it should, with Tau & Dæmonhunters).

    Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, and in any case we'll do some experimenting and see if we can't find something that works.

    Back from the dead to haunt new houses.
    Send me a hello if you remember me.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    The Orange Grey Knight MiketehFox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Kelowna, BC, Canada
    Age
    28
    Posts
    3,830
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    196 (x8)

    It doesn't really matter if fluff wise they could ally or not. Except maybe in tournaments...

    But otherwise, say they each had 1000 points, thier armies being 'A' and 'B', and you with 2000 points, army 'C'.

    Instead of making 3 turns per round, just have both A and B amries do thier movement, shooting and assaulting at the same time, that way its like facing a 200 point army.

    Mike

  4. #3
    Aesthete honorableSimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    541
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    69 (x2)

    Yeah, this is what we do, the problem that has arisen is just that there are reasons beyond fluff that certain armies can't ally (for instance, there could be fluff justifications for allying some forces that cannot be, but there are game balancing reason they can't be allied) and additionally there are reasons that you have to ally in the way that you do - by only being allowed a limited number of each slot. the way we do it now they can split the FOC however they want, the problem is that when I play against Loyalists, Tau, and IG, they get the best parts of each army because they don't have to base it around one central army the way you do with allying & induction. The way it usually works is the Tau gets two or three Heavies, the Marines get like HQ (Death Company and such) and fast attack (he likes the Land Speeders) and the IG/Dæmonhunters get everything else (Troops, :cry so each army gains the tactical advantage of the other armies, and effectively loses the tactical disadvantages of their own army. For instance, my friend's Marines' list gains its much needed Heavy Support from the Tau, while they in exchange stand in front of the Tau weaponry and charge whatever moves towards it. This gives them the best balance of both anti-tank & anti-infantry as was as ranged & close combat.

    Sorry I didn't describe the problem more fully the first time.
    Back from the dead to haunt new houses.
    Send me a hello if you remember me.

  5. #4
    The Orange Grey Knight MiketehFox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Kelowna, BC, Canada
    Age
    28
    Posts
    3,830
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    196 (x8)

    No, what I mean is that each player has his own FOC, so in my previous example it's like figting 2 seperate 1000 point armies at the same time as they both do thier turns as one.

    Mike

  6. #5
    Aesthete honorableSimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    541
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    69 (x2)

    Quote Originally Posted by MiketehFox View Post
    No, what I mean is that each player has his own FOC, so in my previous example it's like figting 2 seperate 1000 point armies at the same time as they both do thier turns as one.
    This is how we do it right now and the problem is just that the two smaller armies combine their aptitudes because they effectively have 4 HQ, 6 Elite, 12 Troops, 6 FA, and 6 HS slots (or in the more recent, 3v1, where they would effectively get 9 of most things), so what normally happens is they end up playing an Iron Warriors-esque combination of Tau and Imperial Guard with tons and tons of armour to deal with, so that even if I (the larger army) actually take Iron Warriors and try to out-armour them I can never do it because they have two extra slots, and they could always switch to out-whatever me.

    I think I see what you're trying to do here, is your point just that if they have to play for their base requirements (i.e. 1 HQ & 2 Troops) then they won't have enough points to out-muscle me in whichever aera they choose? Because if that's what you're going for I think the needing-to-take-troops part od that idea should work pretty well, and theoretically the HQ takes away from their other slots but really they can still over specialize (in my mind at least each player will always have at least 600 points leftover ever base requirements, usually more, which is enough for pretty much whatever they want to specialize in).


    The way we have it balanced as right now (and this works well enough to keep me from complaining but not well enough for me to be compeltely satisfied) is that the two/three of them essentially act as one player, using one FOC, taking one singular turn, deploying as one player, etc. Effectively, they play as one army, say Space Marines, with illegal Tau and IG allies.

    The only reason this doesn't work is that they still get the best of each one of their armies, i.e. the best heavies/elites of the Tau, etc.

    I guess what might work is either something akin to the way allies work now so that one/each side is limited in what sort of choices they can take, or some requirements like if they're going to take heavies at all both armies have to take one before one of them can take a second, so that one side can never take all three slots of one thing, but whatever we chose would probably be biased by which armies I knew I'd be playing.

    I might just not be able to make good enough large-scale lists, (I usually try to overcome their advantages with numbers, but that might not be the best idea - I'll post independently on the Chaos forum to see if there's a good way I can just try to overcome stuff like this), and the table we usually use is way too small for our most recent excursion of 3000 points, but I've never won one of these many-people-versus-me type games, and I don't usually use lists too far off the norm of my 1v1 lists, so I don't really think it's completely my fault.


    Thanks Mike for your comments
    Back from the dead to haunt new houses.
    Send me a hello if you remember me.

  7. #6
    The Orange Grey Knight MiketehFox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Kelowna, BC, Canada
    Age
    28
    Posts
    3,830
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    196 (x8)

    Well if they are specializing like that the thats just unsportsman like and unless they are manly(or womanly) eough to face hat, they should be abelt o come to the table with balanced lists.

    Other than that there isn't much you can do really, it all depends on them being good people.

    Mike

  8. #7
    Senior Member pinky_si's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cardiff, United Kingdom
    Age
    39
    Posts
    255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    52 (x1)

    The way we deal with this problem is to not worry about the fluff justifications for allying.

    As for the FOC dilemma, what I'd suggest is that if your opponents are using 2 FOC's, then the single player should also use 2 FOCs, splitting your forces into two separate 1000 point detachments.

    However, that said, the 2 FOC solution seems to work best at larger points values (say for a total of 3000pts + on a side). Providing that both sides have the same number of FOC slots, then the advantage which the mixed side derives from its alliance will not be that significant. In fact, this diversity can often be a handicap.

    We've played entire campaigns like this (A combined Guard / Marine force facing an unholy alliance of Tau, Necron and Eldar) and we didn't run into any significant imbalance. In fact it was even possible to run unequal points games (say 1000 vs 1500) as part of the campaign and the outcome wasn't always a given like you would expect. My favourite moment of this was when my 1000pt guard force held up a much larger combined enemy force, inflicting disproportionately higher casualties on them than they could manage on me - Dug in guard can be quite hard to shift, and when they have some good fire lanes, watch out...

    If your opponents bring separate lists and just play as an alliance, you will have an advantage (unless they are lucky in their selection of units), if they conspire beforehand, then you will need to to tailor your selection of units to their general strategy. I've found that when each army in an alliance plays its strenghts, the actual model count can often be quite low, so you can take advantage of this.
    I have too many armies to list in my signature!

  9. #8
    Ancient Spacefarer Kai-Itza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    UK
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,707
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    211 (x6)

    i've also been playing for a long time and can't earn much money (@ uni.) but, i make the house rule of teaming together two willing players against my larger force, as long as the two points totals are equal to yours you can't go far wrong,
    even if the teamed armies are not suited together, it doesn't mean that you can't play them together, just remember what te game is for, to have fun

    hope this helps you with your current problem

    -Kai-Itza-

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts