When playing games with multiple allies and opponents - 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 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Member Remiyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    32
    Posts
    97
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    13 (x1)

    When playing games with multiple allies and opponents

    In our shop it is not unusual to have more than one player per side in a game. This Sunday was such a day in a 2v2. What I would like to know is this, what rules do you all use when playing these kinds of games, in certain situations, like Space Marines playing again other space marines, how much laxity do we give certain RAW interpretations (like the use of teleport homers from opposing terminators, or rites of battle to give ALL space marines a leadership of the captain or master).

    Also is there anything in the big rules book that governs how to play a game with more than one opponent? I'd like to come up with a consensus to try and use in our shop for 2v2 games.

    Thanks everyone.

    Rules corruptions are simply that, corruptions, they neither deserve to be part of a logical argument, nor do they deserve to be considered as fact for deciding the governing rules of this game.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Senior Member Chaplain Grimm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    40
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    20 (x1)

    Usually when me and my friends play these types of games (which is often enough actually) we only use interoperability for like armies...only if the opponents get it as well. So if it's SM/SM vs Tau/Tau, sure. However we nix it on anything like SM/SM vs Tau/Chaos etc. Chaos benifiting from markerlights would be a freakin' nightmare....

    Usually we just straight up roll out the armies, and do each side's movement/shoot/assault phases as per a normal game.

    Works pretty well.

    Word of advice though, stay far away from odd sided games like 1vs1vs1 or 2vs2vs2 etc. That gets really shaky and usually is very lopsided. It'll save you a huge headache.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Lamenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Age
    40
    Posts
    571
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    73 (x2)

    We used to play a lot of 2-on-2s. WE played it so that only the same side can benefit from special rules and only if they are the same army type.

    So for example, you can only use your own side's teleport homers.

    Or only your own side benefits from the Rites of Battle (and only if both players are SM).

    You can only benefit from marker lights if you are also playing Tau.

    And so on. I am sure you get the idea.

    I don't think the rulebook specifically emntions these things.
    Shut up and play.

  5. #4
    Member Remiyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    32
    Posts
    97
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    13 (x1)

    I guess my problem has to do with the issue of absolutist rulings. even in 1v1 games, you have a SM commander with rites of battle, technically RAW your opponent, if a SM (not CSM) can benefit from your commander. Or, as in yesterday's game, have a Tau player with Aun'Va benefit the opponent's Tau.

    Or if Dark Angels fight against other Dark Angels (fallen) with Azrael on the board, do the fallen become stubborn as well?

    For these kinds of rulings is it necessary in all games, including 1v1 games to deviate from RAW in order to ensure fair play?

    In multiplayer games, this is even more important as absolute rules for armies of like kind can seriously bog a game down (we spent 10 minutes arguing about the Aun'Va thing).
    Rules corruptions are simply that, corruptions, they neither deserve to be part of a logical argument, nor do they deserve to be considered as fact for deciding the governing rules of this game.

  6. #5
    I'm Back! Koss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    chaos wastes
    Age
    27
    Posts
    2,351
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    176 (x6)

    well, a certain armies benefits can only benefit that army. so if one player has teleport homers or rights of battle, only that player should be able to benefit from those specail rules. thats how i've always seen it, and is usually the standard for most mega battles at our shop to avoid confusion. however, it's really up to the people playing and it should be discussed prior to the game on what everyone thinks is fair.
    Last edited by Koss; October 23rd, 2006 at 23:53.

  7. #6
    Son of LO tarzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,023
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    121 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by Remiyo View Post
    I guess my problem has to do with the issue of absolutist rulings. even in 1v1 games, you have a SM commander with rites of battle, technically RAW your opponent, if a SM (not CSM) can benefit from your commander. Or, as in yesterday's game, have a Tau player with Aun'Va benefit the opponent's Tau.

    Or if Dark Angels fight against other Dark Angels (fallen) with Azrael on the board, do the fallen become stubborn as well?

    For these kinds of rulings is it necessary in all games, including 1v1 games to deviate from RAW in order to ensure fair play?

    In multiplayer games, this is even more important as absolute rules for armies of like kind can seriously bog a game down (we spent 10 minutes arguing about the Aun'Va thing).
    But the rules are pretty plain and simple. If a commander is on the board, then all marines get it. Just like if you're playing an alpha mission, you can't infiltrate.

    It's any more difficult than that. Really.

    Fairness? LD 10 across the board because one guy is on the table? for 75 pts no less?

    Since you tend to not think of fluff, I won't even bother with the notion that these are simply tactical drills, as not every battle fought is a life or death thing. Some are merely training exercises, some in the past some are future fights. That's why you can use special characters even though most are long since dead.

    Think of it this way- rules say I can (as you have admitted yourself), then by the permissive nature of the game, I can.
    My armies:
    16,000+ of Eldar (only need flyers)
    7,000+ of Nids (want heirophant)
    6,000+ of Space Marines (need rever titan)
    4,400+ of Cygnar (all models for the faction)
    1,500+ of Legion (just started)

  8. #7
    Senior Member Lamenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Age
    40
    Posts
    571
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    73 (x2)

    Quote Originally Posted by Remiyo
    I guess my problem has to do with the issue of absolutist rulings. even in 1v1 games, you have a SM commander with rites of battle, technically RAW your opponent, if a SM (not CSM) can benefit from your commander. Or, as in yesterday's game, have a Tau player with Aun'Va benefit the opponent's Tau.
    I think this is a perfect example of "Spirit of the Rules" vs. "written words". I would still say only your own side can benefit.
    Shut up and play.

+ 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