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!
Ok i wasn't sure where this should go but i think i got it in the right spot. So if a mod or admin or even supervisor feels the need to move this, you have my most humble appoligies as I dont want to be a pest or extra work.
Having said that i have some problems. For the longest of time i have enjoyed the idea of multiple armies comming together and fighting it out on a common field of battle. Now everytime I try and do this something simple goes wrong and ruins the game. For example to facilitate the large number of troops on the field we use larger tables (to some that may seem unfair while others love it). To make things fair i try to add objectives like take and hold. however some just give up and enjoy bombing the whole table and ignore the objective completely. Why is it that it is next to impossilbe to have a good free for all game.
O well i will march my troops to meet my enemies every time, it is still fun when u have three armies crashing in the center. Or even two .
Can u guys please give me some inspiration or experimental objectives or anything to save my love for the carnage of multiple player battles:w00t: i am lost in sorrow and out of ideas.:wacko:
On big boards like that I think it is important to have plenty of terrain in order to keep the HtH armies from getting slaughtered in the long footslog to the the opponent's lines. Large hills and big bits of area terrain will be very useful. Also, large buildings (farm outhouses and the like) can provide good cover from direct fire. My advice there would be to grab/make lots of terrain and fill the board with it.
A big board brings to the fore the importance of modern military thinking with things like transport vehicles becomming even more important due to the long distances involved. The larger board also brings out the usefulness of long range, indirect artillery. There guys (basilisks most of then) just sit miles away from your forced dropping huge pie plates. Thankfully, as it is a larger board, your opponent should be a bit more spread out so sneaking units around the flanks to take out the artillery becomes easier. Infiltration, deep strikes and drop pods are all very useful, they allow you to tie up key units (just as in smaller games) giving you more time to maneuver you main force to engage.
I don't think a larger game needs any special rules, just a different approach to game play. If you still find people are not playing nice then introduce a few house rules like increasing the VPs for capturing objecives, or even change to mission type to force you opponents into moving. Like I said above, a more tactical approach to the game will help greatly, so think modern military style tactics, like strategic stikes and effective infiltration etc.
If you are looking for a reason to carry on with huge battles then this would be mine:- KILL COUNT!
Think how many kills you're going to get as you deploy your entire force onto the field. Awesome.
Good luck with the battles mate.
I too like a large table with multiple players. There's one major problem that's come up every time I try to play it though- 4 players works fine, but 3 players does not.
Without a special hexoganal or circular table, I can't find a good way to pit 3 players against each other. In any such arrangement on a square or rectangular table, they don't end up spaced evenly so on guy either gets stuck in the middle and hammered on by the other two players (who each have one side basically safe from retaliation) or one guy gets put far from the other 2 and can leisurely wait for the other two armies to wear each other down before storming through.
Thanks guys. I will keep my faith in the carnage as i seem to have some fellow lovers of the multiplayer battles.
Here is what we play on. We put two massive tables together. So it is like 7' X 6' yeah its massive. Anyway we just played another today. Unfortunetly my one friend had only like 500 points of nids (lol and a massive table for him to walk acrossed) and the other played necrons (lol 21 necrons and a res orb) so it was funny to see the carnifex fight the crons for like 6 truns without inflicting massive dammage as they kept comming back. It was funny as heck. Then i walts over and pop him with a force weapon. LOL
Anyway it kinda worked. What we did was a last man standing deal. The crons died eventrually ( no staying power after the lord was gone) and the nids were pretty much dead after i killed the carnifex and the warriors. So it was my inquisitor and one stormtrooper against half of the ig army. We called it a draw cause i managed to get the inquisitor into cc. ( i would have won though).
Anyway the only problem i saw with this game is the well lack of an objective kept the guard from getting into the battle and well with a guard army he had to choose between get stuck in or shoot his big guns. So i think that it was a fairly successful game.
So this is how I pulled it off.
1. LOTS and LOTS of line of sight blocking terrain. like u guys said
2. And this we were keeping track of what we killed for braging rights. (my vindicator assassin made sure that the guards heavy guns were silent muwahahahahahaha)
Thanks for the suggestions guys. I cant wait to try a multiple objectives game. Or maybe this u have to pick a piece of terrain on the board before deployment and if u have control of that piece terrain at the end u win or draw if anyone else does the same. Hmm not sure how that will work though seems to easy for a drop pod army or mech tau list. Ill have to work on that one
I feel your pain. Let me tell you how I handle the multi-player battles becasue I love them so.
WHoever Deploys int he middle, we normally give an extra 250-350 Points to play with in anything but Heavy Support options. OR you can let him set upt he teraain, OR give him guarenteed first turn.
I find adding specialist objectives does add to it. Ive got a Com-Teleport bunker that allows you to drop in 1 Extra Troops choice if you control it uncontested for a turn. And an Artillery piece that allow syou to drop a pie plate Plasma Cannon strength if you control if for a tunr uncontested.
The problem with multiplayer games is that you will always get a similar response from each player. The effect, which I'll call the "Starcraft Effect" (named after the popular PC game) is really just an extension of game theory, in which each participant evaluates likely outcomes to maximize his own outcome.
In a 3-way game, one of two events will inevitably occur: 1) One of the players will hold back, allowing his two opponents to attrit one another while he preserves strength, which he can then employ later in the game against the two weakend foes, or 2) Two of the players will gang up on the third (usually the strongest of the 3, and thereby the biggest threat) in order to eliminate the third, and then will turn on each other once the third is no longer a contender.
The only way to avoid this is by incorporating "team play" where there are only two sides in opposition. Each side can be an allied faction (multiple commanders and army types), but you must always keep it clearly "us versus them".
Deek, this is a scenario which i've been considering more and more.
Basically, what we've decided to try, is taking it a step back and including a GM and making the game that little more campaign esque.
Basically, each army has a set of objectives to acheive which ARE SECRET from all other players apart from the GM.
Naturally, the objectives vary from race to race - I couldn't see Orks really protecting and escorting anything, although anything is possible - it depends on your and your friends' imagination.
What having secret objectives does, is attempt to give the game that little more finesse and extra level of interest. You're not always running into the middle and jumping into a blood bath. Secondly, as in reality, you don't always know what your opponent is thinking. So you may be confused as to why they act in a certain way or don't move and stay put.
Strategy level might also be usefull at this point too. Players with a higher strategy rating might have the opportunity to be able to scout ahead and find out what one of the opponent's objectives are.
It's just a thought, but it's one way of avoiding the 'Starcraft effect'.
If you keep the objectives unique but simple, you can still pitch up and have a multiplayer game without going into too much narrative or campaign stuff.
Just my two shiny pennies.
We have come up with a system that we feel might be able to solve the inherent problems of a three player game, though it is yet untested. For ease of explanation I'll use Bob, Tom, and John.
Bob only gets VP for Tom's dead units. Tom only gets them for John's. and John only gets them from Bob. The players set up in as large of an equilateral triangle as the table will support.
There is no law saying that Tom can't kill Bob's units, but doing so only helps John. This keeps two players from ganging up on the third for obvious reasons. To some extent it also prevents Tom and Bob from duking it out at the start of the mission while John sits back because Tom, knowing he can not gain anything by this will attempt to escape and engage John.
As I say, we have not tried this yet, but it seems interesting and fair. Particularly because each time Bob takes a chunk out of Tom's force, he'll get points, but that's one less unit gunning for John.
A variation on this, which is more complicated, but perhaps fairer would be this:
Each player gets victory points for each model he kills no matter who it belongs to. In addition Bob gets double points for Tom's dead units no matter who kills them, Tom for John's, and John for Bob's. Setup is the same in a large equilateral triangle. This still prevents the classic pitfalls from occuring and keeps the game from becoming a flat out chase in the event that one player is wiped from the board.
I like the keen thrust of your mind.
I shall add those to the objectives john public - thanks