[40k] 3 way battles

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

A question to all of you on how you deal with 3 way battles? Both 3 for
all and 2 vs 1?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Lattes wrote:
> A question to all of you on how you deal with 3 way battles? Both 3 for
> all and 2 vs 1?

2 v. 1 isn't difficult. I've done that with my friends a number of
times. You just treat the 2 on one side as one entity when it comes to
setting up and taking turns.

A three person free-for-all is a bit trickier. I've only been involved
in that and a four person free-for-all a couple of times, so I'm not
sure what's the optimal way of handling it. Going clockwise or
counterclockwise worked, but it was frustrating waiting for three other
people to go before you got another shot.

If I were to do such a free-for-all again, I might suggest to the others
that we each move simultaneously during the movement phase to speed
things up. We could shoot simultaneously as well, but I'd want counters
so we could mark destroyed or killed units that still got to shoot back
before the turn ended.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Ibn Tumart" <ibnzztumart@gmailzz.com> wrote in message
news:crmrdj$s5v$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
> Lattes wrote:
> > A question to all of you on how you deal with 3 way battles? Both 3 for
> > all and 2 vs 1?
>
> 2 v. 1 isn't difficult. I've done that with my friends a number of
> times. You just treat the 2 on one side as one entity when it comes to
> setting up and taking turns.
>
> A three person free-for-all is a bit trickier. I've only been involved
> in that and a four person free-for-all a couple of times, so I'm not
> sure what's the optimal way of handling it. Going clockwise or
> counterclockwise worked, but it was frustrating waiting for three other
> people to go before you got another shot.
>
> If I were to do such a free-for-all again, I might suggest to the others
> that we each move simultaneously during the movement phase to speed
> things up. We could shoot simultaneously as well, but I'd want counters
> so we could mark destroyed or killed units that still got to shoot back
> before the turn ended.

Try using the Allied Contingent rules from the 2004 Chronicles (page 26).
It's particularly made for the Kislev list to be used with Empire but it can
be used for any army. The side with two players is effectively one army, but
the allied contingent has slightly more restrictions. This is good if
playing with a novice player or someone who doesn't have a large enough army
for a big game. The allies list published on page 99 of the same book can be
used to replace the Kislev's allies list, using Battle brothers and trusted
allies as "friendly allies" and Distrustful allies as "unfriendly allies".
This is also useful in campaign games where you allot troops to territories
and send small armies off to fight under allied generals ("Condor Legion"
with steam tank was my Empire send-away army in last campaign.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

On 1/7/05 2:54 PM, in article 6oidnTG55ZJndUPcRVn-pg@rogers.com, "Lattes"
<bumpin_removetoemail_@rogers.com> wrote:

> A question to all of you on how you deal with 3 way battles? Both 3 for
> all and 2 vs 1?

You make nice with one of your enemies to take out the middle man of course.

janet
--
It takes a very long time to become young.
Picasso

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <crmrdj$s5v$1@news.Stanford.EDU>, Ibn Tumart,
ibnzztumart@gmailzz.com Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> Lattes wrote:
> > A question to all of you on how you deal with 3 way battles? Both 3 for
> > all and 2 vs 1?
>
> 2 v. 1 isn't difficult. I've done that with my friends a number of
> times. You just treat the 2 on one side as one entity when it comes to
> setting up and taking turns.
>
This has generally worked well for me as well. The 2 player team
each used a 1000 pt army vs the single player with 2000 pts. At times
we've given the 'single' player a slight increase in points (like 2200)
since the 'allied' armies players can combine forces to miniamize army
specific weaknesses. An example would be an allied Marine and IG force
where the IG provided the basilisks and majority of heavy support while
the Marines provided the majority of troops and fast attack/assault type
units.

> A three person free-for-all is a bit trickier. I've only been involved
> in that and a four person free-for-all a couple of times, so I'm not
> sure what's the optimal way of handling it. Going clockwise or
> counterclockwise worked, but it was frustrating waiting for three other
> people to go before you got another shot.
>
> If I were to do such a free-for-all again, I might suggest to the others
> that we each move simultaneously during the movement phase to speed
> things up. We could shoot simultaneously as well, but I'd want counters
> so we could mark destroyed or killed units that still got to shoot back
> before the turn ended.

Actually, that's an excellent idea. The counter system would not
be unlike the old 'epic' 40K system (which I love) and could be a lot of
fun. People placing movement and shoot/assault orders face down for all
their units, and everyone revealing them at the same time could lead to
some fun and tense moments in the game without being unduely
unbalancing. Obviously for clarity sake, you'd need to use markers for
casualties and have one person at a time roll for shooting attacks, but
this way no one would be unduely disadvantaged by being the 'last' to
roll for attacks as everyone still gets to fire all their units before
the casualties are removed. Just repeat the process for the 'assault'
phase and you're good to go.
You'd need to design markers for movement and a seperate set for
shoot/assault/shoot&assault orders, as well as casualty and vehicle
damage type markers, but that's really easily done in any one of a
number of freeware/shareware graphics programs. I've even seen/have
some of those very markers that I found off a web site somewhere ages
ago.
It's a great idea Ibn, I wish I'd thought of it ages ago.

Thanks,

Myrmidon



--
#1582. I think they call it Warhammer "40K" because that is how
much you are going to have to make per year in order to play.

- Eric Noland

# 1082. Pound for pound I can buy cocaine cheaper than
raise a Warhammer army

- Roy Cox

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gwprice/

****

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <6oidnTG55ZJndUPcRVn-pg@rogers.com>,
Lattes <bumpin_removetoemail_@rogers.com> wrote:

> A question to all of you on how you deal with 3 way battles? Both 3 for
> all and 2 vs 1?

The few times I've played in a three person free-for-all, we rolled dice
= strategy rating, with player order determined by the highest die. Ties
were rolled off (single die). This made for a very fluid game where you
couldn't count a set action order and occasionally one person would get
back to back turns. It was simple and worked pretty well.

--
Be seeing you-
Qrab

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Lattes <bumpin_removetoemail_@rogers.com> writes:

> A question to all of you on how you deal with 3 way battles? Both 3
> for all and 2 vs 1?

The only gotcha that I can recall is the shooting into combat it none
of your army is involved. Rather than it being a faux pas as per the
rules, the times I've played it, you can shoot into a combat that
doesn't involve your own army, and you just roll to allocate who
actually gets hit randomly.

Of course, this is one of those "make clear before the game lest
arguments ensue" things

-- Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Michael Dales wrote:
> Lattes <bumpin_removetoemail_@rogers.com> writes:
>
>>A question to all of you on how you deal with 3 way battles? Both 3
>>for all and 2 vs 1?
>
> The only gotcha that I can recall is the shooting into combat it none
> of your army is involved. Rather than it being a faux pas as per the
> rules, the times I've played it, you can shoot into a combat that
> doesn't involve your own army, and you just roll to allocate who
> actually gets hit randomly.

Proportional to the number of minis in combat, or just straight 50:50?

--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Lt. Cmdr. Jim" <ltcmdrjim@hotmail.com> writes:

> Michael Dales wrote:
> > Lattes <bumpin_removetoemail_@rogers.com> writes:
> >
> >>A question to all of you on how you deal with 3 way battles? Both 3
> >>for all and 2 vs 1?
> > The only gotcha that I can recall is the shooting into combat it none
> > of your army is involved. Rather than it being a faux pas as per the
> > rules, the times I've played it, you can shoot into a combat that
> > doesn't involve your own army, and you just roll to allocate who
> > actually gets hit randomly.
>
> Proportional to the number of minis in combat, or just straight 50:50?

The former - which seams to reflect the notion that bullets don't care
what side the fighters are on, they all just individuals waiting to be
splatted

-- Michael