PDA

View Full Version : 4 player games, all vs all, how to do it?



Thor Trommstrong
31-01-2009, 11:44
Hi all,

Me and my friends are thinking of playing a 4-player game, all vs. all, but has some troubles working out the rules for such a system.

For example, if we go by normal rules, all players have one of each phase, the CC phase will be dominating with 4 CC phasen for each turn. this favors storng CC armies such as HE.

Do any of you have experience with games such as this, and how did you solve the problem with confusing CC phases?
Have you any other suggestions on how to play games like this?

TT

Please move this if this is in the wrong place.

Gazak Blacktoof
31-01-2009, 12:16
The rules suggested by GW (old chronicles and the general's compendium) are that you only fight a combat if they player who's turn it is currently is involved in that particular fight.


Usually objective based games work best when playing multi-player bashes, otherwise you have some git sit in the corner and only come out when he can crush the remnants of the other armies and score a load of VPs.



Team games also work rather well but you have to be careful about cheese, as with normal games you need to determine what is acceptable. Do you want players taking advantage of unimagined magic item combinations or do you want to play a game where the players only attempt to screw each other on the table top and not when they're building their lists? Both are fine but you need to have a chat before the game.

Chicago Slim
31-01-2009, 12:37
I've tried a couple of 3-way and 4-way formats, and what I've come down to is that I, for one, much prefer to set up a second table, and have a little round-robin tournament, so that everyone plays everyone else in turn.

Short of that, a square table, 5x5 is you can get it, with players coming in from every edge can work okay-- or else a 4x6 or 4x8 table, with 2 deployment zones on each long edge, and (this is the important bit) impassible terrain between those zones (so you cannot immediately attack your nearest competitor, at least until after you've both cleared the deployment zones...)

In any case, games with more than 2 players tend to be a "smash the leader" kind of thing: if two players both hinder a third, then the 4th player (who sits back and watches) will win... :)

Condottiere
31-01-2009, 12:54
Having played M:TG with multi-players, I find it difficult enough to avoid situations where the rest gang up on one player. Team style games should be more appropriate for Warhammer, with uneven numbers allowing one player to have more points and the other two teaming up to destroy him.

Thor Trommstrong
31-01-2009, 14:41
The way we had imagined it was to use a square table and deploy on each side. Then all having one movement phase where everybody moves, one shooting phase and so on.
We take turn to start each phase meaning player 1 start first turn, player two second turn and so on, we then play 8 turns instead of 6.

None of us are playing any cheese lists so I do not worry about that. Though it might be right that while player 1 and 2 struggles with player 3 the fourth player crush them when they are weak. We should be able to work something out to make it fair play for all.

I have never played an objective game, but could be fun to make some markers that should be captured or something.

Desert Rain
31-01-2009, 15:11
If you plav 4 vs 4 you will almost allways end up with 2 players attacking one, and the remaining one just sits still and shoots. Then he is free to kill of the remains of the two armies who are left. So it's probably better to play 2vs2 for that reason, but on the other hand 4vs4 games are really funny :)

Stuffburger
31-01-2009, 15:23
The best way I've found to run a free for all is to have an objective to capture, but instead of the game automatically ending on turn 6, you roll a die for every turn past 4- on a 5+ the player who owns the objective wins, otherwise the game goes on. It makes everyone go for the objective and no one can hang back.

Braad
31-01-2009, 15:55
I once did such a game, and indeed it caused troubles with ganging up.
Also, we had magic troubles, as one always casts all his spells on one opponent, since its no use fighting against all dispel dice of the players, but instead draining one players pool. This resulted in all magic targeted at the player with the smallest dispel pool all the time.

Personally, I would prefer 2vs2 over 1vs1vs1vs1 at any time. The tournament thing suggested above also sounds very nice. Maybe cut down the point sizes of the armies though, otherwise it may take to long.

If you still wish to proceed, the option given by stuffburger sounds very good. Place the objective in the middle of the table and go for it. However, you might want to think about the magic thing I noted above.

The Red Scourge
01-02-2009, 11:37
Agree with the above posters.

Warhammer really doesn't work well with more than 2 sides. Tactics become random and messy. The 2vs1 situation crops up right from turn 1, when the first player launches an attack on the second and the third decides to exploit the weakness.

Small tournaments, team games is great fun, but after you've tried a 4vs4, you won't come back.