PDA

View Full Version : team game turn order



rtunian
25-04-2009, 00:29
for example, in 2v2 is the turn order...

team a, player 1
team b, player 1
team a, player 2
team b, player 2

or

team a, player 1
team a, player 2
team b, player 1
team b, player 2

or does it just not matter as long as you decide before the game?

thank you

sergio
25-04-2009, 01:12
we've always done:

team 1: players A and B both move.. then both do magic.. then both shoot.. etc
team 2: players C and D both move, etc

havoc626
25-04-2009, 01:39
I've always played the same as sergio. So instead of 'player turns' we go by 'team turns'.

Dark Apostle197
25-04-2009, 02:07
Never heard of it done any other way.

Ultimate Life Form
25-04-2009, 02:33
I donīt think both players of a team should have their turn after each other. That way, Team A has the chance to shoot Team B into submission before they could do anything.

Avaron
25-04-2009, 03:45
everyone around here dose it by team turn, team a goes then team b each team going step by step cheakin with eachother before moveing on to the next phase.

it works fine you may get two players acting at once but your faceing two armies so its really not any diffrent than one army vs one army.

Avaron
25-04-2009, 03:46
there where offical type rules for this in white dwarf called legendary battles for huge games and multi player games

sergio
25-04-2009, 03:53
I donīt think both players of a team should have their turn after each other. That way, Team A has the chance to shoot Team B into submission before they could do anything.

ultimately it evens out

say each of the 4 players brings 2250.. it just turns into a 4500 v 4500 point battle

i mean unless everyone goes into the game thinking "ok, im high elves, and will be playing with a dwarf gunline on my team... so let me take lots of magic and flyers and cavalry", no one side will completely overpower the other based simply on the fact that two individual armies are taking the same turns

rtunian
25-04-2009, 05:35
do you split the deployment zone in two, or do you allow both players to deploy wherever they want on their team's side?

good infos here, please keep them coming :)

WLBjork
25-04-2009, 06:37
Depends on the players really.

We normally take an area apiece as we play on 2 tables for our big battles, cuts down on moving around too much and speeds the game up.

Tae
25-04-2009, 19:14
I donīt think both players of a team should have their turn after each other. That way, Team A has the chance to shoot Team B into submission before they could do anything.

You mean in the same way that in a single player game player A has the chance to shoot player B into submission before they could do anything?

Honestly, both teams have been scaled up from single player games. What becomes more likely in larger games is that individual units get destroyed before they can do anything, not entire armies.

As to what me and my group of friends do, we mix deployment zones freely, have one 'pool' for magic etc, do not share generals or BSBs, but do cause panic etc. etc. All the fairly standard stuff.

limkopi
04-05-2009, 11:34
for example, in 2v2 is the turn order...

team a, player 1
team b, player 1
team a, player 2
team b, player 2

or

team a, player 1
team a, player 2
team b, player 1
team b, player 2

or does it just not matter as long as you decide before the game?

thank you

Wow 4 rounds of combat in a game turn.

Gazak Blacktoof
04-05-2009, 12:41
Wow 4 rounds of combat in a game turn.



You should only fight combats that involve units of the "active" player, otherwise it gets messy.





Either turn sequence option is viable. If you split the turns for each team you will need to work out what will happen in the magic phase with regards to the number of dispel dice available to the defending team, ie you can use an average or pick a "nemesis" for each player and only use that player's dice (plus magic resistance).

theunwantedbeing
04-05-2009, 12:52
The simple option is to just count each team as a player. As if the game was a normal one.
No different to playing a very big game anyway.

Gazak Blacktoof
04-05-2009, 12:56
It does have the down side of longer spans of time between turns for each team though. Alternating players provides a bit more interaction.

Keller
04-05-2009, 13:01
for example, in 2v2 is the turn order...

team a, player 1
team b, player 1
team a, player 2
team b, player 2

or

team a, player 1
team a, player 2
team b, player 1
team b, player 2

or does it just not matter as long as you decide before the game?

thank you

We've tried it both ways, but find that option 2 works better. Its a lot faster, too.

Spirit
04-05-2009, 15:16
Just play normal 1v1 game of fantasy, but each team in the 1v1 consists of 2 armies. This is by far the simplest way of doing it.

So,

turn 1: player a+b
turn 1: player c+d
turn 2: player a+b
and so on.

Set up as normal for a 1v1 game, mixing armies within deployment as you wish.

Any other way simply makes the game last even longer and makes it overly complex.

enyoss
04-05-2009, 22:55
do you split the deployment zone in two, or do you allow both players to deploy wherever they want on their team's side?


I usually find that for the best games, at least one team will mix up their armies during deployment. Otherwise it tends to lead to two side by side games, with very little overlap... which kind of defeats the point!

Of course, this does cause some issues with each army's proximity to its respective General and Battle Standard, but that's when you really come to appreciate those units with anomalously high leadership values (e.g. Greatswords or Phoenix Guard).

Spirit
05-05-2009, 15:33
I usually find that for the best games, at least one team will mix up their armies during deployment. Otherwise it tends to lead to two side by side games, with very little overlap... which kind of defeats the point!

Of course, this does cause some issues with each army's proximity to its respective General and Battle Standard, but that's when you really come to appreciate those units with anomalously high leadership values (e.g. Greatswords or Phoenix Guard).

I recently went to a double's tournament, where you simply rolled off for the general, who provided the 12" ld for both armies, rolled for before deployment, works pretty perfectly.

Troah
05-05-2009, 15:34
we've always done:

team 1: players A and B both move.. then both do magic.. then both shoot.. etc
team 2: players C and D both move, etc

same for me and my friends, it makes it go faster.

rtunian
05-05-2009, 16:57
I recently went to a double's tournament, where you simply rolled off for the general, who provided the 12" ld for both armies, rolled for before deployment, works pretty perfectly.

do you also elect 1 bsb in a similar fashion, or can both field a bsb?

Isabel
06-05-2009, 07:00
Here at my local shop we do team games and mega battles pretty often. A few rules we use are:

-Each team completes thier full round together just as a normal game.

- Each army has thier own general who only effects thier army. Makes sense to me, a wussy DE general is not inspiring to my chaos warriors!

- Each army has thier own BSB that only effects thier army.

- Armies can be freely intermingled, and is encouraged to make it into a true mega battle and not just 2 games side by side.

- Each side generates thier own pool of dice (the usual 2) plus dice for thier casters. On top of this, each player in the team generates a single additional dice for a "team pool" that can be freely shared. (I believe this is from the legendary battles rules)

- Each team generates the usual amount of dispel dice, 2 pool plus casters.

- Players can freely use beneficial abilites on team mate units. For example, beneficial spells, warshrine bonuses etc.

That's all that I can think of for now. Hope it helps. I'm not sure how official tournament team rules go, this is just what we use for our friendly games.

sirbone
06-05-2009, 08:48
Could you not roll for order? That would create a randomized realistic feel, though would probably get a bit silly.

HellRaid
06-05-2009, 14:14
It's really completely up to you, lacking real 2v2 rules in the rulebook.

Personally I play that both players in each team move and shoot at the same time, share pool dice and deployment zones, battle standards and generals etc (which was how it was played at the 2v2 Conflict tournament in Scotland). There can be only one General or Battle Standard in each team though, and you roll off to see which player has the general for the game.

A more interesting way of playing, however, is:
Player 1a
Player 2a
Player 1b
Player 2b

Or some similar variation.

Gazak Blacktoof
06-05-2009, 16:39
Could you not roll for order? That would create a randomized realistic feel, though would probably get a bit silly.

I think its certainly worth trying.

In a 4 player game you could randomise who was first, then randomise between the two players on the opposing team for who gets the next turn and finally randomise between the remaining players for 3rd and 4th in the sequence.

I don't think you can do that every turn, warhammer would get silly with lord of the rings priority as you have huge double move distances from cavalry to contend with. Nobody wants to get charged by a bret lance or unit of blood knights before they've had the chance to setup counter charges and blocking units.

I don't see that randomising the sequence at the beginning of the game would lead to any problems though.