Hello,
I know the main rule book says that anything over 5000 points starts to become unbalanced, but I was wondering if any of you have tried to play over this limit and if so what were your thoughts? Is it possible to play higher points games and still maintain a semblance of balance and fairness? If it helps I am mainly concerned with battles between Space Marines and Eldar.

thanks,
-Malakai

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

I have taken part in a 8k battle, and the main issue is time. Epic's activation system, passing back and forth, is great for smaller games, but at a megabattle size it slows matters down a lot, since you can't just have multiple people moving and shooting each side to speed matters up.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

We regularly play 6000 point games (usually 1 every week)and have found no problems.
We also play 12000 point games most bank holidays and haven't had any problems at all even on an 8x4 table.
As Zombocom mentioned the only real problem is time to finish games,we usually play quick and 12000 points a side takes us 5 hours or more.

Games like 40k or warhammer fantasy are in many ways more suited to megabattles, since having more players speeds up the game, as they can act similtaneously for the whole side. Epic doesn't work that way, so bigger games get slower.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

The main drawback with having more than one player activating per side is the potential for 'ganging up' on a single player or army.

An idea (untested) might be to only permit a single player to attack forces of a single opponent, but to allow players on each side to activate any forces from their side (by agreement of course). For example:-

IG and Marines are fighting Orks and Eldar (3000 points each player), with Marines fighting Orks and IG fighting Eldar. In the battle:-

M (tactical) doubles and shoots O (Mob), while IG (SHT) shoots E (Falcons).

In reply, the Eldar and Ork players confer and decide to swap some forces, so E (Ork Landa) lands and assaults IG (Art), while O (Revenants) double and shoot the advance M (tactical).

Etc

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

The main drawback with having more than one player activating per side is the potential for 'ganging up' on a single player or army.

An idea (untested) might be to only permit a single player to attack forces of a single opponent, but to allow players on each side to activate any forces from their side (by agreement of course). For example:-

IG and Marines are fighting Orks and Eldar (3000 points each player), with Marines fighting Orks and IG fighting Eldar. In the battle:-

M (tactical) doubles and shoots O (Mob), while IG (SHT) shoots E (Falcons).

In reply, the Eldar and Ork players confer and decide to swap some forces, so E (Ork Landa) lands and assaults IG (Art), while O (Revenants) double and shoot the advance M (tactical).

_________________
Success is commemorated; Failure merely remembered.

Big multiplayer games, use the multiplayer rules (can't remember which page of the rulebook they are on(?). Lots of people miss them. Here's the rules as a reminder. We've used the simultaneous rules many times, they really speed things up and are a lot of fun. Give them a go if you haven't already.

Hierarchical Team Game:
In team games, the players are split into two sides. All of the formations on the same side treat each other as friendly  formations as far as the rules are concerned, and all formations on the opposing side are treated as enemy formations.  In  team games,   formations belonging  to different  players on  the same side may  lend each other  supporting  fire  if  assaulted. Team games may either be hierarchical or simultaneous (see below for simultaneous team play). In hierarchical games,  one player is placed ‘in supreme command’ and decides which of the players on his side may take an action when it is  their side’s turn to do so. This aside, the normal game rules apply in full. Hierarchical games work well for small and  medium sized games, but can slow things down a lot if you are running a really large monster session. It is an excellent  way of   introducing new players  to  the Epic  rules,  as  they can be  teamed up with an experienced player who  is  the  supreme commander for their side, and because almost of the normal game rules are used unchanged.

Simultaneous Team Game:
In a simultaneous game, players are split into two teams as described for Hierarchal team play above. However, all of   the players with an eligible formation get to take actions when it is their side’s turn to do so, rather than just one player  doing so. Once all the players have completed their action then play passes to the other side. If any of the players on a  side wants to retain initiative then they may attempt to do so; other players on the same side may choose to retain the  initiative or not as they see fit. Once all the players have completed the actions they wish to carry out, play passes to the  other side and that side gets to carry out actions, and so on. When playing a simultaneous game,   it   is possible  for  an enemy  formation  to be attacked by  two or  more attacking  formations. For example, two players on the same side might both want to shoot at the same enemy formation, or one  player might shoot at an enemy formation while another player wants to assault it, or two players both want to assault the  same enemy formation. If this happens then combined shooting or assaults are allowed to take place. Treat the two (or  more)  formations  taking part as a single  force when working out   the results of   the shooting or assault,   following  the  guidelines for coordinated assault in the core rules. On the other hand, if one player wants to assault an enemy formation  then formations belonging to other players on the same side may not shoot at the target of the assault, as the assaulting  troops get in the way! Simultaneous play is the best option for very large games, as doing anything else can slow the game down to a snail’s  pace. However, it can throw up some strange situations that will require common sense or the roll of a dice to sort out.   For this reason, it works best when used by experienced players from a regular gaming group that have the experience  and maturity to deal with any rules problems that may arise, or if the scenario is run by a non-player ‘umpire’ who can  resolve any disputes.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Not a drawback, that should be able to happen, it does, and it's fun. One player desperately trying to hold out or being overrun while his teammates try and rescue him or win the game another way.

Sorry Ginger but I agree with rose that your alternative idea isn't a great one... nor is it even necessary. The rules in the book work ok, no need to change them IMHO.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

We've played the Simultaneous Team Game method before and it works quite well.

Hi

Couple years ago tried a 12,000 pt defence game with larger army assaulting. Usd a 6'x5' table, (TSS terrain), with buildings, etc by Snapdragon. Defenders were Imp Gds, with plenty of tanks, against Eldar with plenty of infantry/bikes. Imp Gds didn't use any Titans (I have plenty), but Eldar had to use a few to make up the points.

Was set up as a weekend game. Eldar were winning after horrendous losses on both sides. Problem we had was the complicated close combat/firefight system for mass combats. (Prefer the original Space Marine).

Only used my models.

Can't remember much of the TOE, except that Imp Gds had 9 Shadowswords, 5 Stormblades, 4 Stormhammers & 1 Baneblade. Also had 2 companies of Leman Russ, plus plenty of Rough Riders, Bikes & Sentinels to make up for the deficiency in infantry. They also had plenty of Artillery. (In Space Marine rules I have 4 Rocket & 2 Artillery companies).

Cheers
Paul H

Personally I prefer alternating at large point levels.  Sure you can make a case for 40k doing megabattles faster but regardless it will take a long freaking time to finish so I'd rather be involved in it rather than having a turn and waiting 45 minutes to and hour while to other side goes.

Simultaneous activation seems like it would be the best way to go for larger games in any case (it could even work for one player a side, just make two equal armies and you get two activations a turn).

No reason for things to slow down too much under that method.

Though with all that said I'm not a fan of mega-battles I tend to prefer low-point or average games.

For big team games an alternate if you have say 4 people playing is for a split deployment zone (your troops in that quadrant, your troops in that quadrant) and the opposite diagonial players going at the same time.

So if its like this
Player one / player two (blue team)
-----------------------------------------
Player three / player four (blue team)

Somewhat more complex than one side goes the other side goes, but different.

Another speeding up tactic is to say you must retain if there are any formations left. That alone speeds up the game, though you may not want things to grind to a halt that quick Alternatively give everyone a free automatic retain.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Hi

Found the old Space Marine simple & fast for a regular game of about 12,000pts each side. OK - not quite the same 40K flavour as EA, but simplifying the rules works for large games. The roll 2D6+mods each, loser dies in close combat was fast.

Certainly miss those large games in a garage over a weekend.

Cheers
Paul H