Multiplayer game

[Aldhick]

How do you solve the game with more than one player per side?
 For example four players want to play 4000pts game Undead vs. Empire - two players on each side. Do you split the army into two separate parts with their own generals? Does the extra general make any significant difference compared to 4k pts battle with single general on each side?

[Jurisch]

Hi,

Two generals are better just for the fact that they can manage the distance to order better.

Cheers,
Jurisch

[David Wasilewski]

We allow each player to have their own general and as long as there are an equal number of players on each side, its the same advantage to both sides.

Dave

[Hammerskelp]

You might find it more fun to split this into two, 2000pt, 1v1 battles side by side.

2v2 tends to leave one player doing nothing while  2v1 larger combats are resolved.

To keep things moving, you can try to run a part of the battlefield out of sync with the rest. Its easy for the gap in turn numbers to come into play later on though. You also have a mind-share problem with one player pulled between 'time-zones'.
- - - - -
You could always have a virtual road/bridge/portal connecting the side by side games.
A unit reaching the 'portal' and successfully given an order appears on the other battlefield with command transferred to the other general.

My 2C.
regards
--Hammerskelp

[forbes]

We've done all sorts of multi-player games

As Vos says, often with 1 general per player. But we have done one general per side, and even 3 players per side with 2 generals. The key thing is to have the same number of generals per side.

It can occasionally mean a bit of a wait while a big combat is resolved but this generally allows for a bit of a chat. We've never felt the need to formally make it in to two side by side 1v1 games. Even though this is often what happens, just because of the way the players are spread out along the table.