Some friends and I want to play large 2v2 and 3v3 games with 300-400pts each. In think the best way is to expand to a 4x8 or

5x8 map, double obstacles, and always play an objective game. Also thinking of implementing a supreme commander rule so that one players admiral is the head with no real effect except that in the case of a tie on objectives destruction of that ship is worth double points (prior to upgrades except for the admiral).

Anyone else tried a massive battle? If so how did it go and what advice do you have?

A lot of people have tried. All of them said they'd never do it again.

the real trick is determining activation order. if you have 2 players for each faction who goes first and does one faction activate 2 ships at a time?

this leads to one player inevitably getting screwed.

I played a 1200 point per side game and had a blast. We set up 2 4x8 tables and played on a 3x12 surface. We found that really, we didn't need anything more than the standard play area.

We went with a single admiral and 1/3 points in squadrons max. We chose to forego playing objectives for this match. The game was a lot of fun and felt really epic. I had 3 isd's on the table among other ships and it looked so good. I even felt restrained in points at 1200 and could have gone much higher.

There was a 2v2 event at worlds last month and it worked like this: Each player on a team had to build a 300 point (pre-wave 2) list with an admiral but without objectives. Uniqueness was enforced across the team and the team had to decide on one set of objectives for their combined fleet. Admirals that referenced "friendly ships" only effected the owner's ships not the entire team's; Dodanna is the one admiral that this doesn't limit, as his ability triggered when damage was dealt, regardless of source. A team could activate its ships in any order and could activate teammate's squadrons. We used a standard 3x6 play area but used the entire length to deploy in. Games were timed at 3 hours.

I enjoyed the event, but it wasn't something I would want to do regularly. Depending on how much discussion your opponents do, there can be a significant amount of downtime; I imagine this would only get worse if you expanded it to 3v3.

One problem I found in doing games this large, is that if you are doing objectives, they become significantly less important. What good is a token worth 15 Victory points, in a 1200 point game?

Either limit your objectives to those that don't give a flat rate of victory points, or consider tripling the points awarded from objectives.

I've played in a few huge games, but only with one other person. Multiple people leads to long stretches between when you can activate your ships. Also, when you activate your ships is a strategically crucial part of the game and deciding who gets to activate their ships when can be frustrating.

I've played both 4 player 300pt per player games and (just finished yesterday) a 1500pt per player game (2 players)

With 4 players its best to alternate activations between SIDES but allow the 2 people on one side to choose which player activates. It avoids silly bumping and stuff that adds little to the game.

also find that with 2 per side or more it's most fun to play it almost RPG like. Players are not allowed to give their partners specific instructions (no quarterbacking), only strategic level comms (e.g. "I could use fighter support over by my ISD" v.s. "move these 3 tie fighters over to this exact spot")

The Epic 1500pt game I played was...insane... found that the 6x3 space was plenty BUT you need to be able to deploy across the entire 6. The natural evolution seems to be that the big game develops into a few discrete battles that eventually merge (in my recent game there was a massive fighter furball in the middle, a strong left flank by 3 VSDs with tractors forced the conga to turn into the middle while the right flank vaporized a 3 Neb B holding force trying to push a strong fighter/bomber complement, once the flanks collapsed it was an encirclement and slaughter).

Some suggestions that worked for epic:

-No objectives (not balanced for the size)

-Full length deployment (13 ships or more need this)

-did not use double obstacles, used 2 stations and 2 additional obstacles and it felt right

-Since there are no objectives to balance first vs second player, alternate first/second every round

-Hard limit on upgrades (we used Officer + Title+ 3 of any other but in hindsight it could have been less). too many upgrades slow down the game and with 13 ships you WILL forget to utilize a lot of them across the 6-8 hours of play time

- Oh yeah, set aside a lot of time to play. We ended up only needing 6 rounds but the meaty rounds could go an hour or more, round 1 is quicker but 2 and 3 were very long and they get quicker again as stuff explodes.

-Prepare to have a lot of fun

hope some of this helps.

In large, multiplayer games I would allow multiple activations per side. So in 3v3 games, when one side was to activate it would activate one ship per player.

I am in the process of designing the rules for a mass battle about the Battle of Endor. My plan is to run it at a convention with pre-built fleets, but allow people to show up with their own 150 point mini-fleet.

I am going to have to do some modifications of the rules to allow for quicker play specifically for a Con event. right now my idea is to make everything somewhat simultaneous. everyone resolves their shots at the same time then moves. for attacking, people will get blast markers to identify who they are shooting at; they place the marker next to their target so that way the person that is getting shot at can see how many ships are shooting at them, which then can allow them to decide if/when they want to use their defense tokens (and it'll look cool seeing all the explosions on the table).

after shooting, everyone moves. right now, I have an idea where people put down tokens whether they are going left, right, or straight at the same time they assign their command dials. they'll have some say on how far they want to turn, but they have to go in that general direction.

for critical hits, I was going to have a chart for people to roll on instead of using cards. some results are: cannot shoot from a random zone next turn, -2 hull points instead of one, no command dial/tokens next turn, fire (can't refresh defense tokens), and one result where the hyperdrive gets destroyed causing an explosion that can damage nearby vessels. still working out some of the details, but you get the picture.

if anyone has any other suggestions, I am eager to hear them

In large, multiplayer games I would allow multiple activations per side. So in 3v3 games, when one side was to activate it would activate one ship per player.

This is the route I would go. I would also make some other over-riding objective/victory condition not one of the game's objective cards for both players and use the alternate turns getting to activate first method or maybe make it a dice roll with the winner getting to decide which side activates first.

We did an 800 point game (two 400 point lists per side) a few weeks back. We did the activations like Hastatior suggested, initiative switches back and forth between teams, and each team decides which ship to activate. Each fleet had separate commanders that only affected its own fleet if its effect was limited to "friendly" units. We did allow ships to activate any squadrons on the same side that were in range (regardless of what fleet they were part of), and didn't enforce "unique" rules across the entire team (although I think we only ended up with duplicate Jans). We played on a normal play area with normal deployment zones and I think there might have been an objective too, but if we did it didn't affect gameplay hardly at all.

We played around with the thought of commanders effecting the entire fleet, but the idea of Vader-enhanced Motti Star Destroyers or Zombie Rieekan AFIIs with Ackbar broadsides kind of nuked that idea. Just as well, rounds 2-4 were gloriously chaotic as it was.

We had a blast (well, at least the Rebs did), though the game was quite long (called it at the beginning of round 5, after about 2 hrs, when it became clear that the Imps were going to spend the rest of the game feeding one ship at a time to Ackbar broadsides). If you haven't tried it, I found it well worth doing every once in a while, if for no other reason than to spice things up.

A lot of people have tried. All of them said they'd never do it again.

Last weeks thread on higher point games

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/196755-opinions-on-higher-point-games/

Had several people saying how much they enjoyed them. Granted, MORE people said they'd not do it again, but it was hardly ALL of them.

Yes, my apologies, I should know better than to generalise. Though certainly all the posts I had seen up until now agreed that it was a ton of fun... once.

I suppose with the increased lethality and higher points-density of Wave 2 it drags a lot less than it used to.

Yes, my apologies, I should know better than to generalise. Though certainly all the posts I had seen up until now agreed that it was a ton of fun... once.

I suppose with the increased lethality and higher points-density of Wave 2 it drags a lot less than it used to.

It gets me in trouble often enough for the both of us ^_~

Wave 2 will make large games fun because you wont have 13+ ships all the time. Sometimes you will have 10 ships per side and a bunch of squadrons. . . fun!

Excellent thread. It's far more interesting than the regular sky(Walker) is falling combo of the week threads.

When we've played large scale games like this it often makes sense to divide the ships up per player then stick to one activation per side. I'd also suggest writing the lists together and then randomise teams. No one's playing this size of game for anything other than an excuse to put a load of cool ship models down with the battle of endor playing in the background and making laser noises. Pre agreed lists will prevent accidental one sided games and if everyone's still sober at the end of the game you can always switch sides.

sky is faling. mass games are ugh.

btw, id be very interested if anyone comes up with some interesting simult fire and move rules, to speed up mass battles.

I think an easy one is to let small ship when attacked, reduce their enemy's shot by 1 die of their choice, before rolling.

multi ship activation per side does NOT work. it lets one side gang up on a target with no chance of stopping it. but you can make players on both sides alternate players ships on a side. we have used this and it works and it forces the players to mix their ships into a big force and work together as a fleet and not two fleets. Big 6 player games are a lot of fun.

Yes, my apologies, I should know better than to generalise. Though certainly all the posts I had seen up until now agreed that it was a ton of fun... once.

I suppose with the increased lethality and higher points-density of Wave 2 it drags a lot less than it used to.

I think this is right. Playing Corvette Swarm v. Corvette Swarm at 300 points was interminable, so playing it at 600-1000 points would be like a 6hr contest for maybe five kills globally. And about 16 unintended crashes. It'd make a fun time-lapse video, but that's about it.

Playing two MC-80s and 3 AFIIs with a support neb and Tantive with squadrons vs. a couple ISDs, support VSDs, and an assortment of Glads and Raiders with an enormous Rhymerball while six Rogue Firesprays ride up the flank would be quite the opposite, I think. So much destruction. So much death.

sky is faling. mass games are ugh.

btw, id be very interested if anyone comes up with some interesting simult fire and move rules, to speed up mass battles.

I think an easy one is to let small ship when attacked, reduce their enemy's shot by 1 die of their choice, before rolling.

Leowulf made a suggestion a while back for simultaneous fire rules (and activation and movement--basically a semi-RTS feel to Armada) here. I haven't tried it myself, but am definitely intrigued.

Again, one of those "occasional plays to spice things up" sort of things. But hey, I'm all for games that can support different play styles and customizable mechanics. Hard to get bored that way.