2 v 2 opinions

[malgor]

So, I've read that some recommend 2 full game boards for a 2 v 2 game.  This does not seem necessary to me, so I was wondering if anyone has played a 2 v 2 game on both the regular board and 2 boards put together.

My assumption is that you put 2 mages each in the same corners as usual (on the standard 4x3 board) and have them go at it.  How necessary is the 2 board combo?  I don't want to buy 2 sets and one of my favorite parts of the game is I don't have to ask friends to start collecting the game sets for them to enjoy the full range of spells.  

What are the drawbacks of using the standard board for a 2 v 2 game?

[Doma0997]

Still have yet to try playing a 2v2 game, but I can give a bit of insight.

Playing with two boards, and starting each person in one of the four corners will more than likely make the game on drag on much longer, being as there is more ground to cover. It also has a high probability of turning the game into two 1v1 games, as you could very well end up fighting the guy right across from you the entire game. However, two boards is optimal for certain team combinations. Imagine a warlord and a priestess on the same team with just one board. Got a headache yet? One board 2v2 would favor more aggressive builds, while two board 2v2 favors more defensive builds.

Two boards while starting teams in the same corner might be a little more balanced, seeing as how one mage will have to go a little further before they can set up.

[malgor]

I see your point about having multiple creatures that like to throw out zone exclusives, but that's not as big an issue for me-presumably with a team game you would just coordinate who is going to use that tactic- for example, the game is flexible enough to allow the warlord to change his deck to be more focused on solo with 1 or 2 powerful creatures.  

If 2 people on the same team tried to just overtake the board with zone exclusives to build up and crowd out the other team, I'm actually fine with that.  An aggressive attack build can make them pay dearly, as a ranged attack spell gets you hitting the opponent mage on turn 2 in many instances (if they are trying to throw zone exclusives in the middle tiles of the board).    

My main concern is the game might be too short with 4 on a regular board.  I'll be trying soon hopefully, so I can post thoughts.

[Doma0997]

Understandable, and of course the best way to really find out is actually playing. When I think about this sort of thing, I go through multiple things. I know most people are going to pick their teams before hand, but I'm used to an environment where randoms just join in with my stuff, so the mages are randomish, or everyone picks their favorite, with not as much care to optimization. All I can say is go forth and conquer.

[DarthDadaD20]

You could always fold in board in half and play it that way.....One and a half sized arena.

[Hey_Daralon]

I tried a 2 on 2 game with a single board and needless to say, it was pretty chaotic. It was two players playing with two spellbooks each. Teams lined up on the same row (with one row in the middle as kind of a neutral zone). I would assume that things would change depending on the play style of course, but here was my experience.

The game quickly turns into a more of a territory battle.
Conjurations get destroyed almost right after they are summoned.
There's no such thing as an expendable creature or conjuration. You lose something, you lose your footing, and that's a huge deal.
To guard or to attack? You will be spending hours pondering this; you need both a strong offensive and defensive strategy at the same time. Sorry, there's no other way to explain this, it was kind of surreal being in this situation pretty much the entire game.
Mages took a much bigger combat role than what I was used to. Usually one fights, while the other builds up or supports, then they switch and it just goes back and forth like that.
Zone Attack spells are more dangerous than ever before, you have to spread out and you HAVE to be in your opponent's territory to discourage your opponent from casting them. Do anything you can to mitigate the power of these spells.
The "Slow" trait isn't such a big deal anymore. You're never too far from a Hydra.
In fact, you're never too far from anyone. There's always a bowman or some kind of ranged attacker that can hit you.
It takes forever to plan all of this out and make all of your moves, but in terms of number of turns, the game is noticeably shorter than 1 on 1.
Therefore, it would probably be a good idea to stock up on Dispels, Dissolves, Heals, etc.

Anyway it was just one game and it was an interesting experience. Doubt I'll do it again anytime soon though as it took a very long time.

[malgor]

I played a 2 v 2 game two nights ago.  Let me give you some brief details as background:

- we used 1 board
- 2 mages started in respective corners
-4 players
-wizard and priestess v warlord and forcemaster
-2 players had played at least 4 full games, 2 were basically new to the game.

OK, given that, here are my thoughts:

while our game took too damn long (3.5 hours), i think in general with experienced players 2 on 2 games will actually be pretty short.  As the post above said, on a 4x3 board with 4 players there is no space to get away.  Mages will be hacking away early and often.  Soft characters are not likely to stay alive as long, especially if the enemies coordinate.  But with hindered movement and ranged attack no one can enter a safe zone.  I expect this to decrease the game.  The conjurations point is also spot-on.  If your enemies want to they can basically crush your conjurations before they get you benefit.  In our game, however, the fools were playing against 2 weak characters early game HP-wise (wizard and priestess) but they kept wacking away at conjurations.  For this reason they eventually lost but that was a matter of execution much more than structure.

definitely think a 1 board game is do-able, but more experienced players should probably either modify some house rules to prevent lots of easy tile movement, or purchase another core set with a board.

[baronzaltor]

I havn't dont much 2 on 2, but I think team games on 1 board would be kinda fun especially with allied mages starting diagnal to each other (so every player is in a mexican standoff formation).

While I havnt done much 2 on 2, I have done a lot of 4 player mass melee (even a 5 player mass melee once).  In those cases I like using two boards so people have breathing room to build a little at the beginning.

I guess it boils down to the flavor you want for the match:
1 Board- Quicker into battle, tighter range, always going to be in range of SOME spell or fast creature.
2 Boards- More space to build on, more distance to allow for "castleing up".

Building a spell book for mass melee or team games is a totally different beast than for single duels/tournament play.  Especially if you want the teams to have any semblance of cohesion and synergy.