PDA

View Full Version : 3 player games, any problems?



Nuada
28-01-2011, 14:10
I'm planning a game of warhammer with 9 people. Problem is there's 6 evil armies, and 3 good. Three out of the six evil have O&G, so we were thinking of doing 3 evil, 3 good and then the 3 orc armies attack anyone.



Question is ........ are there any problems with the warhammer rules when you have 3 teams of players?

Scelerat
28-01-2011, 14:16
Not really, they work just as well. The only thing I'd recommend is joining your turns. That is, first player moves, second player moves, third player moves. First player magic, second player magic, third player magic... And so on. Otherwise, the wait until the other players finish their turn can be quite boring.
Other than that, be prepared to house-rule some awkward situations. Anyway, 8th ed. rules adapt quite well to this.

TallChris
28-01-2011, 15:00
There are rules for playing multi-player games in the Warhammer Rulebook (dont as me what page, im at work) and having played 4 multi player games they work really really well.
Every game we have played has been excellant.

Wont go into too much here as its all detailed in the book but it plays...

Player 1 moves, Player 2 moves etc etc
Then there is one giant magic phase where everyone can cast and dispell
Player 1 shoots, player 2 shoots etc etc
Then all the combats are resolved

Repeat until the game ends

The change in turn sequence gives you some new tactical challenges too which is always a bonus

Haravikk
28-01-2011, 15:09
The magic phase is the crucial part, since it won't work otherwise since separate magic phases end up with twice as many dispelling players.

So you play a combined Magic phase so everyone generates dice at the start, and then takes turn casting spells, with players attempting to dispel anything they think is worth dispelling based on their remaining dispel dice.
That method fits the round-robin (player 1 move, player 2 move, player 1 shoot, etc.) approach very nicely, otherwise you have normal, full turns but do all magic at the start or end of each game turn (with a bit of interpretation for spells that don't quite work that way).

Crube
28-01-2011, 15:15
The only thing I found (and this is probably more down to our group at the time, rather than the rules side of things) was it ended up being more of a 2 vs 1 than 3 players beating anyone up. This ended up as less than fun for the player being picked on...

Urgat
28-01-2011, 15:23
Yeah, I've played a few 3ways battles, and it always turns out that way indeed.

BigbyWolf
28-01-2011, 15:24
I'm planning a game of warhammer with 9 people. Problem is there's 6 evil armies, and 3 good. Three out of the six evil have O&G, so we were thinking of doing 3 evil, 3 good and then the 3 orc armies attack anyone.



Question is ........ are there any problems with the warhammer rules when you have 3 teams of players?

If possible, I'd suggest just dropping it to 5 at 2K v 4 at 2.5K (Or however it works out for the points level you intend to use). This would solve any magic issues and accusations of "ganging-up".

Orcs will pretty much fight anyone, so you could easily slot one or two of them onto the side of the "good" forces, perhaps they have issues with one of the other Orc tribes and decide to duff them up (before a post-game kicking of the good-guys).

Either that or have everyone make a 2K and 2.5K list, and draw the teams out of the hat, regardless of moral standing, and have a brawl!

TallChris
28-01-2011, 15:33
The only thing I found (and this is probably more down to our group at the time, rather than the rules side of things) was it ended up being more of a 2 vs 1 than 3 players beating anyone up. This ended up as less than fun for the player being picked on...

Probably your gaming group Crube!

Played three 3way games and one 4way and never had any problems with someone getting picked on, but then our club did declare 2010 the year of the sporting gamer...

AM1640
28-01-2011, 16:03
Hi, your description of large multiplayer games with altered turn sequences sounds interesting. For those of you who have played these games did you play basic pitched battles or objective based games such as the watchtower? I wonder if playing an objective style game would reduce the amount of ganging up on 1 player.

TallChris
28-01-2011, 19:18
The scenario in the rulebook is objective based.
You place 3 objectives before anyone deploys.

H33D
28-01-2011, 21:04
The only inherent flaw i have seen in the rulebook's method of playing a multiplayer game is that moving and shooting is pretty much rendered obsolete unless you go after the guy you are trying to shoot.

As a Dwarf, I couldn't fly my Gyrocopter 10" and shoot my Beastmen or Skaven opponents ever because they would simply move out of the way before their shooting phase.

TheYoungin
28-01-2011, 21:07
Tn=hat sounds like oodles of fun.

Nuada
28-01-2011, 21:38
first player moves, second player moves, third player moves. First player magic, second player magic, third player magic... And so on.
Never tried that. Seems like a good idea, i'll ask the others what they think. Thanks for everyones input, very interesting ideas.

@TallChris... yes, we'll be using an objective based scenario. Something simple like the legendary battle objective rules.

I also want to avoid a long line of tables. I've done that before, it feels like 4 seperate games. Ideally i'd like a T-shape of tables.





Something i'm considering is making a house rule of ..... "spells that say friendly units or allied units can only affect your own army" Otherwise 3 O&G players all casting the waaagh spell is a bit OTT (and i'm one of the O&G players)
Also applies to things like magic items. There's an O&G item that adds a power dice for each Orc unit in combat, it should just be your own Orc units in combat.



There's also a possible problem that's the reverse of friendly units. There's a spell that affects every single enemy unit on the board, it's a vampire count spell. Think it's called drain life maybe? If that spell kicks off it's as bad the waaagh affecting all orcs, it would target 6 armies worth of units.
How do you house rule that? ...... only thing i can think of is this >>>"choose the army/opponent of your spell. (eg. if VC's choose one orc player, it affects all that orc players units)

What do you think? would you house rule it, or just leave it as normal?

amysrevenge
28-01-2011, 21:49
What would you do for deployment in a 3-sided battle? Try a hexagonal table maybe? lol

Nuada
28-01-2011, 21:57
What would you do for deployment in a 3-sided battle? Try a hexagonal table maybe? lol

Well, funny you should say that :D I was looking at chess sets on ebay and found 3 player chess, i didn't know it existed. http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr279/waylander2/wooden-3-player-chess-game.jpg

You don't really need a hexagonal table, you just deploy x amount of inches from the centre.
But, i think what we'll do is good and evil deploy as normal. Then in turn 2 the orcs appear on the flanks, a random roll which flank. It might turn out to be too advantageous or too much of a disadvantage for the orcs, but we're not too fussed :)

Haravikk
28-01-2011, 22:01
What would you do for deployment in a 3-sided battle? Try a hexagonal table maybe? lol
Quite a few people have round tables :)
Otherwise a square realm of battle should suffice, with two narrow (to keep away from each other) corner starts and an opposing "middle" start.

I think the key thing to avoid ganging up is definitely objectives. Night-fight type rules can help too by restricting targets for magic/shooting to be visible to one or more of your units.
Another alternative I heard of but never tried was scoring Victory Points based on an average of what you get from each player, or even score based on the minimum. So if you got 800 VP's from one opponent, and 200 VP's from another, then by average you'd score 500 VP's, and minimum you'd only get 200 VP's. This can encourage players to rough up both enemies for standard games that lack more specific objectives.

A good brutal one that I played recently with four players (free for all) was a spin on the Tower of Sorcery scenario in December's White Dwarf. Witchfate Tor in the middle, each floor is a separate building. After four turns you start scoring one game point for each floor you hold, each turn, with a game length of 6 turns, random end on D6 + turn equal to 12 or more. Basically a King of the Hill match for those who have played shooters or other games that have type of play in it.
It got really vicious as players just destroyed each other other to grab floors, and still managed to retain some tactics, though a lot less conventional compared to normal games.

kurisawa
28-01-2011, 22:16
All the problems mentioned here are possible. I've had plenty of... meh... 3-way games, even though the idea always looks so good.

Mix-ups in the magic phase, sorting out close combats, and so on. Most of all, it means individual players have sit through 2 turns of the "enemy", rather than one.

With mulitple players on each side, too, your problems are likely to spiral out of control.

To be honest, as fun as a 3-way sounds (:)), I would really really recommend you keep it to 2. How? They tell you exactly how in the ally rules section: Just give the evil players 1500pts each, and the good players 3000pts each. Total = 9000 per side.

K.

Tymell
28-01-2011, 22:16
Sounds like it's been tried/catered for in the rulebook, and should be fun :)

Out of interest, what are the other armies involved?

Nuada
28-01-2011, 22:30
Out of interest, what are the other armies involved?
All 9 are;

WoC, VC, DE

O&G, O&G, O&G

Emp, LM, Bret

Tokamak
28-01-2011, 23:06
More than two teams always means that the politics win, not the tactics.

enygma7
28-01-2011, 23:42
I agree with the points raised about 3 way games - it always seems to be the dumbest side and the side they attack that lose, the remaining one generally finds it best to hang back and pick off easy targets and then move in for the kill once both enemies are fully engaged. A well chosen objective condition can help with this.

Also, multiplayer games generally take a long time with long periods of inactivity and with 3 sides this will be an even bigger factor.

VC aren't necessarily evil - they have their own agenda and are capable of coming to political arrangements so they could theoretically ally with the forces of order. A little points juggling gives you two evenly matched sides.

LordZombie
29-01-2011, 01:40
I have played a few battle royales in my time and found them to be quite good. The new turn sequence really keeps everyone in the game and the objecive based point system makes it a little more balanced toward people not ganging up on one player. I really think a multi player battle battle royale would be just as fun, but you would need a bigger table. In case no one has posted it yet, the rules for the battle royale are on page 406 and 407 or the large rulebook.

Nubl0
29-01-2011, 05:43
At my store me and 5 other players did a 6 man free for all with a watchtower in the center of the board being the objective. Worked out just fine, it was only 1k points each though.

The armies were 2 dwarfs, 2 high elfs, ogres and my daemons. Everyone did their turns quite fast and it was a really fun game. It was a total slaughter to everyone involved with only 3 ogre bulls, a few thunderers and my skulltaker left on the board... I won because nothing left on the board was capable of shifting skulltaker from the tower.

Brilliant fun.

Trains_Get_Robbed
29-01-2011, 20:22
Just use the BATTLE ROYALE rules from the book, they are great.

HOWEVER THINGS TO LOOK OUT FOR:

1. Instead of it being 3 players, it will be 3 teams, so obviously keep each team in one movement phase.

2. If you want to switch up the order of who goes when, feel free to, thats what my group normally does.

For example: Player A goes first and does movement and magic and shooting first on turn 1. Well, in the second turn instead of having Player A go first, have Player B go move first, roll for magic and do magic first on turn 2, etc. . .

3. Don't do three objectives, instead have terrain pieces as the objectives (I think thats what it says in the scenario) so 4+D6 terrain (or however much terrain based on the point level played) and then have 3 +D3 objectives (same as mentioned in prior parentheis), and put them in forests and watch towers, perhaps on hills and behind fences etc. .

This will force movement, and make it really hard for one team to get ganged up on.

4. It says in the rulebook to place one player in the middle based on who rolled the lowest. However, if done this way you would have one whole team stuck in the middle, thus having the 2 on 1 effect. Instead, have all the teams roll a dice for their team, and instead of putting the entire team of the lowest roll in the middle, only put one player from their team in the middle of the board.

5. Lastly, with that many points, one will need a higher Magic Pool to draw from. What has worked great -coming from our local G.W manager- is using an 18 Dice cap for 3,500 and up to 5,500 and 24 Dice Cap up to 7,500 etc. . .

For winds of magic roll on a 18 Dice Cap pool, roll 3D6 and the casting team getting all these dice, and the dispelling team getting the highest and lowest of the three dice.

Good luck, may the force and the battles be with you. ;) :P

Ludaman
29-01-2011, 22:07
Here's how I play 3 way and I play all the time this way and love it:

1. Triangulate deployment, one team gets the center of one side of the board the other teams get the two opposite corners. No model can be deployed within 18 inches of another teams model.

2. Victory points: THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART... tally all victory points as you go from both sides. your final score is only equal to the lower of your two scores. Example: I'm player A: i scored 450 VP against player B. I scored 1200VP against player C. My final score is 450 VP... this way I HAVE to fight both sides.

3. Magic phase: the player who's turn it is gets 2d6 power dice, the opposing players get the lower of my 2d6 for dispell. So if I roll 3 and 4, I get 7 and my opponents get 3 each. They cannot dispell spells cast on the other dispelling players units. (we usually make it a minimum of 2 for dispell) house rule this as needed.

the game becomes three player turns for each game turn, it helps to have a chess clock handy and make sure noone goes past 20 min per turn (think fast).

EDIT: ooo I like the previous guys magic idea!

Cragum
30-01-2011, 16:30
the problems i have had is plain as day with three player situations...

Ganging up. Its something I found that appeared heavily in Necromunda, but with that its something more obvious and entertaining. But with fantasy you end up ruining one persons game most the time.

I try to stay away from them, bnest bet if you have three people wanting to play is try and agree on two people teaming up and the last being on own and having two sides with equal points...

Earthbeard
30-01-2011, 17:11
the problems i have had is plain as day with three player situations...

Ganging up. Its something I found that appeared heavily in Necromunda, but with that its something more obvious and entertaining. But with fantasy you end up ruining one persons game most the time.

I try to stay away from them, bnest bet if you have three people wanting to play is try and agree on two people teaming up and the last being on own and having two sides with equal points...

Tend to agree, no matter how it's done, it often does devolve into 2 vs 1 for the most part.

Never tried it, but a thought occured to me, could use terrain to funnel troops in a certain direction, kind of like rts multiplayer maps.