PDA

View Full Version : Decent ruleset for 3 player game?



Uncletrunx
29-08-2011, 21:56
Has anyone got a decent ruleset for 3 player games of 40K?

I know there's a way of doing it in the main rulebook, but I wondered if anyone has found a better way of making such a game a) fun and b) fair.

Thanks!

Bunnahabhain
29-08-2011, 22:16
Objective missions.

Randomised player turn order in each GAME turn.

Only fight combats in player Xs turn if a unit of player X is is involved.

Allow firing into combat you are not involved in- if you wish.

That makes the game fair- objectives are neutral, and combat/firepower remain as balanced as normal.. It also prevents last minute objective grabs. Instead, to win you have to hold an ( or several) objective, and remove nearby enemies who could contest it.

Tarax
30-08-2011, 07:36
We've done a similar thing with 4 players. Though we never let the player who was last the previous turn, be the first this turn. Ie players 1, 2 and 3 from turn 1 rolled to see who goes first in turn 2, then player 4 rolls with the other two players for the other spots in turn 2.

Sternguard777
30-08-2011, 07:39
Get another buddy and team up in pairs :D

Dezartfox
30-08-2011, 07:43
There's a scenario in the back of the large rulebook, called Broken Alliances I believe.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
30-08-2011, 15:28
Ditch the idea of a three-way, its just not natural to 40K. :p

-

Instead have one of the players come up with a scenario and 'master' it, perhaps by controlling some random monsters or civilians to save, and make the game different and provide new challenges :)

Cheeslord
30-08-2011, 15:52
Ditch the idea of a three-way, its just not natural to 40K. :p

-



Problem is, sometimes you just get 3 people available for a game.

Simplest solution is 2 vs 1 where the 1 has 2 armies or 1 army of double the points cost.

however I agree it would be great to have a scenario with multiple independent players that rewarded "getting stuck in". Killpoints might work to some degree, or something with objectives in the middle that you can't "last turn grab" (maybe objectives that give you a game advantage to make it worth going for them early).

Mark.

Scaryscarymushroom
30-08-2011, 17:14
Play on this table. :p (http://modculture.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/15/slide.jpg)

But seriously, Bunnahabhain has a great set of suggestions.

If I can suggest extra rules for firing into combat: Treat the whole combat as a single complex unit. Perhaps the hits could be distributed amongst players proportionally so that in a combat with 30 orks and 10 space marines, the ork player would suffer 3 hits and the space marine player would suffer 1 if the combat was hit 4 times.

FrozenLaughs
30-08-2011, 18:01
Actually a triangle table would be pretty cool, maybe I'll build one after I finish my current table project.

I would actually go the 2vs1 route if they person playing solo has enough stuff to field x2 the points. Two 1250 armies vs one 2500, might make for an interesting game. But it won't reflect a true 3 way battle.

Jo-Jo
30-08-2011, 18:21
The mission in the back of the book called "broken alliances" is great for this type of game. (I was gonna write friendly, but if your playing three way then it has to be). Try it!

Dah I was ninja'd

LonelyPath
30-08-2011, 19:41
I've played Broken Alliance more than a few times and it's fun. Plus having to roll off to see if your units are caught off guard at the start of the game makes the opening turn a little more exciting.

Atomic Rooster
30-08-2011, 20:09
We tried something that worked well. Put an objective in the center of the table - each player scores a point for controlling the objective at the end of each of their turns. The player with the most points at the end of the game wins. To control the objective, you must have the closest model to the objective marker, and have no enemy within 6".

This completely avoids the usual 3-way syndrome of potshot standoff until the last turn, and makes each and every turn a frantic and bloody struggle. Even turn 1 is exciting. I highly reccomend it.

Sgt John Keel
30-08-2011, 20:21
Randomised player turn order in each GAME turn.


I don't see the purpose of that. You can't plan properly, and the usual re–compensatory measure of getting the last turn as a trade–off for not getting the first is nowhere guaranteed.

Bunnahabhain
30-08-2011, 21:50
I don't see the purpose of that. You can't plan properly, and the usual re–compensatory measure of getting the last turn as a trade–off for not getting the first is nowhere guaranteed.

If you have a fixed turn order A,B,C, //A, B,C//A,B,C, etc.....then we found a very strong bias of player A to attack player Bs units, to prevent them being attacked, and trusting to player B to mainly hit player C (as B tries to prevent player C hitting them), and so on.
By shaking up the turn order, it means A tends to fight B and C far more equally, and the same for the other players. This forces people into either making very flexible plans, or committing to one, and hoping it works- this often corresponds with army character, ie Dark Eldar can be flexible, whilst the Green Tide commits to the Warrgghhh..

Besides with a three player game, at least one person must miss both first turn and last turn, it is guaranteed. (i.e. Player A gets first turn, but only one of B or C can get last turn, someone misses out) There is no way round it.

Also random game length, and reserve heavy lists that don't care if they get first turn or not make the first turn/last turn factors far harder to calculate

dangerboyjim
31-08-2011, 00:41
I have this exact problem in that whenever I play, it is typically with my two freinds that play. So what we do is play three games two on two and the spare person rules on all rule conflicts that come up, cooks the pizza and gets the beers.

For apocalypse it's always two on one. We tried three way games, but it was really unsatisying, as the two weakest would gang up on the strongest and it didn't seem like there was much genuine strategy.

a1elbow
31-08-2011, 01:21
Five objectives, one in center and the other four with one roughly in the center of each table quarter.

For deployment the first player either chooses a corner or the middle of one board edge. The other two player either get the opposite corner or the opposite middle table edge, so you end up with two players in corners on the same board edge and one on the middle of the other edge.

Then do Kill Points as normal and each objective worth a point except the center is worth two points.

I've done this several times with some pretty different armies (Iron Warrior Chaos, Khorne Chaos, Dark Eldar, Orks) and it has been pretty close in every game.

One other thing you could do is give extra KPs for taking out "marked" squads to make sure there is more incentive to get out and fight both other armies. Sometimes in a three-way two sided end up bashing each other down, so having a limited amount of KPs gives people an incentive to get out and fight rather than look to just mop up near-death units.

Panzer MkIV
31-08-2011, 01:33
If you have access to old White Dwarfs the "Battle at the Camp" scenario in UK White Dwarf 237 looked like a lot of fun (and it was a nice battle report to boot)

chromedog
31-08-2011, 05:10
Has anyone got a decent ruleset for 3 player games of 40K?



Not using the 40k rules, no.

Seriously. A good ruleset for doing a three player game and 40k have nothing in common except dice (as a mechanism - there's no guarantee that they will even be using the same KIND of dice).

If you want to play 3-player 40k, your options are limited to the one in the BRB, the one in the battles book or to design your own.