Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The first question I have is, are three player games feasible?

My cousins and I want to have a three player game where we all fight each other. We'd be using 750 points (Eldar, Orks and Space Marines) on a 6' x 4' table.

How can this be done and still keep the game (including deployment) fair and competetive?

I was thinking that it would be a good idea to put a few objectives on the board rather than five or six and have the armies fight over them. What worries me is that one player (my cousin with the Space Marines) will turtle up initially, let me (Orks) and my other cousin (Eldar) mince each other up and then come in at the end to claim objectives from our battered forces.

If any of you have experience with three player games or advice on how to make them work, I'd be interested to hear.

The rules for 3 player games are on page 272 of the rulebook.

Have played exactly four 3 player games,all of wich were "interesting".
2 were allies games in wich myself and a friend played against another player,this consisted of 1000 points of orkz +1000 points of orkz vs 2000 points of SM, I focused on the foot slogger side of the ork force(including kanz) and my buddy handled the bikes and buggies and such,these games played well and were lots of fun.
The othe two 3 player games were every man for themselves games ,both games were 1500 points per player and the armies involved were SM,Orkz and Nidz.
In both games the Nidz player deployed along the long side of the board in lots of cover.
Basicly these games were a jumbled chaotic mess,but IMO thats exactly how they should have played out.
Think about it,Orkz an SM sqaure off for a nice day of hacking and blasting each other to bits and sudenly a nice batch of Nidz show up,I mean it would be a total cluster f@%*,so these games were fun as well.
Incidently,in these Games the SM player did exactly what you predicted,sat back in the cut, shot alot,let me and the Nid player stomp on each other,then finished of the remains of both armies...wich is what SM would do.

Have everyone decide in advance whether or not you can shoot into an assault. Have them agree on it.

I've seen a lot of three player games fall apart when somebody insisted they could drop a pie plate on top of a furball and vice versa.

sourclams wrote:Have everyone decide in advance whether or not you can shoot into an assault. Have them agree on it.

I've seen a lot of three player games fall apart when somebody insisted they could drop a pie plate on top of a furball and vice versa.

Once again, there are actual rules in this edition for playing 3-player games. They cover shooting into assaults...

So this shouldn't be as much of an issue as it was previously, when there were no such rules and everything had to be decided between the players.

Obviously I had no idea there were rules for three-player games in the 5th Edition book. I'm going to have to look into them. I only own the miniature book given to buyers of the AoBR box.

Thanks for the suggestions and please, keep them coming if you'd like. I have until Friday to organize this little event!

My group often runs into issues where we have three players. So we typically play Annihalation so it's a free for all. We basically make a triangle on the board so one unit gets to deploy on the long side, but only gets about 18 inches of the long side. The other two deploy in the corners on the opposing long side. Then we have the standard circle in the middle where we cannot deploy. Then we're equa-distant to each other. The other option we have done is two players form one side with 1,000 or 1,500pts each and the other gets 2,000 or 3,000pts. Then we play it as if it were a two player game. All movement is done, then all assaults. We have had issues where a 'partner' started their assault before the other was done shooting. And you know the rules. Hehe.
Of course, we also regularly play with 5 players. For that we almost always make two sides. The last battle was 6,000 pts on a side. (3,000x2 vs. 2,000x3). We played Apoc rules.
On a side note, where in the 5th ed book does it describe 3 player games? I looked and didn't see anything.

insaniak wrote:The rules for 3 player games are on page 272 of the rulebook.

One of the most enjoyable games of 40K I ever played was a 3 player.

Here's what we did:

4x8 table (This was 4e. You could EASILY make it 4x6).
We set up the terrain with one major piece in the center (the table was cityfight).

The idea was that all 3 forces were advancing to a strategic position in the cover of darkness when they came upon each other simultaneously and by surprise.

To simulate the unexpected nature of the confrontation, we deployed like this:

Roll off d6 (high goes first).
We took turns scattering models randomly (a HIT followed the small arrow on the HIT icon) 4d6" off of the "center point." If you scattered onto an enemy unit, you reduced the scatter by d6".

Once all units were placed, we rolled again for first turn.

We contemplated rolling after each person had a turn in order to see who went first each GAME turn, but we decided to just keep the same order.

Needless to say, it was a blood bath. Numerous units were within 6-12" of enemy units on turn 1. This did not bode well for the necron player, but the Chaos player and Daemonhunters player didn't mind. LOL

These games can be a LOT of fun.

Eric

I did check the small AoBR rulebook and, disappointingly enough, there are no rules for three-person games there.

Oh well. I'll take the suggestions given here and run with them.

Deployment is very important so as not to create a situation where two players immediately gang up on the third player. For shooting into an assault randomize the hits... For example set aside a number of dice equal to the total number of models in the assault - roll these dice, even numbered dice hit one oppponent and odd numbered dice hit the other.

I will check the rules in the rule book.

G

Wow MagickalMemories that sounds like a hell of a fun way to deploy, even if you weren't doing 3 player, I'm gonna have to rope atleast 1 friend into giving it a shot.

I'm thinking that triangle deployment would work. I'll have to measure out the table and make sure that each deployment zone is equidistant from the other.

If someone could tell me what the full 40K 5th ed. book says concerning deployment, I'd be forever in your debt.

StormHalo wrote:If someone could tell me what the full 40K 5th ed. book says concerning deployment, I'd be forever in your debt.

Essentially, each player deploys a terrain piece as a 'base camp' at least 18" from the middle of the board and 30" from the other base camps... and then armies are deployed within 12" of their respective base camps.

Drunkspleen wrote:Wow MagickalMemories that sounds like a hell of a fun way to deploy, even if you weren't doing 3 player, I'm gonna have to rope atleast 1 friend into giving it a shot.

It really was.

It was a bit different, as the winner was the one with the most.... I can't recall..... Either UNITS or POINTS wort of units within 6" of the center point of the table. Pretty much, turns 5 & 6 were a mad dash to the center, as any units trying to creep closer to it earlier than that were blown to bits by both opponents.

So, it's a bit of al alteration of the typical missions in the back of the book, but not by too much.


Eric

Green Blow Fly wrote:Deployment is very important so as not to create a situation where two players immediately gang up on the third player. For shooting into an assault randomize the hits... For example set aside a number of dice equal to the total number of models in the assault - roll these dice, even numbered dice hit one oppponent and odd numbered dice hit the other.

I will check the rules in the rule book.

G

The Big Rule Book has, in the hobby section, some specialized scenarios that are presented as examples of the wacky stuff that tournament or campaign play might offer. One of them is a 3-way battle over 4 capture points posed as a negotiation-turned violent between three factions, and the goal is to gain control of the 3 camps and meeting place. It's essentially a mix between a three-way capture and control and a single seize ground objective, along with a few three-player specific rules governing shooting into CC's and turn order.

Since the AoBR book doesn't have a hobby section, it's missing these example specialty missions.

Another idea to have some fun with 3 players would be to take the escort mission in the BRB (or the scenario from the WH codex) and adapt it so that the defending player is being attacked by two opposing forces simultaneously, both of whom want the escorted person/item for themselves. In that case, I'd probably give the defender a bonus in army size, probably 30-50% larger point value or so, to account for being the initial target of both enemies. The attackers should also have rules for capturing the objective from the other attacker; I'd reference the defender's rules for doing so to create it.

I have tried the 3player mission in the book with only atrocious results.

One player was unable to deploy legally with anything other than the HQ, so had to move most of his army on piecemail, which had it die in the same manner.

If we try another scenario 3player, it will be VERY different than the one in the book.