Running a 3-way game....help!

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.

**Spellbound**

What's the best [ie fairest] way to run a 3-way game? Particularly I'm worried about the assault phases. How do most of y'all do them at your FLGSs?

**Lordhat**

Check out pg. 272 of the BGB.

**Orkestra**

DISCLAIMER: Page 272 has approximately one useful rule on it: shooting into close combat.

Their rules for splitting up the player turns are horrible, and result in (every single turn) players getting two turns between the other player's turns. That's right. with those rules, you end up going p1, p2, p3, p2, p3, p1. Which sucks hard.

Basically, play it as a regular game. For assault phases, only combats in which the player who's turn it is has models are fought out. So if p1 and p3 are in a close combat, they do not fight it on p2s turn.

Hope that helps.

**Lordhat**

Orkestra wrote:DISCLAIMER: Page 272 has approximately one useful rule on it: shooting into close combat.

Their rules for splitting up the player turns are horrible, and result in (every single turn) players getting two turns between the other player's turns. That's right. with those rules, you end up going p1, p2, p3, p2, p3, p1. Which sucks hard.

Basically, play it as a regular game. For assault phases, only combats in which the player who's turn it is has models are fought out. So if p1 and p3 are in a close combat, they do not fight it on p2s turn.

Hope that helps.

I completely disagree with the opinion presented in this post.

**Spellbound**

Have you tried it, Lordhat, and found it to be a good system?

I think the "may not launch an assault against an ongoing combat between both enemies" is a cop-out, just to prevent rules difficulties. I get that it's to avoid confusion, but it's a very contrived rule. Do y'all recommend that's the way to run it, though? Orkestra you gave a nice example in which P1 and 3 don't fight their close combats when it's P2's turn, but if P2 is in combat with P1 and 3, how is that combat resolved?

**Zid**

I've run a couple 4 ways and 3 ways

The best way to run a 3 way game is do a 2v1 scenerio. The next best way is to do a triangle (one at one table edge, two in the corners) and make a main "objective" with a secondary (normally a center object w/ KP's as secondary). Thats how we do 1v1v1v1 games, table corners (12" by 12" deployment), limit the points to around 1500, and make it objective based.

**Orkestra**

I run lots of 3-way games (my gaming group just added a fourth person) and we found that the best way to do it was to treat it like a vanilla game. Without too many modifications it's just as fair for three people as for two.

Assaulting into a combat that's already happening between two players isn't too much of a problem either (happens surprisingly rarely, in my experience)

Basically, you treat it like any other combat, with the units engaged choosing who they direct their attacks towards.
Combat resolution changes a little bit. You tally up the wounds and the top player 'wins'. Both losing players then take their losing penalties (a ld test or No Retreat wounds as applicable)
If both losing players fail their leadership test, you roll initiative. Any player the winner beats loses that unit, as per sweeping advance. Any unit that beats the winning player flees as usual.
If one losing player is fearless/passes their ld test: All of the players make an initiative test. (For example purposes, p1 wins combat. p2 is fearless, and p3 fails their ld test) Every unit that beats the unit that failed their leadership test gets to make a round of attacks against the losing unit before it flees combat. It is not swept, as the other two units are still locked in combat with each other. Fearless players take No Retreat as usual.
If both losing players are Fearless/pass their ld check: Combat continues as normal, take No Retreat wounds as normal.

**Kitzz**

If having an extra turn in MTG can be game-breaking, in warhammer it is many more times so. In the BGB scenario, both of your opponents get to go twice before you do, and you can't have any say about it. Having an opponent's daemon army arrive, deepstrike, and assault while you can do nothing to stop it is no fun.

**Lordhat**

Spellbound wrote:Have you tried it, Lordhat, and found it to be a good system?

I think the "may not launch an assault against an ongoing combat between both enemies" is a cop-out, just to prevent rules difficulties. I get that it's to avoid confusion, but it's a very contrived rule. Do y'all recommend that's the way to run it, though? Orkestra you gave a nice example in which P1 and 3 don't fight their close combats when it's P2's turn, but if P2 is in combat with P1 and 3, how is that combat resolved?

I've used it a couple times and I find it workable. I do prefer 1v1 or team games though. The biggest problem I see is the fact that no matter how you do it, 3 person deployment on a rectangular board always feths over one player, as they get sandwiched between the other two. One of these days I'm going to build a Hexagonal board for 3 or 6 player games (I don't foresee a 6 player game ever happening though). This way every deployment zone is equidistant from any other DZ; I plan on each side of the hexagon being @2'.

**elegost**

shooting into assault = roll off to see who is hit... charge into assault... HELL YEAH!!! if you are an ork and you see a scrap between eldar and imperial gaurd then you would join in..

board wise ide go for a equal board lenght and width, for example 4' by 4' and putting two in a 1' by 2' in either corner and the third in a 2' by 1' rectangle in the center of the opposite board edge. this allows them to be the same length apart, but the two players across from each other will charge and beat each other up. you cant help it. unless you play with a single objective in the center...

Elegost

**Wehrkind**

One thing you could try is having just one "Turn" with each player acting in a given phase, then starting the next phase with every player acting, etc. with who goes first in each phase figured by an initiative roll.
I am doing this with an =][=munda ruleset and it works out pretty well, though it does change the dynamics of "I rush up in a transport, and hop out, and then shoot you at 12"!" since your opponant can move away after you move, or get to shoot you first.

It kind of adds an exciting bit to the game though I think, instead of just relying on getting to shoot or assault before your opponant gets to react at all.

**KaloranSLC**

The only complaint I have with the Broken Alliance scenario (aside from fluff) is that the player that deploys 3rd gets completely screwed on their deployment zone if you're playing on a standard 4x6 board. The rules for turn order are great - the drawbacks of having your opponent's go twice before you go again are expected and can be planned-for. I also really enjoy the rule of rolling for each unit on turn 1 to see if they can even do anything.

Would I play it competitively? No.
Does it make for a really fun way to spend a few hours with two gamer friends? Absolutely.

**Spellbound**

We ended up just doing player 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 and disallowing charging into close combats between the other combatants. It worked out fine.

As for deployment zones, this was a Planetstrike game so it got all kinds of crazy!

**darkkt**

To resolve deployment issues (as 3ways can get messy -dont cross the streams!), try using the Spearhead circle of no deployment - a no'mans land' that applies to everyone' - but otherwise deploy anywhere at least 12 inches away from any opposing unit.

To avoid the situation of going last screws you automatically, use the DoW method of deploying only 2 troops and one HQ - everything else in reserves.

**Emperors Faithful**

I've used the rulebook one, and in worked just fine.
But we also used a different turn set the other time, where we each rolled for it every turn. (so it would be p1, p2, p3, then it could turn out p1, p3, p2)

It was kinda like seizing priority in LotR. (I think)

**Mr. DK**

make a triangular table, thats what me and my friends did. it works for objective type games because objectives are evenly spaced. and it was easy to cut out of insulation foam or what not. other then that, for rules i agree with orkestra

**solkan**

I've tried playing three way games two or three times, each time using a regular rotating turn sequence. I hadn't actually realized that the Broken Alliances mission used such an odd turn order. It does seem to be a very disruptive way to set up situations where a player could have two turns in a row.

What may be more important than all of those factors is the mission used for the three way battle. In my opinion, kill points and regular objectives don't work well for three players. X points for taking an objective and then Y points per turn that the objective is still held seems to be a lot better in giving people an incentive to go out and get things. Who really wants to be in a game where you don't shoot at a unit because you might only mostly destroy it, and watch the next guy steal the kill point?