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.

Good evening fellow Dakkaites,

I've noticed a bit of an oversight in the mission rules of this latest edition of our fine Warhammer 40K. There is exactly one mission ruleset that I can find that allows for a three player battle. On page 273 of the BRB, there is the rules for playing a three person game, but a very wonky setup mechanic. Now, go take a read over that mission before we continue.

Okay, so, cool mission, I thought, especially since it has neat rules on resolving the turn sequence, but what's up with the gakky sacrificial HQ bit at the beginning? Sounds great if my HQ is say, the SWARMLORD, but not so much if it's Shas O'Rly in his Crisis Suit. Starting that close to the enemy HQs means they're just sitting ducks! For the other HQs, or the rest of the enemy army, what commander is dumb enough to just stroll out and have a chat like that? All that aside, it IS a cool mission, and if all the players like that weird deployment, then it's groovy.

Now, although I cruise around on weekends looking for pickup games, I have two really regular opponents who are my long-time gaming buddies. We always run into having to decide who is going to play when since we're all working family-types and have limited time to work with. I really want to try to develop a wider catalogue of three-player missions that a) continue to use the 3x3 standard mission system, and b) do not require gakky deployments.

Does anyone know of any already-existing resources for three player battles?

I'm in the process of writing up a mission I call "Tyrannus Interruptus" where essentially, two players start the battle just as in a two-player random 3x3 match, and a third army is chosen at ~75% of the points value of the two main armies. The third army will enter at some point of turn 2 from a short edge, interrupting (or avoiding) the ongoing battle and attempting to fulfill the mission objectives for itself; be they objective markers or kill points. From that point, the rules from pg 272 come in to play, with the first player going last, and the other two rolling off every turn, disallowing assaulting into an assault, etc, etc.

In other words, selectively stripping the part I like and slapping it on the other part I like... lol

Anyway, what do you think about that idea? I'm going to iron out the details and try to do a full mission writeup to submit here if folks are interested, but I thought I'd bring it up and ask now in case someone has already published what I'm looking for. No need to re-invent the wheel, after all.

-GR

I think that the most important thing to do is not use the turn sequence from the rulebook.

We found that this made for very unfair situations - if you go first, you know that both other players will get two turns before your next one.

Let that sink in. Two turns each before your next turn.

That aside, we've had quite a bit of luck with a few different options.

1) Just do a 2vs1 (one force org versus one force org, or two force orgs vs. two force orgs)
2) Use a square table and roll to see who gets sandwiched (this is a popular one for us)
3)Use a square table and start two people in adjacent corners and one person in the centre of the opposite edge.
4) Write your own missions! A really fun and chaotic scenario is forcing every unit to arrive via deepstrike or rolling for table edge - representing a massive troop outpouring from all directions towards an important central objective. The sky's the limit.

Just don't use their turn order. It sucks.

1) We've done 2vs1 and we find it just doesn't work out right unless the 2 come from the same codex and share an FOC. I want three independant and unrelated forces on the table at a time.

2 & 3) I'd like to keep using a 6x4 table, since it's what we have. We've played a "regular" 3-for-all by deploying 1 army within 24" of a corner, another army in the same long side opposite corner within 24", and the third army on the opposite side, within a 24" bubble from the center point. That works pretty well for 3 player spacing, but it can allow for sandwiching. We take it as a tactical challenge to play the middle force anyway.

What I really want though, is more interesting missions for the 3-for-all games.

4a) I do like the idea you have about doing every single unit from deep-strike or random table edge to converge on a central objective. I'm gonna use that, for sure.

4b) But, I _am_ writing my own missions! That's kinda the point of this whole thread. Advice, ideas, whatnot. I know the sky's the limit, but for the purposes of actually discussing it, I want to keep this focused on 3 player battles.

The first idea that comes to head is maybe have each player move a single unit one at a time until all units have been used, then move to the shooting phase and do the same thing shooting, then a similar thing with assault phase. This would of course require a lot of tracking of who moved when and the player with less units might get shafted but it's an idea.

(Sorry I didn't realize this thread was over 3 years old)

We did a game one time where it was a "convoy ambush" scenario. Orks where advancing in a convoy when it was ambushed by my Elysian IG, then during the fight Dark Eldar Raiders (aka my other buddy showed up and wanted to play) hit us as we were fighting, was alot of fun

Option 1: Get a round table, divide it into 6 "pizza slices" with the deployment zone around the outside, roll off to see who gets first pick. Played a game like this with one objective on top of a massive building right at the center of the table. best multiplayer match I've ever had...

Option 2: This is what my group normally does: two players each get half a long edge and a foot onto the table in opposite corners. The poor sod who rolls lowest get a quarter of a long edge in the two remaining corners (sorry, it's hard to explain, one player gets two smaller deployment zones across the table diagonally from each other).

Whatever you do make sure to houserule that you can shoot into close combats as long as they don't involve units from your side. Let the hilarity begin.

 Lloyld wrote:
The first idea that comes to head is maybe have each player move a single unit one at a time until all units have been used, then move to the shooting phase and do the same thing shooting, then a similar thing with assault phase. This would of course require a lot of tracking of who moved when and the player with less units might get shafted but it's an idea.

(Sorry I didn't realize this thread was over 3 years old)

IMO this is how 40k should be played anyway. At the start of the round, put a token next to every unit. Players take turns moving, shooting, and assaulting with a single unit, and removing that unit's orders token after it has done so. When one player runs out of units the other can move all of his remaining troops.

Playing the game like that would *really* put a damper on alpha strikes and discourage armies of 2-3 giant deathstars like we find in that disgusting gametype known as "kill points"

Generally speaking though, FFA between three players sucks because two can gang up on one and theres really nothing that the one can do except be destroyed. Doesn't make for good game balance.

Also that "cannot assault into assaults" rule that the OP posted is terrible. Just saying

Just take the three player scenario from the 5th ed rulebook. Should work fine

The old table quarters deployment from 5th ed is what we end up doing with one person sandwiched in a corner

No there is a special 3 way game type in 5th. It is called Broken Alliance and it’s on page 272 of the 5th ed BRB. We have used it before at our club and it works great. Plenty of room for scheming and betrayal. The initial setup would be very interesting with the 6th ed concept of challenges

Cheers Vim

A needs to beat B, B needs to beat C, C needs to beat A.

 Lloyld wrote:
The first idea that comes to head is maybe have each player move a single unit one at a time until all units have been used, then move to the shooting phase and do the same thing shooting, then a similar thing with assault phase. This would of course require a lot of tracking of who moved when and the player with less units might get shafted but it's an idea.

(Sorry I didn't realize this thread was over 3 years old)

This is a bit exploitable. MSU would walk all over elite armies.

The best way I have found to do a 3 player balanced game is to run two teams of two armies each.

The side with 2 players have 2 armies at 1500 points, one person controls one army, the other person controls the other army, and while they are working together, none of one armies abilities will have any affect on their teammates army.

The solo person just controls two 1500 point armies and one armies abilities will have any affect on the other 1500 point army.

Hospy wrote:
A needs to beat B, B needs to beat C, C needs to beat A.

Thats... actually really good. Fixes it right up.