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.

what i did for my 3 way game was player 1 and 2 deployed on diagonals, player 3 (myself) deployed via deep striking drop pods with an extra 500 points...i still lost, but it was a fun game

what we do for 4 way games is make a cross shaped board (basically an 8x8 board with the 4 2x2 corners removed to form 4 distinct deployment zones with an objective in each and one in the middle. its incredibly fun, but a pain to move models in the center

We've tinkered with a few different ideas.

2 V 1 scenarios with the 1 getting either a points or tactical boost to compensate.

3 for All with slightly different mission objectives in order to encourage doing something other than team ganking

3 for All with the same mission objectives and accepting that gangbangs and sitting back and watching were good tactics rather than anything unfair.

Overall, i all can be fun, but its up to how you design the scenario and how you and the other players treat it.

We've tried 2v1, with the 2 splitting the points of the 1 (2x 750 and 1x 1500, etc).

But, the best way we found was the 1v1v1, with a 120 degree 24" area splitting the starting points. This means there's one in the middle of a long side, and the others along the sides away from the corners.
Have 4 objectives, with 1 each, and 1 in the centre.
If the centre objective is worth more victory points, there's more reason to go for it.

There were rules for 1v1v1 on the 5th edition BRB, after all the fluff there was a section which contained some experimental rules, there was one for when 3 chaos warbands suddenly turn against each other.

I only played one game with the rules but i remember it wasn't that bad, however we found that alternating differently the turns would help it work. IIRC the turns could allow sometimes for a player to have 2 turns which was what we didn't like


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Found it, is page 272 on 5th BRB, Broken Alliance

I tend to recommend the '2 vs 1 with both sides having the same total points and same objectives' approach myself; having been the unfortunate player stuck trying to fend off two opposing armies at the same time more often than i'd like.

The triangular or circular table could work, but who has big enough versions of either for such to be practical?

The 'everyone has a different objective' approach also can work, but it is very, very difficult to set up so it's actually fair to all three players. (we've tried giving army-wide USRs and other tactical advantages to the odd man out, which worked surprisingly well the one game it happened in).

The 'equal points and FOC slots to a side, 2 vs 1' is the simplest way i've found to do it with the two smaller army lists functioning more or less as one army in a two player game would.
(I'd suggest letting the smaller guys be allowed to have a warlord each and treat their allys' army as battle brothers, to balance out that the bigger army list usually is a bit more coherant than two seperate lists)