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.

Ok, so I've been playing a few 3 player games and have come to despise them. We've tried DOW and objective, but it always boils down to 2 people fighting and the third just kind of watching, then mopping the rest up because he hasn't lost anything yet.

Has anyone else had any luck with 3 player games?

I've had no luck myself. it seems to me that two gang-up and beat down the other In ffa (free for all) games.

The best is two on one. two players get one foc unless the points are higher than 2000. then it gets fun. I've played my tau vs orks and tyranids and it is a hoot to see what happens.

Are you playing as three separate forces or two people vs one?

Just did a quick search (which I should've done before posting xD) and found some useful info there. It looks like the consensus is 2v1 then? We've been playing free for all.

For two years, all I played was 3 player games. First problem we came up against was how to set up. So we build a hexagon board so everyone can set up equidistant from each other.

You have to realize going in that it changes the game dramatically. Armies with high survivability become better, as you have to withstand 2 shooting phases and 2 assault phases each turn.
It also takes the "human" factor into account. It's better to take your whole army against one guy than split it. But then it sucks for the game, because it becomes lopsided. The same happens for shooting armies. If you sit back and pew pew, you will probably win most games as the other two people duke it out.
The key is to try to make it fun for everyone. If everyone splits their attention, it becomes more fun because everyone has a chance.

As for objectives, we found that if you use a single objective in the middle, it forces everyone to engage. Lopsided for shooty armies, but not so much where it's unfun.

Really, if you plan on doing 3 player games, just remember to make it fun. If you play like a jerk and beat down 1 guy in turn 1, he won't want to play again. It's not competitive because it breaks the already terrible balance of the game, so make sure it's fun for everyone involved.

I mean that's kind of how 3 player games go. It's hard to make choices and to split fire in between different armies.
And if someone sends a deathstar unit after you, the only thing you can do is send a deathstar unit after him. At the same time, you're forced to dedicate most of your army to one person, because if you don't they will easily get destroyed by the other person. It's hard to make a truly balanced 3 person game, just because of 3 player games work in nature. If you want a balanced 3 person game, everyone has to go into the game trying to make it balanced, and not just trying to win. However, if someone is doing that, you can form an alliance with the other person, and gang up on him, where in turn more alliances will be made, resulting in friendship ruining hi-jinks.

For information on friendship ruining hij-inks, see below;



EDIT; spelling errors, spelling errors everywhere.

Especially as orks, you are simply screwed in three-way games. You can't simply sit back and wait who will come after you, you have to take the initiative and your opponents see who you are going to attack for a turn or two before it actually happens. If the other guy is smart he then shoots the guy you're charging and eventually wins the game. All you can really do is pick who looses the game.

Assault armies are screwed anyways, we will be shot by two armies instead of one, have to cover more ground due to having to cover the ground towards the enemy army twice, once to each enemy. You also have to weather two phases of tankshocks/shooting/assault. Guess how long your good stuff is going to last that way.

In addition, what BSent said. Three-way games, no matter the actual system, will always favor the guy sitting back and having the other two duke it out. In addition WH40k, lacks the offensive potential to be able to beat two players with an aggressive playstyle and favors defensive playstyles(long range, bubblewraps, high mobility).

Warhammer40k simply isn't meant for three-way games.

Solution: Find another friend that plays and just do 2 v 2 battles. Me and my friends played a IG and SM vs. 'Nids and Orks and we had tons of fun.

I suppose its really all down to what you want

I regularly play 3player games and yes 2 hitting each other while 1 mops up does happen ,but i don't care who wins its about having fun

As long as i get to hit something and blow up somat i am fine

But if you do care Try the set up of the objective in the middle that does make it so what more even

The games will always end with one player mopping up after the other two take each over out until the players understand that no they can't win alone and will need the help of the other players and then the games of politics begin with quick alliances, knowing/ guessing you can trust the other guy for long enough and daggers in the back.

Well one idea would be to make kill points in earlier rounds worth more points to prevent the one guy sitting back from jumping in at the end to mop up. Kill points in Turn 1 are multiplied by 3, Turn 2 multiplied by 2.5, 3=2, 4=1.5, 5=1, 6=.5

I more agree on the 2 v 1 instead of 3 player free for all.

another option is to have a set offence and defense it works ok

player A attacks player B but defends against player C
player B attacks player C but defends against player A
player C attacks player A btu defends against player B

basically you only get kill point based on the player you are to attack, and for objective games only the ones you are defending or in the player you are to attack's area count for scoring

Hargus56 wrote:Well one idea would be to make kill points in earlier rounds worth more points to prevent the one guy sitting back from jumping in at the end to mop up. Kill points in Turn 1 are multiplied by 3, Turn 2 multiplied by 2.5, 3=2, 4=1.5, 5=1, 6=.5

So if you're playing an assaulty army you're even more so handicapped, while boosting shooty armies tremdendously. Just play 2Vs1 make it simpler, make everyone happier

Solution, if you DO insist on playing FFA- ally with player 2 to stomp player 3. Whilst this happens, start knifing player 2 in the back.

Alliances will always happen. If you can recognize when its happening, you then need to break the alliance. Can make for some funny games

But these days me and my mates play 2v1, with the team of two having two forces (so 1500p of "x" army and 1500p of "y" army) vs the team of one having the same, two FoC's (so 1500p of "z" and 1500p of "z" army). Too many times we've had 3 people keen for a night of warhammer, but only time for 1 game

I've had it work with 2 2000 point armies and about 1500 points of another army in reserves. Every unit that comes in randomly determines what side it fights against.

I play 2 on 1 games all the time, at around 2,000 pts andd makes for a great game as I playing Chaos normally get 4,000 pts for a bloody slaughter. Best way is to have the main Objective in the middle of the table and every player gets 1 secondary objective to place before the game starts. Makes for a fun experiance and everyones happy, I just hate it when both my opponents pull out their bran new GK armies as its very shooty and choppy against me.

Thanks for all the responses guys, I definitely think im going to try a 2v1 game!

Being and ork player, I was running into some of the mentioned problems. Its really hard to try to run through someone and then take on another army entirely, especially if they dont just lay down and take it.

The best way I can think of running a 1v1v1 is to use a modified version of Victory points.

At the end of the game you add up the victory points you scored off of each of your opponents. Your final score is the lower of the two.

It forces players to commit their forces from the onset, and to attack both of the opposing players as equally as possible. It doesn't do you any good if you scored a thousand points off of one player, and only scored 250 from the other.