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.

Wasn't sure where to put this...figured here was as good a place as any.

So recently I've been playing some 40k games with a couple of my friends. None of us particularly like the idea of sitting out and watching when we could be playing, so we figured we'd try to run a 3-way game. Only problem is, in both cases it failed horribly (of course, in both cases the mission was Dawn of War). What we found out was that whoever deployed last generally ended up sandwiched between the other two armies and steamrolled - first game was 'Crons (me), vanilla Marines, and Demons, Demons deployed last and took a ton of dakka to the face. Second game was 'Crons again, Ultramarines, and Dark Eldar - I deployed last with the 'Crons and nearly got tabled (only had a CCB and a small squad containing Imotekh on the board.

We're looking at alternative ways to play a three-man game that would make things a little less one-sided. We're running with 2000 point lists. I only have access to 'Crons (and they're not even mine - being poor sucks) one guy only has Marines. The last guy has CSMs, Demons, Dark Eldar, and IG. One approach I had considered was to make it a four way team game, with the last guy running two of his armies together and the 'Crons teaming with the Marines. We've also thought about switching to objective-based games.

So what I'm looking for:

-Ways to run 3 (or 4, if necessary) man games.
-Ways to handle deployment for 3 or 4 man games.
-Any special rules that need to be introduced (I find it odd that I can't shoot into melee when none of my own guys are in the combat, for example).

One possible method would be to divide the board into 3 (from the centre) and use that as your deployment zones.

Then, rather like in Fantasy. Take turns deploying your KPs in a round-robin kind of way.

If you've got a non-standard board shape (like a 5x5 or a 6x6) that might work better. Especially for 2000 points each, you need a larger board

with 4 man games it's fairly easy, either make teams of 2 or play table quarters.

A special rule you might consider using the Shooting into CC rule on page 274 of the rulebook for such situations as needed.

For 3 player games you might want to consider a different size/ shape board, like a 5x5 instead of a 4x6 or the like. deployment then can be spaced out more and you won't be crushed. Generally I think you need around 6 ft^2 per 1000 pst on the field, but thats likely more preference than statistical.



You also may want to look at running scenarios instead of standard missions, running things like 2v1 with the 1 player getting extra points/ FOC slots etc.

For 4-way games, just split the table into four quadrants.

I've had experience with 3-way games - we would have one player deploy like the Skirmish deployment, except that their border extends to a third of the way down the table, and the other two players divide the rest of the space in half and get half each. So even confrontations(ish).
And with combat, as Sunoccard said, just look at page 274 of the BRB, I'm pretty sure it explains things like that but for a different game.

Could run a team game with 1 player getting 2x the points of the other 2 players. You may need to tweak points or force org charts to make it fun but it can work pretty well.

I've had a few fun 3-way's (no pun intended) and the way we made it work was through creating special scenarios.

For example, we played a game with my guard and a friend's eldar trying to take control of a warp rift (by being the only one with units within 3" of it at the end of the game) through which Tyranids were appearing. We set up the first two armies in Spearhead setup, with the rift at the centre, and let the tyranids all deep strike, taking the 2nd turn in sequence from when they arrived - I believe it was turn 3. The Tyranids could also come through the warp gate itself, in the same way as the Chaos Daemons Battle Mission 'Invasion'. We each only had combat patrol forces, on a 4x4, and the table was pretty darn full, but it made for an amazingly fun game.

I may only think that because my forces plastered the bugs and gelflings though, thus dooming their home planet and the eldar's craftworld...

So try something narrative perhaps? Give one player an advantage in terms of mission but a disadvantage in terms of deployment, and see how it goes.

Also, teamups work well. 1k each of guard and space wolves versus 2k of orks, nasty experience for the orks that time but a fun challenge for a cocky player!

Good luck anyhow.

I would try deploying at the same time but give a time limit so you have to be done deploying before time runs out and can't wait for everyone else to finish deploying before counter-deploying against the enemy units. Just what I would do.

-Ways to run 3 (or 4, if necessary) man games:

Play Teams, Either 2v2 (4 players, 2 per team, 4 equal sized armies)
Or 2v1 (3 players, 2 on one team, 1 on the other, 4 equal sized armies) giving everyone the same points. Basically the solo person uses two different armies each with their own FOC, so if the points limit is 1k you have 4 different 1k armies and the solo person controls two armies.

-Ways to handle deployment for 3 or 4 man games:

Same as normal deployment, the team that wins the roll chooses to deploy everything first or second.

-Any special rules that need to be introduced:
None. no extra rules needed.

My group and I find this the best way to play 40k with 3 people.

Captain Roderick wrote:

Also, teamups work well. 1k each of guard and space wolves versus 2k of orks, nasty experience for the orks that time but a fun challenge for a cocky player!

Good luck anyhow.

This. This would work extremely well, I think, and would make for an interesting game. 1k SM army teamed with 1k IG army against 2k Necron army? yes. Or even a CSM +Daemon V. anything else. You could do smaller battles, like two kill teams v. a larger army, or something like that if you don't have enough points for everyone to do larger battles.

It would seem that during a three way fight it would come down to two players teaming up on one player, regardless of whether or not they were actually on a team. In my mind it would almost always turn into a 2 on 1 game, simply because fighting a two front battle is never a good idea. I could be wrong, but that's what i'd do. Every single three way match I've been in (not necessarily in 40k) has devolved into a 2v1, simply because it is easier for two to concentrate on one than it is for each one to attack the other.

You could set up the table so that each army can't all see each other. It would take some time to figure out the landscape, but making it so the army has to move before they can get LOS on an army would be interesting. Sort of like a maze: no army can see the other until it moves out of its starting location, and perhaps one army is off a bit further back, so they can't get into the action right away. Hopefully you understand this. Two armies would be duking it out, then finally after a turn or two a third player comes out of somewhere like "surprise!" and joins in the fight.

Its actually more fair if you have 1k each of guard and space wolves, and a 1k ork army teamed with a second detachment of 1k points of orks.

That way each team has at least two troop choices and at least one HQ per 1k point army.

Note that there are rules for a 3 player scenario in the back of the rulebook...

It's not a widely popular format, though.


For 3 players, you're generally far better off just playing two against 1, with the '1' having twice as large an army.

DeathReaper wrote:Its actually more fair if you have 1k each of guard and space wolves, and a 1k ork army teamed with a second detachment of 1k points of orks.

That way each team has at least two troop choices and at least one HQ per 1k point army.

True. If you really don't want to do a 2v2, you could always fudge the FoC and just allow double the troop and HQ choices. Since the FoC already allows 2 HQ and four troop choices, that specifically shouldn't be a big deal.

A true 3-way battle isn't that fun, it takes even longer than usual, and inevitably 1 player gets ganged up on.

Sounds like a round table divided in to thirds would solve your problem for a 1 vs 1 vs1. Although using a round table makes problems of its own. As per additional rules I don't think you'd need any.

For our 3 player games, two players would be on 1'X4" Deployment Zones, with the long edge of the DZ along the long edges of the table and the ends on the same short edge. The third player would set up in a 1'X4' along the other short edge. We rolled for order of deployment, and then at the beginning of every turn we rolled to see in what order the player turns were taken.The randomization of turn order really made the game gel.

A little while ago, my gaming group had a 5 man game go on.

Basically, it was 2v2 at 1250 for each player, and the 5th guy had a 1000 point "neutral" force...

Basically, we played an objective game, and the 5th guy used his troops on the objectives (for our game, it was pieces of the fortress of redemption, so they were stationed inside a fortified building)

This game was ridiculously fun, as my tyranids were teamed up with CSM, and we were facing an Eldar/Ork alliance, with vanilla marines as the neutral faction.The marine decided to play things a little narratatively, in that he only attacked a unit when they attacked him, and was content to let the rest of us kill each other off.

Planetstrike is also a good expansion for getting multiple people together on teams.. you could agree on a points value, have the defender set his forces up (which would be close to double the value of the attackers), and each attacker rolls for deployments, the high roll decides his deployment side, and the other player gets the opposite side. Personally, I think this could work better because YES, it is two players ganging up on one, without being allies, BUT they are still fighting to gain victory for themselves. The winner at the end would obviously be the person who held the most control points.

That Planetstrike scenario sounds rather fun, actually. I was initially going to suggest 2v1 with equal points per side as the most practical way to play, but I wasn't considering expansions/special scenarios. The randomized player turn order per game turn could help facilitate an odd numbered free-for-all, but I still imagine the player who got the short end of the deployment stick getting mowed down mercilessly.

So, either 2v1 with equal points per side (single player with two armies or one larger army, depending on practicality, by points limit) or narrative games/custom scenarios.

I have played the 3 player scenario in the main rule book several times, and have to say its a lot of fun.

Takes a while however.

We did modify it, and removed the "hq starting in the middle" option, as unless you list tailor, it can get really nasty for some players.

Try it, and see how you like it.