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.

so we were playing a 3 player game today and was wondering how do you handle the question of who goes first and how do you handle stealing the initiative.

We ended up letting the player who deployed last roll, but kept the player sequence.

is there a official way to handle this or is it pretty much what everyone agrees on?

If you have the big rule book (not the one that comes with Black Reach), take a look at page 272-273.

Happyjew wrote:If you have the big rule book (not the one that comes with Black Reach), take a look at page 272-273.

thanks I'll look that up the next time i'm at a flgs. I just have the black reach book at home.

That mission is actually pretty awful in terms of game balance and would be especially bad for your group if you let it set precedent as the way to go about playing 3-player games. 40k is a turn-based game, and if a player gets to make 2 turns in a row, the game breaks.

Honestly, whatever you come up with in your local group would probably be better than p.273.

I will say that there is one very small saving grace to that mission, and that is the awesome rules for shooting into an assault that doesn't include your own models. So look it up for that.


(Just not anything else)

I can attest to the pain of dealing with someone getting to go twice in a row... I got tabled over the course of two turns :/

F three-side games. Right in the _____. Just play two players as one side/army, and the third guy as the opposite side.

Or work something out. But the rules work better with two sides.

There's really no way to make it all that fair without going 2v1. It so much more simple that way.

Mannahnin wrote:F three-side games. Right in the _____. Just play two players as one side/army, and the third guy as the opposite side.

Or work something out. But the rules work better with two sides.

100% this.

Play 2v1 instead of 1v1v1

There will be Team A (With two people) and Team B (With one person)

Set a points limit, for this example I will use 1250 points.

On Team A each person makes one 1250 point army following the force org chart. Each teammate will have a minimum of 1 HQ and 2 Troops choices and a total of 1250 points to spend on their army.

On Team B the player will make two different 1250 point armies. Each army will have a minimum of 1 HQ and 2 Troops choices and a total of 1250 points to spend on each army.

Works wonders.

In the few 2v1 games I've played, the 2 player team shared the FOC, with some restrictions. For example, each army could only field a maximum of 1 HQ; each army had to field 1-3 Troops, and could not field a third Troop choice, unless his partner fielded 2-3 Troops, no payer could take a second Elite/FA/HS choice until his partner takes 1. It helps minimize shenanigans like (IG + SM) 3 Terminator squads and 6 Infantry Platoons.

I play 1 vs 1 vs 1 all the time

We roll off for first turn as normal and the highest roll goes first then the second and so on , the with stealing int the 2 players going 2nd and 3rd roll and if they get 6 they move up to first and first moves down 1 spot .


We also have objective and kp games mix with the whole game being based on points

10pts = kp 10 pts = objective 20 pts nominated HQ

We always have fun and never have any issues , i guess its all down to who you play really

Play using the BRB rules for 1v1v1 games fairly often. In regards to turn order, not the example mission. Having my Lord Commissar face off against a Demon Prince and Eldar Farseer w/ council is not a good time.
We made a center point on the board the objective. In order to score a point you had to control the point for 2 successive enemy player turns. And going twice in a row means you have a long wait until you go again, so it balances out. Plus you have no way of knowing if you will be going twice until the roll happens. So same basic concept as rolling for game end in that by planning on it happen you leave yourself in a vulnerable posistion.

Shooting into close combat is also massively screwed up in those rules. If I charge your daemon prince with 30 boyz and three LRBT open fire on them, scoring 40 hits, guess who ends up dead?

It's not the boyz, the daemon prince will suffer about 20 of those hits, despite being one model out of 31 getting shelled.

Not to mention die silliness of one army going twice in a row. 40" charge out of battlewagons after you got one turn of shooting, anyone? Oh, and my lootaz and buggies shot you twice in the meantime.

Jidmah wrote:Shooting into close combat is also massively screwed up in those rules. If I charge your daemon prince with 30 boyz and three LRBT open fire on them, scoring 40 hits, guess who ends up dead?

It's not the boyz, the daemon prince will suffer about 20 of those hits, despite being one model out of 31 getting shelled.

Not to mention die silliness of one army going twice in a row. 40" charge out of battlewagons after you got one turn of shooting, anyone? Oh, and my lootaz and buggies shot you twice in the meantime.

Kitzz wrote:That mission is actually pretty awful in terms of game balance and would be especially bad for your group if you let it set precedent as the way to go about playing 3-player games.

I admit to not having played many games with those rules, but the games I have played have been really cool, IMO, the rules worked surprisingly well.

So we normally forget the rules in the back of the book. When we run 1v1v1 we normally do table quarters (as though a 3-4) was rolled normally and with a random roll for mission. If a unit falls off the table by falling back the person who broke them last gets the KP in those games. Sometimes it does end up as a prison shower scene on the guy in the middle but sometimes we've been caught off guard. (Pinned BA are not happy) We roll normally to see who goes first. The other two can the attempt to steal. Success knocks player one down a spot. If both steal (happened once) then player one goes last and the other two roll off to see who goes first. We then keep that order. Same in a 1v1v1v1.

Now the edge to the 2v1 is that the 1 can normally plan better since he knows what he wants to do and doesn't have someone else messing with it. The FoC for everyone is the standard with the 1 having one chart unless over 2.5K then he is allowed multiple detachments if he wants. It helps balance the SM, IG combos but seeing as how I'm the IG player in my group I refuse to exploit that anyway.

Akroma06 wrote:Now the edge to the 2v1 is that the 1 can normally plan better since he knows what he wants to do and doesn't have someone else messing with it. The FoC for everyone is the standard with the 1 having one chart unless over 2.5K then he is allowed multiple detachments if he wants. It helps balance the SM, IG combos but seeing as how I'm the IG player in my group I refuse to exploit that anyway.

I really have found neither to have an edge over the other side. Any two armies have at least some sort of synergy, plus they get twice the FOC slots. For HQ, heavy support or elites, this is a big thing, even at low points. On the other hand, they are limited by the 1 HQ 2 troops rule, so the points to spam something are limited.

The system only start breaking apart when the single player hits the points cap of their army or collection, because he isn't getting much stronger for his points while his opponents are. You should be playing apoc anyways when going near 4k in one army

Mannahnin wrote:F three-side games. Right in the _____. Just play two players as one side/army, and the third guy as the opposite side.

Or work something out. But the rules work better with two sides.

This. I outright refuse to play 1v1v1 because it's impossible without a triangular board, and problems persist throughout.
Not least of which if you go third there's going to be none of your army left by the end of turn 2.

Joey wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:F three-side games. Right in the _____. Just play two players as one side/army, and the third guy as the opposite side.

Or work something out. But the rules work better with two sides.

This. I outright refuse to play 1v1v1 because it's impossible without a triangular board, and problems persist throughout.
Not least of which if you go third there's going to be none of your army left by the end of turn 2.

Yep, I always go with 2xpoints for one guy and then Points for Guy 2 + 3. Three way games are dumb.