Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 09:54:42
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Defending Guardian Defender
|
Hello guys,
We are three players in our area that seems to be a wargaming desert so we always have to deal with this to play at the same time.
We have already done 2v1 several times and played 1v1v1 as well with Maelstrom missions. This last option is our favorite but the deployment zones are never easy to setup and it sometimes ends up having two sides attacking the one that is currently winning, often resulting in its destruction.
We've already played with one of the player starting in a central building and the two others on each side of the table, we sometimes deploy in triangle but we've got a narrow table (~48") so it's not ideal.
I'm looking for some ideas and advices to keep on playing the three of us at the same time (till we find a 4th player) considering we regularly spend a full Sunday per month on 40k. We are playing Orks, Necrons and Eldars. What would you do if you were three only in your gaming group? Have you experienced it already? Would you have scenarios ideas that'd fit it well?
Thanks for your ideas!
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 10:00:04
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
Why do you have to play 3-player games? Bring smaller lists (if you're struggling for time) and everyone plays everyone once.
|
Star Trek taught me so much. Like, how you should accept people, whether they be black, white, Klingon or even female...
FAQs |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 10:24:43
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
You could always play as two players as a 'team'. just make decisions together, speed up measurements, dice rolls etc.
I've done with recently with returning players.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 10:36:35
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Defending Guardian Defender
|
We don't 'have to' play 1v1v1 but it's better than having one player watching while the others are playing.
Well, with small army points like 700 and limited turn limits we could effectively play mini-tournaments all along the day, we will try it.
We have played 2 versus 1 several times but it's a bit unbalanced as the one playing alone can usually come with a better list than the two others together.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 10:39:14
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
Maybe form a 3 on "AI" battle. Can't type loads as on phone but with a few tries shouldn't be too hard to formulate.
Dice rolls issue instruction for each unit, and if the enemy is Orks then could get quite silly fast- provided the commands written are well thought about, built on and allow chain commands using extra rolls due to events.
If that doesn't float your boat then i doubt there's anything outside of custom missions that'll be non boring for you.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 10:39:19
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
What about a three-sided campaign?
Each session, one acts as umpire, works out the off-table -- that is, map based -- movement, and designs a scenario and table setup. The other two play the scenario. Next week, the umpire role moves to someone else.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 10:45:29
Subject: Re:3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Sneaky Kommando
|
Was thinking about this as a two way game/mission thingie.. call it “the bribe” but don't see why it couldn't work for three player battles
Each player takes their and each other’s lists.
Lets say a 750 point game example
So you have 750 pts to bribe the other players units to “turn to the dark side” become yours!
And you have 750 points to counter bribe your own uints to stay with you…
Example list 1 hq, 1 elite , 2 troops, 1 heavy.. so you bid say 300 on the elite, 50 on hq, 100 on each troop, and 250 on the Heavy.
You then do the same to your list call it a … counter bribe to keep them from changing sides.
Keep All these figures secret until ? second turn? etc(make your own rules) then each player turn pick a unit and all players reveal their bids… whoever has the most bid or counter bid wins control of that unit from then on…
. Now you have to use all the points and you don’t have to spread them out to every unit .. you could look at an opponent s list and think… hmmm I want to win that Elite so you bid 750pts on it and nothing on any other units … of course when you are doing this for you own army’s counter bids you’ll have to think very carefully about what other’s might want to steal…
could keep you busy for a few more games ...
|
14,000pts ish
/ 2500pts ish
4500pts ish
/marine 8500pts ish
ON A 2+ I GET TO HIT YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH THE RULEBOOK
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 11:01:31
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
Francil wrote:We don't 'have to' play 1v1v1 but it's better than having one player watching while the others are playing.
Is it? I'm making assumptions to your group, but I used to go to my FLGS and just pop in to chat to people while they were playing. Watch, laugh, maybe come back later with my models. Watching can be fun, unless it's like a 4000 point game that takes forever to play.
|
Star Trek taught me so much. Like, how you should accept people, whether they be black, white, Klingon or even female...
FAQs |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 11:39:48
Subject: Re:3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Fighter Ace
|
Cut your lists in half, play three simultaneous games.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 12:09:06
Subject: Re:3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
slip wrote:Cut your lists in half, play three simultaneous games.
Best idea so far.
Was thinking about this as a two way game/mission thingie.. call it “the bribe” but don't see why it couldn't work for three player battles
Each player takes their and each other’s lists.
Lets say a 750 point game example
So you have 750 pts to bribe the other players units to “turn to the dark side” become yours!
And you have 750 points to counter bribe your own uints to stay with you…
Example list 1 hq, 1 elite , 2 troops, 1 heavy.. so you bid say 300 on the elite, 50 on hq, 100 on each troop, and 250 on the Heavy.
You then do the same to your list call it a … counter bribe to keep them from changing sides.
Keep All these figures secret until ? second turn? etc(make your own rules) then each player turn pick a unit and all players reveal their bids… whoever has the most bid or counter bid wins control of that unit from then on…
. Now you have to use all the points and you don’t have to spread them out to every unit .. you could look at an opponent s list and think… hmmm I want to win that Elite so you bid 750pts on it and nothing on any other units … of course when you are doing this for you own army’s counter bids you’ll have to think very carefully about what other’s might want to steal…
could keep you busy for a few more games ...
This was quite the original yet messy game idea. I like it.
By 40ks nature it's difficult to get games rolling with an odd number. 3 or 5 players just gets undynamic. I have a few ideas that might be fun.
scenario 1: you play 1v1v1. each player deploy half their army, with the exception of veicles, (number of units rounded up) on the table in accordance to the infiltration rules, after objectives have been setup. Hence the first unit deploys anywhere on the table and denies anyone to set up within 18" and so on. The first unit may not, however, deploy within 12" of the centre of the board. Once you've deployed the rest of the armies are brought up from reserves in accordance to the outflanking rules with 1-4 being a diffrent table edge and 5-6 being of your own chosing. Units with deepstrike may of course deep strike. What this adds is an ureliability to the game making it harder to focus down any one opponent that starts winning. It gets much more random but it might be worh a shot, if only for a one off game. Thematically think of it as a warzone in the middle of a free for all where command has broken down and everyone's fighting for dear life.
Scenario 2: Have allies being unreliable. Everyone deploys normally in fair deployment zones but they are part of three teams, 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6. Before each "round of turns" is played each player roll a dice and see which team they belong to. If everyone is on the same team diplmacy breaks down and it becomes a 1v1v1 instead, re-rolling next round. Units who become allies that are locked in close combat stay locked in combat untill the combat is resolved or untill a "heroic intervention" (or just a "challenge" from a diffrent unit if there's no ongoing challenge) is declared in which case the combat immedietly ends and all units from the combat move 3" to consolidate. If units from all 3 players are locked in combat when the alliance shift they continue the combat untill a new unit enters the combat from either of the allies, in which case the locked units are treated as having made a "disorganised charge" against one another and combat continues. Making the alliances shift back and forth and statistically it should be 2v1 most of the time.
Scenario 3: A friend once made a game mode where we had 1v1 but a third player was the "guerilla". Quite simply 2 players where playing the game normally while the third one deployed his army in accordance to the 3ed Catchan codex "ambush" rules. I don't recall the exact rules but I have the book at home. It's something like not deploying anything but making tokens and putting all your units into jungle pieces of terrain where they can "reveal" themselves as they please. You could have a diffrent set of victory conditions for the this player and of course, swap out "jungle terrain" for just "terrain". As I recall the game wasn't balanced but it was a blast to play with many unforseen funny situations. If this appeals to you then see if you can find the old codex online somewhere and just read deployment special rules.
It needs saying that the optimal balanced solution is probably what you've already tried: 2v1 with 2x750p vs 1x1500p or similar.
Realised I had to go on a bit to describe close combat mechanics in the second one. Hope all these help or at least give you ideas to work with.
|
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/04/22 12:13:54
His pattern of returning alive after being declared dead occurred often enough during Cain's career that the Munitorum made a special ruling that Ciaphas Cain is to never be considered dead, despite evidence to the contrary. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 12:29:50
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Librarian with Freaky Familiar
|
One option you could do, if you have enough cash to assemble a board for it.
Get a zone mortalis board, and get a punch of tyranids, then play a modified version of space hulk.
you basically play against a deck, make some cards that determine where, and how much spawn, follow the same rules as zone mortalis except have spawning enemies.
|
To many unpainted models to count. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 13:47:32
Subject: Re:3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant
|
I'd recommend making up some special mission rules.
For example:
- 1 player starts in fortifications (and I mean some serious fortifications, not just some aegis defense line, give him an Aquila macro cannon or something cool to make it a fun challenge) in the middle of the board and his job is to hold onto his objectives as long as possible and/or kill as many attackers as possible.
- The other 2 players start on opposite ends of the board, vying for the middle objectives while trying to keep the few objectives in their own field safe from the other players.
This kind of scenario will make it ok for both players to gang up on the one in the middle, while still leaving the interesting dynamic of forcing the attackers to watch their backs in case the other attacker decides to deep strike or outflank to take the points on their side.
The exact details of the objectives and/or kill points for each player may require some play testing and tweaking, but your group sounds like a group that's there to have fun and won't care too much if everyone expects some initial imbalance. You could start with some of the scenarios that are already out there to use as a base.
|
- 10,000 pts |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 14:32:09
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought
|
Probably not the solution you are looking for, but when we have an uneven number... one guy paints.
It is helpful to have a little painting-station in your game room.
3v1 games can be cool but they can also easily turn into a dog-pile that means one person is having a bad day.
Can you introduce anyone new to the game?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 17:34:56
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'
Kapuskasing, ON
|
Change the shape of the board. 6 sided for example with each player spaced out every second side. Then customize the deployment zones to ensure proper distance ie: triangles.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 17:52:33
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta
|
convert another player and boom 2v2 or 2 1v1
|
10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 18:23:25
Subject: Re:3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Preacher of the Emperor
Hanford, CA, AKA The Eye of Terror
|
play on a round table for your 1v1v1?
What is more fun is to do 2v1 but the 1 player side gets some sort of advantage, say a free bombardment or maybe some free fortifications to start with, to make up for the fact that you will have more flexibility on the 2 player team. Then everyone takes turn being the 1 player.
|
17,000 points (Valhallan)
10,000 points
6,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 7 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 8 Armigers
Stormcast Eternals: 7,000 points
"Remember, Orks are weak and cowardly, they are easily beat in close combat and their tusks, while menacing, can easily be pulled out with a sharp tug"
-Imperial Guard Uplifting Primer |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 18:29:01
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine
|
Play 6 smaller games, 2 at once. One player has to play 2 games simultaneously, splitting his models into two armies.
Once the games get going, the "busy" player will be able to alternate fairly effectively, only dealing with the "off" board for saves.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 18:34:28
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Rampaging Carnifex
|
Play king of the hill. At the end of each game turn, a player gets a point for each 100 pts of units on 'the hill'. The Hill could be a piece of terrain or just a 12" radius around the center.
At the end of the game, player with the most accumulated points wins.
To take this further, objective secured units are worth an extra 50 pts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hungry Hungry Space Marines:
Each player starts the game by placing a relic within 12" of the center of the board. Then they place an objective marker in their own deployment zone. The goal is to grab a relic and return it to your objective marker. When a player captures a relic (by bringing it to your objective marker), remove the relic and deep strike a new relic in the center (roll scatter 2d6"). First to 3 captures wins.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/04/22 18:46:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/22 19:26:14
Subject: Re:3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Nurgle Veteran Marine with the Flu
|
We have a tested format that works fairly well for 3 players on a standard 6x4 table using the basic 1st Maelstrom mission. Around 1000-1250pts seems to work best.
The deployment zones are two triangles on each end of one long edge and a third triangle pointing inwards from the middle of the opposing long edge. There is usually a fairly substantial ruin in each zone. We roll off to have first pick of zone etc.
Players then roll off to determine order of deployment and play. There is no seize the Initiative with 3 players. Each player then deploys a minimum 2 units from their army in their zone. At the start of their turn the player gets a second deployment for their remaining units and to nominate whatever as being in reserve etc and the game goes from there. The idea behind this is that if everyone deploys fully before 1st turn, the player going last can often lose a lot of models before they even get to go, having to weather 2 turns of enemy fire before their turn.
It's not perfect but it's the best solution we've found to even things out for 3 players.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 19:27:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/23 06:50:53
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Defending Guardian Defender
|
Thank you all for the ideas. Ideally we'd like to have a fourth player indeed but till then we'll apply your suggestions. To deal with playing the last is something tricky so the reserve should balance that.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/23 08:49:49
Subject: Re:3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 02:26:21
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Blood-Raging Khorne Berserker
|
You could take a hint from Rogue Trader, and have player number three play GM. Have him decide on random events during the game, make the "important" rolls, get very involved in your narrative forging.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 03:07:47
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Angelic Adepta Sororitas
earth
|
4th edition killteam is pretty neat if you want to play some quick games.
Could even spice things up and make it 2 rival killteams vs grunts defending X objective. Makes 1v1v1 not to clustered and fun.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/24 03:08:02
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 03:35:31
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Used to do this all the time with 2 friends, I would recommend staying completely away from killpoints,
I have never tried tactical objectives in 1v1v1 but I think it would be fun
King of the Hill is my best suggestion. One main objective in the centre of the board. Makes everyone 'play fair' and try to all go for one goal instead of teaming up and beating down on one person.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 04:33:25
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I dont mean to sound heartless but I am constantly in a game where its 2 people versus me.
Not 2000vs2000. but more like 2 players with 1000 vs my 1000.
Even when its 1v1, my opponent gets twice as many points. Like I have 500 and they get 1000.
Its so one sided and unfair or unfun for me, but consent and that is the only way I can get a game in.
These people think that my Unending Host is all powerful and broken when in reality it really isnt. They hear respawning on a 2+ and think its broken. Well the unit that is respawning is a weak squad of 15 men, 12 lasguns and 3 meltaguns, with no armor, GEq stats and some times 6-10 ld. They miss half the time and they run a way scared.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 07:45:24
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Trustworthy Shas'vre
|
the guerilla campaign sounds fun. I am also in a 3 player area right now as well. I may give it a try as well as something that we used to do was a bastardization of the Kill team rules. a Normal 1v1 with a random third player taking a 200 pt detachment with a randomly determined objective. Sometimes it was terrain removal (destruction via demo charges or the like). Sometimes it was assassination of an HQ, sometimes it was a straightforward alliance with a random side, etc. There were rules that said that the small detachment couldn't be targeted by the larger armies until the smaller made a hostile move. . .
The beautiful thing was that they weren't limited to a single team. We occasionally had multiple kill teams going at the same time in a game, sometimes to assassinate the same target, sometimes to kill the other team, point being that it was all rolled randomly, so you were never quite certain what the other teams were doing on the field, like an insurgency.
With several teams on the field, it was pure chaos.
|
'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/27 13:44:55
Subject: 3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration
|
Get a box of planetary empires ( https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-40-000-Expansion-Planetary-Empires ) and a 2' x 2' sheet of thin plywood. You might also pick up 2 packs of the Hive City tiles ( https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Planetary-Empires-Hive-City-Tile ). that way each person could have a Capital.
Then, separate out the tiles such that you have 7 different groups of them ranging from 2 to 4 tiles each. Each group would represent a planet.
Paint them (easy enough to dry brush) and use a hot glue gun to glue each "planet" to the plywood.
Next, is to set up a campaign. There are quite a few ways to run one, but essentially you'll have an attacker and a defender on each tile. Maybe the defender gets a bonus based on what features are on the tile. The Crusade of Fire campaign book (if you can find it) has some pretty good rules for doing this type of thing.
By going the campaign route you could certainly have 3 way games, where 2 forces are invading another one and either work together or fight each other. Or you could just do 1v1's while keeping track of how everyone is doing. Each campaign round might be 3 games - each person gets to declare an attack and you score points at the end of each round based on what tiles you own. Do about 3 to 4 rounds and celebrate the winner.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/27 13:47:04
------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/27 14:05:59
Subject: Re:3 players in a gaming group - how would you play?
|
 |
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine
|
Tonberry7 wrote:We have a tested format that works fairly well for 3 players on a standard 6x4 table using the basic 1st Maelstrom mission. Around 1000-1250pts seems to work best.
The deployment zones are two triangles on each end of one long edge and a third triangle pointing inwards from the middle of the opposing long edge. There is usually a fairly substantial ruin in each zone. We roll off to have first pick of zone etc.
Players then roll off to determine order of deployment and play. There is no seize the Initiative with 3 players. Each player then deploys a minimum 2 units from their army in their zone. At the start of their turn the player gets a second deployment for their remaining units and to nominate whatever as being in reserve etc and the game goes from there. The idea behind this is that if everyone deploys fully before 1st turn, the player going last can often lose a lot of models before they even get to go, having to weather 2 turns of enemy fire before their turn.
It's not perfect but it's the best solution we've found to even things out for 3 players.
We tend to use two rectangular corner deployments and then one rectangular deployment on the opposite side in the middle. The specifics escape me at the moment, but this ends up with every deployment zone being 24" away from each other.
The other new element we introduced is a new initiative process that removes the advantage of the person going last when it comes to objectives. Each round, we all roll to determine the order we go in, highest first. This bit of randomness can often throw your plans in disarray, but we've found it to be very entertaining and forces you to plan for multiple scenarios. The last time we played, I had the last turn, and after taking a pounding from the other two armies, I drop-podded some grav devastator marines in (not cents) to take out my opponent's Wraithknight. He had a squad of Dark Reapers practically salivating at the chance to wipe out those marines who were now out in the open. I won the first turn on the 2nd round, and instead took out the Reapers! The marines still died to a hail of shuriken fire, but it was still very satisfying to be able to take out two units with one suicide squad!
|
|
 |
 |
|