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.

Anyone got any good ideas for 3 players? Any missions or deployments?

Yesterday we tried out a 4-way match with the Carnage scenario on page 271 in the rulebook. With 500 points per player it worked pretty well but I think adding tactical objectives in some way would spruce it up nicely.

Three players won't generally work two will gang up on the army they consider strongest taking it out asap then play each other.

3 player games always suck

It usually ends up 2vs1

I suggest just making it a 2vs1 from the start

like 750 + 750 vs 1500

We've done 3-5 player games, using this mission.

We nominate a 4"x4" area, in about the middle of the board. You score 1 point for each of your models in this at the end of each of your turns (after the first, to stop infiltrators). You also score 1 point for each model you have left at the end of the game. Points are the only way to win-we've had the last player alive lose, because they just didn't wrack enough points up. We usually do this on a 4'x4' ZM style board, without the ZM rules.

It works well-although it does favour certain playstyles over others.

SHOULD NOTE: We do this in Killteam games-regular games are too slow with the extra players.

My friends and I played a 4-person game with a mission called "The Prize", that we stole from one of the Warhammer TV videos - we made up most of the rules. In brief, you deploy in a corner each. There is an objective in the centre. Infantry can carry the prize if they end one move next to it to pick it up, and there is only one objective - whoever holds it at the end is the winner. We played 500 points each on a 4x4 board.

It was great - I highly recommend something similar. The only game changes you have to make are minor.

1. in the fight phase, combats only happen when the player whose turn it is, is involved in that combat. So, if it's player 3's turn, and player 1 is fighting player 2, that combat does not progress this turn.

2. You can shoot into combat, but you target the unit with the closest model to the shooter

3. We didn't have psykers, but you'd have to consider if a psyker can deny once per enemy turn or once per owner turn (probably the latter, or psychic powers are always contested)

The same would have likely worked for 3 players - you just need to make the map an equilateral triangle. There is no rule that says the map must have four sides.

Other notes: tactical objectives don't scale well - keep the mission super simple (maybe the cards make it easier).

I've been trying to come up with ways to work this, myself. Trying to apply some Advance Wars mapmaking principles to it. A square - or better still, round - board is a good start, try to get a bit of rotational symmetry going.

DZs should be spaced apart appropriately, but also have a useable backfield. 5' square might be the minimum for a decent sized game?

For victory conditions, I'm thinking of seven objectives - one in each DZ, one in the spaces between each DZ, and one in the middle. Objective-to-objective LOS is a thinker; should they be killing fields, vantage points, or foxholes? Should the least proximate objectives be within 36", 48" of one another? Should the most proximate objectives be within 18", 24" of one another? Should DZ objectives be worth nothing to Home and double to Away? This is something that's going to require discussion and agreement, or an informed & impartial outsider.

The third player might need some sort of counter to the fact that their Knight or Land Raider is going to have to sit through two shooting phases before it gets to do anything; perhaps everything gets -1 to be hit or Cover for the first turn? Maybe they get a bonus CP?

Institute a simple alternative form of activation (chips in a cup per each unit, etc.). This prevents heavily the ass-whuppin' which always occurs trying to cram 40K into a three person game.

No one...and I mean NO ONE wants to sit through two opponents turns' worth of shooting/removing models.

There are rules in the book for this, don't they work.

Does anyone remember the old 3rd or 4th edition 3 way game? Wasnt it called peace talks or something, and all of the hqs start in the middle at a table and peace talks break down and you have to race back to your army? And only when you reached a unit could you use them? Anyone know where they are?

Ozeo wrote:
Does anyone remember the old 3rd or 4th edition 3 way game? Wasnt it called peace talks or something, and all of the hqs start in the middle at a table and peace talks break down and you have to race back to your army? And only when you reached a unit could you use them? Anyone know where they are?

that sounds like fun.

Ozeo wrote:
Does anyone remember the old 3rd or 4th edition 3 way game? Wasnt it called peace talks or something, and all of the hqs start in the middle at a table and peace talks break down and you have to race back to your army? And only when you reached a unit could you use them? Anyone know where they are?

Peace talks with a Bloodthirster.

I've been playing some Maelstrom games with three players. It works pretty well! The various sources of victory points keep initiating and then disrupting co-operation. Perhaps player one needs -1 to hit, or player three needs -1 to be hit, so as to avoid early annihilation, but a big table and LOS-blocking terrain helps with that.

We're thinking about doing a Stronghold Attack, with two rival attackers having to cooperate to break the defender but with spoils that only one of them can claim. Any suggestions for points proportions?