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.

Tried to search, but could only see stuff from past editions. Does anyone know of any 3 player rules for small games?

Or more specifically, want kind of rules might prevent 2 players from "ganging up" on the 3rd player?
I could easily just add another player turn to the battle round, but if all 3 players have equal points, I could easily see issues.

One thought was to add a rule that a unit cannot target units in one opponents army if your other opponent has 1 or more units closer to your unit.
So if I am playing Eldar and I want to shoot a Necrons unit, but a Marine unit was closer, I could only target Marine units
But that might give the advantage to the player that can just sit back and wait (which my oldest son would totally do!)

Any thoughts, examples, or even proposed rules?

-

3 is a mess in any game.

2on1.

Yeah, but I have 2 sons that I want to play 40K and my oldest only ever wants to play with 3 players (mainly because he is sneaky and wants me and my youngest for fight it out first).
He rarely seems to have the interest to play regular 1v1.
2v1 is fine, but I don't own armies they can play that can "allie" We have Eldar, Marines, Chaos, and Necrons.

We've done 1000pts Eldar vs 500 & 500 of Chaos and Necrons, which works fine enough, but I just thought it might be good to try something new.

-

I've done alot of two on one games and enjoyed them. Fluffwise the Eldar are completely loose about who they shack up with so they can ally with just about anyone not slanesh.

In other game systems I've tried 1v1v1, but generally you need a really large board. Enough space that a player has to commit to moving against another player and not just rotate their turrets.

Clearly the scenario should have opposed objectives that can only be achieved by one player.

For example - extraction. You have to get a commander/NPC/cargo off the table. Say you have to travel long ways from narrow edge to narrow edge. The other two get a table edge each and can only put a 1/3rd of their army in each 2 foot length. To win you extract, for one of them to win they have to destroy the thing you are trying to extract. note only one of them can destroy it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another is a race - do you all have transports or a mix of similar speed stuff? Stick oldest in the middle and you and youngest flanking and first one to cross the board wins... Of course anyone who stops to fight or slows down to shoot might take out the opposition but the third player might steal a march...

background is a race to abandoned extraction spacecraft as the countdown to exterminatus ticks on...

I think I start a proposed rules thread for more ideas.

Only way i can see a 3 way game work (which again seems unlikely to not result in ganging up on one person) is with the 3rd player having a different objective to the first two players. So say side 1 and 2 are fighting over any number of objectives. Side 3 (lets use something Orky) is there to destroy/loot vehicles and doesn't care about the other players objectives. It makes it so the 3rd player doesn't have any incentive to gang up on one of the player because their objectives are all but irrelevant to them other than maybe denying it to both of the other sides.

Buy Triumph and Treachery or find it though other means, google pdf or something.

Then use these rules and have fun.

http://www.realmsofinisfail.com/downloads/Triumph%20and%20Treachery%20in%2040K.pdf

This is in MY oppinion the only way for a 1v1v1.

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, but I have 2 sons that I want to play 40K and my oldest only ever wants to play with 3 players (mainly because he is sneaky and wants me and my youngest for fight it out first).
He rarely seems to have the interest to play regular 1v1.
2v1 is fine, but I don't own armies they can play that can "allie" We have Eldar, Marines, Chaos, and Necrons.-

Marines and Eldar vs either of the other two. Even Marines and Necrons vs Chaos.

 Galef wrote:
I think I start a proposed rules thread for more ideas.

Hence the scenario specific victory condition and set up rules above

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think I start a proposed rules thread for more ideas.

Hence the scenario specific victory condition and set up rules above

Agreed, thanx.

There was one very nice 3-player scenario in 3rd and also the only one that I know of: Trügerische Verbündete translated as something as Untrustworthy/Shady allies.

Setup:
Three HQ units (can be single model or model attached to command squad) are placed in the middle of the board to have a constructive discussion. This middle is depicted as a circle which has a diameter of 12´´. You may park your attached HQ ride (Rhino, Trukk, etc.) outside this circle. Minimum distance to the HQ unit would be 2´´. Meanwhile the rest of the forces sit bored in their respective deployment zones and dream about their favoured women/torture victims/brood mothers at home/dungeon/hive ship. Suddenly one of the arguments begin with the fabled words:
"Your mother..." and all hell breaks loose.

Start of game:
Determine which player goes first. Play then proceeds ALWAYS in a clockwise manner even in later turns. This is a deviation from the written scenario rules but ensures that there are no stupid double turns which tend to wreck the game. Just take a look at AoS and see for yourself how this turned out.

Aim of the game:
Your HQ must survive the game. If all HQs survive, the winner is the person who scored the most VP during the game.

Special rules:
The most prominent one was that all your units in your deployment zone must make a wake up roll because they don´t expect a fight to break out. It went like this:
Choose three (yes, only three) of your units at he start of your turn and make a Ld test for them. If you pass, you wake up and can act as normal. Otherwise the unit may not be activated. If a unit is shot at or a template scatters on a unit, they wake up automatically. Vehicles that don´t have a Ld value roll on the following chart to wake up:

Roll 2D6 (and add them together). You need the following score to successfully wake up:
Core & Support: 6 or less
Fast: 7 or less
Elite: 8 or less

Note: Units with attached transport vehicles only roll once.

Useful tactics:
Never shoot at Leman Russes. If you are lucky, they may never wake up during the game (Score 6 or less).

If this scenario is right up your alley, give me a holler. I can post then all the other little details or you can make adjustments of your own.



These are not all the details of this scenario but the most important. If you are interested, give me a holler and I post the rest.

We divide the table into 6 equal quadrants (slices from the center), an objective marker is in each quadrant 12" from the center. There is an objective marker in the center and you cannot deploy within 9" of it. You cannot deploy within 5" of your borders of any zone.

Deployment:
Each player rolls a dice, the highest roll picks a zone, and the zone directly opposite of it on the table. (Zone 1 and 4, 2 and 5, or 3 and 6)
You must alternate your deployments between each zone. Putting units into deep strike do not count as putting one into this zone.
Example I put a unit into my first deploy zone, I put one into deep strike, my next deploy must be in my second quadrant still.

Turn order:
At the start of the game, each player rolls a dice. The player that finished deploying first, adds 2 to their roll. The player that setup second adds 1 to their roll. Only the last player can attempt seize the initiative. Each turn, all three players roll a dice to determine who takes the first turn. After this turn, the remaining two players roll a dice to determine who takes the second turn.

Terrain:
There should be one LoS blocking terrain piece in each quadrant of the board. The center of the board should be clear of terrain.

Victory:
You get 1 VP for controlling an enemy objective marker at the end of your turn (only 1vp per enemy objective marker).
You get 1 VP for destroying an enemy unit, this can be claimed once per opponent on your turn.
You get 2 VP if you control the center objective at the end of the round.
You get 3 VP if you control one from both enemy players at the end of your turn.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This works pretty well because it encourages you to take down a unit from each team, each turn, as well as pushing for objectives on opponents territories and the center.

So we tried a scenario this weekend, and I have to say, it was probably one of the best at-home games we've played.

The Scenario was VPs based off Power level. Basically, Player A only gained VP=PL for killing units of Player B, who in turn only got points off Player C, who in turn only got point off Player A.
So basically Rock, Paper, Scissors.

We only play about 600pts per player and didn't bother with objectives.
I played Chaos Marine, whose target was Marines
My oldest played the Marines, whose target was the Necrons
My youngest played the Necrons whose target was the CSM

It created an interesting dynamic in which killing a unit that DIDN'T grant you points would deny those points to the other player as well as protect you.
For example, as the CSM, I really wanted the 3 Necron Destroyers dead, even though the unit (9PL) would not gain me any points.
But by killing them, I deny the Necron player from his most powerful unit vs my list AND deny the Marine player from a nice 9PL target. It didn't work out that way, but it was fun for all of us to be thinking which enemy to target.

The biggest issue we had was how to resolve combats in each Assault phase. If it was Player As turn, once they resolved their charging units and 1 non-charging unit, we decided to roll off to see which opponent went next.
It also created a weird situation in which a Player would not have a chance to fall back before anther round of attacks.

For example, Player A has a unit that charges Player C. Both unit live through that combat. In Player B's turn, both those units get to attack again but Player C has no had the opportunity to fall back yet.
We had to roll off to see it that was how we should play it as there was a situation in which being attacked twice made a big difference.

How do you guys think we should handle 3 Player combat phases? As we did above, or should only the combats involving the current Player's units get to roll?

-

 Galef wrote:
So we tried a scenario this weekend, and I have to say, it was probably one of the best at-home games we've played.

The Scenario was VPs based off Power level. Basically, Player A only gained VP=PL for killing units of Player B, who in turn only got points off Player C, who in turn only got point off Player A.
So basically Rock, Paper, Scissors.

We only play about 600pts per player and didn't bother with objectives.
I played Chaos Marine, whose target was Marines
My oldest played the Marines, whose target was the Necrons
My youngest played the Necrons whose target was the CSM

It created an interesting dynamic in which killing a unit that DIDN'T grant you points would deny those points to the other player as well as protect you.
For example, as the CSM, I really wanted the 3 Necron Destroyers dead, even though the unit (9PL) would not gain me any points.
But by killing them, I deny the Necron player from his most powerful unit vs my list AND deny the Marine player from a nice 9PL target. It didn't work out that way, but it was fun for all of us to be thinking which enemy to target.

The biggest issue we had was how to resolve combats in each Assault phase. If it was Player As turn, once they resolved their charging units and 1 non-charging unit, we decided to roll off to see which opponent went next.
It also created a weird situation in which a Player would not have a chance to fall back before anther round of attacks.

For example, Player A has a unit that charges Player C. Both unit live through that combat. In Player B's turn, both those units get to attack again but Player C has no had the opportunity to fall back yet.
We had to roll off to see it that was how we should play it as there was a situation in which being attacked twice made a big difference.

How do you guys think we should handle 3 Player combat phases? As we did above, or should only the combats involving the current Player's units get to roll?
Ich
-

Wow, that sounds simple and fun. I will copy that on the next Clubmeeting

The old carnage mission rules, allow people to bribe with CP. Everything is really nutty playing that way.

Also another way to play is to do unit activation in each phase, some others have tried it, not much is different tbh.

One idea is that you have centrally two players at odds trying to complete objectives. They get points for holding objectives, and points for killing each other, but not for killing player 3. Player 3 cannot contest the objectives and cannot earn points by killing either player.

Player 3 earns points by disrupting players 1 and 2 equally. For instance, he gets a point for killing a unit of both player 1 and player 2. So if either one of those two people were to be tabled, he would score very low, since he can only score by dealing equal damage to both players. The other players might need to damage player 3 to be successful, but wouldn't want to focus on hurting them too much.

The best way to play these games is with an on-going scoreboard. This way, if someone is losing, it becomes a goal to score as much as you can, rather than acknowledging defeat and then just making the choice that "this person wins and this person loses" by going all-out on one or the other.