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.

Hi Guys

So bit of a daft question but is team kill only played 1v1? Is a 3 way possible?

Got a buddy I want to get into minatures and though killteam would be a good place to start.

There are rules to play 3 and 4 player games.

I played some 3 player matches with my kids who are getting into KT, but it was... underwhelming. I think 1 x 1 or 2 x 2 are better formats. You can do 1 x 1 x 1, but it just is wonky.

Core KT does accomodate 3 and 4 player although this tends to go a bit wonky like all 3 and 4 player games (someone always gets ganged up on).

Arena has rules and missions for doubles play (2v2).

if you do games with 3 or 4 players, i think its best to up the table size a bit.
And put in a lot more terain, with the idea that you cannot see both Oponants at a time with any mini.

Good missions make the game more fun as well. Ether something simple, or something quite complex can be done.
More work put into it will produce better results
Also try and work out what type of games they are interested in, and if you enjoy something similar work the game into that.
Personly i think as much narritive focus as posible is the most fun, but some other players will completly ignore that.

Works perfectly fine for 3 or 4 players if you use two boards, just as shown in the rulebook.

The biggest down-side of 3 or 4 player games is the time. A three-player game can take twice as long as a 2 player game.

If you are going to play a 3 player game, I always suggest asymmetrical objectives. The intention is each player has a win condition that is not helped my picking on the weakest player which is common in many 3 player games.

A nice simple idea of this could be player A wishes to capture player B's objectives (or kill player B's units) while player B is doing the same. Meanwhile player C earns points for killing an equal number of units (in Kill Team lets say 15 points) of both player A AND player B. Player C doesn't get the points unless they target both opponents fairly equally while player A and player B get nothing targeting player C save removing the harassment that their kill team is causing them during their own mission.

I find this removes most incentive for two of the players work together against the third. The closest would be player A and player B wanting to eliminate player C, but that could be solved with board position (player A and B located on short board edges)/limited game rounds forcing those players to simply not have enough time to deal with player C and accomplish their own objectives. If that isn't your taste, you could even allow player C to have constant replenishing units (or a more limited variation) which makes ganging up on player C an ultimately pointless endeavor, but occasionally necessary since they will still be in the way. While Player C is placed in the cross fire of the other players making it harder for them to win if they focus too much on one of the players which could make the other too strong to actually start earning points.

One other way it can go is to have each player verse a specific other player, eg:

A get points in killing B's units;
B get points in killing C's units; and
C get points in killing A's units.

(or their territory, or other).