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 when you guys are playing and you have an ODD number of people. Ususally the guy in the middle gets picked on. Theres no easy way around it. What are your ideas on how to resolve this and actually give that player a chance?

Every 3 man game I've ever played in has been like this. The two closet players duke it out and the third player swoops in at the end like a scavenger for the win.

Of course this would require some "out of the box" rules. Perhaps let the middle man set up all of the terrain. Or give them an extra rule? more points for his army?

I dunno, just some suggestions and ideas.

A brain storming session

I've seen 2v1 with the one having 'an army' for either player. Basically 2000 vs two 1000 pt armies. I've also seen secret different objectives for each player to use. So for example one player would want units on the 2nd/3rd story of ruins/ be in more terrain while another wants objectives and the third wants kill points. To deny one player may allow another to win at their objective.

g0atsticks wrote:
So when you guys are playing and you have an ODD number of people. Ususally the guy in the middle gets picked on. Theres no easy way around it. What are your ideas on how to resolve this and actually give that player a chance?

Every 3 man game I've ever played in has been like this. The two closet players duke it out and the third player swoops in at the end like a scavenger for the win.

Of course this would require some "out of the box" rules. Perhaps let the middle man set up all of the terrain. Or give them an extra rule? more points for his army?

I dunno, just some suggestions and ideas.

A brain storming session

We set up a table with 3 headquarter's locations that are equidistant apart from each other so there is no "guy in the middle". Then each player picks a piece of terrain for their headquarters and we roll off for order of who gets to pick which location to be their's. This is done after the table is otherwise filled in with terrain so each spot might have an advantage over another: Higher ground, tall terrain piece for sniping, solid flank coverage, etc.

This doesn't stop two players from ganging up on the third, but doesn't put any one player specifically in the middle that has no choice but to be facing 2 opponents while the other two don't have to. Since I have the biggest mini collection of the group usually if we end up with odd players I will just double up my force and we'll play a 2 on 1 battle across the table.

Skriker

I would try to utilize objectives to force the third man to not sit and wait. Like maybe objectives are worth more points the longer you've held them. Or perhaps if you're not within x amount of distance from an objective you lose points or perhaps models start taking wounds. Force the players to the middle of the board hunger games style.

Make it so kill points are only given to player A if he kills player B's units, player B only gets points for killing player C's units, player C only gets points for killing player A's units.

Unfortunately Hospy that has one flaw that I can see, when one opponent is eliminated that players 'prey' is automatically the winner as they can score kill points off their 'prey' but that prey can't score off their units. That and the fact its a relentless circle until someone gets caught by their predator, and whoever is last to catch up cleans up the table. Oh and I just thought of another... a player may gang up against their 'predator' in order to deny they're own prey KPs. Basically what I mean is A kills off C so that B can't score any points......

2 v 1 with 2x points is a decent alternative. I didn't even think of this.

games like the relic are near impossible to play with a 3 way FFA and so are most of the other "normal" modes.

on a 4x6 board there are going to be people starting in close proximity with each other.

We usually play 5 objectives. 2 for the guys close to each other and 1 for the vulture. That way he has to come get it if he wants a chance to win. With them being so close first blood has usually been taken by the close guys. so your down right off the bat.

 JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:
Unfortunately Hospy that has one flaw that I can see, when one opponent is eliminated that players 'prey' is automatically the winner as they can score kill points off their 'prey' but that prey can't score off their units. That and the fact its a relentless circle until someone gets caught by their predator, and whoever is last to catch up cleans up the table. Oh and I just thought of another... a player may gang up against their 'predator' in order to deny they're own prey KPs. Basically what I mean is A kills off C so that B can't score any points......

Er, if A kills off C, then B wins the game.

Actually, I shouldn't have used the term kill points. Given 3 players, A, B, and C, one person's goal is to kill off a different player (A wants to kill B, B wants to kill C, C wants to kill A). If one player is eliminated, the person who wanted to destroy that army wins.

Essentially, if one player is in danger of getting killed off, the third player will want to save him. There will always be a desire to fight the player currently "winning".

Edit 2: This doesn't really work for holding objective games obviously.

Hospy wrote:

 JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:
Unfortunately Hospy that has one flaw that I can see, when one opponent is eliminated that players 'prey' is automatically the winner as they can score kill points off their 'prey' but that prey can't score off their units. That and the fact its a relentless circle until someone gets caught by their predator, and whoever is last to catch up cleans up the table. Oh and I just thought of another... a player may gang up against their 'predator' in order to deny they're own prey KPs. Basically what I mean is A kills off C so that B can't score any points......

Er, if A kills off C, then B wins the game.

Actually, I shouldn't have used the term kill points. Given 3 players, A, B, and C, one person's goal is to kill off a different player (A wants to kill B, B wants to kill C, C wants to kill A). If one player is eliminated, the person who wanted to destroy that army wins.

Essentially, if one player is in danger of getting killed off, the third player will want to save him. There will always be a desire to fight the player currently "winning".

thats what we're trying to prevent. preventing vultures.

You could always make a fourth friend.

Play on a circle

I guess I don't follow how there will be a vulture in this set up.

If there are three players, with A gunning for B, B gunning for C, and C gunning for A, there's no real way for one side to just sit back and not be involved.

we have 6 guys in our group. we're all older and have kids and lives. some wives, some not. we can't all make it to the table at once. we sometimes all play or, sometimes the odd man will sit out and make "the hard call". LOS, measurement etc....

but when we all want to play, just looking for out of the box solutions.

There is no solution, other than playing 2v1 with the two players taking smaller armies and forming a team. In a FFA game it will always turn into some variation of one player getting crushed by the other two, or one player sitting back and waiting until the other two kill each other and then claiming an easy win.

And no, the 40k version of MTG's "attack left" approach doesn't work in a game where movement matters and the only defense available is killing the enemy faster. If A can only kill B then A is always going to move closer to B and away from C (who has to kill A), and if A fails to keep the chase going and slows down then A has a frustrating game where they need to shoot B to protect their own units, but every shot taken at B is wasted and earns them no points.

Here is an experimental 1v1v1 scenario I have tried once or twice. It works okay, but not great.

The players here will be referred to as
-Blood Angels
-Necrons
-Tyranids
But you do not have to play with those armies


DEPLOYMENT
The Blood angels and Necrons set up in Dawn of War Deployment. Only units that must start in reserves (and transported models) can start in reserves.

The Tyranid Player starts with all models in reserves. Normal Reserves will arrive from the Left or Right Table Edges (tyranid player's choice). Outflanking units will arrive from the Top or Bottom table Edges (rolled for as normal)

TURN ORDER
The blood angels and Necrons roll off for first turn. The winner goes first, the looser second. Tyranids will always go third.


MISSION OBJECTIVES

3 Objective markers are placed on the battlefield.
One is placed in the center of the board.
One is Placed in the deployment zone of the blood angels (exactly 12" from the right board edge, 9" from the top board edge)
One is placed in the deployment zone of the Necrons (exactly 12" from the Left board edge, 9" from the Bottom board edge)

At the end of each GAME TURN the Blood Angels or Necron Player will receive 1 point for every uncontested objective they hold.
The Tyranid Player receives 1 point for every unit that they wipe out.

Player with the most points at the end of the game wins. You can use First Blood and Slay the Warlord as normal.
Linebreaker is as normal for the Blood angels and Necrons. Tyranids only get line breaker if they are contesting 2 objectives at the end of the game.



[Basic Idea is that the middle of the board is BA vs Crons, then one side is Nids vs Crons and the other side is Nids vs BA]

Here is how you do it while making it fun and balanced.

Teams.

2 people with 1250 points each on one team.

1 person with 1250 points in one "Army", and he controls a second "Army" of 1250 points.

That way it is 2 full armies vs 2 full armies, except that one person is controlling two armies.

Each army has to have self contained rules though, so the 2 team "Armies" can not benefit from each others warlord traits, reserve rules buffs, etc.

We play like this all the time and it is the same as playing one on one. we usually have a 3rd, and our 4th is writing his masters thesis so he has been MIA, so we usually have 3 people at the table on any given Wednesday.

We used to play 3 man games all the time. No issues, two players in adjacent corners and one player in the middle on the opposite side. We have a 4x4 board so everyone was pretty much the same distance from each other.

The best way I'm thinking to eliminate your problem is to make teams and each team gets a certain amount of points.

we always do 2v1, 2k v 1k + 1k.

Custom triangualr table is the way to go. have each triangle side 84'' long, the deployment zone of each is measured by crossing a line at the 24'' mark of each drection away from his corner.

cox.dan2's way can also work, and we did it once with great sucsess, it can also be played with 72''x72'' table much the same.

As for two players ganging on the other-it just won't happen. the game mechanics will make it a better strategy for player A to focus on player B as long player B focuses on player C, as C is losing models anyway, and unlikely to spend much of his time hurting A.

What about playing on a hex shaped board so that they are all equidistant apart and have the same size starting zones?

I can see a round table as well.

Other than an ally type scenario I cant see any way to do it successfully.

However, I don't know if any of you recall but the fake/heretic 6th had a excellent solution to this problem. It was in the missions section I'm sure. I cant remember what it was exactly but it worked a treat. We deliberately played 3 players for a while because of it.

 Texanity wrote:
we always do 2v1, 2k v 1k + 1k.

It is better to do 1k + 1k Vs. 1k + 1k and have the solo person controlling two 1k point armies.

Whenever we play more than 1 on 1 we have random Player Turn order each Game Turn; everybody who hasn't gone yet rolls off every Player Turn. The player who went last in the previous Game Turn does not roll for the first Player Turn of the next Game Turn.

Try using Dust Warfare's 3 player option: play 3 rounds as a free for all, then, tally up the points lost in those 3 rounds and whoever has the most points left on the table is by himself, the other two people team up against him. The team MUST kill or run off the table every unit for the lone player, all he has to do is survive. If he has anything left, he wins. Also, there is the Mantic 3-player thought: one person gets 1500pts and the other 2 people each get 1000, and it's 1500 vs 2000. 1500pt player gets bragging rights.

In my experience, 1v1v1 does not work. You will never have a game where everyone attacks each other with equal power. It starts as 1v1v1 then instantly becomes 2v1 then very soon a 1v1.

2v1 with one team being made two players with pt sized equal to half of the total required for the game, and the other player with the full amount.

Actually, you could borrow a page from the Adepticon missions (well, sort of). You get kill points in sets rather than individually. If you kill only one opponent's units, you get 1 KP. But... if you kill units in both opponent's armies, for each "set" you get bonus kill points... say an extra 2 or 3.

That way the players who truly try and diversify their attacks get a big bonus of those who just pick on the weak guy. You can still do points for kill the warlord, first blood and linebreaker (potentially 2 linebreaker points per participant.

My kids and I have also put LOS blocking terrain in-between armies for the first 18" or so out from the board edges (and it does help if you can play on a round or square surface) in order to prevent two sides from becoming totally embroiled in each other right off the bat. It's not a great solution, but it does give everyone a degree of security... sort of like some of the old DoW maps.

Everyone pick an MVP for their army: you have to kill the MVP of the player to your left. First player to accomplish this goal wins. Other opponents can beat you to it and remove your ability to win.

Or, same deal, but the MVP is victory causing for the player on the right, regardless of who kills it-will force other opponents to avoid certain units in order to prevent their own loss.

Best way is to not take it too seriously, and at low points. That way if one person does get ganged up on (which usually happens), they don't have to wait long. The basic game I could see working is Relic (no secondaries, maybe warlord) with extended random game length (start on T4: roll a D6, add to current turn. If the total is 10+ the game ends). Forces everyone to have a center of the map presence and try and hold onto the relic for a period of time.

mrwhoop wrote:I've seen 2v1 with the one having 'an army' for either player. Basically 2000 vs two 1000 pt armies.

This. Or even something like 2000 vs 1500 + 500 points. With the new 6E Allies rules, this is - in a way, at least - even covered by the rulebook, and the single opponent is in no way disadvantaged because he can take Allies as well. A battle with lots of Orks (player 1) vs many IG (main force, player 2) and some Marines (Allies, player 3) also sounds very fluffy and cool.