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.

My closest game group is just 3 of us and for the last year or so we have been trying to figure out a way to play a fun game around 1500-2.5k (each person) in the 1v1v1 style. We have 2 8' by 6' tables and can make basically any set up with those 2 tables as well as a small car table that just 2' 2'. besides just the table set up iv tried a few different game types some like "capture the flag" and "king of the hill" style but most of the types leave 2 people really active in the game and 1 trying to run around all game.

So im asking You dakka to help me find a new way for all 3 of us to play an active and fun game!

any and all suggestions are wanted!!

I am in the same situation as you, and what we tend to do is cut the board up so there is an equidistance between all players. The big problem we have are alliances, typically the losers of the last game gang up on the winner. Makes it difficult to win consecutively.

ya we tried the giant square and chosen corners but most of the time we just spend moving across the board to get at each other. We then have the same issue of people ganging up on one of us and thats just not as fun as it could be. Im looking for something more then just "deploy in said corner of big table and kill each other"

You need to have each player have their own unique objective. For instance if you were doing just strait up annihilation

Player A has to kill Player B
Player B has to kill Player C
Player C has to kill Player A

Or you can do the same thing with objectives. Player A has to go for the objective in Player B's zone, so on and so forth

You may find doing a round table may be helpful as well. Square tables are not easy to pick a fair deployment for 3 people, but a circular table can just be cut into thirds with a no mans land in between the thirds.

I know it's not really what you're wanting, but have you thought of 2 players (with, say, 1k) versus one player (with, say, 2k)?

I really dislike 3-way games. One person tends to feel ganged up on, and has a bad time.

My usual advice is to do multiple smaller 1v1 games.

 Quanar wrote:
I know it's not really what you're wanting, but have you thought of 2 players (with, say, 1k) versus one player (with, say, 2k)?

This is what I was going to suggest. If one of you have a decent 2000-2500 pts to play, the other 2 players can match that somehow and be on the same side.

Otherwise, I like CrownAxe's idea of player specific objectives

I like the objectives in other players deployment idea.

Not a huge fan of the circular kill point game though. I feel like I want to kill the units that are the biggest threat to me. So it could still end up in a 2v1 (for a few turns at least), where the player is attacking the player "behind him" to kill the big units, then focus on the player "in front" of him with the player behind him crippled from 2 players fire. And if you cant attack the player "behind you" then how do you fight off assault focused units?

However the objective game forces players to defend an area, while attacking another area, with no restrictions on how they are to do it, and no motivation to go for one player over another (at least much less motivation).

We've tried a few different approaches, and after some failed and lopsided attempts, we came up with this method which has by far been the most fun we've had:

1) set up the board so that two forces occupy corners on one long side (24" apart) while one force deploys in the center of the opposite long side, so that all deployment zones are 24" apart. Roll off to pick deployment zones and deploy as normal.

2) Set out objectives (2 per player). Each player maintains 3 active maelstrom cards. Maelstrom works better in a 3-way because it helps prevent two sides from ganging up on the other, or one side waiting out the battle as the others slug it out, so they can snatch objectives at the last minute.

3) So far, things are pretty standard, but now we branch off a bit. We found that with 3 players, the turn order often left the person going last at a severe disadvantage, because they always had to withstand two rounds of fire. To address this, you determine the turn order EACH TURN. Roll off after the last player goes in each turn, turn order is set from highest result to lowest. Yes, this may seem to give an advantage to the player who went last the previous turn if they suddenly get to go first, but it balances out because that player had to get shot at twice before retaliating. This makes for a more dynamic and unpredictable game, and also helps keep those temporary alliances from forming.

4) Play using the normal random turn count (roll on turn 5, and 6 to see if you continue). Same goes for first blood, slay the warlord, line breaker, those all count.

I have had reasonable success in the past playing maelstrom of war as the random objectives mean it is usually easier to get different kill objectives on different opponents and the capture objective x ones mean you have to advance towards both players.

As for table setup try a 6'x6' table, one person sets up in the middle 4' of one side and the other 2 set up in the opposite corners.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
We've tried a few different approaches, and after some failed and lopsided attempts, we came up with this method which has by far been the most fun we've had:

1) set up the board so that two forces occupy corners on one long side (24" apart) while one force deploys in the center of the opposite long side, so that all deployment zones are 24" apart. Roll off to pick deployment zones and deploy as normal.

2) Set out objectives (2 per player). Each player maintains 3 active maelstrom cards. Maelstrom works better in a 3-way because it helps prevent two sides from ganging up on the other, or one side waiting out the battle as the others slug it out, so they can snatch objectives at the last minute.

3) So far, things are pretty standard, but now we branch off a bit. We found that with 3 players, the turn order often left the person going last at a severe disadvantage, because they always had to withstand two rounds of fire. To address this, you determine the turn order EACH TURN. Roll off after the last player goes in each turn, turn order is set from highest result to lowest. Yes, this may seem to give an advantage to the player who went last the previous turn if they suddenly get to go first, but it balances out because that player had to get shot at twice before retaliating. This makes for a more dynamic and unpredictable game, and also helps keep those temporary alliances from forming.

4) Play using the normal random turn count (roll on turn 5, and 6 to see if you continue). Same goes for first blood, slay the warlord, line breaker, those all count.

I will try this with my play group.

I don't like 3 way battles. I do enjoy 2vs 1 battles with both teams having the same amount of points.

2 girls, one guy. There is no other type of threesome.

Rolling off for each phase has worked well for us locally. Really puts the suspence on when you start asking "why are you moving closer to me/ why is there a pod there?".

Allows a lot of switch and baiting which can be quite fun.

Also we've done one player deploys all over the board and has a super heavy while the others don't. Whoever kills the super heavy wins, if it doesn't die the owner of it wins.

I do like 3 ways/ uneven number games as it becomes less compy as it's never a fair game, so becomes a good laugh.

I'll do a 1v1v1 Maelstrom Sunday, and tell you how it happened.
It is a good idea to roll each turn to see who goes first, I'll try to play with this.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
We've tried a few different approaches, and after some failed and lopsided attempts, we came up with this method which has by far been the most fun we've had:

1) set up the board so that two forces occupy corners on one long side (24" apart) while one force deploys in the center of the opposite long side, so that all deployment zones are 24" apart. Roll off to pick deployment zones and deploy as normal.

2) Set out objectives (2 per player). Each player maintains 3 active maelstrom cards. Maelstrom works better in a 3-way because it helps prevent two sides from ganging up on the other, or one side waiting out the battle as the others slug it out, so they can snatch objectives at the last minute.

3) So far, things are pretty standard, but now we branch off a bit. We found that with 3 players, the turn order often left the person going last at a severe disadvantage, because they always had to withstand two rounds of fire. To address this, you determine the turn order EACH TURN. Roll off after the last player goes in each turn, turn order is set from highest result to lowest. Yes, this may seem to give an advantage to the player who went last the previous turn if they suddenly get to go first, but it balances out because that player had to get shot at twice before retaliating. This makes for a more dynamic and unpredictable game, and also helps keep those temporary alliances from forming.

4) Play using the normal random turn count (roll on turn 5, and 6 to see if you continue). Same goes for first blood, slay the warlord, line breaker, those all count.

Something like this is exactly what i was looking for! it makes the game fun and fresh with a bit of dice gods ruling things. I think ill try adding in a barter system for "turn/phase team ups " based on the objective cards. Give them a card to not get shot at but then your a card down till next turn

I know a lot of you say 2v1, and trust me we have done that A LOT. so much so i actually started a chaos army just to play with one of the guys in my group (who will never do any army but chaos). after a wile its just kinda "Meh", waiting for one guy to move, shoot , assault, and do combat for a 3k list get very old very fast and kill all the banter (what i enjoy most)

Thanks all for the comments!

After my game today, I agree, Maelstrom of War helps to prevent "2v1", but did not avoid it totally.
For example, if two oppoenents have "destroy a unit in the shooting / assault phase" , they can destroy 2 units from the same player.

I used the advices from classicCarraway, except the number 3, that I forgot.

Overall it was a good game, much better than my last 1v1v1.
if you didn't enjoy a 1v1v1, I encourage you to try a Maelstrom 1v1v1.

become a jelly slime and learn to mitosis for a fourth player.

But in all seriousness, me and my friends usually make it 2v1. We didn't give any restrictions to the guy playing by himself because we figured that two people can bring a more balanced list (it kinda helped that this was back in 5th edition, where allies didn't exist like it does now) and out-think the one guy.

Ive been trying to figure out a way to balance an equal point 1v1v1 game for a while and this is what Ive come up with so far:

So this is an eternal war mission that is a combination of the relic and emperers will. The relic is to be put in the centre of the board and is worth 3 Victory Points. While each player also places an objective in their deployment zone worth 1 victory point point each.

Deployment requires players to deploy as far from one another as possible, the most logical way to do this is have 2 players deploy on opposing board corners from one another and the other player deploying across the board between the other 2 players (similar to a triangle, with each player deploying in its corners)

Secondary objectives include slay the warlord (1 VP per warlord to a max of 3 VP in total) and 'First blood' which gives 2 VP to the first unit slain and 1 VP to the second unit slain. Although first blood can not be scored twice against the same army, Meaning when one army that has lost a unit to first blood there is no benifit to killing a second unit of the same army. There is also no linebreaker in this game type.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have had a lot of fun with this game type, and I find it is incredibly balanced, with each player primarily going after the relic as it has a game changing amount of points attatched and let me assure you it will swap hands frequently during the game! Any poor unit holding the thing will be subject to an ungodly amount of firepower, meaning one player won't hold it for long. The set-up of first blood rewards players playing fairly as steamrolling a single oponent has little benifit as the other player not involved in combat will swiftly get the upper hand in objectives and a secondary 'first blood'. This means you often have players scheming ways in how to wrestle the maximum amount of points out of the battlefield
Some of the ravenguard amongst us will realise carefully planned assassinations and sneaky objective grabbing can be just as viable as holding the relic and one's own objective. While Krazy Khornate love to storm in and rip that 2 VP first blood and the relic from anyone who gets in their way.

I enjoy this gametype as I find it plays very differantly from any 40k game as it requires constant teamwork and backstabbing to claw your way to victory. If you try it out I hope you enjoy!

I really enjoy 2v1 scenarios, though it does present some interesting twists with army special rules - things like Blood Tithe or Canticles of the Omnissiah are far better for the 1 than if 1/2 has those units. Nothing game-breaking, but good for thought.

You could try to do something like Triumph and Treachery, it was a supplement for WHFB. Each phase you nominate one player as an enemy, all unnominated players get a tiny bonus and you can only shoot/charge/spells the player you chose. Maybe if you wanted a total battle royal you could randomise who is the enemy each turn.

The best way is to play 2 v 1. 2 allied players with 1,000 pts each vs 1 enemy player with 2,000 pts. It's a good game.

We tried 1v1v1.

The rules were: team 3 goes last and deepstrikes its army onto the table turn one.

Teams one and 2 play maelstrom objectives, drawing up to three each turn.
Victory condition for Team 3: Credit for every Maelstrom objective the enemies don't score.

It was interesting.

Objectives based may work. VP's enough to make them almost necessary for victory


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a thought: do a nightfight like effect, where a squad nominates as tho search lights against another, which can be limited to # per turn, with saves starting at what, 2+? Then each turn lessening the cover save modifier for the board.

Biggest issue: 1v1v1 ends up an unintentional 2v1.
Paerhaps this'll lessen the brunt of this...

Also, having killpoints play a part in ultimate VP's.

Also, having relic like objectives for massive VP's when occupying only BOTH opponents Relics simultaneously.

Also, having terrain set up to have a central objective (bacon, obviously) in the center of the table, with the three deployment zones with ample cover and spaced apart far enough to make it a real committable action to engage properly.

Also, having the edge of the table turn to ash oh so many inches every turn (circular table ideal) to force players to move centrally to keep up and out of the way.

Also, a fourth npc enemy force or fortress to assault

Also, knights? Who retaliate (if at all) based on specific conditions.

Also, wildly, have phases occur simultaneously, where dice roll offs determine who goes first - then units in sequence take their actions, one player and one unit st a time.

Its tricky... for sure

An easy way to have a 3 person game is to create a scenario in which two sides are fighting the "main engagement" while the third has its own objective and benefits from destroying both the other two.

This third army can be smaller...larger...infiltrated...reserved...hidden...whatever.

You can totally play 1v1v1, I've done it several times. The image below shows an example setup, everyone is basically equidistant from each other with 12"x24" deployment zones. The key is the objectives, I recommend a modified maelstrom style: at the end of each game turn, you receive one point for every objective you hold. You can also add bonus points for killing units, slay the warlord, etc. Additionally, roll off at the beginning of each game turn, highest goes first and lowest goes last. That removes predictability from your ability to grab objectives. I'd personally recommend 5-6 objectives with as even a distribution as you can; it's ok to give players easy objectives but there should be at least a couple in the middle. 1500 pts works for me, you can adjust based on your group but too much smaller leaves you at risk of getting tabled if you get ganged up on or spread too thin to really hold any objectives.

If you are interested in drinking while you play, my friends and I make it a drinking game with a modified "perils of the warp"-style table that you roll on for each point you earned...a "1" is take a shot, 2 is a drink of beer, etc. If you held 2 objectives (2 points) you'd roll twice, 3 times for 3 points, and so on. Basically whoever is winning is generally drinking more. You can find other options in threads here as well. Alcohol or not, you can still have a good, competitive game out of it...last time I played like this we had IK vs Decurion Necrons vs Eldar (Eldar won...barely).

One of the best games I've played so far was a 1v1v1. We found rules from a WD in 5th edition with a 3 player scenario and modified them with additional maelstromrules (cloak and shadows I think). It was a blast, even for me as the one who got teamed on midway through (treacherous Tau!).
In that scenario you rolled for the initiative every turn, however, the one who went first in one turn automatically went last in the next turn, so after turn one only two players had to roll off.