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,

I don't think is the a specific rules based question so shouldn't be in the YMDC section, it is more general.

Does anybody have any information on adjusting a game to be able to play a 1v1v1 game. We have three players and a triangular shaped board so we can adjust deployment areas and table edges to suit etc.

Can anyone provide any help with how cc would be resolved. We were thinking for each players turn the combat would be resolved as normal at the correct step. If all three players are involved in the combat we would just have to see who was in B2B and determine who could attack who and on which turn from there.

For results of the combat, if both other players fail the leadership test and run away the winner can catch both player. If only one player fails they break away from the combat, but the winner and other player remain in combat.

Thanks in advance

For deployment I recommend you stick as much to the 24" separation between armies.

For cc. I would say only do the cc's that the controlling players turn would participate in.
Say it's my turn and I have no one in assualt, other than anything I have in assualt phase (jet moves etc) no other fights take place.

Now if there are multiple combats the controlling player is in, he chooses which to fight first.

If all 3 are in one mashpit in the center, go by initiative and base to base and engaged modes like usual combat phases.

Hi,

Thanks for the info, that is along the lines of what we had been discussing.

Don't do it.

Not a troll post, not a joke or anything. Just don't do it if you want to remain friends.

1v1v1 games bring out the worst tendencies in wargamers, it never fails. Especially because one guy has to eat 2 turns of shooting before he can even move.

Add in that usually two players gang up on the third, the complicated situations you get into (and you'll never guess them all before hand) and the tendency to backstabbing one another, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Let the record show I warned you. Seriously, I've watched people try it on 5 seperate occasions. Best case people get upset and have a bad time. Worst case it ends friendships.



Edit:: Quick reply breaks after certain length so I have to add in extra words in edit now. Using regular reply does it too for some asinine reason.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Don't do it.

Not a troll post, not a joke or anything. Just don't do it if you want to remain friends.

1v1v1 games bring out the worst tendencies in wargamers, it never fails. Especially because one guy has to eat 2 turns of shooting before he can even move.

Add in that usually two players gang up on the third, the complicated situations you get into (and you'll never guess them all before hand) and the tendency to backstabbing one another, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Let the record show I warned you. Seriously, I've watched people try it on 5 seperate occasions. Best case people get upset and have a bad time. Worst case it ends friendships.



Edit:: Quick reply breaks after certain length so I have to add in extra words in edit now. Using regular reply does it too for some asinine reason.

This. A 1v1v1v1 would MAYBE work, and even that would be iffy. 40K only works as a 1v1 or 2v2 or 3v3 etc.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Don't do it.

Not a troll post, not a joke or anything. Just don't do it if you want to remain friends.

1v1v1 games bring out the worst tendencies in wargamers, it never fails. Especially because one guy has to eat 2 turns of shooting before he can even move.

Add in that usually two players gang up on the third, the complicated situations you get into (and you'll never guess them all before hand) and the tendency to backstabbing one another, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Let the record show I warned you. Seriously, I've watched people try it on 5 seperate occasions. Best case people get upset and have a bad time. Worst case it ends friendships.



Edit:: Quick reply breaks after certain length so I have to add in extra words in edit now. Using regular reply does it too for some asinine reason.

This. A 1v1v1v1 would MAYBE work, and even that would be iffy. 40K only works as a 1v1 or 2v2 or 3v3 etc.

Hogwash! Our gaming group does multiplayer melee on a regular basis. Over this labor day weekend we did 1V1V1V1V1V1V1! It becomes a game of cut-throat really quick. And nobody goes home a sore loser because everyone knows that player alliances can be broken as quickly as they are made.

With this being said, we handle Assaults on this manner. Whose ever turn it is, takes his Assault phase as normal. Then he chooses which fights happen for the units he declares charges for or units that are already stuck in combat accordingly. The fights where his units are not involved in only take place on those players turns respectively. If there are more than 2 players involved in an Assault. Initiative takes precedence on who is fighting whom and when. Models still have to be in base contact with another unit or within 2" of same unit models to enable models to fight in said combat.

As for shooting, so long as your forces are not involved in an Assault, you can fire freely into that said Assault. It's always nasty to template or use blast weapons on somebodys' else's fight. That is how we handle more than 2 sides battles.