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.

Hello, I'm looking for some guidance on making a good 3 player game.

I've heard that the Triumph and Treachery rules from AoS are good, but I noticed that they are very definitely AoS based. Is it just a matter of changing the wording on the cards? For example, there's a Hold Charge action?? I don't suppose anyone has done a 40k version of the cards? Does the AoS rules work like the 40K where one player does all the different phases before the next player does?

What about using the Tactical Objective cards? Would it work if you counted VPs for victory even if they were tabled? Or maybe lose 2 VPs if tabled?

Thanks for your input.

I've experimented with these and yes they work without much trouble. You need a mission with progressive scoring and change the wording on the treachery chart to which phase is the most appropriate. The only other change is the table set up for a three way game should use a triangle deployment, or a square for four players. So no one is in the middle.

The Tactical Objective cards work without modification and we have been using random turns like in AoS. The double turn hasn't been a huge advantage for anyone so far.

Treachery chart? the one I was reading had Treachery cards. Is this different?

We are using the Triumph and Treachery rules from AoS General's Handbook 2017. Page 28 has a chart of things you can spend your Treachery points on. It's possible an earlier version of T&T used cards, but I'm unfamiliar with them.

The best way to make a three-player game is to have a 2v1 where the single player has twice the points. A 1v1v1 game sounds nice on paper, but in reality it almost always degenerates into a 2v1 where one player is immediately overwhelmed and removed from the game and gets to sit awkwardly and watch as the other two players finish. It's a miserable experience for the early victim, and even for the other two players it's usually a pretty underwhelming diversion before the real game begins.

Make sure there are objectives all around the table and make sure winning game doesn't work just by wiping enemy. If you don't then what will often happen is 2 players furthest from each other(fair DZ's will be pain) will end up wiping the player easiest to attack from both sides. Not good. Force all players to spread their attention across whole table if they want to win.

Just use bolt action activation so games don't become 2v1

 Crimson Devil wrote:
We are using the Triumph and Treachery rules from AoS General's Handbook 2017. Page 28 has a chart of things you can spend your Treachery points on. It's possible an earlier version of T&T used cards, but I'm unfamiliar with them.

There was an older version of Triumph and Treachery released in I think 2012, for WHFB. It was a pretty fun system if I recall correctly, and I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. There was some treachery card drawing in there, and you could spend points you earned playing those cards. So it was a bit more random than the 2017 AOS Handbook has. Its not something you can play competitively, because the double turns can be absolutely brutal, so you have to be prepared for a laugh. IIRC (because it was a long time ago), I had a double turn against somebody and it lead to a Knights Errant Bus with a tank character getting a rear charge against a gigantic wytch block and catching them in a sweeping advance.

The Bolt Action system is a solid idea. Its tricky to modify 40K's IGOUGO rules to fit into the random alternating action system of Bolt Action, but there are a few fan suggestions on this site that have been made which do a pretty good job of it.

As others have said, if you honestly do a 1v1v1, make sure you are very careful when setting up deployment zones. You absolutely want to avoid a natural 2v1, or a situation where one player has a huge incentive to attack another first (like 2 people starting close together). You need to make sure all players have an incentive to attack eachother. this can be done by starting them equidistant from each other, make sure direct lines of sight are blocked or difficult along the edges and focus on central objectives which drive the players forward into the middle to score VP.

The table we are going to play on is round, and since we use a battlemat and scatter terrain, it will conform to the round play area nicely. Due to the fact that there isn't much table space, and to limit the time constraints of adding a third player, we are going to go with a small 500pt per player game.

Since one of the players is new, I think we are going to go with drawing tactical objective cards to keep it simple. If you get tabled, you will be -2 points, but otherwise points will still win the game. This way the new player can concentrate on getting a good handle on the basic rules before we get into the additional complications of the Triumph and Treachery ruleset.

We've played several games of 8th, using token activation and it's superb - makes 3-player games very doable, and avoids the inevitable dogpile (also avoids one player sitting out for 1.5 hours while the other two take their turns). Won't go back to normal 40K now.

1v1v1 works but you need to play a specifically objective based game. Dictate how people attack each other through randomness. Most of the objectives should be focused on controlling points. And it's 100% fine to have 3 people vying for the same objective.

Gunline play in 1v1v1 is even more pointless than it is in 1v1, too. You need the right armies for it. There should be a heavy melee component to your game.

My experience of 1v1v1 is that it works best with smaller points values (so you don't end up needing to wait hours to take your turn) and with shorter-ranged armies/high-terrain boards (so it's harder for the players who go first/second to just blast the third player out of their deployment zone). I'd expect changing priority randomly would be less impactful in 1v1v1 since it doesn't send the whole turn order spiralling wildly out of control in the same way and the worst-case scenario (ABC->CBA) is lower-probability.

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

I despise 3 way game or free for all's. No matter how or what you implament, IT ALWAYS, turns into 2v1.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
We are using the Triumph and Treachery rules from AoS General's Handbook 2017. Page 28 has a chart of things you can spend your Treachery points on. It's possible an earlier version of T&T used cards, but I'm unfamiliar with them.

Yes the older version had cards as well as coins. You could use coins to bribe other players/spend on certain cards. Its a really good supplement and some of the most fun games my group has ever played.

I often play 3 player games, we've done it in several formulas and always had great fun.

We did a king of the hill free for all, a game where 2 players with waves of reinforcemetns must try to get on the other side of a bridge held by the defender and each unit would award a victory point at the end that was on the other side, a fortress stuff with one of the players caslted on a table width with both others deploying and on the opposite angles, the castle player having to hold a radio to have the rest of its list coming and one where 2 players were deployed in front of each others in the corners of the table whilst the thrid came from deep strike and flanks...

actually each time we did it either within a campaign or improvised it, and it was to our taste. Maybe you find something interesting.

Preventing that the game turns into 2v1 relies on good terrain positioning and fairness, which you should expect for such casual games.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I despise 3 way game or free for all's. No matter how or what you implament, IT ALWAYS, turns into 2v1.

This has been my experience as well. It is so extremely hard to balance mechanically and game play wise. It makes absolute tactical sense to gang up on one person which entirely ruins the game for that one person. With four players it balances out because you can now properly have a rival for each person. I would never do a 1v1v1, but I would absolutely do 1v1v1v1 or the good old 1v2 where the two each bring 1000 and the 1 bring 2k.

Agreed that 3 player FFAs can be very messy and unfun. One thing that might be fun to consider would be 2 player playing say 1500 point game and a third play bringing say 500 points.

The two 1500 players play normal and on turn 2 or something the 500 point player deepstrikes or outflanks or whatever 250 points into each players deployment zone (ideally same units). just adds a little disruption and is relatively fair since its the same units attacking each player

I will have to disagree...but only if you're playing the right game. In typical 40K? Not a chance in hell - I wouldn't even play it without special rules.

We've had very good 3-way games, but we used a different activation system. If you're going to "try" to play normal 40K with a 3-way game, just expect to not have fun. It won't work.

The Triumph and Treachery rules handle the issues you guys are concerned about pretty well. In each phase you declare your opponent and can only act against that player. And that player can use their treachery points to make you choose someone else on a 4+. So 2 on 1 doesn't work out very well as you could suddenly find yourself in a bad way if you go after only one opponent. My group has used these rules in several games of AoS/40k with 3 plus players. They work great with the exception of the Apocalypse game. 300 power level was simply too much to deal with.

I've seen an idea for a 3-player scenario where player A's objective was in player B's deployment zone, player B's objective was in C's deployment zone and C's objective in A's deployment zone. That basically means each player is attacking the player on their right while defending against the one on their left. This might work, but probably not with 40k's IGO-UGO activation. In general, I'd agree with Peregrine - 2 vs 1. If one player doesn't have an army as big as both the others combined, then simply allow that player to recycle destroyed units as reinforcements. This also allows you to do a scenario of trying to break through a siege. One player is defending an objective (this could be a large area of fortifications in the centre of the board, or simply set up along one edge as normal), the lone player sets up as the attacker, then the other member of the team is deployed on one flank as a relief column.