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.

For small games, I was think of a scenario in which each player has 1 objective to reach on the table (opposite corner of their deployment) and 1 "preferred" enemy.
Each Battle Round has 3 player turns in the same sequence. Player A goes first, then Player B, then Player C

There are 3 total objectives worth 5VPs, but the object located opposite your deployment zone is worth 10VPs
Each enemy unit killed grants VPs equal to the unit's PL to the player who inflicted the last wound. Units destroyed by Morale grant no VP to any player.

Player A gains +1VP for each unit they kill of Player B
Player B gains +1VP for each unit they kill of Player C
Player C gains +1VP for each unit they kill of Player A

So each player gains more VPs for different objectives and has incentive to go after a specific opponent.
The goal is to force each army to participate to acquire their full potential VPs

Would these changes be enough to discourage 2 players from "ganging up" on the 3rd, and also discourage a single player sitting back and letting the other 2 "fight it out"?
Are there any issue this would create?

Thanx

-

 Galef wrote:
For small games, I was think of a scenario in which each player has 1 objective to reach on the table (opposite corner of their deployment) and 1 "preferred" enemy.
Each Battle Round has 3 player turns in the same sequence. Player A goes first, then Player B, then Player C

There are 3 total objectives worth 5VPs, but the object located opposite your deployment zone is worth 10VPs
Each enemy unit killed grants VPs equal to the unit's PL to the player who inflicted the last wound. Units destroyed by Morale grant no VP to any player.

Player A gains +1VP for each unit they kill of Player B
Player B gains +1VP for each unit they kill of Player C
Player C gains +1VP for each unit they kill of Player A

So each player gains more VPs for different objectives and has incentive to go after a specific opponent.
The goal is to force each army to participate to acquire their full potential VPs

Would these change be enough to discourage 2 players from "ganging up" on the 3rd, and also discourage a single player sitting back and letting the other 2 fight it out?
Are there any issue this would create?

Thanx

-

We used to play a lot of 3 player FFA before we finally convinced our fourth friend to join - no incentives will ever prevent anyone from ganging up on that problematic player.

What works the best is if you play King of the hill style narrative where you have two attackers and a defender. One player gains significant terrain advantages while the other two fights for control over the hill.

So we tried a scenario this weekend, and I have to say, it was probably one of the best at-home games we've played.

The Scenario was VPs based off Power level. Basically, Player A only gained VP=PL for killing units of Player B, who in turn only got points off Player C, who in turn only got point off Player A.
So basically Rock, Paper, Scissors.

We only play about 600pts per player and didn't bother with objectives.
I played Chaos Marine, whose target was Marines
My oldest played the Marines, whose target was the Necrons
My youngest played the Necrons whose target was the CSM

It created an interesting dynamic in which killing a unit that DIDN'T grant you points would deny those points to the other player as well as protect you.
For example, as the CSM, I really wanted the 3 Necron Destroyers dead, even though the unit (9PL) would not gain me any points.
But by killing them, I deny the Necron player from his most powerful unit vs my list AND deny the Marine player from a nice 9PL target. It didn't work out that way, but it was fun for all of us to be thinking which enemy to target.

The biggest issue we had was how to resolve combats in each Assault phase. If it was Player As turn, once they resolved their charging units and 1 non-charging unit, we decided to roll off to see which opponent went next.
It also created a weird situation in which a Player would not have a chance to fall back before anther round of attacks.

For example, Player A has a unit that charges Player C. Both unit live through that combat. In Player B's turn, both those units get to attack again but Player C has no had the opportunity to fall back yet.
We had to roll off to see it that was how we should play it as there was a situation in which being attacked twice made a big difference.

How do you guys think we should handle 3 Player combat phases? As we did above, or should only the combats involving the current Player's units get to roll?

-

Have you thought about a king of the hill scenario?

Alternatively capture the Relic and bring it back from such a hill could also lead to a intersting scenario, allbeit a biased one for fast armies.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Have you thought about a king of the hill scenario?

Alternatively capture the Relic and bring it back from such a hill could also lead to a intersting scenario, allbeit a biased one for fast armies.

I think we avoid those specifically because out of 3 players, at least one is not very fast so it creates a huge gap for that player.
My main goal is to create a simple and engaging scenario that keeps both my kids' attention and keeps it fair between the armies.

-

My friend group often finds ourselves in this situation , quite regularly , while we gave 4-5 players people cancel or just cant make it
So we sat down one day at a pub and formalised some rules, which I wrote up in a document ... which i share here

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f8mEhIE1AjRM-5xn-hDznBixeb2JlOVSNqi8k6DZKXU/edit?usp=sharing

TLDR version

4 Deployment maps balanced for 3 players, gameplay is based around king of the hill/take & hold, missions these can be played with 1 or more objective markers
but for simplicity sake use 1 unless you are using the dedicated 3 relic deployment zone for this map moving off the left or right of the board results in a Pac man style appearing
on the opposite side .... helping balance the board a bit better . ( Presume your fighting in the warp on some demon planet )

Scoring
Points are scored at the end of at the 3 player battle round Ie the last persons turn

The scoring system means that winning the first turn and rushing out to take an objective early is going to get you targeted pretty quickly by both players heavier firepower and to combat some of this we considered banning advance deployment, instead, we gave those units the standard deep strike rule instead .. Using the beta rules this feels fair ... otherwise, the person who deploys -2 to hit Eldar rangers on the objective before the start of turn 1 is gonna win ... (I hope your playgroup immediately gang up on them for breaking whats supposed to be a casual format )

The second way of scoring points relies on you spreading the pain around rewarding killing a unit from each player, Scoring 1 point ( Max) if you manage to kill a unit from each player
inside the battle round, this again is also going to make you a target and can be tricky to pull off we play smaller games in this format for speed and sanity sake .... (ever tried to fit 2k swarm Guardsman on a very small deployment zone )

We have also bought in a CP spend system focused on creating interesting team-ups, blackmails and bribery we'd do this is anyway but it makes for a fun game and gives the space wolf player somthing to spend CP on ...