<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "1v1v1 ideas"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/69.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net 1v1v1 ideas
The first game we tried, the table was far too big, and we didnt really get into close combat before we had to call it. Then the next table was too small, and was in close combat on turn 2...

What would be the best table size, and shape? And any kind of recommended special rules?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806186.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806186.page GMT Re:1v1v1 ideas http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806191.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806191.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas csm :( ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806199.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806199.page GMT Re:1v1v1 ideas
You just need to bend the rules for it to happen, and need much bigget table.

First option is to have a triengular table, with 84' long sided, with "your deployment" being 24' away from your corner.

Second option is to have a hex-shaped table, with each side at 48', having three edges as "player edges" and the ones between them as "neutral" edges.

I would have drawn you a graph but my computer is deal and doing on through my playstaytion is rather impossible.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806351.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806351.page GMT Re:1v1v1 ideas
Good idea about the triangle table too. Sounds fun.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806376.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806376.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas
100222
100000
100000
100333

it is slightly less sandwiched and gives a fairly even balance.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806501.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806501.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas
so if every digit represents 1'x1' then:

22200333
22300333
00000000
00000000
01111110

I'd also suggest Relic as a good book mission because it then leads to natural ganging up on whoever has the relic, or most chance of grabbing it at any given moment.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806593.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806593.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas
 Blood and Slaughter wrote:
I think at 1500 points and above 1v1v1 probably needs an 8x5 to avoid too much cramping in the deployment zones, though the deployment suggested above is probably best for 6x4

so if every digit represents 1'x1' then:

22200333
22300333
00000000
00000000
01111110

I'd also suggest Relic as a good book mission because it then leads to natural ganging up on whoever has the relic, or most chance of grabbing it at any given moment.


I would have thought that as standard table would be OK up to 1250 a side though (equivalent to 2* 1850 points on a standard table)

Relic should be good - could also do 3+d3 objectives (rather than 2+d3) or the variable point objective mission should work for 3 as well]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806713.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806713.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806748.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806748.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas It is impossible to make a three side game balanced. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806955.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806955.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806967.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4806967.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas
One person controls two primary detachments (Including allies for each list) at whatever points you set for each army, and the primary detachments can not effect each other (so no riding in transports, no rules bleed over etc.)

The other two players each get one primary detachment (Including allies for each list) at whatever points you set for each army.

So basically you have 2 people on a team each with a 1250 point list and one guy with two 1250 point lists.

Then play the two 1250 point lists against the other two 1250 point lists.

It works out really well, and it is as balanced as a regular game of 40K.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807055.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807055.page GMT Re:1v1v1 ideas
Whoever goes last in the turn will have a distinct disadvantage.

And 3 ways almost always turn into 2 players ganging up on another, or 1 player waiting for the other 2 to slug it out before he zips in for the kill.


You can still have fun playing like this, but it won't be a fair fight.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807388.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807388.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas hq spam)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807469.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807469.page GMT Re:1v1v1 ideas
My final suggestion if figuring out how to deal with certain situations such as shooting into a combat of 2 or more opponents or charging into a combat of 2 or more opponents. For shooting, I suggest the following. When shooting at a combat that consists entirely of enemy units, declare which "side" of that combat is your primary target. Then, for each hit, roll a D6. On 4+, that hit is allocated to your primary target, and on a 1 - 3 it is allocated to the opposing models. Divide the hits into 2 pools, one for each target, and then allocate each of those pools to the relevant unit the pool (and all wounds that stem from that pool) have been rolled for. For combat, I just recommend treating it as charging into an existing multiple combat. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807533.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807533.page GMT Re:1v1v1 ideas
If you play objectives, either many or a few/one very pricy one; there is no need for killing 2v1; any teamups will be functional to stop the dominant player from winning.
Unreal Tournament 99's domination mode comes to mind, which basicly was hold the objective, and played 1v1v1v1.

But then again whichever player can hold reserves as long as possible has some advantage as the other two are weakened down, given he is mobile in deployment (deepstrike are those beeming-in necron fliers).

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807544.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807544.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807651.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807651.page GMT Re:1v1v1 ideas http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807735.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807735.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas
Say 3 players A, B and C each with fairly well mayched armies. A will have first turn, B will have second and C third.

We'll assume that each army has the capability to destroy 20% of an opposing army in one turn if at full strength and proportionally less if depleted.

Say A attacks only C. A is now at 100%, C at 80%.

Who should B attack?

The 'moral' choice is to attack C as A did not harm B and if the two combine against C, C's threat will be neutralised. I suspect this often happens.

But the rational choice is probably to attack A.

Let's presume he does so. Now we have A at 80%, B at 100% and C at 80%.

C's turn. Rationally now he must attack B and so reduce him to 84%.

And so turn 2 swings around and A, logically, should now attack B as B is the greatest existing threat.

But because people don't think rationally, they think in emotional terms of reciprocation, the first scenario where both A and B attack C is most likely in reality -- B honours a tacit alliance with A simply becasue A did not attack him.

That's why 1 vs 1 vs 1 will always be hard to balance unless you somehow force everyone to attack everyone else (the idea of A only scoring poinst for eliminating B and B for C has merit).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807738.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4807738.page GMT Re:1v1v1 ideas
Also, you could divide/create a board around an equilateral triangle. The triangle should be something along 2' per side and have a 2' by 2' "deployment zone" in each end. Count the table edges as blocking LOS and impassable. here is an extremely rough idea of what I mean.



I remember reading something in the 5th ed book (think it was in the broken alliance mission) but in order to score a KP in a 1v1v1 game, you must kill 1 unit each from both opposing teams. To help prevent literal attempts of ganging up on someone, you could implement something like the "One eye open" rule + the old "Target Priority" rule. Just change it so it is something like this:

"If a unit attempts to shoot or assault an enemy unit belonging to opponent(A), but opponent(B) has models which are visible to theattacking unit and are closer to the attacking unit than opponent(A), the attacking unit must roll1d6 before shots are taken or overwatch is resolved. On a roll of 1, that unit cannot shoot, assault, or move for the rest of the player's turn. This test is only taken once per unit per turn. Eg: If a unit has already passed this and fired at an enemy squad, it does not need to pass this again in order to assault. If a unit fails to charge after declaring its target due to this rule, overwatch is not resolved. "

Another simple Pic:


EDIT: Forgot about the random turn structure. At the start of the game, players roll 1d6. The player who rolled the highest goes first and the player who rolled second highest goes second. In each subsequent game-turn, the player who went first in the previous turn goes last. The other two players roll 1d6. whoever rolls higher goes first and the other second.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4808199.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4808199.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas
One scenario I was thinking about that might help you would be along the lines of:

A. Psyker is hidden amongst various objective markers and highly sought after by two of the three factions. These factions must grab the Psyker and return them to their deployment zone for evac. These two factions may not shoot at the opposing faction's unit which currently holds the Psyker and may only engage in CC. The third faction must kill the psyker at all costs.

This would encourage more movement and less immediate combat. When coupled with the modified table arrangements and revamped turn structure, objective based games of this nature may help restore some balance to your games.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4809377.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4809377.page GMT Re:1v1v1 ideas
 Grey Templar wrote:
Unfortunately, the way the turn order is set up it is not balanced for free for all play.
Anybody remember the old 5 player Mutant Chronicles board game? Random turn sequence has been around a long time. When my 5 buddies and I would play 40K free for alls, we came up with having all remaining players roll off after every player turn each game turn. The player who went last in the previous game turn was not eligible to roll to go first in the next to prevent any one player from taking two turns. Worked out great.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4810469.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4810469.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas
A plays B
B plays C
C plays A

You could have warp gates in the enemy deployment area which allows units to move from that board to anywhere in the deployment zone of your other table.
If you syncronise the turns there will be less downtime as you will be all moving on one table at the same time.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4811066.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4811066.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas
We used a deployment similar to RFHolloways using a 12" radius quarter circle in 2 of the corners then a 12" radius semi circle in the middle of the opposite side for the other player.

Scouring work's quite well as a scenario as no one knows who owns the high scoring objectives until the end. We also played that once you'd claimed an objective you could move off it (kind of like the DoW control points) just so that people didn't just grab the nearest one then ignore each other and hope they'd got the high one.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4811890.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4811890.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4812743.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4812743.page GMT 1v1v1 ideas
 BoomWolf wrote:
I thought you revel objective value in scouring right after deployment?


Yes you do.

I don't think having them unrevealed would actually make much difference to how people behave as regards ganging up, though it's an interesting twist anyway.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4813314.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/478517/4813314.page GMT