Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nytflyr

More than two players

Recommended Posts

what are some obstacles or pitfalls one should be made aware of in a Warlord game with more than 2 players/armies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anytime I play with 3 players, I tend to add a house rule or two in that penalizes people that like to sit and wait it out. People that like to let the other two bruise each other up and then they waltz in and finish both sides off and collect the points.

 

And unless I am specifically playing a 2 v 1 type game, I will also try to make sure that I set it up in some way such that everyone is equally trying to go after each other and not ganging up.

 

One way to do this is to change the focus of the game, make it a scenario rather than simply a 3 way straight up battle.

 

Something like, put a pile of 10 tokens in the middle of the table and then say at the end of each turn, you get a point of each token one of your models is holding. Yes, you might get some ganging up in this one if one player is faster and grabs all the tokens. But, as soon as someone else wins the token the tide turns the other direction.

 

Or possibly you play capture the flag. So a 3 player game might have a red, blue, an yellow player. The red player will have a blue flag and a yellow flag. The blue player will have a red and a yellow flag, etc.. And you get points both for keeping the other player's flag away from them as well as for reclaiming your own flags.

 

If you are playing a 4 player game, then I actually have a fun litttle 4 player full contact soccer scenario that I wrote not too long ago that I would be happy to share with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stubbdog is right, a 3 way (or more) game without clearly defined teams must be a scenario game. Some players are naturally more aggressive, and some players are naturally more cautious, so even without a person who is intentionally trying to hang back and let the others weaken before swooping in for the kill, you can get a similar situation.

 

I like control area scenarios - where a player gets points for occupying real estate on the board. This forces all the players to advance rapidly for the points grab, which in turn puts their models in close quarters with the opponent - and battle happens.

 

 

What I really like for odd-numbered team games is to divide the point total between two of the players. So say you're playing a 1,000 point game, one player takes 1,000 and opposes two other players who each have 500 points, or two fighting companies whose total is no higher than 1,000 points (sometimes a player really really needs 2 or 3 points, and the other guy is 5 points short, so it works out). That way you don't have the whole issue of a player playing too conservatively and winning by consequence.

 

As far as direct "pitfalls" to answer your question straight up:

---One player holds back for one reason or another and ends up with a strong advantage late in the game. The other two players get grumpy.

---Players react to different threats in different ways, and sometimes end up opposing the other players with unbalanced levels of force - i.e. player A has a big nasty model, so player B responds by sending more than half of his force after player A. Player C, then, can easily brush aside the token force sent after his fighting company. This often makes Player A feel grumpy

---One player decides that he doesn't want to fight a 2 front battle and uses his early turns to maneuver such that he is on the edge of a "sandwich." The player caught in the middle now has to fight off double his point value, coming from both sides, and gets ripped apart very quickly, leaving the other two players to contest the win. The "sandwiched" player most often feels grumpy.

 

So mostly, as you can see, there's plenty of opening for players to feel like another player behaved unfairly, or had a spoken or unspoken agreemnt - intentional or not - with another player which had he effect of giving him or her no real chance to win.

 

And as has been stated, scenarios often tend to mitigate those situations, as players are competing for a limited points resource. Thus if a player loses it is due to their inability to compete with the other two players for the points, not because they felt conspired against.

 

 

 

Sample scenario: Evil Fairy Well (for 3 players)

 

In the center of the table place a well, perhaps 2" diameter. Put out other terrain as desired, but keep it sparse and keep it even. Players all deploy in 12x12 inch squares whose close edge is 24" from the center well. Any model can earn a point by performing a specialty action while in b2b with the well. Play to 5 rounds and tally up the points to determine who wins!

In addition, if you want to provide extra impetus to get into the action, you can have the Fairies cast Fireball at CP 6 at the nearest member of a fighting company that did not perform any Fight actions or defensive combat during a game turn (unless NO fighting company performed a fight action during that turn - i.e. turn 1 if all players move/run towards the middle).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I've never played Warlord as a multiplayer game, but I have done so tons of times with most of the GW games and many others, so hopefully I can give some relevant insight:

 

- Warlord looks far easier to run as a multi-player because of it's card activation system.

 

- in any multiplayer game that isn't a division of players on two sides it's rather imperative to have a scenario, otherwise you'll have exactly what Stubdog and the others describe - one or more players will sit back and watch the others fight it out.

 

- Scenario design is, IMO, the best reason to run & play multiplayer games. My old group had some crazy multiplayer scenarios over the years - our various 40k armies developed longstanding rivalries and friendships because of them - each battle was not only a minis game, but a mini role-playing session as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When ever my group has played a multiplayer game , we have always used some kind of objective to encourage people getting stuck into it . Sometimes a piece of "treasure" or several tokens in the middle of the board . The object is to get the "treasure" or as many tokens off-board for the win , draws are decided by points killed .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We play multi-player games all the time. Though if we play without specific objectives it is usually Good vs Evil. If an odd number of players, we will up the pts value of the odd-man-out so that the pts are even on each side.

 

For 3 player games, we play 2-on-1 with the 1 using double the pts of the other 2. Initiative is done using 3 suits in the card deck or 3 diff color tokens.

 

for more than 3 players: Initiative deck, we use numbered cards for the number of troops. For Ex: Side 1, player 1 has 3 troops (so use ace-3 spades). Side 1, player 2 has 5 troops (so uses ace-5 spades). Side 1, player 3 has 3 troops and tactician (so uses Ace-3 or 4 spades) If a 4-5 of spades is drawn, player 2 activates a troop,with player 3 activating on a 4 if they declaired thier tact. card in the deck. On an Ace-3, all 3 players would activate a troop. So Side 1 would have 5 total cards in the Init deck with players activiating based on the number of troops/cards they would normally have in a 1-on-1 game.

 

Things like Spy are handled just like they are in the 1-on-1 game. We understand that this is not exactly perfect (though it is just as unfair to both sides), is always fun, keeps the game from dragging for all the players that are not currently moving, and allows everyone to play/socialize together without the you vs me attitude of the 1-on-1 games.

 

Hope that helps, B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...