multiplayer games?

[ragnarcissist]

anybody ever play 1v1v1? we tried it out the other night and it was pretty chaotic, what with multiple combats involving all 3 of us, shooting into combats i wasnt involved in, and where the heck to deploy....

anyone know any rules to more than one army per side?? and not just allies?

[TSINI]

I remember this in an old White Dwarf, it was a 1v1v1 with all Orks.

My memory is a little sketchy on the details but I think it went like this:

Setting: three armies have arrived in an area of no importance, the leaders of each army have convened to agree a truce to avoid a pointless and bloody battle, unfortunately the meeting is not successful...

Mark the center of the board, then the players roll off for deployment. Each player then places a marker at least 18" away from the board center.

Each player then places 1 HQ choice within 6" of the centre marker. Once all players have done this, they then deploy the rest of their army within 12" of their own marker, as long as they are at least 18" away from any enemy models. Units may be reserved, and any units which cannot fit must be reserved.

The players then roll to see who goes first every turn including first turn.

I don't know how successful this game would be in 5th ed, but it still sounds fun.

Even if you dropped the HQ in the middle deployment, the placing "base markers" for deployment seems a good way to split a board 3 ways. The only issues I can see are deciding which board edges you retreat towards (i would probably say closest edge to the model) and which board edge your reserves arrive from, (maybe you could pick an edge when placing markers, with no two players choosing the same side, and work out left/right outflanks from this)

Anyway, hope this helps mate
TSINI

[22gbloodangel]

I once tried a triangular table set up for 1v1v1. We stole the idea from someone else btw, so someone else deserves the creative credit.

We played annihilation but with one difference.... you only get kill points from the player on your right, which sets up a conflict between defence and offence. Worth considering if you can be bothered to get two 6x4 tables together and mark off a triangular area together, but it did result in some abnormal stretching to move the models at some middle points of the board!

[DrLove42]

Theres rules for 1 v 1 v 1 or bigger in the BRB, including deployment and shooting into combat that doesnt involve you

I've tried it in apoc never smaller. You get lots of temporary alliances breaking out and betraying each other. Makes for an interesting narrative

[Happosai]

Oh my. This sounds like it would be a really awesome game. The triangular table sounds like it would be a good board for it, too. How big of a table do you think would be good? 8' equilateral? Or go with the normal 6'?

[Calgar33]

I've played a 1v1v1 game where we deployed with two armies having deep deployments on adjacent corners of a long side and the 3rd with a long narrow deployment on the opposite side (usually the strongest player takes that one). We played normal kill points, you could only shoot into combat you weren't involved in and combat res was essentially who ever cause the most kills against either side.

[22gbloodangel]

Oh my. This sounds like it would be a really awesome game. The triangular table sounds like it would be a good board for it, too. How big of a table do you think would be good? 8' equilateral? Or go with the normal 6'?

Tbh I like the idea from TSINI mixed with a triangular table!!!

The one we used was 2 6x4`spushed together and then laid a rough triangle out in the middle, but we had at least a foot of give around each edge, we had space and thought it was worth more table spce for books, drinks, etc.... we did a 2000 point game each so it was a large triangle to allow decent deployment zone and space between each (we had to redraw twice because we didn't account for how close a triangle shape would bring deployment zones to each other!). Tbh i'd advise playing it by ear, but if I had to estimate then a 6ft table edge with 18-24" of gap either side of each deployment zone would be about right. I've had a few beers though so I apologies in advance if the dimensions are wrong... tbh one table edge was much longer than the others but he had the worst of the scenery and cover so it was a fair trade off, but it goes to show we didn't apply it as an exact science.

You need at least one person with long arms though....

One word of caution.... I wouldn't try this against a WAAC player. Too many options to play negatively by turtling and/or soaking up easy KPs, but i'd recommend reserving this for mates and people you know to be of good humour and sportsmanlike behavior, or want a themed game and don't mind losing, although that said, you could avoid that by doing a custom scenario instead of just annihilation (I.e retrieve something from centrepiece location).

[Happosai]

One word of caution.... I wouldn't try this against a WAAC player. Too many options to play negatively by turtling and/or soaking up easy KPs, but i'd recommend reserving this for mates and people you know to be of good humour and sportsmanlike behavior, or want a themed game and don't mind losing, although that said, you could avoid that by doing a custom scenario instead of just annihilation (I.e retrieve something from centrepiece location).

Hmm, I like the retrieve objective. That sounds fun. I wonder though... would it be more fun to take and hold something in the center, or to steal an object/artifact/device from the center and then hightail it back to your starting edge?

Hmm... I think I'd like to set something like this up, here.

[Grenadier]

Hoo boy...a three way battle...

I have vast experience with them. The bulk of the battles I've played were three ways. Because the only two opponents I had often wanted to play this way. So nobody had to sit out. And it usually involved both of them bringing their armies to team up against mine. So I'd be fighting two players. On occasion it'd just be a three way free for all.

And we took it to a new level by going "all in" with Apocalyspe games. And I'm talking MASSIVE points value. I once battled them and their armies combined exceeded 20,000 points. Now, both my Guard and Templars barely make it over 10,000 points combined. A bit higher if I go nuts with upgrades.

I'm proud to say that I wont 95 percent of these three way fights. I preferred them to be free for alls though. Each player in it for himself. But I found allowing them to team up made the turns go a bit quicker. My experiences in these battles makes me feel confident that I could take on any player and any army. Or it could just be they were not that good so I may be over confidant. It'd be nice to take on others to get a better experience.

In such battles my Guard tended to dig in and maximize their massive amount of firepower against the enemy. Just from shooting alone I'd reduced their army significantly per turn. Meanwhile my Templars would handle all the nasty hand to hand combat work. In one memorable battle, just a two on one, I let my opponent bring twice the amount of points I had (using only my Guard) and wiped out his Dark Angels.

Also, if it is a three way free for all I believe you should be allowed to shoot into close combat provided your own units aren't involved in the combat. After all, what commander in his right mind would miss an opportunity to kill enemy troops in such a situation? In a three way fight this possibility causes all three players to rethink their close combat plans and adds a layer of strategy in the game.

Of course it's not uncommon in a free for all that at some point two players more or less "team up" against the other guy as it might give each player an advantage. And then in another turn turn against each other again! Three way fights can be a lot of fun but they can also be a big hassle and at times creating an unfair situation for one player.

[TSINI]

For shooting into combat, templates and blasts are easy to determine, for normal shooting attacks, a simple way to do it is after rolling to hit, roll the hits again dividing the dice between the squads.

For example:
2 units
Player 1 rolls his hits into the combat (which consists of 1 unit of player 2s army, and 1 unit of player 3s army) player 1 then re-rolls these hits 1,2,3 counts as player 2s unit, 4,5,6 counts as player 3s unit. Then you roll to wound as normal.

3 units
Player 1 rolls his hits into the combat (which consists of 1 unit of player 2s army, and 2 units of player 3s army) player 1 then re-rolls these hits 1,2, counts as player 2s unit, 3,4 counts as player 3s 1st unit, 5,6, counts as player 3s 2nd unit. Then you roll to wound as normal.

For 4 units you may want to use the numbers 1,2,3 and 4 and just reroll the 5s and 6s,
Similarly for 5 units you may want to reroll the 6s.

Not sure for 7 units and up though, god forbid that should happen!