[ZMB]

OK, on Monday there is a good chance that three of us will be itching to throw some dice. I have played a couple three way missions before, but it tend to get lopsided very quickly. Are there any rules that people know of to regulate things like turn order and such? The best that I can find is the mission in the rule book under the campaign section that details a mission for three players, but that is really the only info I can find so far.

 

[RangerRob]

I've played the one in the rule book. Its ok, but not really the best. We tried a 3-way game once where there were objectives in the middle and each player's deployment zone. In addition to that, if you killed the player to your left's HQ (target's choice of which HQ to nominate), your got an objective point. It kind of helped a bit with not having 2 people gang up on each other.

 

[ZMB]

how would you do turn order? I was thinking that after the first person went that the other two would dice off and the winner would go second. For the person who goes last gets to go first in the next turn and then the other two dice off. I am also thinking of using one of the missions in the cities of death book with the use of strategems.

Another thing....How did you handle deployment?

 

[RangerRob]

We just went clockwise around for turn sequence. We tried the turn order from the mission in the 40k rule book, but found that going last and then first in the next turn (thus giving you 2 turns in a row) was too powerful.

Deployment we followed the 40k rule book for one and then the other we just let people pick a location on the table with 12" of an edge and more than 24" away from any other player.

 

[Wicky]

OK, on Monday there is a good chance that three of us will be itching to throw some dice. I have played a couple three way missions before, but it tend to get lopsided very quickly. Are there any rules that people know of to regulate things like turn order and such? The best that I can find is the mission in the rule book under the campaign section that details a mission for three players, but that is really the only info I can find so far.

Honestly I would simply ally two players together into one force (say each allied player had 1000 points each) against the one opponent who has 2000 points.

This is shed loads easier to play than allowing shooting into combat like the book directs you to in 3 player games.

And try one of the special missions from 4th Ed like Ambush page 206 or Strong Point Attack page 207 where you can split the allied forces into opposite sides of the table and place your larger defender in the center. Or even the reverse with Breakout page 213.

Cheers.

 

[ZMB]

would the two allied players go at the same time (in the same turn) or would each player have his or hers own respective turns in which to do what they wish?

 

[Wicky]

would the two allied players go at the same time (in the same turn) or would each player have his or hers own respective turns in which to do what they wish?

The two allied players would claim there own units from the one Force organisation chart (so no doubling up on HQ's or anything weird) and simply play the one turn alternating the order move, shoot and assault for their respective units.

So it might be the Allies that move first, allie A moves one of his units, then allie B moves one of hers and repeat until all movement has been completed, then proceed onto the shooting phase alternating between owned units. Then it moves onto the single players turn.

Note - no swapping ownership between allied units during the game..

And normally there must be a great deal of conversation (and confusion) going on between the Allies about what to do during the game so if you are the player of the larger single force just sit back and laugh during all of this - it really is entertaining and no secrets can possibly be with held by them!

Cheers.

 

[Subsocial]

When my friends and I play 3-way matches, we do it one of two ways: 2 v 1 or a triangle board. The 2 v 1 just follows standard match setup, but the triangle board is a bit different.

We decide on a side length for all three sides, usually 4 feet, but it can change depending on game size. To determine who goes first, we all three roll dice. Highest gets to chose first, second, or third, and then the next highest chooses from the remaining two spot, and the lowest is stuck. Then, The person who is going first chooses a table corner, and he/she may deploy their models up to 12" from that corner. Second person deploys, then third. Objectives are easily modified to be used with three people, and kill points needs no modification.

It doesn't work quite as well as a regular match, but it does add an interesting twist to your games. Good luck with your match, and I hope this helped! :beer:

EDIT: Just read Wicky's post. That's exactly what my friends and I do for our 2 v 1 games.

 

[Cenedar]

The only problem with 2v1 ive encountered, is that if the 2 are not the same army. Then you have 2 strong parts of different armies on one side. EX. IG and Orkz on one side.

 

[Wicky]

The only problem with 2v1 ive encountered, is that if the 2 are not the same army. Then you have 2 strong parts of different armies on one side. EX. IG and Orkz on one side.

Ah yes this is very true but when all three players come ready to play a 2000 point (or similar) game then the opponents will not mix and match forces, they can simply divide the one complete army into two and general each half accordingly.

But if forced to play against “2 strong parts of different armies on one side,” I would allow a compensating extra Elite choice for the lone commander, this obviously will take some agreement prior to the game starting.

Cheers.