Any suggestions for 3-4 Player Games?

[H4ml3t]

I've got a big get together coming up in Atlanta and there willbe as many as 4-8 new Malifaux players there. The current plan is to run 2 tables. Table 1 will only host 2-player battles and the other will be open for 2+ player battles.

Does anyone have recommendations (preferably with links) for 3-4 player games? Thanks in advance!

[Gremlin66]

Have the new players team up with the experienced ones to play and ask questions. Kinda like a learn as you go. 

[Gnomezilla]

Paranoia is a three-player setup. When we played, we flipped for deployment, and from highest to lowest we chose either where we wanted to deploy, or which order we wanted to deploy in (first, second, third). It does lead to some strange happenings.

"No, don't empty your hand! Her flesh constructs are going to reactivate!"
"What do I care? They're closer to you than to me."

[-Loki-]

If you buy the schemes and strategies deck, there's a couple of 3 and 4 player scenarios in it.

[Cinnamon Bear]

The most recent Chronicles that just came out today has a special 2v2 team scenario, featuring Hoffman, Ryle, and Anna Lovelace that seems like it would be a lot of fun. I could be mistaken but I think there are some other multiplayer scenarios in previous Chronicles.

[Gnomezilla]

 

If you buy the schemes and strategies deck, there's a couple of 3 and 4 player scenarios in it.

We just played one of those. I thought a four-player scenario would have less of the 'one player gets dogpiled' lopsidedness of the three-player setup. I was wrong. Sheesh. Put Precise on Ryle with a handful of soulstones, and suddenly you're everyone's favorite target.

[-Loki-]

Any game with more than 2 players will involve a lot of backstabbing and dog piling. It's just how it works.

[H4ml3t]

 

Any game with more than 2 players will involve a lot of backstabbing and dog piling. It's just how it works.

I think this is true 90+% of the time and the backstabbing and dog piling can be fun if you embrace the chaos of it. What I don't like and what often happens (in other systems at least)  is that the player who turtles will win and that's not very much fun.

I'm hoping that Malifaux's emphasis on points through Strategies and Schemes will help mitigatate the turtle effect. I think the Paranoia Scenario sounds fun and I might work on finding or creating another scenario or two.

 

Have the new players team up with the experienced ones to play and ask questions. Kinda like a learn as you go. 

I'll be the most experienced player there and I started playing Malifaux at Origins back in June. I played 2 demo games at Origins and I've run some demo games and  played 2 50SS games since then so we're all pretty much newbs. The cool news is that in the few short months since Origins I've got 7 new players excited about the game and they're all buying into the game pretty hard. It's fun to grow the community and very rewarding to have some friends to play with.

[Tokapondora]

This is the format we tend to use. Schemes involving models go against the player (counter/)clockwise to them and the centerline runs through both opponent's deployment zones. It also makes it so that people rarely gang up on someone, because weakening your target might make it incredibly easy for the person they wouldve targetted to go all out against you.

It has a tendency to pull players inwards, swirling like a vortex as they chase each other, but it really works with just about all schemes and strategies, and constantly being hunted but not getting points for fighting back adds another fun layer of pressure.

[Four_N_Six]

We do something very similar, but my friend is freaky smart into math so he did calculations to make more even deployment zones. 

Basically, you only score points against your target. We added a rule in that the person you're defending against can't help you get points. Essentially, if you have something like hunting party against player A, if player B kills the master, you don't get credit for the kill and don't get points, like burning or poison. Adds another level of denial if you're thinking about it 

[Gnomezilla]

 

This is the format we tend to use. Schemes involving models go against the player (counter/)clockwise to them and the centerline runs through both opponent's deployment zones. It also makes it so that people rarely gang up on someone, because weakening your target might make it incredibly easy for the person they would've targetted to go all out against you.

It has a tendency to pull players inwards, swirling like a vortex as they chase each other, but it really works with just about all schemes and strategies, and constantly being hunted but not getting points for fighting back adds another fun layer of pressure.

I like the modified deployment zones a lot. Paranoia's 12"x12"s are a little too easy for even a slow crew to reach their opponent.

[Tokapondora]

 

We do something very similar, but my friend is freaky smart into math so he did calculations to make more even deployment zones. 

Basically, you only score points against your target. We added a rule in that the person you're defending against can't help you get points. Essentially, if you have something like hunting party against player A, if player B kills the master, you don't get credit for the kill and don't get points, like burning or poison. Adds another level of denial if you're thinking about it 

Yeah, we do the opposite. It creates some harrowing situations where a master might be tearing through your crew but killing or even fatally wounding it might give the person hunting them points. I once decided enough was enough and blasted a huge chunk of health off their master to get them to fuck off for a bit, forgetting that someone's Rail Golem was at burning+3 and him swooping in halfway across the board allowed that final poke to be a nice +3 points. Otherwise just defending yourself would allow you to rob/block the person who you're scoring points on already. When a scheme says "Enemy", for you it simply means the person you're hunting. Doesn't matter who does it unless the schemes specifies you (ie a quick murder might force your opponent to hold back). Though we might try that some time.

 

What sort of different deployment zones do you have? 

[Terwox]

I know this is unorthodox, but I'd just play a different game with three people.  With four, just play two games of Malifaux.  It's ok.  

[H4ml3t]

 

This is the format we tend to use. Schemes involving models go against the player (counter/)clockwise to them and the centerline runs through both opponent's deployment zones. It also makes it so that people rarely gang up on someone, because weakening your target might make it incredibly easy for the person they wouldve targetted to go all out against you.

It has a tendency to pull players inwards, swirling like a vortex as they chase each other, but it really works with just about all schemes and strategies, and constantly being hunted but not getting points for fighting back adds another fun layer of pressure.

This (and the subsequent similar posts) seems like a good plan for 3. Do you think it would work for 4 if you changed to corner deployment and kept the clockwise attack?

[Kad Baz]

If y'all are visiting Atlanta, drop by Giga Bites in Marietta on Wednesdays, we have a decent sized group that plays there.

[H4ml3t]

 

If y'all are visiting Atlanta, drop by Giga Bites in Marietta on Wednesdays, we have a decent sized group that plays there.

I'll pass that on to the locals. My next Atlanta trip is just for a long weekend but I'll try to get there for a Wednesday night sometime.

If you're free the weekend of Oct. 1st you'd be welcome at my friend's place. It'll be a long weekend of all kinds of gaming.

[Kad Baz]

 

I'll pass that on to the locals. My next Atlanta trip is just for a long weekend but I'll try to get there for a Wednesday night sometime.

If you're free the weekend of Oct. 1st you'd be welcome at my friend's place. It'll be a long weekend of all kinds of gaming.

I appreciate the invite, I work Friday-Sunday, so my weekends are pretty locked down, unfortunately.

[CiDevant]

So I'm writing this before I read the rest of the replies.

My two friends and I play 3 player matches pretty often.  We've found the 3 player schemes that wyrd has put out to be lacking in terms of fairness.  To remedy this I did some math to find equal distance from each starting zone and the center.  This is what I came up with.  For simplicity sake the centerlines drawn aren't used.  It is whatever it would be if you deployed normally from that side or corner.

We flip schemes and strats same as usual.  Before deployment we all flip cards to see who our target player will be.  Highest player gets to chose his target and it follows from there who's attacking who.  You can only score schemes and strategies against this target player.  The idea was that it would prevent 2v1 scenarios.  It's been better than just declaring whatever on whoever but it's had mixed results.  For example we had an issue last game where both my opponents took Frame for Murder.  Neither was able to score any points from it despite both of them losing the "sucker".  Pools with lots of scheme marker objectives usually go the best.  Pools with lots of target interactions tend to go poorly as two players tend to get tangled while the third runs around free.  Murder pools tend to be a toss up.  We talked about declaring one scheme against each other player but schemes that don't declare a target throw the balance off again.  Today we decided that the 1/3 terrain rule has been too much and we're going to try 1/4 terrain in future matches.  We also talked about increasing deployment to "close".  

Actually looking at this while I typed the above, I think I solved the problem.  As it stands your 20 inches from each player's deployment with this setup.  Standard is 24 inches, Close is 18, Flank is 13, Corner 27.  By making each deployment zone 7" that puts us at close engagement and actually gives the corner guy a full half circle instead of a weird semicircle.  Just cut it down to 4" radius to give us a rectangle starting zone of 7" x 3.5" to stay equidistant from everyone.  Moving the corner player in by one inch would increase the starting zones width by ~3 inches giving a decent 10" x 3" starting area.  Corner guy would have a weird isosceles trapezoid but whatever.  This doesn't exactly solve the problem of targeting but it does solve the problem of one fast player getting an extra advantage of what was basically close deployment.  Heck now we could actually flip for corner, close, and standard deployment.  Eh flanking could just be 14" x 7", I'm sure the math falls close enough...

Great, my desk looks like I've been trying to summon demons again.

Now to read the above.