TarlSS Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Does anyone have rules or varients they play with 3-4 players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiralngCadavr Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 I don't believe there are any. I've done the occasional 3-way free for all (many of the objectives can be used without much adaptation, if you just adapt the spaces as equidistant triangles), and Malifaux's single model turns make it swing easier, but I've never seen a very strategically worthwhile adaptation of 2-p games as 3-p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDisaster Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Me and a few friends often to a 4 Way Battle Royal. We use Corner deployment allowing only 6" from each corner as the zone. Certain schemes and strategies become a royal pain to deal with but other become easier. Best thing to do is experiment a little and see what works. That or adjust some of the schemes/strategies to suit multiplayer games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracomax Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 We've done a few quick and dirty modifications of the first edition multiplayer rules, and we've also done 3 player with each taking a corner for corner deployment, and otherwise playing normally. Personally, I prefer 4 player to 3, because 3 always devolves into 2 against 1, whereas 4+ tends to shift back and forth a whole lot more. That being said, 3 corners as deployment seems to work okay, because while the guy in the middle is more likely to get in a fight with either side, they don't have anyone directly opposed to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sybaris Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 One of the ways i could see to help alleviate that dreaded 2v1 from plaguing (another) 3p game is to devote a food chain (a bit like in some ccg). So player A must target player B with his schemes that require a target and player B must target player C...who goes after A. This ensure that everyone is against everyone, at least for targeted schemes. So for example if Breakthrough is available, player A must go toward B's deploying zone, etc. Not perfect at all, but as i said...serves as a balm and makes it appear more fair for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDisaster Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 You could also look at perhaps something akin to the brawls of old. 2 vs. 2, this can get silly so ensure each player is using different factions on the teams. I;ve done this by having everybody declare factions first as usual then if 2 of the same crop up they cannot be teamed up. Works pretty well! As for 3 Player an option would be to encourage a 2 vs. 1 (2x50ss crews vs 1x 100ss crew) That is an idea I'ev wanted to explore but haven't yet been given an opportunity to give it a go. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiralngCadavr Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 sybaris, have you tried that out? it seems like it would likely either result in a pile in the middle like less refined options or have everyone running away from one player and towards the other... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracomax Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 You could also look at perhaps something akin to the brawls of old. 2 vs. 2, this can get silly so ensure each player is using different factions on the teams. I;ve done this by having everybody declare factions first as usual then if 2 of the same crop up they cannot be teamed up. Works pretty well! As for 3 Player an option would be to encourage a 2 vs. 1 (2x50ss crews vs 1x 100ss crew) That is an idea I'ev wanted to explore but haven't yet been given an opportunity to give it a go. This would work, provided that the two 50SS players were teamed up. so long as there is any competitive issues, it just means that both sides try to team up with the 100SS player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sybaris Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 sybaris, have you tried that out? it seems like it would likely either result in a pile in the middle like less refined options or have everyone running away from one player and towards the other... It was my intention to but we haven't had the time. To be fair i think it can work decently for a friendly game. And yes it will encourage a sort of caroussel effect (with the music!), players running after each other, but since the objective-based schemes and strategy remain free for all and on the map rather than on models, you still have to cover the land and interact with it, and in some case you have to defend your own area. For this reason you might not want to put yourself in the middle of a crossfire anyway. This would create quite a few "engagements" where 2 crews are dishing it out, and in some areas the 3 of them will be having a go. But a huge firefight in the middle for a Turf war is quite cinematic so it has its merits for a beer and prezels game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaled Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 We've played a few 3 player games. We set up at three points of a equilateral triangle, and specify that when choosing schemes that they're directed against different players - they can't both be against the same player. E.g. You might have to Assassinate one player and Breakthrough into the other player's deployment zone, but you couldn't choose Breakthrough and Assassinate against the same player. We usually choose strategies and schemes to make for a fun game rather than randomise, but it's worked well and makes for a fun game. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiralngCadavr Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Oh, yeah, I hadn't thought of that. The multiple objective system does lend itself well to a free for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hateful Darkblack Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 I think SmogCon and AdeptiCon both have Double touraments for 4 players. For 3 players, in a casual game you can usually just negotiate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDisaster Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 This would work, provided that the two 50SS players were teamed up. so long as there is any competitive issues, it just means that both sides try to team up with the 100SS player. Yeah that was my intention, 2 Masters with 50ss crews join up and work together against one Master with 100ss. That could be very Interesting and quite fluffy as well! Imagine say Nicodem and his Zombie Hordes storming Malifaux. Lady Justice and the Death Marshalls call in Perdita to help lay down some Guild Law! What a game that would make! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clement Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 The only thing I worry about the 2v1 scenario is the activation issue. The 100ss player is going to have to sit through two enemy activations before he can respond. Letting him go twice as often just moved the problem to the 50ss players. Maybe make it 2x50ss vs 125? That would could help cover the disparity. Also the extra master the smaller group is bringing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracomax Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Well, 125 would probably be too much. Maybe double the upgrade slots on the 100SS model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDisaster Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Well the idea I had was that you have the 2 50ss crews flip off against each other for initiative. Whoever wins goes first for their activations and they alternate between each other during the course of each turn. For Example 100ss = A 50ss No.1 = B 50ss No.2 = C A > B > A > C etc... As well as this my other idea was that only one of the crews teamed up against the 100ss flips for initiative. So when the 2 50ss crews have flipped off against each other the winner then flips for initiative against their mutual opponent. These rules should keep it fairly fair and balanced so that the larger crew isn't being punished by tag team combos, they also have the advantage of having 2 masters at their disposal so you don't want to give them too much of an advantage. With that in mind it also raises the question of SS pool. 2 Masters could potentially bring 14 ss into the game so it would only be fair to allow the 100ss player to have a similar sized pool to play with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Math Mathonwy Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 sybaris, have you tried that out? it seems like it would likely either result in a pile in the middle like less refined options or have everyone running away from one player and towards the other...I have done that and it works nicely enough. I mean, it is naturally going to be rather chaotic, but it works in that you can't hit your "prey" too hard or else they can't put pressure on your "predator" and then you're screwed (to use the terms of VTES CCG). It makes for an interesting dynamic and avoids the 2 against 1 situations (or at least makes one player in the alliance the clear benefactor), though it can result in "kingmaking" behaviour if one player gets beaten so badly that they can't win anymore so I wouldn't recommend it for any serious event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracomax Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Like I said, even in such situations, I've found that what happens is that 2 players decide to ignore each other, and focus attacks on the 3rd, because if the predator ignores the prey for 2-3 turns, both get points, while denying it to 3, and potentially wiping 3 out. then, in turns 4-5, they don't have to worry much about 3, and can fight out over the last few VP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Math Mathonwy Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Like I said, even in such situations, I've found that what happens is that 2 players decide to ignore each other, and focus attacks on the 3rd, because if the predator ignores the prey for 2-3 turns, both get points, while denying it to 3, and potentially wiping 3 out. then, in turns 4-5, they don't have to worry much about 3, and can fight out over the last few VP.I don't get it. If I hit my predator and my prey hits my predator, then my prey comes out on top. Add to that the fact that my predator gets points for hitting me thus likely resulting in him retaliating against me more than against my prey (his predator), that seems like a surefire way to give my prey the victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracomax Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Mostly because even the prey elements in M2E tend to be fairly light. a lot of schemes and most strategies don't discriminate between enemies, or require direct interaction with enemies. I don't know. I can just tell you haw that has turned out when we have done it in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageBoss Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 When we have done 2v1, we have given the 1 two masters (since the two have two masters). Additionally, the 2 share a single deck of cards, hand, and SS pool. On their turn, they decide together what is going to activate with the owning player handling the chosen models turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maclein Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 We've played a few 3 player games. We set up at three points of a equilateral triangle, and specify that when choosing schemes that they're directed against different players - they can't both be against the same player. E.g. You might have to Assassinate one player and Breakthrough into the other player's deployment zone, but you couldn't choose Breakthrough and Assassinate against the same player. We usually choose strategies and schemes to make for a fun game rather than randomise, but it's worked well and makes for a fun game. I like your idea. A question: how do you declare Schemes in multiplayer: openly or secretly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaled Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 I think we've always declared schemes, but I'm not certain - we may have kept them unrevealed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spifferson Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 Has anyone used the old multiplayer rules? I'll have to dig them up but i'm curious how much work would be required to polish them up for m2e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDisaster Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 I'd be keen to try out the old Brawl Rules in M2E (2 Masters vs. 2 Masters). I heard there were quite a few balancing issues with the old rules but some compromises could be made to level the playing field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.