View Full Version : 3 player matches
Dan-e
08-09-2009, 05:08 AM
Ok, mostly an opinion post, but i wanted to ask what people thought of games of 3 players?
i have a friend who is tring to get someone to start playing and is always asking me to play a 3 person match so they can join in and learn the game and get a feel... either its a free for all at equal points or its a Team Vs 1 where the team share points equal to the solo side.
Now in either case i feel the balance of 40k breaks down badly. i have never personally seen a team beat a solo player, equal points or not. Two minds aren't better then one in this case i think.
Then in Free for all matches its who ever gets attacked last that wins. Player one goes after player 3, player 2 attacks player one and player three is forced to counter attack player one who is quickly killed and then player 3 quick dies to two who didn't have anyone attack him.
anyone else agree with this, so i can try to talk some logic into my friend? Or is there a way to set up a game of 3 players that equals out? and how do you do it? table set up never seems fair and missions don't seem to account for it very well.
Rookie1
08-09-2009, 05:25 AM
I guess if there is a new player in the two player team, who is going to learn the game, it is okay.
You play for fun, not for winning in this constellation.
I have played such 3 player games before, it was always for fun and rather a chaos, but good for helping new players.
Don't know if there is a way to equals such setup. Because of the imbalance I don't like apocalypse, but playing apo is not about winning, just having a nice evening with friends.
mmmmm seems like you guys need a 4th player
Abominable Plague Marine
08-09-2009, 07:02 AM
Either way, I dont see the problem with it, of course feel free to express your concerns with them and you can even point them out as you go, a learning experience for all of you.
All I could suggest is the Apocalypse chain of command option. So both sides have a single army of how ever many points, you are the commander of one army, your friend the commander of the other. The learner will be allocated certain units and given an objective to achieve with those units in support of the commanders army as a whole.
Excalibur
08-09-2009, 08:14 AM
I've done a couple 3 player free for alls with my friends
i've never found them to be too unbalance so long as you try to make each deployment zone equidistant from all the others. I also found that putting line of sight blocking terrain between the deployment zones helped since it forced everyone into the middle. Like others have said though, a three person game isn't really about winning it is more choatic and more just to have fun and roll dice.
But if you have one new person I would suggest doing a team vs. one as that is probably the best way to teach them
Drew da Destroya
08-09-2009, 09:39 AM
My friends and I regularly play 3-player matches. We do a 2-player team vs. a "Tyrant", with equal points per side. The team gets a shared FOC, but free army choice, which allows them to set up some cool combinations (Imp. Guard vehicles with Camo Netting protected by an Ork KFF means a 3+ cover save).
In our experience, it seems to balance out pretty well, especially if the team players are communicating on how to create their lists prior to the game.
BuFFo
08-09-2009, 10:03 AM
Play the three way scenario in the MRB, it is very balanced, and it has none of the issues you mentioned.
You guys will enjoy it alot.
Zombie Savant
08-09-2009, 10:14 AM
It might just be me, but I have this built-in aversion to 3 player games of 40k. The, I shall say, least favorite player at my local store would always have problems getting games (this was for a number of reasons: lack of personal and social grace and decency, combined with being the absolute worst player in the store and never having a fully painted model) and he would, without fail, try to inject himself into games even already in progress.
He would try to say that he wanted to deepstrike 500 points of whatever army he had that day onto the field as though they were new arrivals on their own side. One time, to humor him, we let him do it, and he immediately aimed all of his power at my opponent.
He just wanted to be in a situation where he actually had a chance of killing some enemy models.
Needless to say, we never did that again.
But, as I said, I'm probably very biased. If you were to do this successfully, I would have two suggestions. Either set it up where two players are building their army together and use it/coordinate it at the same time. They share the same turn, so they move "their" models at the same time, shoot at the same time, etc, which would encourage them to get together and figure out exactly what they want to do.
Or, as Buffo said, I think the 3 player FFA in the back of the book is quite balanced for a fun game as well.
Lord Alchemy
08-09-2009, 11:51 AM
i just did a 3 player game between a friend of mine and my wife. as she was new to the game we resolved that during the movement phase of a player, if that player had a unit that could hit both other players, both other players rolled a dice and the loser would get shot by the moving player thus sort of balancing it a little by leaving it to chance. it actually worked out pretty good unless you kept losing the dice roll... lol
ratpack
08-09-2009, 01:52 PM
Another approach, especially for a beginner, can be delegating not the half of the army but a unit or two or an element (like deep striking units or cavalry or devastators etc.). so s/he van learn the basics and get a taste of gaming before he finds his hands full with the (daunting) task of controlling a whole (or half) army.
Cheers,
ratpack
DuskRaider
08-09-2009, 02:47 PM
I actually participated in a 3 player game a few weeks ago, 1000 points each. The problem was, my friend and I were teaching another friend the game so it went one for hours. The other issue is one of them was Orks, the other was Tyranids. I had World Eaters. Suffice to say, I was swarmed quickly and dispatched first, but that still took forever.
Three way battles can be fun if there's more terrain, the distance between each player is equal, and there are objectives. I used to play 3 player Confrontation games all the time and for the most part they were fun. Temporary alliances, back stabbing, and usually one player cleans up the remainders at the end. Only problem is 40k is not a skirmish based game, as the points show.
Aegis
08-09-2009, 04:17 PM
I run 3-way games on a regular basis, and I find the key element is terrain. If you typically use 6 pieces, for instance, double that. As has been said, try to block firing lanes that see other deployment zones, as nothing is worse that having two armies of concentrated fire pick on you (especially when running a DH list, which is already shy on models).
The other thing that I found helped our 3-ways is the creation of objectives (beyond what is in the book). My group put together about a dozen or so hidden objectives, things that the player needed to accomplish for an extra victory point. They can be as simple as take a specific objective marker for an extra point, to things like end the game with one of your units in an enemy deployment zone. MY personal favorite is the elite hunter, in which the goal is to nominate an opponents elite choice, and then destroy it. That can be a lot of fun.
The idea is that it gets all sides moving about, rushing for objectives, and bringing each force into contact with each other. Does not always work out the most balanced of ways, but it definitely makes things interesting.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.