Archroy Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Well, me and my mates had our 1st battle a couple of weeks back, with the 2 of them playing Orks vs Marines and myself as the "try and find the section in the rules that covers that bit" bloke... It went pretty well, but now they want to try a 3 army battle. I'm more of the opinion that we shouldn;t run before we can walk, but they want to try it, so I agreed... My question is regarding deployment - on a rectangular field (my dining room table, the gaming board is still to become a WIP) - what's the most fair way to deploy 3 armies (500pts, Orks, CF and BA)? I have some ideas, but thought I'd defer to the collective wisdom of those here assembled... Muchos gracias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty the Pyro Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Well, there arnt realy official rules for this, but purely in my opinion I would mark of an equilateral hexigon. Though the way that will require less house ruleing would be to seperate into two teams, with one player at 1000 points and the other two at 500, you may want to make some FOC concesions though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnil Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 I would suggest making the table a square and each tagging a corner. That corner is your deployment zone. This will limit your options and result in a close brawl! Me and my friends did a one HQ and one troops choice game this way on a 18" by 18" table and my White Scars ripped the orks to shreds but the the imperial guard, who we ignored at first, shot me to pieces...this was the first and only recorded win for the imperial guard....hahaha! Or maybe make it an objective game with the objective In The middle thus a king of the hill style of game plays out with whoever holding the objective being double teamed by the other two players until one remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellios Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 The one thing I would say about three-ways is that in my experiance someone normally gets ganked by two people... especially if they look stronger than the other 2... have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrab Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Have two corners and the center of the other side, forming an equilateral triangle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bystrom Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 there's a mission in the BBB that uses three-way deployment. Summa summarum, the three armies meet, get in a disagreement and have a fight an objective in the middle then three other objectives, spread out so that no other objectives are too close, each objective is a 'base', in which each army deploys. Not all units are active in the beginning, considering the confusion, but with such small armies, I would suggest against that. You can't engage in a close combat that involves the other two armies (to minimise the confusion), the one who went first one turn goes last the next, so that one isn't first (or last) every turn, and so on and so forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakobus Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Yeah, when I have played a three-way battle its ended up in the table corners. I'm trying to remember if the mission for "Broken Alliance" in the BRB has specific rules for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bystrom Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Yeah, when I have played a three-way battle its ended up in the table corners. I'm trying to remember if the mission for "Broken Alliance" in the BRB has specific rules for it That's the one. It's essentially, place an objective, I think at least 18" (or 36"?) away from other objectives. These serve as bases, in which you deploy nearby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdeathlegion Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 The "Broken alliance" scenario also has rules for shooting into assaults that only enemies are involved in which is pretty cool. It also has rules for the three player turn in which the player that goes first in the preceding turn goes last in the following turn, and the remaining players dice off for first, this continues into the next turn as the player who went first is forced to go last. It's pretty cool, you should try it out, but it's definitely not the most balanced game type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuruD Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 I do not think that a three way game would ever be all that balanced. That being said I have a thought. Maybe make rules where you can only attack one of the opponents. Each person attacking the next in a circle pattern. The goal would have to be the first to wipe out one opponent. If you had it so that you had to wipe out the first to attack the second it would most likely end up being a stand off so that the second opponent would be weakened before you attacked your first opponent. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chengar Qordath Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 The one thing I would say about three-ways is that in my experiance someone normally gets ganked by two people... especially if they look stronger than the other 2... have fun! That has always been my experience; when there are more than 2 players, winning is as much about getting other players to fight amongst themselves as it is about your skill as a general. Often, the best way to win is just sit back and watch while everyone else fights, then move in to mop up what's left afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.