|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/14/2014
Posts: 144
|
Some months back there was some discussion with myself and FlyingArrow in another thread of mine (originally about maps) regarding ideas on how to make Star Wars Minis fair and fun when playing with more than the standard 2 players in a skirmish. So I'm wondering if anyone has some cool ideas they'd be willing to share for this format, and/or come up with some new formats or rule changes. Here's some of what has already been mentioned: - Team Games (if even #'s) - Kill the person to your left - Scoring points (with/without gambit) - FFA total annihilation Some trouble areas I've found that can arise: -Slower playing -Teaming up unfairly (knocking someone out of the game prematurely) -Camping I'd really love to hear some discussion on this! (link to old thread if curious http://www.bloomilk.com/Forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13884)
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
AceAce recently posted a new format that sounds pretty interesting: http://www.bloomilk.com/Forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=14625
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/26/2008
Posts: 2,115
Location: Watertown, SD
|
One big change I've heard works well is have it so when determining targets, have the closest enemy for each player count as a legal target rather than just closest overall.
That'd prevent a player from using another as a shield.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 1/30/2009
Posts: 6,457
Location: Southern Illinois
|
EmporerDragon wrote:One big change I've heard works well is have it so when determining targets, have the closest enemy for each player count as a legal target rather than just closest overall.
That'd prevent a player from using another as a shield. Nice idea.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/14/2014
Posts: 144
|
EmporerDragon wrote:One big change I've heard works well is have it so when determining targets, have the closest enemy for each player count as a legal target rather than just closest overall.
That'd prevent a player from using another as a shield. I've never heard of this before, that's a very cool idea. I can think of quite a few situations where that rule would have been helpful in past games of mine :P
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 9/23/2008
Posts: 1,487
Location: Lower the Hutt, New Zealand
|
In Hawera (where the kings of random play ideas live...), they play Hawera Rules... You can target opposing army and ignore others as you choose. It's like you can select other players as friend or foe as you please. Normal targeting rules apply... just for each opponent individually.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 9/23/2008
Posts: 1,487
Location: Lower the Hutt, New Zealand
|
Also, in Hawera, coalitions form and break almost every round. Everyone always ends up going for the strongest... it's the ones that look less of a threat the longest that can win...
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/25/2013
Posts: 124
|
Excelkent idea EmperorDragon on the targeting. The biggest problem I have had is the 3 player game. We usually have 1 player play like say 400 point squad, and players 2and 3 play 200 point squads against player 1's 400 point squad. That is the fairest way I have played a 3 player game.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 171
|
Or there is always Royal Rumble. I was one of the creators of that format and it was never intended to be a team event at Gen Con, it just kind of happened last minute and we just went with it. I was put on the spot trying to figure out how to make it work for a team event just weeks before Gen Con. It actually came together really well and that's what we went with for Royal Rumble the last 3 years.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/1/2008
Posts: 818
Location: Wisconsin
|
For three player games, what we've done for league play:
1. Players roll a die for map set-up initiative; highest number picks their starting area first, 2nd picks next, and 3rd gets the remaining starting area
2. Starting areas are set up in a triangle; one player is top center on the map, one is bottom left, the other is bottom right (or invert that based on the map); intent is to limit how much one person is caught in the middle; intent is to limit the open shooting lanes for turn 1
3. No gambit; never had a need for it.
4. Players get points for figures they kill. First one to build points (ie - kill 100 points to of other two players' squads) wins. This promotes getting into the fray and prevents turtling. Last man standing has no relevance other than the game ends. Points killed then determines second and third.
I kind of like ED's idea of "have the closest enemy for each player count as a legal target rather than just closest overall."
But then I don't. Takes away some of the dynamics that prevented the "teamin up unfairly" syndrome that Amadeus was concerned about. In our games, part of the fun was moving in just far enough to keep player C closer to B than you are. And part of the frustration when B moves towards you or C changes course and goes around a room instead of through it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/17/2010
Posts: 3,682
Location: Beggers Canyon Tatooine
|
we learned to give points for damage dealt, instead of pieces killed.
sometimes players wouldn't attack if they couldn't kill. they didn't want to just wound,
and then let another score with the kill.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
jak wrote:we learned to give points for damage dealt, instead of pieces killed.
sometimes players wouldn't attack if they couldn't kill. they didn't want to just wound,
and then let another score with the kill. Great idea. Lots of bookkeeping, though. We would play that you have to kill the person on your left. First person to kill their target squad wins. It worked okay, but would lead to some odd running-around-in-circles sometimes. Not 100% happy with it, but far better than having two players team up against one.
|
|
|
Guest |