Hey all,


If you're anything like my gamegroup, more often than not, you're stuck with 3 players available to game.
In the past, we've played 2v1 matches, where the player on his own controls two teams. While this works, often times it can be terribly unbalanced, and admittedly, unfun.

Last night we found ourselves in this dilemma while playing X-Wing. What we decided to do was have an NPC ship that all 3 players fought to control. Whoever had a ship closest to the NPC would get to decide where it flies that turn; the goal of each player was to direct the NPC ship to their respective side of the map. Whoever could get the ship off their side of the map, won.

It worked pretty well for X-Wing. It got me thinking that, in SWM, we might be able to pull something like this off as well. Obviously instead of a ship, one could use a number of diplomats. Each turn, whoever is closer (if players are tied, it would go to, 'whoever has the most units closer to the NPC,) controls the NPCs.

What are everyone's thoughts? That may have been unclear and I would be happy to elaborate.

Awesome, thanks. These questions are helping flesh out the idea, because I don't think it's totally refined, nor was it last night. I think the NPCs, especially with SWM, would first only be able to move at Speed 3, (so 6 squares.) I say things because I can see it getting really easy for one person to dominate the NPCs at Speed 6.

With regards to your questions - and again, it's totally open to suggestions - we played it so that the NPCs moved before everyone else, and control over the NPCs was determined at the end of the round.

I think that is up to the players. In X-Wing, we used one ship. In SWM, I think 2-5 Diplomats would be fun to use. Think of it thematically as if they were hostages that need to be rescued.

For another layer of tactics, you could alter it so that the NPCs move as part of the controlling squad per round, rather than at the end, so that the player has to decide whether it's more important for him to move the NPCs, or attack with his fighters.

Yeah... We've tried it a couple times but seem to have the same problems we get in 2v1's.

I think one key is to adjust targeting rules so that you can target the closest of either opponent. That way it's not always monkey in the middle.

Certain maps are better than others as well. I actually designed a map that was specifically meant for three player games. Sort of set up and I vaguely triangular pattern. Each squad set up equidistant and had paths to each other squad as well as the center.

Barring a special map I think rattatack arena works great. Some cover and obstacles but ways to attack both squads.

Being able to target the closest figure of either of your opponents is good; helps prevent the 2-vs-1 or monkey in the middle as others noted above.

What has worked for us:
a) Set up in a triangular pattern -- one player in the middle of a long map side and the other two in the farthest corners from that; roll a set-up initiative to determine who picks first from the three set-up areas.
b) Winner is the first player to kill build points of opposing player(s) squads first. So, in a 100 point game, first player to kill 100 points. Doesn't (and often times doesn't) equate to last man standing. This encourages players to get into the fray and not sit back while two others duke it out and also minimizes the 2-vs-1/monkey situation. Except when player B snipes player C's kill of player A's figure ... usually followed by player C retaliating against player B. :>) good times