whydak
Junior Strategist
Posts: 288
|
Post by whydak on May 26, 2017 15:31:12 GMT
I want to convince some people here to try playing WM&H in more than 2 people in one battle. Free for all variant seems more fun than 2 vs 2 game. Anyone tried such thing or have some suggestions how to play it? Deployment in opposite corners seems obvious. And small amount of points to avoid waiting for your turn for ever. But how about some scenario or other win conditions?
|
|
|
Post by bobrek on May 26, 2017 15:52:28 GMT
I was discussing this with one of the guys teaching me to play on a purely hypothetical basis and we thought that having 4 players divided into two teams with the allies being placed in opposite corners was an interesting idea.
Rather than typical lining up of armies each player would have to consider enemies to his port and starboard. Would bring about some interesting strategies, and I'm not sure if you'd want to have a no conferring rule?
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on May 26, 2017 15:56:48 GMT
I've tried it a couple of times. For free for all, I don't recommend scenario. It will mostly be ignored anyway.
A shrinking killbox has been pretty good for 4-player. Starting at the beginning of the second round, you have a 12" killbox. At the beginning of each round after thqt, it increases in range by 2. So it goes 12, 14, 16, 18, etc. If your caster is completely in that distance from any table edge at the start of a round, your caster insta-dies.
I've found 25 points is about right, and would like to experiment with timed turns, since these games go really long.
Deployment should be fine in corners in a free-for-all. Pick a corner, and deploy completely inside 10" from both edges.
Last caster alive wins. When a caster dies, remove their entire army for simplicity.
That's just my suggestion. I've done team games as well. One time we had a 3v3 game, 15 points each. That was crazy.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on May 26, 2017 17:06:26 GMT
My group quite commonly plays 2vs2 150pts per side and I can't recommend it enough! Devising strategies together with a partner is a great thing. We haven't had good experiences with free-for-all, though. Somethign didn't really feel right every time we tried, so we prefer tried and trusted 2vs2 now every time we feel like playing something more challenging than simple small points (like 75) 1vs1
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on May 26, 2017 17:40:26 GMT
Back when i started playing my friends found scenarios for 3 player free for all on the old forums. One of them was three flags on a triangle and your deployment zones were two corners and a trapezoid on the opposite side. You had two flags nearly equidistant from you and you could only score on the right one. So you had to contest the left one long enough to score your points while the other player was contesting you. It was much fun. I'm a fan of free for alls.
Also some of the unbound scenarios had multiplayer variants
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on May 26, 2017 18:44:24 GMT
Yeah, those were the ones we tried. On paper they look good, but didn't click for us, it always ended with an unsatisfying "two fight mostly each other, third wins with little effort".
|
|
|
Post by whiskeydave on May 26, 2017 18:54:07 GMT
Its interesting to me that OP seems inclined to rule out 2v2. It is one of my favorite events at Adepticon every year. I really like talking about an in progress game with someone and collaboratively winning or losing.
Terrible mistakes go from "I am an idiot" to "Man, we should drink more, yeah?"
But, ymmv.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on May 27, 2017 8:40:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mallios on May 27, 2017 12:27:18 GMT
We very rarely do 2vs2's or 3vs3's and I find them incredibly fun, due to the greater depth of strategy, as well as the change from "normal."
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on May 27, 2017 18:55:39 GMT
I'm sorry that cat in the middle of the pictures distracted me. What is this post about again?
|
|