Recommend
16 
 Thumb up
 Hide
47 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Chaos in the Old World» Forums » Variants

Subject: 2-player Rules? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: Variant [+] CITOW [+] [View All]
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
I don't think this is a game we will want to play as 2-player. However, my wife and I always play through a game once as 2-player before passing it along to our friends. Even if the experience is sub-par, it is a valuable lesson to make sure the game goes more smoothly later. And if we like it well enough, we may continue to play it that way.

So with that in mind, has anyone given 2-player any thought?

1) Going from 4 to 3 players, you increase the Old World deck from 7 to 8 so I am thinking the logical solution is to increase the deck to 9.

2) It seems to me with 2 players, there would be too much space on the board so maybe Ruining two regions before the game starts would shrink the board and give winning by Ruination a fair shake.
a) Always ruin the same two nations: I was thinking Norsca and The Badlands or Troll country.
b) Randomly. Maybe roll two dice. A 3 would correspond to Norsca and an 11 would correspong to The Badlands. A 2 and 12 could be a re-roll (or no ruination). The only problem is this puts your high probability numbers on your high value regions and that might be counter productive (as you would be shortening the game by ruining things but increasing the game by taking out the high scoring regions).

3) Limiting role selection to just Khorne/Slaanesh or Nurgle/Tzeentch to keep the loathing. I am assuming it might be a bit more balanced this way if they are doing opposing things.

Thoughts?
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Raviv Nagel
Israel
Haifa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:
1) Going from 4 to 3 players, you increase the Old World deck from 7 to 8 so I am thinking the logical solution is to increase the deck to 9.
If I remember correctly (only read the rules once), one Old World card is used every round.
That means, that for 4 players, you'll have 4*7=28 player turns in total. For three players, 3*8=24 player turns in total.
So I think 9 is too small for 2 players, because it only give you 18 turns. I'll go with 10 or 11, or maybe even 12 to give the players more time to control more of the board. This might help solve point (2) without removing areas.

Another suggestion is to increase the default number of power points each player starts with every turn.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Browne
United States
Terre Haute
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another possibility is to just eliminate the time limit of Old World cards. Keep drawing them, but play until one person wins.

I think another problem with playing two players is that it would be easy for each side to just "turtle" on opposite sides of the board, unless you just played types who are more likely to end up fighting over the same lands. Like Nurgle/Slanesh. Maybe put the two starting noble tokens in Bretonia and the Empire and both would be fighting in the same spots?

You could make a table that would use a polyhedral die to pick regions to ruin if you want to ruin regions to start.

Another possibility might be to work out a system of ruining regions randomly at certain intervals, representing the other powers working at the same time as you. Ruining automatically a region every so many turns could become a new time limit maybe? The players might need to reach either the end of their dial or a certain amount of victory points before 5 regions are ruined or the victory goes to the other two powers. I think you would need some kind of special mechanic like this to represent the work of the other powers to be thematic.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
I was thinking ont eh drive in a way to play a 3rd character. Most likely ditch his deck and allow each player to spend an action for the 3rd player before their turn. Any combat hit that he would cause could be evenly disributed. Corruption would be added and he could score as well. I'd have to think on it some more.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexander Corzo
United States
Pembroke Pines
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Is it possible for a player to take 2 roles? So each player gets 2 gods?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Browne
United States
Terre Haute
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you are going to go that route, you might as well work up a chart of some sort for a ghost 3rd player:

Set their power at their default and spend power, one action at a time, based on the following chart:

1-2 Draw the top Chaos Card and play it to random region
3-4 Place Cultist in Random Region (let them ignore the adjacent rule)
5 Place Warrior in Random Region
6 Place Greater Daemon in Random Region


Then if combat is needed let the opposite player role for the ghost God and if both are in the region, roll dice and let the player with less threat choose, but they have to use all hits rolled to kill units if possible.

Then just roll a die (how many regions are there? use a 10 or 12 sider) or draw chits for the random region. In this case, Brian's idea of 2 sixers making the middle regions have a bigger chance would probably work well as the ghost would then be working on the bigger areas too.

This would actually provide a presence of third faction units to be dealt with too.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
Blustar wrote:
Is it possible for a player to take 2 roles? So each player gets 2 gods?
That was my first thought. And we may very well try that out after just running 1 each with minimal rule changes to see how it feels. However, I think 2 gods each might make it counterproductive but maybe not. Maybe you could deploy far enough away from each other that you weren't competing with yourself.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was mulling this over as well. One of my thoughts, besides the adding of a card to the old world was to make ruining a little easier. Since now only two nations are contributing corruption tiles, maybe make it so it requires less to ruin, like say 10 or so. Not sure how well that would work.

I do like the idea of ruining a couple of nations off the bat though. Probably the first and last on the resolve order list would be best I'd think.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
Just a quick update. We finally got around to playing this as 2-player. We selected Slaanesh and Tzeentch since they seem to compliment each other. We went with no change except to start with 9 Old World cards.

That was an unnessary change as we finished the game up in 4 (maybe 5) rounds. Slaanesh won with 50+ points with Tzeentch trailing by about 10 points. 3 regions were ruined in that time. I am not sure where we ended on the Threat dials but I think I had 3 more stops to go and Slaanesh probably had 2 more to get the auto-victory.

It was a little hard to gauge how it went since this was the first game we actually played. Christie was trying to grasp the rules since I had only given her an overvoiew at GenCon. She avoided combat because that is just her style and wanted a grasp of the mechanics first, though she could have hurt me more in that area. I avoided being too aggressive with my card play and did make two dumb moves that probably cost me a net 2 treat dial turns. So with better play, we might have better feedback.

But prelim feedback, I think it could work with minor tweaks though it will still shine more as a 4-player game. I don't think increasing the Old World deck was necessary as we seemed to have plenty of time to do what we wanted. Conflict was at a minimum but that might change with Khorne on the scene. I think shrinking the board might lead to more interaction.

I don't think playing 2 gods each would be fun. The powers are too different to keep two strategies together. it seems like it would be too much of a chore to try to play them both effectively, I haven't ruled out trying to have a dummy 3rd player but didn't come up with any bright ideas to try out.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anselmo Diaz
United Kingdom
Crawley
West Sussex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Keep your comments coming, Colts. I normally play 2P games, so I'm interested in tweaking this a bit to take it to the gaming table.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rauli Kettunen
Finland
Oulu
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I concur with Anselmo. Theme of this game appeals to me greatly, but if it doesn't play nicely with just 2-players, might have to pass on this. Luckily, MEQ more than matched my expectations and there is always Warhammer: Invasion to look forward to for my Old World fix.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
So we had some time to try this again. I am still just playing base rules and seeing how each character matches up 1-on-1. We did Nurgle vs. Tzeentch. This wasn't as fun as the Tzeentch vs. Slaanesh game we had. However, it still remained close.

I had the slight advantage as I was playing Tzeentch again and knew his play better. Christie played Nurgle for the first time and followed the advice of the rule book a little too closely and ignored attacking me on the threat dial. She got her one advancement per turn but didn't stop me from collecting two ticks. So ultimately I won the game through the threat dial. However, at the same time I hit my auto-victory, she collected 50 points. So had she blocked my threat dial from advancing twice in two rounds, she would have had this one won.

In other comments, we left the Old World at 8 cards but still finished in 5 rounds. So I am beginning to think less cards are better - maybe only go with 6 so the Old World has a fighting chance. Also, the board set up gave me three contiguous warpstone regions in the south so we both stayed on our respective sides of the board basically playing solitaire while we raced to the finish. It wasn't until the last two rounds that we had conflict (besides the occasional Chaos card to annoy the other). So since this combo doesn't interact too much, next time we try it, I'll shorten the board.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Browne
United States
Terre Haute
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Now that you have a better idea of the makeup of the Old World deck, what about the idea of playing more events per turn? Would that make things more interesting for 2-players?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
Grimstax wrote:
Now that you have a better idea of the makeup of the Old World deck, what about the idea of playing more events per turn? Would that make things more interesting for 2-players?
As I was overlooking the board this morning (since we didn't break it down from last night), I had the same thought. Maybe take 12 cards and play 2 a round.

The problems I forsee with this is that you will probably run out of OW tokens making some cards less effective (we ran out of Peasant tokens based on 2 back to back OW cards), you would most likely lose the ongoing effect cards more quickly, and in general, the OW cards don't always seem hurtful. At times, they are just too beneficial.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Browne
United States
Terre Haute
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was worried that the events weren't really the Old World defending itself. You need to figure out a way to either represent the other gods interfering with the two gods' plans, or the OW defending itself better. What about giving peasants a battle die? More hero tokens, or more effective hero tokens?

The lack of competition for dial increases might make it easier for 2-players as well. Maybe make dial increases harder to come by?

I can't be much help until I get a copy in my hands. I'm gonna work on a way to play solo...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
Khorne vs. Slaanesh.

I thought these nemesis match-ups would play better. Tzeentch vs Nurgle was not fun. Khorne vs. Slaanesh wasn't either. Slaanesh basically shut down Khorne's threat dial and managed to move his own infrequently. It wasn't until Slaanesh used up all his cards that Khorne started making headyway. So he settled for peasants and domination points. Close game points wise but Slaanesh pulled off the victory.

So I think the polar opposites isn't good match-ups. I also think you should be limited to only one dial tick no matter how many tokens you have. With Khorne shut down, Slaanesh managing one token resulted in two turns. Or maybe limit it to that you can only get 2 ticks if you actually have 2 tokens or that both of you have to get a token for either of us to qualify for the bonus.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Hodgson
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What about playing a 3rd ghost player according to some bidding mechanic? Essentially making it a puppet that the human player try to 'control' by spending some resource - say vps? power? e.g.

Alan: I'll pay x vp to play y card on z region.
Bianca: I'll pay x+1 to ...... etc.

Just a thought.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Vollick
Canada
St. Thomas
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Khorne vs. Nurgle

This was my first two-player game and I found this match-up quite fun. I do think however you should have to get 2 more dial-advancement counters than your opponent to double click your dial (in 2 player games).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
We also found that Tzeentch vs. Slaanesh was a close 2-player game with no other rule changes.

When we tried the "nemesis" matchup between Khorne and Slaanesh, the game basically shut down and was not much fun. They just have too many things that stifle each other. After that game, we didn't experiment any further with 2-player matchups.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josko Tosic
Croatia
Sibenik
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pity nobody has written anything about this topic for a long time, Namely, I know quite a lot of people who would like to play this game with their partners. I myself would like to have the game but only if there is a good 2-player variant. My wife is also very enthusiastic about CitOW. That's why I'd like to see if there is any news about 2-player variants...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter
Netherlands
Friesland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
johtara wrote:
Pity nobody has written anything about this topic for a long time, Namely, I know quite a lot of people who would like to play this game with their partners. I myself would like to have the game but only if there is a good 2-player variant. My wife is also very enthusiastic about CitOW. That's why I'd like to see if there is any news about 2-player variants...
Same here, been subscriped to every 2 person variant of CitOW and so ready to buy this game. Sadly enough cant seem to buy this one without knowing its playable in a 2 player game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Day
United Kingdom
Lee
LONDON
flag msg tools
Oi!
badge
That tickles!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Its not a game that lends itself to 2 players. 3 is good, 4 is best.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
timbo spoo
msg tools
Okay guys, I know this post is a few months too late, but I've been thinking about CitoW 2-player as well. Here's the set-up that I'm going to try:

Start:
-Completely cut off Troll Country, Norsca, and the Badlands. No entry.
-Remove three peasant tokens from the starting pile, so the total is two nobles, three warpstones, and one peasant. They are placed normally, or you could have the players taking turns choosing where to put them. I'm going to try random first.
-Remove the top two Ruination cards from the deck.
-Keep the same number of Old World cards.
-Players may only pick Nurgle, Tzeentch, or Slaanesh, though I'm thinking the action may be better with Nurgle included since the other two would not share spaces with their Old World Token objectives in the beginning.

Play:
-Khorne is a ghost player. As per normal, he goes first, spending his power points using the chart Grimstax created (re-posting for ease):

Grimstax wrote:


1-2 Draw the top Chaos Card and play it to random region
3-4 Place Cultist in Random Region (let them ignore the adjacent rule)
5 Place Warrior in Random Region
6 Place Greater Daemon in Random Region


Then if combat is needed let the opposite player role for the ghost God and if both are in the region, roll dice and let the player with less threat choose, but they have to use all hits rolled to kill units if possible.

If Khorne doesn't have enough points to perform his action, his turn ends. Any decision that cannot be easily randomized will be made by the player with the lowest threat. Since there are only 6 regions, randoming them will be easy. I liked Colt's idea about using two dice and having the middle regions be more probable, but I couldn't think of a way to do that with only six regions. The board is small enough where none of the regions are really out of the way, so it shouldn't turn into solitaire (though a Slaanesh vs. Tzeentch match might).

Add dial advancement counters for Khorne as normal. Randomly choose his upgrades. If he somehow manages to advance his dial all the way, both players lose. This should provide some incentive to deal with his units as they come. Flavor-wise, I like the thought of Khorne's minions being the scourge of everyone else, just showing up out of nowhere and messing up everyone's plan. From my experience, that's how many four-player games end up anyways

-Turn order is observed as normal.
-Old World cards are observed as normal, though if I come across any that are particularly problematic, I'll note them here.

Victory:
-I'm not sure if victory should be set at 50 points or not. With two regions already ruined, it might be hard to accrue that many points. We might change the rule to whoever has the most points at the end of the game, since it seems like Ruination will be the probable end.


Balance and Flow Considerations:
-Dial Advancement: For Nurgle, most of the board will be available to corrupt, but his dial is also the longest. Slaanesh will have the least options, but his dial is also the shortest. If both of the two noble tokens fall outside of the populated regions, there won't be any competiton between Nurgle and Slaanesh space-wise, but Nurgle will have the opportunity to corrupt three regions every turn and out-dial Slaanesh, so Slaanesh has a motivation to get in the action. I suppose there is a similar issue between Tzeentch and Slaanesh. Tzeentch could potential get three dial advancement tokens every round, so Slaanesh would have to make an effort to fight him.
-Khorne: If Khorne's followers somehow all fall on Slaanesh's noble tokens, he could be severely handicapped, but I see that as more of a fun situation than a game-changing balance problem. We'll see how it works.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith Williamson
Australia
Ingleburn
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Has anyone just tried a 2 player game to see if it works ?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
Keef wrote:
Has anyone just tried a 2 player game to see if it works ?

Yes, see my 4th post above. i think it is OK if you select certain gods. picking the opposites shuts down the board too much (Khorne prevents Slaanesh from placing corruption who prevents Khorne from fighting makes a boring game)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   |