Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Warhammer: Invasion» Forums » Variants

Subject: Multiplayer rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you look through these very threads (back a ways) you'll find my suggested rules, which I believe (with every fiber of my being, LOL) to be the best way to handle MP.

RULES:

#1 - Each player must burn 1 less Zone than the number of players in the game, including them. So if you have 3 in your group (including you), you have to burn 2 Zones to win the game.

#2 - Last person to do the final damage that sends a zone into being burned, gets credit for the Burn.

#3 - You cannot lose by being decked out - if your deck runs out, just reshuffle your discards to form a new draw deck.



This addresses nearly every concern with MP - that's MP rules are too clunky (these are easy and elegant), the kingmaking syndrome (since you're all striving for the victory conditions and you can't be knocked out of the game, no reason to kingmake), the issue where players get knocked out of the MP game and sit around bored waiting for everyone else to finish.

I've playtested these several times and everything about it works fantastically. Hopefully FFG utilizes these or something incredibly similar to these rules for MP. If they go with some clumsy system where players can be knocked out early or they use some overly convoluted rules, our group is just going to keep using these, as they work extremely well.


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabriel Manasan
Philippines
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another way to do it would be the Two-Headed Giant format, where you play in two teams of two players each. The two players of a team take their turns at the same time, phase by phase.

The advantages of this format are: no kingmaking (since there's just two teams), less downtime (shared turns), and no player elimination.

Since phases are simultaneous, attacks are shared within the team. The team must decide together which area to attack and assign their attackers together (ie, the attack doesn't happen in two waves).

A team loses if they have four zones burning collectively (it doesn't matter which player controls the burning zones) OR if one player has an empty deck. Players are not eliminated until the team has lost. (So, even if you have three burning zones, you still play as normal as long as your team mate has no burning zones).

Technical questions can probably be answered by a liberal interpretation of the FAQ here: http://www.wizards.com/Default.asp?x=dci/announce/dci2005080...

Be warned, the FAQ is written for that other game but I find that it translates pretty well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon Herren
United States
Kent
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is a very brief summary of our 4 player rules:

* 2 teams; Order vs Destruction
* The goal is to burn down two zones in each opponent's capitol
* If two of your zones are burning, play as normal
* If you are decked, just skip your capital phase (until you are able to draw the necessary number of cards).
* You can attack your partner...
* On your turn, you can play developments, units, support, or quests on your partner's capital. However, you must pay the loyalty cost as if they played it. This REALLY opens up some interesting strategies...

We have had some amazing 4 player games!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My issue with the two rule-sets listed above (which do seem functional, certainly) is that they still seem too clunky/complicated. Elegance will win out when it comes to MP rules, imho. I've seen that borne out in CCG after CCG that has tried to adapt and add MP rules to the mix (particularly noticable with CCGs that aren't created as MP-first type of games).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon Herren
United States
Kent
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wytefang wrote:
My issue with the two rule-sets listed above (which do seem functional, certainly) is that they still seem too clunky/complicated. Elegance will win out when it comes to MP rules, imho. I've seen that borne out in CCG after CCG that has tried to adapt and add MP rules to the mix (particularly noticable with CCGs that aren't created as MP-first type of games).


How do they seem too clunky/complicated?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Wene
United States
Unspecified
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
wytefang wrote:



#2 - Last person to do the final damage that sends a zone into being burned, gets credit for the Burn.



At first glance, this would appear to create the situation that no one would want to attack until they were absolutely certain they were going to get 8 (or more) damage through the defenses. Seems like that would make for a slow and tedious buildup then a very fast slaughterfest.

Just my $0.02. I haven't played these rules. Haven't played any MP W:I for that matter as I am hoping and waiting for a nice formal set of rules.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mike, I realize that it would seem like that would be the case but in reality we don't see that happening.

If you wanted to ameliorate that possibility, you can try the option of using color-coded (by player) pieces that can show exactly who has done the most damage to a Zone and thus when a Zone is burned, you'd take note of who did the most damage and they'd get credit for the Burn. The problem with that scenario is that players may just quit attacking a Zone where they perceive that they will not be able to be the majority damaging player of that Zone and just switch to a different zone instead.

It's a tricky dilemma, to be sure - even though I've not seen that situation where no one wants to attack out of fear of giving away a Burn, myself, I suppose that it could crop up depending on the personalities of the players involved. In that situation, the option I list here could be useful.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JMacCaull wrote:
Thanks for the suggestions. I really hoped someone had come up with a way to "multiplay" where individuality is maintained. Bloody wolf face's version is probably the closest to what I'm looking for; but I won't hesitate to resort to tried-and-true methods like two-headed if it doesn't work.
My knee-jerk reaction is that two-headed won't be as entertaining as the other. W:I has a frenetic pace naturally, so the fact that others can steal your burn seems like a good fit. Nice job, bloody wolf face. I'll let you know how it goes.
And maybe if its not what I'm looking for I need to just get AGoT.


And thank you for the kind words, No Avatar Guy. Please do let me know what your experience is with this MP solution - If you were up to it, I'd also love to see how it works for you if you use my alternate option, that I discuss in the post above, too.

Good luck.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Damon, my apologies that the wording of my post about your suggested rules sounded a bit rude or harsh. Did not mean it that way. And that goes out to Gabriel, as well. Your 2-headed Giant mode would certainly be fun in different ways.

I just meant that most people (I suspect) will want to play MP but not as part of a Team scenario. It would be a clunky solution for people in that situation. As a Team Scenario, though, it sounds great.

Hope that makes sense?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon Herren
United States
Kent
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wytefang wrote:
Damon, my apologies that the wording of my post about your suggested rules sounded a bit rude or harsh. Did not mean it that way. And that goes out to Gabriel, as well. Your 2-headed Giant mode would certainly be fun in different ways.

I just meant that most people (I suspect) will want to play MP but not as part of a Team scenario. It would be a clunky solution for people in that situation. As a Team Scenario, though, it sounds great.

Hope that makes sense?


Yep, that makes perfect sense.

It will be really interesting to see what FFG does. In all likelihood, the official MP rules will be for individuals. However, I would not be surprised if FFG also releases an official team based variant for 2v2 and 3v3.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WHat about each team having a single capital with, say, double the hitpoints.

Each player woudl have their own "ghost" capital to play cards to the various zones, but all attacks go to the main capital. Players would assign units from their ghost capital to defend the main capital.

One of the things that struck me as I read W:I out fo the box is that any sort fo multi-player addition would seem quite clunky. I'm not sure what the folks at FFG have up their sleeves, but I hope it's worthwile.

Brian
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.