Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

War of the Ring (First Edition)» Forums » Variants

Subject: 5- or 6 player variants? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michael Euringer
Germany
Scheyern
Bavaria
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello,

I was asked to host a new-bie session with 6 Players.
Has anyone tried a game with more than 4 Players?

I'm pretty sure we'll have quite some down time with 6 players, but as it's a 2-team Game in it's core, I'm willing to try it.
Maybe it's also easier for the newbies to not have to care for too many nations.

What I'm thinking about to try is this (sorry only have the german edition so maybe I used the wrong words):

Shadow:
1- Sauron
2- Saruman (Isengard)
3- Southlings(Southrons)&Easterlings

Free Peoples
4- Gondor
5- Rohan & Dwarves
6- Elves & Northern Alliance

Special Rules:

- If Gondor is lost, Player 4 takes the Dwarves from Player 5
- Player 6 may also play the gondor & Rohan specific Cards
- Player 3 may NOT play Sauron specific cards

Only 2 players of each side may each draw 1 card each round.
Hand Limit Maximum is 3.

Comments /Ideas?

Don't tell me about downtime, I know I know :-)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Delinck
United States
Hobart
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
If it's a newbie session, then I'd just have three people on each side, and just let them play out the game as if it's two player by committee.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Boeren
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
2p by committee, as Tommy D said. Also, be prepared to institute a timer so that discussion doesn't get out of hand.

I played a 4p game with 2-person committees recently, I was the only player with prior experience. Our team (Shadow) went smoothly. I suggested several "reasonable choices" to my team mate, and he got to pick between them with no argument or second-guessing.

The other team took forever. The most inconsequential decisions were stretched out and the game took much longer to complete because of it. I want to stress that this extra time was of no practical value with new players either because they had little basis to understand good choices from bad ones. In several instances, I explained to them up front why X was a bad choice because I'd do Y and show them how that would be a net loss. They would argue, do X anyway, I'd do Y, and then they'd want to undo their action.

Anyway, point being that you should stress up front that while they are operating as a committee the game still needs to move along and you shouldn't be surprised if this doesn't go smoothly. Honestly, the whole thing is a bad idea and I only hope it doesn't sour them on a very good game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Poulter
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think your idea is interesting, but would need a trial run to see how well it works.

I think the biggest problem would be the Fellowship, as all the free players could move it but the Shadow has to split it's time amongst the three players. Perhaps limit the number of moves the Fellowship is allowed per turn.

As cards will be even more divided amongst the players, I would suggest allowing them to be able to swap at the start of any players go, rather then just the beginning of the turn.

Perhaps you could play the 4-player rules (or even 2 player), but rotate who plays the next dice rather then assign nations. You will have to pay close attention to the nation and player order though.


Also boredom may set in with so many players (and new ones as well), as it will take a long time before you get a go. I played a 4-player game where one FP got very bored because he only ever moved the Fellowship, as his nations never got attacked until near the end of the game, that could be even more likely with 6 players.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
dave
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I also think you should just make 2 teams and either proceed by committee. Althernatively, I think althernating turns for each side would work well. So if it was A/B/C (fp) v. D/E/F (sp) then player order would be A-D-B-E-C-F-A... for example with each player taking the next action die. Yes I think this would work pretty well and would allow each player to make choices (rather than one person dominating the strategy).

I don't think the way you proposed will work very well at all. Maybe there's few musters and the S&Es don't get to war until turn 6 (or never) or maybe Gondor never gets attacked and so never has anything to do for the entire game. I'll bet at least 1 player doesn't really participate much in the game.

Have fun!


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave de Vil
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
If you want a game for more than 4 think in terms of WOTR as a pure wargame, that is minus the Fellowship aspect.

To throw some ideas out:

Each player takes just one nation (or 2 depending on the number of players); forget the politics, allow anyone to attack anyone else.

Winning conditions would be based on the number of strongholds (2pts) and cities (1pt) you hold at the end (an agreed number of rounds) minus your starting total.

Give each nation one "Hero"; these are fairly obvious for most; use Mouth of Sauron as S&E chief; Gandalf for Rohan (or a Capitano di Rohan from BOTTA as Theoden). Each of these should have the equivalent of the "Captain of the West" ability. If you want absolute equality make each Hero 2 leadership 1 combat.

Give each nation four "Generals"; these will be the Leaders for FP nations, Nazgul for Mordor; improvise for Isengard and S&E e.g. use BOTTA Southron Cavalry for S&E generals, promote Warg Riders for Isengard, using Dunlendings as regulars.

Use event cards for combat only, using broad interpretations of the descriptions, e.g. "Companions & Minions = Heros; Leaders and Nazgul = Generals. Or maybe just use the generic combat cards from BOTTA, perhaps in conjunction with manouver rules.

Maybe allow each nation to use its full compliment of army units, but no reinforcements (for SP nations?) when eliminated. Yes, Mordor has lots more units, but it has more settlements to defend, and is likely to be ganged up on...

Or just give everyone 5 elite and 10 regulars, with infinite reinforcements from these.

Improvise control markers for each nation. Or use Mighty Empires settlements with my flag markers...

Everyone starts with 5 characters, who cannot be replaced when eliminated. The number you have left also determines the number of action dice rolled. Characters eliminated in combat are captured, and may be executed, transferred or exchanged.

OR

Keep the FP vs SP aspect, with the players divided into two teams. Might be difficult to balance, though.
1 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Euringer
Germany
Scheyern
Bavaria
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank You all!

I'm not convinced at all of the idea of a committee.
This will be a 1v1 Game with 4 statists.

I LOVE the 4 Player Game as written in the rules!

I wasn't exactly clear about the rules I'd use:
I would like to use the 4 player rules and only adapt them to 6 Players.
So it would be ADBECFA as Dave wrote. with a leading player token wandering around in each team. That means first round sauron is first, second round saruman and third round S&E.

I think this will also change the importance and strategies of the nations.
S&E will get much more attention than usual (one third of the shadow dice), sauron will be much weaker/slower
Therefore I think either Gondor (most likely) or Dwarves/The North will get much more pressure from S&E than usual.

I really appreciate all your comments!!
 
 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.