View Full Version : Best 3-player game set-up?
May 17th, 2006, 04:38 PM
Getting together with a couple friends next week for some 3-way Heroscape, and am wondering what 3-player set-ups people think are the most fun to play? (for example, "kill the player to your left"...)
For material info: 6 MS, 2 of every common, every expansion hero set, 4 RTTFF, 2 VW.
Maybe looking for some new ideas to try out... any other "general scenarios/goals" good for 3-way?
May 17th, 2006, 04:46 PM
Don't know if this is helpful....and sometimes I find it difficult to build a fair map for 3 players (equal starting zones with similar symetry for 3 sides of the board), but....one goal oriented idea I like to use once in a while is to place a glyph of brandar in one of the hardest to reach places on the map, with mimring right next to it.
The goal is simple....whoever can take the glyph.....controls mimring untill either the game ends or someone else takes the glyph. Good fun.
And...as an after thought....another twist to that idea would be to take 4 glyphs of brandar and designate them to a specific dragon....ie glyph A would summon Braxas, glyph B would summon mimring..and so fourth.
Just ideas...hope its helpful
May 18th, 2006, 01:13 AM
Here is a three way map using 3MS and 1RTTFF +exp.
It is in the download section if want.
The Glyph in the middle is Brandar. Controlling player chooses which bonus he gets each round.
Another scenario I'm working on is allowing the Brandar holding player to d20 summon a hidden unique hero not in play once per game per player.
May 18th, 2006, 01:19 AM
For fairness the easiest way is a Triangular shaped board and a kill your person on left/right scenario.
A "Royal Rumble" scenario could be fun. Each person could draft so many points worth and then every other turn or whatever each person could add a randomly determined unit/squad to the board until after a point nobody else could join until someone else was eliminated
May 18th, 2006, 09:11 AM
i did a 3 player map once. man, it was hard as hell to get it even, so one person didnt get ganged up on from the get go. I did it in the shape of a "Y" where each player begins on one of the legs. i'll try and make another one and take pics so you can get a better idea of what i mean. When is your game going on?
May 18th, 2006, 10:01 AM
for the Hasbro scenarios, there are currently 10 3 player ones. but half of them only use 1 master set for the battlefield.
"Wellspring of Obsession" is a 2 master set map and there are 3 scenarios for 3 players with it. i like this map a lot (even though it has no roads or trees) and the Melee scenario is fun.
"Fall of the Dumutef Bridge" is a 3 player scenario for the "Forgotten Forest" map that comes with the expansion.
May 18th, 2006, 01:35 PM
usally, 3 player, the best senerio is 2 against 1, cuz someone always gets ganged up on. Unless you make a rule, that every other turn, you can only attack the person on your left, then right.
turn one (right side)
turn 2 (left side)
turn 3 (right side)
and so on.
May 18th, 2006, 01:41 PM
Really, I generally don't build my maps fair. Not that I try to be unfair, I build my maps around a idea I have ex: bridge, road through a canyon, trench. After I develop the idea, my mind takes off and I just build the map. I then look at it and try to figure out the best place to set up the armies. I often play with 3 players, so I understand your concern. As long as you don't set up a bunch of walls and high terrain in front of anyone you should be alright.
Another idea you could try is letting each player design his own portion of the map. Say you buidl the basic structure, but then you allow each player to toss ideas at each other and construct whatever they want however they want. This is also a great amount of fun.
May 18th, 2006, 02:00 PM
My gaming group has been regularly playing heroscape together for about two years now, which means that we know how each other play very well. We are all also about the same level when it comes to strategy so we have found that the only way to really enjoy the three player game for us is to have a perfectly symmetrical battle field. We then play to the death and find that there is a really interesting dynamic that almost always happens. Alliances seem to shift as the game goes so that no one player becomes too powerful. We have not had a game lately were anyone had more than 2 figures left on the board in the last round.
May 18th, 2006, 03:51 PM
My group finds that if everybody is aggressive, then it can work out well. If this dosn't happen, then I would suggest implementing this:
First, impose a round limit. At the end of the game, whoever killed the most points worth of units wins. Each squad figure is worth a fraction of the points. A Marraden Hound is worth 30, two is worth 60, and all three is worth 90... ect. You would round up for squads that don't work out evenly, such as a marro warrior would be worth 13, because you round up from 50/4=12.5. For revivals such as water clone, that figure is replaced on the map and points deducted from the player who killed it.
This encourages aggresion so that two won't gang up on one to kill them off, because you could be left with 1 figure, but still kill the most points of enemies.
May 18th, 2006, 04:08 PM
Here is a picture of a castle I am working on. It works well for a three player game. One player defends the castle with a 600 point army and two players attack with 400 point armies. The game is over when an attacker occupies the top floor of the castle.
You can build a fortress on a hill or just a large hill and have someone with a bigger army try to defend it against two invading forces with smaller armies.
I also thought about creating a scenerio where you make a large map with a road winding down the center. One player with a larger army is trying to get from one end of the road to the other. The two players with the smaller armies attack from both sides, ambush style. Sort of a fight on the run scenerio.
May 25th, 2006, 08:00 AM
Its even harder to build an balanced three-way map when u only have 1 VW,1 RTTFF and 1 Tundra Set...i got moaned at by my dad because i had glaciers to 'HIDE' behind on one side and trees on the other! but i sort of did like the pic above and made a central focal point so thateveryone could meet in the middle.....but still i get moaned at, some people just aren't ever happy!!
May 25th, 2006, 08:15 AM
Oogie-da-bruce made a 3 player map called Assualt on hill 815 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/download.php?id=25)
After playing that map, it has become our prefered way to play 3 player maps. Give one guy positional advantage, and an army 1.5 times the other players armies and have those two come after him.
In 1-on-1-on-1 games, it seemed like too often the player who camped out, or the player who played second best (because him and the worst player would gang up on the best and eliminate him first) won.
May 25th, 2006, 08:58 AM
Love the map!-shame i only have one RTTFF set!
May 31st, 2006, 09:08 AM
allskulls -- great map, love the look of it
Gary - the well spring of obession is an OK board in my mind, it is just so uneven, again I just feel hasbro doesn´t do nearly enough playtesting. Plus they have I think 3 diffreent scenerios for it, all 2-4 person. They are lame - a board that size should have at least 6 different set ups ( or more ). 1 for 2 people, 1 for 3 people, 1 for 4 people, and a few of the 2-4 players, of course this is all IMO. The one set up is where you can place your guys anywhere on the board. On the 2 player version we have found picking all MM is one of the best armies cause you get height right away, place them all ont eh highest hill sidea and stand the line. that is 7 squads of MM for 490 pts., 28 MM ready to rumble.
For a 3 person battle we put a glyph of brandar in each armies starting point, if you can get both glyphs back to your starting base you win.
May 31st, 2006, 01:29 PM
I've been wanting to play Assault on Hill 815 for awhile. It looks strong for 3-player play.
At Kublacon, we ran new players thru the Last Wellspring map - it worked great, just having them decide who to go after or who to run away from.
I'm not sure that the players NEED to be dictated to about who to attack and who to ally with - they could decide that on thir own - if they ask for more objectives, than give them a scenario that is 2 on 1 or something.... :?:
December 6th, 2006, 03:18 PM
..two against one is a nice scenario for three players ...but the players alone must have more point than the two others players. Or it depend if there is any castle. :?
December 6th, 2006, 04:15 PM
Its up to you if you want this, its just 2 MS's.
There's plenty of room to add more terrain.
December 6th, 2006, 04:21 PM
Play king of the hill. Put a glyph in the middle of the map. At the end of each round, whoever controls the glyph gets a point. After 10 rounds whoever has the most points wins.
We usually just build the map and then roll for draft/placement order. The person who rolls highest can either draft first or pick their starting location first (and draft last).
December 7th, 2006, 08:14 AM
"Fall of the DumetefBridge" is one of my favorite scenarios, and a really nice maps. It handles the problem of the 3-player game in a creative way by giving one player not only more points, but possible reinforcements. I lucked out once playing tht scenario and bought Mimring! He did nothing for the rest of the game, but he pschyed the other two players out completely!
There's a 3-person in the MS, too. The last scenario- I disremember its name. Great fight if you don't have too many flyers involved.
I've sworn off 3-player games unless I'm playing with my kids. They're just too difficult to make fair and it stinks to be the one everyone gangs up on. Which is virtually assured if a) it's your set everyone's playing on b) you picked the scenario c) you suggested "First one out buys the pizza or d) The other 2 players call you "Daddy."
December 8th, 2006, 01:32 PM
We've played a lot of 3 and 4 player games - and 4 player was always better until we stumbled on this idea for a 3 player game. It may seem complex but it isn't - it's really pretty easy.
First, I like to build a board that is a completely fair triangular shape.
Then each player needs four units - how many points or how you draft doesn't matter. Then each player writes down the names of each of his units and for each one assigns a player that it will be primarily targeting and one of that players particular units to target. He has to pick 2 units to kill from each of the other players - so 2 units of your own will attack each player. The assigment of these targets is done secretly. Example:
Units - Who they need to kill
Agent Carr - Sgt. Drake (Player B)
Marro Warriors - Deathwalker 9000 (Player B)
Vikings - Raelin (Player C)
Samurai - Minutemen (Player C)
Scoring works like this. If a unit kills its targeted unit then the player scores 3 points. If a unit kills a different unit then its target but that unit is from the targeted player then score 2 points. If the unit kills a unit from the untargeted player then score 1 point.
So, if Agent Carr kills Sgt. Drake then Player A gets 3 points. If Agent Carr killed Deathwalker 9000 then Player A would get 2 points. If Agent Carr killed any unit of Player Cs then Player A gets 1 point.
If any of the units you are targetting dies then pick a new target - but it has to be a unit from the same player as was originally targeted.
Play until one player has an insurmountable lead in points. Usually this happens within 10 rounds.
December 8th, 2006, 02:37 PM
Thank you for this idea and welcome to the site HPuppet!
Oh! and here is a full thread on "how to balance 2 on 1 games":
vBulletin® v3.6.9, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.