3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

When a fourth player is not available, we play 3 player games. Usually, two players team up on the 3rd player to take him down, but is that ethical? I'd like to hear some people's opinions on a few situations I've seen.

1. Teaming up - Two 500 point armies against your 500 point army. Doesn't seem fair, does it? But what if you're the more experienced player, and you can fend off the armies well?

2. Attacking one player only - One of your opponents has deemed it his mission to make sure you lose the battle. Your other opponent is attacking whatever he can. Do you attack the player only attacking you, or attack the other player? Is it right for one player to focus on one player only, leaving the other player alone?

3. Pacifist - One of your opponents is attacking your units, and you're attacking his. Meanwhile, the third player is having his orcs dive into the water turn after turn.

4. Aiding other players - After a vicious free-for-all, you and another player's armies are about equal, with the third player's army a bit lacking in numbers. The third player's Finn dies, and instead of placing it on one of his own units, he places it on the other player's Airborne elite card, which drops the next round and takes a good chunk out of your army.

So, what exactly is fair in a 3-player game? You can't always focus on both players, so you can't attack them equally.

Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

Have one person play two armies and the do a 2v2. Then all players will get attacked equally. Usually.

Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

When we only have three players, we generally have one player rocky two armies. Pretty much everyone in our group can handle two armies, so it isn't a big deal. Every once in a while, we build maps that naturally form two fronts for each player, so everyone has an even battle.

I really don't think it's too even a battle if two 500 point armies are taking on one 500 pointer because:

1. There are two order markers/attacks per turn against one, which is tough to handle for any player.

And 2, the player playing the lone 500 pointer has to kill 1000 points to win, when each of the teammates really only needs to take out 250 points to carry their load in the battle.

Unless the single player is given a strong terrain bonus such as a fortress or automatic high ground early, two 500 point armies vs. one 500 point army won't result in a very even game.

Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

1. I would have two 500 pt armies against a 1000 point army. IMO that would be fair and even.

2. No, that's not right, but in war, that sometimes happens.

3. LOL That's what I would do. Let players 2 and 3 duke it out and play cleanup when all the units are weak. :twisted:

But, really, in 3 player games you really can't have a perfect game without one person ganging up on another IMHO, but you can agree on a rule that you only attack the person to your right or left. But even that leaves the other person vulnerable. Your best bet is answer # 1

Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

When we do 3 player games what we typically do is determine the winner by who killed the most points. This typically precludes the forming of any alliances and from one player turtling while waiting for the other two to kill each other off.

Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

Sorry, double post...
Even #1 would be somewhat unfair unless the person with the 1000 point army got to use 2 sets of order markers. It isn;t so much the points as the fact that the allied players would get two turns against the lone player for every one turn the lone player got.

Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

this always happens when we play games. My friend uses the marro hive, and me and my brother team up on him until it's dead.

Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

It does work well for a castle siege. I think 2 vs 1 with equal total points per side is the way to go. The 2 sets of order markers attacking the castle makes up for the inherent advantages of the 1 set of order markers defending the castle.

Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

One of my favorite parts of three player ffas is the politicing that goes on when we're trying to convince the attacking player to go after the other guy. :twisted:

Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

In the words of TheMind,,,"Tripolarity sucks."

That said, all is fair in 3-player games. If you don't enjoy the potential for one guy to get ganged up on and obliterated, try playing that a player wins if the player to his left is killed.

Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

You could always have all players field 2 armies. Then it could become a 3v3 game. Very nasty results indeed8)

(Inspired by Sylvano)

Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
 

See Three-player free-for-alls: how to structure them. My revised advice (what I do in multiplayer games):

In FFA games at the end of the round, each player should count up how many players he/she rolled attacked dice against (not used special powers to wound/kill) that round and roll a 20-sided die. Follow the below chart to either wound one of your figures or bring back a squad member or remove a wound from a hero (but not resurrect a hero).
Once it is down to 2 players, the wound/heal roll goes away. It makes the game last longer but stops turtling, and people go out of their way to attack 2 or 3 different players a round. Squads/bonders and multiple special attackers usually end up splitting which players they attack. Truces still form between 2 players but they don't last long (say until a dragon or Q9 from another player is dead).

My original idea: