[Eak]

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.