|
Heroscape Strategy Articles Heroscape Strategy Articles with discussions. Including Order Markers, Units, Game Play, etc. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
Have one person play two armies and the do a 2v2. Then all players will get attacked equally. Usually.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
Quote:
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. 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 Buffy is the life! Life is the Buffy! Shaniqua is mah idol! Mah Customs!(Alot!) Terrain Customs!: Zombie City Scape |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
Sorry, double post...
Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
Quote:
Follow the adventures of Agent Minivann
http://agentminivann.blogspot.com/ http://opensourcevolleyball.blogspot.com/ |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 3 Player Games - Ethics?
Quote:
We've also done a lot of castle maps. 2 v 1. We used the official scenarios to help give us a rough sense of balance. We also found, generally, that if we had the Castle player have to start on the ground level behind his castle and with roughly even total points the game played fairly well. (So, I have 500 points on the ground level behind my castle. My opponents have 500 each, but are off at the far end of the map. They have more OMs than me, but, well, I have a castle.) However, it's really all about balancing out the players you have. For us, we usually played my daughter and wife against me, so we found a balance that worked for us, but probably wouldn't work for everyone. That's why I recommend playing a few of the official 3 player scenarios and using them to gauge your group and what works as a balance. (We really loved the Aarglynn map, fwiw.) --- As for ethics, my feeling is to build your issues into the game. If you don't want players to be eliminated early, don't just ask people to be nice, when it's not in their interest to within the game. Have rules for reinforcements, so that is Player X gets knocked out, he gets to roll for reinforcements and rejoin at the next Turn. Or have the goal be controlling a central Brandar glyph for 2 consecutive rounds (or just two consecutive turns). "Control" means, without any adjacent enemy units at the end of each turn. Or, as we've already said here, have the elimination of the player to your left end the game. So no one is out earlier than anyone else. The game's objectives should match your desired outcomes for the game and the way you would like the players to play. Match the playstyle you want to a game style that matches it. New? Read this. | The INDEX 2.0 | Mmirg's Maps Magnify Your Scape: BoV | SoV | C3V (Playtest!) | C3G The Dice Tower Con w/ Scape! |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Question of Ethics | delphic | General | 34 | January 18th, 2011 11:17 PM |
New Player, 3 player maps? | Murfenator | Maps & Scenarios | 3 | March 29th, 2010 09:37 AM |
3 Player Games | airdroppette | Official Rules & FAQ's | 17 | March 10th, 2010 08:55 AM |
three player games | hurrican | HeroScape General Discussion | 15 | July 23rd, 2009 12:48 AM |
Small Box Games presents 2 new games:Now on BGG! | justjohn | Other Games | 24 | June 8th, 2008 05:52 PM |