The Dynamics of a Free-For-All

[Dualahorn]

The "Gankee" may always be at the mercy of the "Ganker" but the original "Ganker" is at the mercy of their own "Ganker" which makes them a "Gankee" as well, furthermore the second "Ganker" is subject to the original "Gankee" making that "Gankee" a "Ganker" and the second "Ganker" a "Gankee". It's all fair right there.

I agree.

[Snoop Greyjoy]

Originally Posted by SpartanNinja

I don't want to make another arguement about this, but I just wanted to point something out...

The "Gankee" may always be at the mercy of the "Ganker" but the original "Ganker" is at the mercy of their own "Ganker" which makes them a "Gankee" as well, furthermore the second "Ganker" is subject to the original "Gankee" making that "Gankee" a "Ganker" and the second "Ganker" a "Gankee". It's all fair right there.

With the high to low roller method the person to your right can still beat you in initiative, but now you also have to worry about the person to your left winning initiative as well.

I love FFAs.

Thats what's great about House Rules! You can use them or not depending on what your own experience is.

Our FFA's tend to be on very large maps that divide up into smaller 1:1 and 1:2 battles, usually based upon table position since they guy sitting next to you has his army right there beside you as well. So when you end up in a 1:1 battle in a 5 man game, it gets tough because 4 out of 5 times one of the two is going before another. We like going in order of the die roll because it mixes it up. Thats actually exactly what happened in our epic battle at Origins - I and the guy next to me ended up going toe to toe and the others ignored us. I went before him every round except one during the whole game. Once he was done, I turned to my right and pounced on the guy who had been wounded pretty bad by the guy to his right....

One thing we've done is to go to smaller maps with less elevation to get things "mixed up" a little more. But like I said, every group has its own unique character to it!!
Another reason to love Heroscape, it's so adaptable

[1Mmirg]

We do a dice roll to choose start locations--so part of that is about choosing who you are next to (in case you feel a certain ganker is more significant than another ...). Honestly, it doesn't seem to matter and I have never understood the need for individual initiatives, but more power to those that use them and like them. As Snoop has said: HS has the shizizzle because it's adaptazizle (which rhymes but is really silly...ever seen that Monk episode?).

[acdveins]

I used to have huge problems with one of my friends turtling in the back of his start zone while me and my other friend rushed into battle with each other. So, I started to employ a point system. For every figure you kill you gain that figures cost in points. Example: If you killed your opponents Kaemon Awa, you get 120 points. Squads are only scored if every figure on that card is killed, and the full points go to the person who killed the most of that squad. Example: Tim kills two of my Krav Maga, and Jeremy kills one. Tim gets 100 points. In case of ties, split the total down the middle. Such as 35 points if both opponents killed two of my fourth mass. At the end of the game, the last player standing gets points for all of his surving units, and the highest point total wins.

This helps cut down on turtling, and adds a whole new aspect to the game.
Player 1: "Uh...I'm gonna shoot your Krug." Player 2: "But, John has 300 points already, I only have 50!" Player 1: "Oh ya I guess I'll shoot his Braxas." Player 3: "@#$@!".

And it's a lot of fun to steal your opponents kills, even though it's horrible for your politics. Killing Krug after someone else put 7 wounds on him is priceless... but having two armies shooting at you isn't.

I highly suggest you try this out. It took my three player games from annoying to addictive.

[Snoop Greyjoy]

Sounds like a good idea acdveins! Ill give that a try

[CheddarLimbo]

Originally Posted by Dualahorn

I agree.

I agree that the system as explained by the original rules is still fair. But I like to see the decisions in the game based more on the figures and their strengths and weaknesses, and not on aspects which are outside of the game's scope like who's sitting where around the table.

[Revdyer]

We're playing a symmetrical, six person map, tomorrow at our Central Arkansas Game Day. I'll have photos and some sort of a report on how this mega-free-for-all goes. (Probably 450 point armies, maybe 520.) We will use the official "clock-wise" turn movement, I think.

[Dualahorn]

I used to have huge problems with one of my friends turtling in the back of his start zone while me and my other friend rushed into battle with each other. So, I started to employ a point system. For every figure you kill you gain that figures cost in points. Example: If you killed your opponents Kaemon Awa, you get 120 points. Squads are only scored if every figure on that card is killed, and the full points go to the person who killed the most of that squad. Example: Tim kills two of my Krav Maga, and Jeremy kills one. Tim gets 100 points. In case of ties, split the total down the middle. Such as 35 points if both opponents killed two of my fourth mass. At the end of the game, the last player standing gets points for all of his surving units, and the highest point total wins.

Thats how I play. Its fun to kill thief. Kind of like Halo only on the table.

[Dumb Dwarf]

Dredd, overall good thoughts, although I have to disagree with your sample armies for FFA based upon your political strategy of convincing your opponents that you are not the biggest threat.
I don't care how good of a talker you may be, your first army has so many bullseyes in it, that the only problem would be figuring out which one to target first. Q9 backed by Raelin and Laglor? Nakitas and Krav? I won't deny that that is an effective army, but there is absolutely no way to stay under the radar in a group of people who have played this game for any amount of time. Still, you may win the game, but it won't be because of politics.
Your second army has the same problem. The hive is too much of a resource advantage. Unless someone is running your first army, they should have an easy time convincing others to cripple you (especially if you load order markers on the hive) On top of that, you have 4 squads of stingers , which people have a healthy respect for, unless you have a history of rolling below 4. Once again, this is a terribly effective army, but if you run it, you aren't relying on politics to win, you are relying on brute force.

As a counter to these armies I would run
Marro Warriors
Kato Katsuro
Tagawa Samurai
2 X Tagawa Samurai Archers

In a one on one match, I am sure my army would lose to either of your two armies (might be able to take the hive), but I feel that it would fare better in a FFA game. It has plenty of range, should be fairly easy to manage with order markers, efficient with a chance to kill without ordermarkers, and a good renewable resource in the form of the cockroaches, the final advantage is with the exception of the Marro (who have been around so long, everyone has at least one story where they cloned back from near death and won the game) I should have an easy time staying under the radar. Kato, in my opinion, with ashigaru is scary with the 8 attacks, Kato with the samurai is just someone who doesnt want to have to plan ahead for placing order markers. I have other reasons why I would favor this army, but they are semi-explained in my post in the other multiplayer thread.

DD who doesn't know how to post a short response.

[1Mmirg]

Excellent points, DD. I often use the Marro Warriors in FFA (the ability to regenerate in the late game is nice--and even though people know it, they often don't want to use the shots on them and higher point options abound generally). The Krav, as I think I said earlier, do well, since people often don't want to waste a shot on them. The Ninjas often do well also, again people frequently don't want to put a shot into them.

I like playing mixed-bag armies in FFA, using figures that are often overlooked, are hard to deal with in range attack, or have some kind of regenerative or defensive power.

Others I use are the non-wizard elves, Sentinels, Minions, the AE, Zetacron, cowboys, sometimes the 4th Mass slip through okay (depending on who I'm playing).

[Dredd Stev]

Originally Posted by Dumb Dwarf

Dredd, overall good thoughts, although I have to disagree with your sample armies for FFA based upon your political strategy of convincing your opponents that you are not the biggest threat.

You know, I have to agree with you to a point. The armies I listed there do indeed have several "very dangerous" type figures, it is almost an exercise in futility to try and build an army that DOESN'T have "very dangerous" (a relative term I know) figures.

If you don't bring some top-tier figures then you probably won't win even if no one finds you to be a serious threat the entire game. The guidelines I used for army composition really just enforce "Range is even MORE key" a point which a few members contested a little anyway (but that’s beside the point).

The politics of the game don't DEMAND you use a sub-par team, so much as the way in which you manage the game results in you never being the biggest threat to another player (a sometimes impossible task).

For example, the Hive gives an illusion that you are tossing around figures and taking looses with everyone else, even though you can be slowly re-spawning them back. I'll agree that in such a situation players SHOULD try and make the hive a big-time priority... but in my experience they tend to see it as a non-IMIDEATE threat, and focus on other early-game targets. This works even more effectively if you spend your first few rounds putting markers on the squads themselves rather than the hive, that way players don’t SEE the re-spawning right away and tend to focus on closer higher risk threats.

I agree that it is much easier to talk your way out of combat with a more hodge-podge army of the caliber that you suggested, but in general the composition of your army isn't going to matter nearly as much as how you are deployed. No body is going to charge into the Q9 army that I suggested if it means turning their back on another army. On the flip side, rather than blatantly turtleing with the Big Major, I will often use him as my first wave. He's beefy enough to take some hits and can do a fair amount of damage on his own. This gives everyone else the impression that you are in the heat of battle, and the bonus result of people thinking you've lost your best unit and are basically behind the others once your first wave is down. This affords you the opportunity to move in a little more formation in your next wave while people still see you as hurt because of the loss of ol' q9.

Like I said, I find that positioning and diplomacy are much more important than the actual army that you field. Any half-way powerful build is going to have SOME figures that everyone else is a little fearful of. (Kato in your army for example has a big time bulls eye on his head, 200 point figures always will).

[kolakoski]

Well met!

I am undoubtedly , as I have posted my FFA philosophy in other, similar threads, but recall no analyses of it, so . . .

I agree with those who advocate a predominately ranged army. However, I favor heroes with many lives and a healer in FFA. That way I can be relatively active while renewing/maintaining my strength. Our NYC group is having a 500 point, 5-way FFA on 6/11, and, to remain worthy of receiving a Valhalla Society T-shirt from Sylvano's daughter (when they are available), I'll probably field something like this:

140 Othkurik
100 Syvarris
100 Sir Denrick
80 Raelin
80 Kelda
500