Heroscape: A dish best served for two

[Jexik]

Originally Posted by nyys

At my stage of life everything has to be planned in advance (three kids), so we usually have plenty of warning and I set-up all the maps in the days before the gathering. But I see what you're saying, trying to get the gang togeher on a whim is difficult if nothing is built at that point.

Ah, yes. Children. I haven't got any of those yet. I'm also lucky enough that one of my best friends since I was about 5 years old lives in an apartment two blocks away from me now. If I call him on a Friday night, the conversation often goes something like this:

"Hey, Phil and Mike are already over here; you should come too," he says.
"What games should I bring?"
"Well, Settlers is always good. Wait. Phil is saying you should bring that zombie game. He wants to be the zombies."
"Sure, I'll bring Settlers and Last Night on Earth."
"And uh.. oh nevermind."
"You want me to bring Clue, don't you?"
"Yeah..."
"All right, I'll bring that too. All right. See ya in a few."
Click.

Half the time, we might spend half the evening playing some random video game anyway, but I can't remember the last time he asked me to bring any of my 'scape, even if I offered.

One thing I like about some of the games I have listed above (even Clue) is that players do something actively on every player's turn. In Settlers I'm trying to make some insane trade, in Last Night on Earth I'm making up some ridiculous reason why the 16 year old girl just killed 4 zombies in a row without any weapons, and even in Clue I'm actively watching which player was able to provide evidence against each suggestion.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Great post Jexik!

I agree with most of what you wrote re: 1:1 being the true 'staple" of Heroscape... However, I've personally come to love 3-player "Kill-the-guy-to-your-right" games the best! (or to the left... either way).


- "Kill-the-guy-to-your-right/left", by definition, prevents ganging-up on one particular player.

- With only 3 players, the gameplay is still rather snappy and moves along well.

- You still have the tactical/strategic goal of a 1:1 game in that you have the same goal of destroying one player's army.

- You have the added BONUS of a new tactical and strategic challenge of having to both play offensively against your "target", while still paying attention to defending yourself against the other player targeting you.... while being very very careful to not defend too aggressively because if you knock down the army of the player attacking you, you are greatly increasing the odds of your "target" destroying HIS target first, which is the army attacking you!

- You get to have crazy-fun interactions with 2 other people at the same time instead of just 1.

- It forces you to think "outside the box" in terms of army creation in order to come up with synergies and units that will help you with both aggressive offense and glove-handed defense. (again, not wanting to cause too much harm to the player trying to kill you so as to not help out the player you are trying to kill, who's objective is to kill the player attacking you.... whew!!)

- It's still very competitive, with each player having their own winning objective, but the hair-pulling dynamics of this love/hate triangle add a light-heartedness and unique humor to the gameplay.

So again, if I had a choice of a 1:1 or a 3-player kill-the-guy-to-your-right game, I'd go with the 3-player, hands-down. But like you, I also prefer 1:1 gameplay over massive 4+ player games for many of the reasons you cited.

Luckily, in Scape, variety is king!

SW8K

[killercactus]

Originally Posted by Jexik

in Clue I'm actively watching which player was able to provide evidence against each suggestion.

A lot more people would like Clue if they did this. The people I play with wonder why I win all the time, but the only time they make any sort of mark on their notebook is when someone shows them a card.

I don't care whose turn it is - if any evidence is given, I'm writing down what it could be and who is giving it, and comparing that with my prior notes to see if I can learn something new. If Joe shows a card when Ken guesses Mustard with the Knife in the Lounge, and then Shelly guesses Scarlet with the Knife in the Lounge on her next turn and Joe can't prove her wrong, I've just learned that Joe has Colonel Mustard.

[J4Jandar]

Originally Posted by The B.I.V.

We do general-specific as well. Like you say, restrictions aren't a bad thing. It will only make them better players when there aren't any restrictions (if they ever want to move into more "competitive" play), right?

Brandon

Restrictions abound also to eliminate disagreements over figures. The lines are drawn. They know what they have to work with and can formulate a strategy from there.

Money issues are a problem as well since having enough figures to field an identical army for all three of us is out of the question. Aquiring enough commons to be competetive with our own armies has been a chore in and of itself. If fortune did smile down upon us this would change completely though I myself would have a hard time going outside of Jandar. I field Jandar and Ullar though do not find myself fileding any Ullar units.

I mildly lean toward Einar and Vydar sometimes though am content with Jandar. My oldest would love to play Zetacron since He has a habit of rolling all his attack skulls over here. My youngest just wants anything he does not have. Once we field a complete army for each general (All uniques and 3x commons) then we will explore the wonderfull world of mixing generals though that icky Utgar fella aint making his way in my army!

Hispanic version secret agent man is playing on Pandora right now...

[Jexik]

Originally Posted by Snotwalker 8000

However, I've personally come to love 3-player "Kill-the-guy-to-your-right" games the best! (or to the left... either way).
SW8K

This sounds like a great idea. I'll have to try this!

[The B.I.V.]

Originally Posted by J4Jandar

Money issues are a problem as well since having enough figures to field an identical army for all three of us is out of the question. Aquiring enough commons to be competetive with our own armies has been a chore in and of itself. If fortune did smile down upon us this would change completely though I myself would have a hard time going outside of Jandar. I field Jandar and Ullar though do not find myself fileding any Ullar units.

I mildly lean toward Einar and Vydar sometimes though am content with Jandar. My oldest would love to play Zetacron since He has a habit of rolling all his attack skulls over here. My youngest just wants anything he does not have. Once we field a complete army for each general (All uniques and 3x commons) then we will explore the wonderfull world of mixing generals though that icky Utgar fella aint making his way in my army!

Yeah, i've been fortunate to build a up a nice collection. I have 3 or 4 of most commons. I'm not interested in any of us being able to field the same army, though.

My boys seem to have a preferrance for Ullar/Jandar/Vydar (that's probably a good thing) so I usually end up being Utgar, or occasionally Vydar or Einar.

Originally Posted by J4Jandar

Hispanic version secret agent man is playing on Pandora right now...

RANDOM!

Brandon

[J4Jandar]

Totally random, blew me out of the water though very funny to hear. I do not want to field three identical armies though would welcome the chance. My problem with the ability to have each player field the same army is I like to retain some semblance of realism. I know that this is just a game and fantasy runs rampant though The ability to face an exact copy of the figure I am playing just sticks in my craw. The 1 vs 1 games really help in that regard.

[Dualahorn]

I haven't played many 1v1 games but they don’t seem to appeal to me as much as team games or FFA. I like to play on massive maps that have roads to speed up the progress of game play. I usually play with people that are my age or older and I don’t have to worry about short attention spans. And my friends are more aggressive players so the games don’t last too long when we have 6 people.
The politics in FFA games are really fun. Trying to convince the other player to attack someone because it is in his best interest can very fun if you are sneaky and mischievous about it.

[NecroBlade]

Originally Posted by Ty the Awasome

It's heresy. I'll schedule your hanging for tomorrow. Now I just need an angry mob...

As the OP of the thread to which Jexik had nothing to add, here I am!



IMO, it all depends on your play group. What themes/genres are they into? What type of gamers are they? My old group had tons of fun with multiplayer Heroscape (or multiplayer anything) and finished games relatively quickly, even.

So I guess I have nothing to add to this thread.

[whitestuff]

The Marvel power amulet (steal-the-other-person's-powers-when-you-have-the-glyph) is a great way to play 1vs1vs1 games. I've had a blast with this.

That's not to say that I disagree with you Jexik. The lull in HS releases has opened my interest in many other games that now could easily satiate my gaming itch...

[ElvenEnvy]

That is the one thing I love about Free For Alls -Politics. I can almost always get people to go my way whether they know they are doing it or not.

Like in Civics class we've been doing different things with Parlamentary Procedure and Commity Legislation. I passed more of my groups bills through than the rest of the groups combined in one activity and got 6 of 8 of my conditions passed in the the other compared to every other group having 3 or 4 of 8 a peice. And the great thing is most of them are pretty intelligent people.

[Sphere]

I can see why a tournament player like Jexik would favor 2-player games. That's really the way to go for serious competitive play.

Personally, I gravitate more towards hex-and-counter wargames when I'm playing competitively, but have had some great experiences playing 3 or 4 player games of HeroScape, usually with one or both of my sons involved. As a social game with the right group, multiplayer HeroScape is hard to beat.