I really hope FFG will design the game so we can enjoy games with more than 2 players (team vs team and an all vs all version).

I really think FFG did a great job with Star Wars, and an ok job with Warhammer invasion.

star wars was originally designed as a multiplayer game. Check out a interesting interview form eric lang (creator) on the ivory dice tower. Stil I agree, I would welcome rules for multiplayer

Haven't played the Warhammer Invasion multi rules, but I don't particularly like the SW multi rules. Team play is slow like molasses and involves too much shared information between teammates. The challenge decks are ok, but as a novelty.

Good multiplayer games really need to be designed from the ground up with multiplayer in mind, especially in competitive play, where you need mechanisms to prevent kingmaking, promote comebacks, and otherwise keep everyone involved until the end.

I love multiplayer games, but I hope they don't devote resources to it for this game. Doesn't seem like a good fit.

AGoT is a great example of multiplayer, that is even played at the tournament level.

Really, if you want multiplayer/co-op there are a dozen other 40K products out there to buy and play. This appears to have been designed as a 1v1 experience so they shouldn't try and phone in 3-4 player rules.

but they will And wait another year to witness end of game

If they do the only way I would want to see is was like in WOW and VS with Raid Decks and Giant sized VS maybe against the Necrons or the Nids

But dont waste to much time or money on it thats for sure

I think multiplayer will happen at some point. Though unless a game is designed for it it is always a little flaky. I would suggest that they should focus on the single player.. if they DO introduce multiplayer.. I would not expect it for years.

I agree with booored. If a game isn't designed with multiplayer in mind then it's usually rough going trying to convert it and it will never really flow right.

Personally I would leave Conquest at 2p (which I think makes more sense for the theme anyway) and then release another LCG that is specifically designed for multiplayer.

btw, if anyone does want a game that shines in multiplayer I keep hearing people say that Doomtown works best as a multiplayer game so perhaps check that out when the new version releases this summer at Gencon.

You know dboeren, if you keep pushing this "Doomtown" business on every forum on the internet I'm going to have to go buy it.

Doomtown is a great game.. no doubt! Isn't agot supposed to be better multiplayer than 2 player? It is the only LCG I do not play so don't know.

I've heard both sides on Thrones. My impression is that more "competitive" players seem to prefer 2p because then it's just a duel with no collusion/politics. More "casual" players seem to enjoy multiplayer. But these are only rough guidelines and most people who play enjoy both even if they have a preference.

Disclaimer: I only rarely play Thrones myself and when I do, it's with a borrowed deck.

The other game I always hear is awesome for multiplayer (because it was designed specifically for that goal and has no official 2p rules) is V:TES. I've played a couple games only, but it seemed to be pretty cool and I think a cleaned up & modernized version would be awesome.

Whether you like Doomtown specifically or not, I think all of us would benefit from a 2nd major player in the non-random card game (i.e. - LCG-like) market. Competition drives innovation and benefits consumers, so I'm hoping it's a success. Not to mention that any LCG-like game that hits big (like Netrunner for instance) helps draw more people into the hobby and increases the market for all companies involved so it helps FFG too in an indirect way. Bigger market = more pie for everyone.

they call 'em "ECG" Extendable Card Game

Seems very similar in ways to the blood bowl card game. I bet they release multiplayer rules.

except it is not similar in any way.. but w/e

Seems very similar in ways to the blood bowl card game. I bet they release multiplayer rules.

I agree with this.

Surely multiplayer is a possibility.

Haven't played the Warhammer Invasion multi rules , but I don't particularly like the SW multi rules. Team play is slow like molasses and involves too much shared information between teammates.

Invasion is actually quite good as a multiplayer game.

Haven't played the Warhammer Invasion multi rules , but I don't particularly like the SW multi rules. Team play is slow like molasses and involves too much shared information between teammates.

Invasion is actually quite good as a multiplayer game.

To be clear, SW = Star Wars. Just so no one's confused. I don't want people to think I said that I didn't like the Invasion multi rules in the same breath I said I'd never played them!

That said, I haven't played *much* invasion in general. To me, the main thing agitating against multiplayer would be the last man standing problem. Since you win 1v1 by eliminating your opponent, the natural assumption for a win in multiplayer is being the last one eliminated. To me, a good multiplayer game keeps every player involved as much as possible, which elimination games obviously don't do.

Strictly out of curiosity (I have no plans to start playing a game with so much extant product), did they address the elimination issue in Catacylsm? (That was the name of the multiplayer box, right?)

To bring this back on topic, 40k seems more naturally suited to multiplayer, because while you can win by eliminating your opponent, there is also an affirmative goal to achieve (winning 3 planets with at least one shared resource icon).

In fact, without seeing the card pool or full rules, it seems to me that multiplayer can be played with very few modifications. Highest number of icons present (or the only Warlord present) still wins command struggles, as is the case in 1v1. For actual battles, you can shoot any opposing armies in the same battle. Last unit standing wins the battle.

Everyone would be a little bit card/resource starved, since it would be dividing 5 planets' worth of card draw and resources 3 ways instead of 2. More players would also increase the number of Warlords that come into direct conflict, making elimination more likely (boo).

Not sure what other modifications would need to be made. We still don't know, for example, how to determine which player shoots first in 1v1, so it's hard to speculate on if the rule would need to be modified for more than two players.

Actually, I was just saying that the Invasion MP rules are good. I know that you don't like the SW MP rules and I wasn't responding to that (because I haven't played SW yet), hence the bolded part about Invasion in my post where I quoted your previous post. I guess it wasn't obvious enough.

They got rid of player elimination by introducing a new type of card ("Fulcrums") that you fight over and in turn give you points every turn you control them. Once you hit 8 points you win. You also lose points if your zones burn, but you don't get eliminated. There are some bugs in that format in that some cards are insanely strong, but it is basically the Wild West of Invasion. It also depends on player types, we are able to handle some trash talking around here so it's more of a good-time-experience than the supposed seriousness of 1v1 Invasion.

Since this game already HAS neutral cards for fighting over, it might just be a matter of changing those. FFG tends to write their cards to read "each opponent", "each player", etc, so those don't need to be redesigned for multiplayer.

Actually, I was just saying that the Invasion MP rules are good. I know that you don't like the SW MP rules and I wasn't responding to that (because I haven't played SW yet), hence the bolded part about Invasion in my post where I quoted your previous post. I guess it wasn't obvious enough.

Seemed apparent to me, too, thus the. Wasn't being super serious.

the problem I see with a FFA multiplayer games of conquest is that unless they add more planets the command struggle becomes less important as units will spend more time in combat and more command struggles will be determined by warlords.

For a FFA style conquest game to work I think they will need to both add more planets and create a mechanism similar to thrones that stops 2 players attacking each other to the exclusion of other players.

That said I think FFG can do it and I would love to play a 4 player FFA conquest game.

A team style multiplayer game is much easier to do as they can easily just keep all the 1v1 rules and either limit each team to 1 warlord deployed per turn or simply add more planets (and probably increase the win threshold).

All of the above said I hope that if FFG does decide to make official multiplayer rules for conquest that they create unique game and not just 1v1 but larger as I have experienced with other games

I would be surprised if they didn't (1) because of the setting and (2) because they did it, and I daresay did it well, with Star Wars. This game reminds me so much of 7th Sea and multiplayer on that game is fun and intuitive (then again you couldn't send units to multiple locations because they were all on your boat...).

I've heard both sides on Thrones. My impression is that more "competitive" players seem to prefer 2p because then it's just a duel with no collusion/politics. More "casual" players seem to enjoy multiplayer. But these are only rough guidelines and most people who play enjoy both even if they have a preference.

Disclaimer: I only rarely play Thrones myself and when I do, it's with a borrowed deck.

The other game I always hear is awesome for multiplayer (because it was designed specifically for that goal and has no official 2p rules) is V:TES. I've played a couple games only, but it seemed to be pretty cool and I think a cleaned up & modernized version would be awesome.

Whether you like Doomtown specifically or not, I think all of us would benefit from a 2nd major player in the non-random card game (i.e. - LCG-like) market. Competition drives innovation and benefits consumers, so I'm hoping it's a success. Not to mention that any LCG-like game that hits big (like Netrunner for instance) helps draw more people into the hobby and increases the market for all companies involved so it helps FFG too in an indirect way. Bigger market = more pie for everyone.

Jyhad (V:tES) was a great multiplayer game. It did have 2p rules but then it "degraded to Magic" basically. The voting mechanism and having to use your own life for resources was brilliant and seeing what they did to Dr. Garfield's other post Magic idea (NetRunner) I have been hoping that maybe it would be one of the next LCGs. If so it would certainly scratch a lot of folks multiplayer LCG itch. Which has me wondering. Wasn't GoT supposed to do that? Also Jyhad has a nice expansion base that worked well so there are a wealth of cards already and all FFG would have to do really for the first two years would be produce......

They just have to follow the same model they used for NetRunner and remember that they didn't design it so don't CHANGE anything! Just give er' a facelift (and pick a name that you can stick with) and profit!

Haven't played the Warhammer Invasion multi rules , but I don't particularly like the SW multi rules. Team play is slow like molasses and involves too much shared information between teammates.

Invasion is actually quite good as a multiplayer game.

To be clear, SW = Star Wars. Just so no one's confused. I don't want people to think I said that I didn't like the Invasion multi rules in the same breath I said I'd never played them!

That said, I haven't played *much* invasion in general. To me, the main thing agitating against multiplayer would be the last man standing problem. Since you win 1v1 by eliminating your opponent, the natural assumption for a win in multiplayer is being the last one eliminated. To me, a good multiplayer game keeps every player involved as much as possible, which elimination games obviously don't do.

Strictly out of curiosity (I have no plans to start playing a game with so much extant product), did they address the elimination issue in Catacylsm? (That was the name of the multiplayer box, right?)

To bring this back on topic, 40k seems more naturally suited to multiplayer, because while you can win by eliminating your opponent, there is also an affirmative goal to achieve (winning 3 planets with at least one shared resource icon).

In fact, without seeing the card pool or full rules, it seems to me that multiplayer can be played with very few modifications. Highest number of icons present (or the only Warlord present) still wins command struggles, as is the case in 1v1. For actual battles, you can shoot any opposing armies in the same battle. Last unit standing wins the battle.

Everyone would be a little bit card/resource starved, since it would be dividing 5 planets' worth of card draw and resources 3 ways instead of 2. More players would also increase the number of Warlords that come into direct conflict, making elimination more likely (boo).

Not sure what other modifications would need to be made. We still don't know, for example, how to determine which player shoots first in 1v1, so it's hard to speculate on if the rule would need to be modified for more than two players.

Wow I really hate to say it but you have provided some ways this could go multiplayer! Believe me, I am NOT advocating this, quite the opposite, but there is REASON to your explanation. Crap.

I sure hope FFG makes it clear if they have multi-player plans for this in the future BEFORE they release the game since I was really looking foward to a 1v1 focus. I'll just have to wait and see..... I probably wouldn't have bought into Star Wars had I known where they were going with it. (I quit buying stuff at the end of the Hoth cycle.) I'd just like to know that about this game before it's released.....