More than that, all the more reason FFG needs to make "civilian" craft. Even it is just a single expansion of 4 ships. That way we can have diplomats meeting, smugglers raiding convoys, and evacuation type scenarios where a third player can be the fought over party caught in the middle.
My only question about 2v1 where the 2 have fewer points each is whether or not that breaks some of the synergy. Can they still affect "friendly" ships that aren't their own?
The times I have played 2v1 games (or even 2v2) it worked exactly like a 1v1game, just with the decisions split between 2 people.
"Attack left" type games just seem too awkward in a game where "kill them before they kill you" is an important strategy. If that nasty phantom is about to kill Wedge why can't he shoot back and kill it first,
He can. You just have to weigh the benefits of taking out a threat vs helping your other opponent achieve his objective.
The first person to mention the "attack left" style of game said that you can't attack anyone else in their game. And even if you can IMO it isn't a good idea to have to refrain from shooting back at the ship shooting at your ships because it somehow isn't your enemy.
"Attack left" type games just seem too awkward in a game where "kill them before they kill you" is an important strategy. If that nasty phantom is about to kill Wedge why can't he shoot back and kill it first
In the format they suggested above he can shoot it, but he'll be contributing to an opponent's victory.
What I came up with.. some people like it.
It needs three Firesprays and two Tantives. 
The times I have played 2v1 games (or even 2v2) it worked exactly like a 1v1game, just with the decisions split between 2 people.
Yep, this is exactly what we do most of the time.
It can be difficult for the team with two players to coordinate strategies without giving them away, although pen and paper in this instance helps.
Another issue is that one player might be forced to take a passive role on the team, where one player plans all the moves while the other watches. However, in this particular instance, the passive player is usually new or playing the game just to go pewpewpew (roll dice) so it's not a big concern.
Overall, it plays very similar to a 1v1 type of game so I don't really see the need to introduce a different style of play for a third player.
My only question about 2v1 where the 2 have fewer points each is whether or not that breaks some of the synergy. Can they still affect "friendly" ships that aren't their own?
This should always be agreed upon at the start and before players start building. It provides an additional design and flight challenge for the two, because they have to coordinate synergies, ranges, and flight patterns.
My vote also goes for 2v1. Battletech is another example of a game where this issue comes up and my personal experience is that 2v1 is really the universal answer for any game system of this nature. The benefits include the additional design and flight challenges I said above, as well as keeping the spirit of the game alive as annihilate the enemy. The drawback is that some people can feel like their squad isn't "their own" or if someone is trying to test a 100 point list expressly for tournament play. There is nothing saying that a group couldn't play whatever combination of 2v1s and 1v1s they want though to help get all play goals fulfilled.
Attack Left sounds logical, but it feels very contrived because you are essentially setting up a situation that rarely happens, tactically and strategically. It violates what we all learned from Sun Tzu. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't try scenario play with many different variant rules. But if you are trying to create the exact feel of a 1v1 game with three players, 2v1 with point disparity is really the best way to do that.
I think where a lot of people run into difficulty with this is that they have all pre-made squads before arriving at a location and they may not want to spend time "re-building". Sometimes re-building is the best option for the situation though. The way I like to think about it is that you racked your brain for an hour to come up with your "ideal" 100 point list. Can you do that under a time pressure? What will the outcomes look like? Do you end up with better lists when you have to "feel" the list, rather than "think" the list? Its a good exercise for someone to go through, in my opinion.
Edited by klecserI would suggest maybe dropping the point limit by 10 points or increasing the mat size.
I saw a 2v2 game and the one thing I noticed is that small ships tend to go down fast because in the smaller space there is more firing arcs and attack concentration with upgrades that grant extra actions and what not.
Bottom line is that it is impossible for a Tie Interceptor to turtle when the entire table is a firing arc and everyone has TL and focus.
So if you want a 100 point limit per player increase the table size to at least 4x4.
Also assign points for a kill to the last ship that fired on the target. One player might bring that Falcon down to 1 hull point but if someone else comes along and steals the points, too bad. This is more fun in larger numbers but can certainly draw the fire in 3 player games too.
Blood on the water...
Edited by DoubleNot7... although pen and paper in this instance helps.
You shouldn't do this; FFG multi-player rules state that discussing strategy amongst teammates is allowed but it must be in the open.
... although pen and paper in this instance helps.
You shouldn't do this; FFG multi-player rules state that discussing strategy amongst teammates is allowed but it must be in the open.
I understand the rule and I have followed it in multi-player games, but I don't like it. With a game whose fun depends entirely on the fog of war aspect of having to anticipate where your opponent is going, making teammates discuss their moves in the open ruins the fun of it.
From a fluff perspective: "Cut to the left, I'll take the leader" was done over closed comms.
I agree. The secret nature of setting the maneuver dials and trying to guess/bluff your opponent is a big aspect to this game. The rule is obviously necessary for official, organized tournament games to keep things from bogging down and running out of time, but in casual games with your mates it makes a lot more sense for sides to be able to discuss strategy in secret. In the games I have played, this usually amounts to showing each other your dials before placing them.