I am playing a with a group of friends and we like to have so match with 3 sides (due to the fact that there are many of us when we gather for X-wing).

We tried the following rule last time, and it seemed pretty good. I was wondering if it has been discussed anywhere else and if it creates any unbalancing we haven't yet noticed. Here goes:

You form 3 teams. Team A, B and C. Each team is played by 1 player and consists of a 100 point squad. We also usually limit the ships per squad to 3 to make gameplay faster, but that again is a personal choice.

The rule are all the same with the only added mechanic being that team A can only shoot team B, team B can only shoot C, and team C can only shoot A.

This way you are essentially fighting against 1 fleet. You are going to be attacking the same number of ships as in a 1v1 environment, and receiving the same number of attacks in return. By limiting the number of ships you are pretty sure things are not going to get cluttered. Rules for winning are again the same, we are discussing giving 2 points to highest scoring team at time, then 1 and 0.

That's it. We like simplicity. Any errors in this way of thinking that we 've missed? We 've only tried this once so far.

The problem I see is, while you (A) defeat your target (B), the one who targets you © gets stronger because you kill off ships that are on the board (B) to keep the one who targets you © in check. I'm not sure how well this is thought out. Basically I should leave my target (B) in peace so he can destroy the one who targets me ©, so I don't have to defend as much and can focus on attacking?

When exactly is the game over? Once one player eliminates his target? Will it be unbalanced if one player © fields an exceptionally weak squad? Will (A) win this because he gets never attacked and can just focus an all out attack on (B)?

The system sounds interesting, you should playtest this some more, maybe also with some more unbalanced squads. So far I have only played 3 player free for all, each playing 100pts and the winner is the last one standing. So you have to kill both of the other squads.

What you say is true and it was a concern as well for us. If I attack B that indeed benefits C, who will have less to worry about. I don't even have to kill B, making him use his focus token on defense instead of using to attack C again benefits C.

The thing is, I am also kept in check by C, which means I have to be careful on how much im willing to commit on B in the first place. If C has a Soontir on my back I know is not gonna get shot then I may not use my focus token on offense, meaning B will be better off attacking C later. In the case where I kill B's ship, what we did was hang on to our tokens for defense exactly because C now had an advantage on us, giving B space to focus on C.

Weirdly it all sort of balanced out, but the issue you mention can still be there!

EDIT: As far as winning is concerned we said that if you wipe out your enemy team you win. If it goes to time we just calculate points destroyed as would be done in a regular game.

Babaganoosh made an awesome 3 person mission that was really good. I wish I could remember the name of it. Imperials have 150 pts or so to defend. Rebels have 100, which is not enough, so they hire 100 pts of Scum to help them steal something. Scum realize what it is and at some point want to steal it for themselves. Scum and Rebels are allies until the time Scum wants to double cross. It's nice because Scum and Rebels don't really want to commit until the other one loses too much, so it saves Empire a bit. At some point, Scum pulls the double cross to try to win. It's a nice way to play off a greater force vs a weaker force, but even out the odds a bit.

The rules for a three player match can be found in the Agressor expansion. Really fun way to play the game with three people!

I've played a 3 person match with no general specifics, other than standard rules.

In some games, I've found you get 2 players that fight it out and the other player waits and takes out the remaining ships.

I've also played where I split my forces and gone after both opponents. Sounds suicidal, but initially moving one way and then splitting up surprises my opponent. The last time I played, we all came down to 1 ship and everybody had only 1 or 2 hull to decide the winner.

The only thing I could see wrong with the way you're doing it is that there are cards that don't make too much sense like the Protectorate title. It wants you to be range 1 of the defender, yet that defender couldn't take the shot back at you and must target something else instead. I really like Heychadwick's idea above.

The best way to run a ring format in my experience is to give each player another player to eliminate (A must eliminate B must eliminate C must eliminate A) but don't restrict targeting: you can shoot anything:

you can attack your attackers ships if you judge it wise.

Also, when a player eliminates their primary target they win: if C dies then B wins, it doesn't become B versus A.

I really like Heychadwick's idea above.

It was really Babaganoosh's. I wish I was that clever. I can't steal his credit. I wish I could recall the name of the mission.

Just play 2 v 1. Have one guy play 200 points and two other guys team up with 100 points each, or some such thing.

Not exactly a ground breaking new format, but it'll be balanced and you'll have fun, so why not?

I think the IG-2000 pack has a 3 player mission in it.

The rules for a three player match can be found in the Agressor expansion. Really fun way to play the game with three people!

I've flown the mission a few times, and it's a very effective 3-player scenario. It's particularly helpful when we've got an odd number of players.

We generally ignore the list-building restrictions, and remove the rule that eliminates a player once their leader is destroyed - without those it works for any player and list, and is basically a 3-way scenario with some extras.

The rules for a three player match can be found in the Agressor expansion. Really fun way to play the game with three people!

I've flown the mission a few times, and it's a very effective 3-player scenario. It's particularly helpful when we've got an odd number of players.

We generally ignore the list-building restrictions, and remove the rule that eliminates a player once their leader is destroyed - without those it works for any player and list, and is basically a 3-way scenario with some extras.

We find that the leader ship keeps the game honest. You might think a second player is going to help you take down the third, but all it takes is one stab in the back for things to go south quick.

We also ignore the list-building restrictions but follow all other suggestions from that mission. Makes for a fast pace and fun battle royal between 3 players!

I really like Heychadwick's idea above.

It was really Babaganoosh's. I wish I was that clever. I can't steal his credit. I wish I could recall the name of the mission.

I actually made two 3-player missions:

Conflict of Interests : Rebels are attacking an Imperial installation, while Scum bounty hunters try to collect a few bounties.

Honor among Thieves : Rebels have hired some scummy mercenaries to help them steal some equipment from the Imperials, but the Scum player betrays the Rebels to take the equipment for themselves.

I made these scenarios to help solve the problem of the three-player game, which is namely that two players tend to gang up on the third, and then go after each other after that player is dead or neutered. The solutions presented in these scenarios are intended to discourage ganging up by making it very dangerous for one player to ignore any other one player for more than one turn of play. The heightened paranoia will hopefully prevent players from ganging up.