Actually played TWO 3-player games this weekend. Turns out they take significantly longer than a regular 2-player game. Each game took over an hour. Mostly because you don't go all-out on a single person, and you end up trying to play more defensively. Also here's a tip - Hopefully everyone has a copy of each battlefield - this way if an eliminated player has to leave, (and if it's THEIR battlefield in play), you can just swap out the card so they can either leave or start a new game with someone else.

Interesting question came up.

3 Players, A, B, and C.

Player A's Battlefield is selected.

Player A claims the battlefield.

Player C kills player A's last character, eliminating him or her. Player A is now out.

Who controls the battlefield?

At first I was thinking it would go back to the person who owned it, but if they are the one eliminated, then perhaps it would go to the person who killed them? But then suppose nobody actually kills them. Suppose they discard their last card and lose at the beginning of next turn due to no cards?

I am left to assume that the POSITION of Player A would retain control of the battlefield, and then clockwise turn order would then continue - THUS, Player B would actually go first, but technically wouldn't control the battlefield UNLESS he/she claimed it. So cards that require you to control the battlefield wouldn't work, even though Player B goes first.

Actually played TWO 3-player games this weekend. Turns out they take significantly longer than a regular 2-player game. Each game took over an hour. Mostly because you don't go all-out on a single person, and you end up trying to play more defensively. Also here's a tip - Hopefully everyone has a copy of each battlefield - this way if an eliminated player has to leave, (and if it's THEIR battlefield in play), you can just swap out the card so they can either leave or start a new game with someone else.

Interesting question came up.

3 Players, A, B, and C.

Player A's Battlefield is selected.

Player A claims the battlefield.

Player C kills player A's last character, eliminating him or her. Player A is now out.

Who controls the battlefield?

At first I was thinking it would go back to the person who owned it, but if they are the one eliminated, then perhaps it would go to the person who killed them? But then suppose nobody actually kills them. Suppose they discard their last card and lose at the beginning of next turn due to no cards?

I am left to assume that the POSITION of Player A would retain control of the battlefield, and then clockwise turn order would then continue - THUS, Player B would actually go first, but technically wouldn't control the battlefield UNLESS he/she claimed it. So cards that require you to control the battlefield wouldn't work, even though Player B goes first.

I believe you're correct. If the owner of the battlefield is defeated, then no one owns the battlefield until a new player claims it.

I was in one of those games with Crabbok. We both ran through our entire decks going into the final turn (we eliminated the third player a few turns before that) and so had a final frenzy of attempting to do anything. He had a Han with so many dice on him that there wasn't much I could do and he took me out. But I can definitely see multi-player games going that length and requiring some tough decisions; there were cards I probably could have played on the second-to-last turn, but that would have left me drawing more cards than were left in my deck and losing, so I had to sit tight to make sure I lasted into that last round.

Also here's a tip - Hopefully everyone has a copy of each battlefield - this way if an eliminated player has to leave, (and if it's THEIR battlefield in play), you can just swap out the card so they can either leave or start a new game with someone else.

You would actually need more than just 1x of each battlefield if your goal is to always make it so people can walk away. For example, the other day I played a couple multiplayer games with Grievous, who stole some weapons from my opponents who were then eliminated.

Also here's a tip - Hopefully everyone has a copy of each battlefield - this way if an eliminated player has to leave, (and if it's THEIR battlefield in play), you can just swap out the card so they can either leave or start a new game with someone else.

You would actually need more than just 1x of each battlefield if your goal is to always make it so people can walk away. For example, the other day I played a couple multiplayer games with Grievous, who stole some weapons from my opponents who were then eliminated.

Good point.

But this kinda goes to a point that a friend and I were talking about with Grevious. IF you play him, it would be better in general to use your OWN copy of stolen cards/dice. This way there's no mixing up at the end of the game. Considering that this game doesn't have any way of you sleeving dice, or otherwise indicating ownership - I'd prefer to NOT mix my dice in with other people's dice pools.

Also here's a tip - Hopefully everyone has a copy of each battlefield - this way if an eliminated player has to leave, (and if it's THEIR battlefield in play), you can just swap out the card so they can either leave or start a new game with someone else.

You would actually need more than just 1x of each battlefield if your goal is to always make it so people can walk away. For example, the other day I played a couple multiplayer games with Grievous, who stole some weapons from my opponents who were then eliminated.

Good point.

But this kinda goes to a point that a friend and I were talking about with Grevious. IF you play him, it would be better in general to use your OWN copy of stolen cards/dice. This way there's no mixing up at the end of the game. Considering that this game doesn't have any way of you sleeving dice, or otherwise indicating ownership - I'd prefer to NOT mix my dice in with other people's dice pools.

That would of course mean you'd have to own copies of all the upgrades your opponent is using, which, with a collectible game, isn't always a given. Plus you'd have to bring your entire collection with you at all times, which may not always be desirable/practical.

Also here's a tip - Hopefully everyone has a copy of each battlefield - this way if an eliminated player has to leave, (and if it's THEIR battlefield in play), you can just swap out the card so they can either leave or start a new game with someone else.

You would actually need more than just 1x of each battlefield if your goal is to always make it so people can walk away. For example, the other day I played a couple multiplayer games with Grievous, who stole some weapons from my opponents who were then eliminated.

Good point.

But this kinda goes to a point that a friend and I were talking about with Grevious. IF you play him, it would be better in general to use your OWN copy of stolen cards/dice. This way there's no mixing up at the end of the game. Considering that this game doesn't have any way of you sleeving dice, or otherwise indicating ownership - I'd prefer to NOT mix my dice in with other people's dice pools.

That would of course mean you'd have to own copies of all the upgrades your opponent is using, which, with a collectible game, isn't always a given. Plus you'd have to bring your entire collection with you at all times, which may not always be desirable/practical.

Might be easier than you think. A lot of X-Wing players bring their whole collection ha ha!

Or you could always proxy the stolen card. Carry a few spare D6's, and since each card lists it's sides on the card, just go from the top down, top side = 1, bottom side = 6. I'm assuming most upgrades will be common knowledge pretty soon in terms of abilities.

I was in one of those games with Crabbok. We both ran through our entire decks going into the final turn (we eliminated the third player a few turns before that) and so had a final frenzy of attempting to do anything. He had a Han with so many dice on him that there wasn't much I could do and he took me out. But I can definitely see multi-player games going that length and requiring some tough decisions; there were cards I probably could have played on the second-to-last turn, but that would have left me drawing more cards than were left in my deck and losing, so I had to sit tight to make sure I lasted into that last round.

You don't lose when your deck runs out. You lose when your deck runs out AND you have no more cards left in your hand. So, if the round starts with zero cards in your hand and 4 cards in your deck, you'd draw those 4 and play until your hand is empty.

I was in one of those games with Crabbok. We both ran through our entire decks going into the final turn (we eliminated the third player a few turns before that) and so had a final frenzy of attempting to do anything. He had a Han with so many dice on him that there wasn't much I could do and he took me out. But I can definitely see multi-player games going that length and requiring some tough decisions; there were cards I probably could have played on the second-to-last turn, but that would have left me drawing more cards than were left in my deck and losing, so I had to sit tight to make sure I lasted into that last round.

You don't lose when your deck runs out. You lose when your deck runs out AND you have no more cards left in your hand. So, if the round starts with zero cards in your hand and 4 cards in your deck, you'd draw those 4 and play until your hand is empty.

It's also important to note that you don't immediately lose if you run out of cards:

• If a player has no cards in their hand and deck at the end of a round (after the upkeep phase) , they lose and the other player wins. If both players would lose this way, the player who controls the battlefield at the end of the round wins

[Emphasis mine.]

So if you play your last card but kill your opponent's last character in the same round, you still win. This is something I have seen people miss in videos.

I was in one of those games with Crabbok. We both ran through our entire decks going into the final turn (we eliminated the third player a few turns before that) and so had a final frenzy of attempting to do anything. He had a Han with so many dice on him that there wasn't much I could do and he took me out. But I can definitely see multi-player games going that length and requiring some tough decisions; there were cards I probably could have played on the second-to-last turn, but that would have left me drawing more cards than were left in my deck and losing, so I had to sit tight to make sure I lasted into that last round.

You don't lose when your deck runs out. You lose when your deck runs out AND you have no more cards left in your hand. So, if the round starts with zero cards in your hand and 4 cards in your deck, you'd draw those 4 and play until your hand is empty.

It's also important to note that you don't immediately lose if you run out of cards:

• If a player has no cards in their hand and deck at the end of a round (after the upkeep phase) , they lose and the other player wins. If both players would lose this way, the player who controls the battlefield at the end of the round wins

[Emphasis mine.]

So if you play your last card but kill your opponent's last character in the same round, you still win. This is something I have seen people miss in videos.

Yup. Which is one reason why the Starship Graveyard on Jakku is such a nice Battlefield. It can effectively stall the game if you keep claiming it to put a card back in your library.

What's a library?

What's a library?

Deck.

Old Magic the Gathering terminology creeping back into my brain.

What's a library?

Yet another game term annoyingly borrowed from Magic. He means deck.

Sorry, I should have put a sarcasm icon there. I have heard the term before, I was just being snarky? is that a word?

Sorry, I should have put a sarcasm icon there. I have heard the term before, I was just being snarky? is that a word?