I know that right now Destiny is only a two player game, but I've noticed several cards have wording that would suggest multiple enemies. One example would be the command center battlefield which says "Each opponent discards the top 2 cards of their deck". Why would it say each opponent if it is strictly a two player game? Does anyone know if there are any plans for FFG to alter/expand the rules for gameplay with more than two players?

I know that right now Destiny is only a two player game, but I've noticed several cards have wording that would suggest multiple enemies. One example would be the command center battlefield which says "Each opponent discards the top 2 cards of their deck". Why would it say each opponent if it is strictly a two player game? Does anyone know if there are any plans for FFG to alter/expand the rules for gameplay with more than two players?

Real the Rules Reference. Destiny is USUALLY a two player game, but the rules reference has a page on how to play multiplayer games.

Most of the games I have been playing are multi player. The challenge is destiny tends to favor a focused fire approach. Someone's character will be focused down, entirely likely in a single round. From then on that person will limp through the game.

Multi player is very fun, regardless.

Most of the games I have been playing are multi player. The challenge is destiny tends to favor a focused fire approach. Someone's character will be focused down, entirely likely in a single round. From then on that person will limp through the game.

Multi player is very fun, regardless.

Depends how you play. I would argue that the focused fire approach breaks down in multiplayer games. Realistically, you more often want to appear as the lesser threat and damage all your opponents equally. Every time on opponent attacks another opponent, it helps you out. It's to your advantage for your opponents to stay alive and attacking each other for as long as possible. If you focus fire one player out of the game, your remaining opponents will spend more of their attacks against you.

In multiplayer games, I'll frequently prioritize gaining a resource or a shield over doing damage. Doing damage invites retaliation. Who are you going to attack... the guy who just did 4 damage to one of your characters, or the guy who gained a resource?

I think they should differentiate between ranged/melee attacks in multiplayer games...something along the lines of you can only melee against 1 person (say, left? or, across...). Ranged can attack anyone. In practice, this may introduce issues (?), but I think it might be an interesting take on multiplayer. Players would not be able to focus down a single player as easily, but any particular person also couldn't just retaliate fully on players "not in the melee range."

Do you focus down the player on your left, or throw some (ranged only) damage back to your right to try and take that player out first?

This could also affect certain decks. All melee and you're stuck attacking left. All ranged could attack anyone.

I don't know the game well enough to understand the implications of this.

I think the trick in making multiplayer fun is to ensure there is a mechanic that has the players want their attacks to be aimed at a character rather than a player.

Perhaps something like "Bang!" where there are good guys and bag guys but you don't know who is who. You have a "Jedi" who is revealed at the start of the game, then two "Good Guys" and two "Bad Guys" who are only revealed if they die. The Good Guys win if they kill the two Bad Guy Teams, the Bad Guys win if they kill the "Jedi" and both Good Guys, the "Jedi" wins in he kills both Bad Guys and there is at least one Good Guy remaining. Range attacks are resolved on anyone and melee attacks to your left or right.

You could also reduce the number of actions to 3 per player per turn, then pass the battlefield left.