Runewars is obviously well suited to 2v2 play, but has anyone tried 1v1v1 or more?

I tried to do a 4 player FFA conversion of the Armada multiplayer scenario Capture the Station. It went... okay . I feel like any multiplayer variant needs to be heavily, if not entirely, objective focused to avoid turtling and/or ganging up. For a 4 player game, I'd limit points and give each player a corner of the field (measure 10 wide and 3 out from the corner).

What are everyone's thoughts on this? Deployments? Point limits? Possible scenarios?

Warning: 3player FFA ALWAYS ends up in a 2v1.

Its the reason Startrek Ascendancy wasnt that amazing until the recent expansions finally came out.

I imagine a 4way FFA (or more) would just turn into pseudo alliances until only two remain, but it would be interesting nontheless.

In my experience it's more a case of, "uh oh, that guy moved in my general direction, better fight him to the death." Meanwhile, the third player can just sit back then sweep up whatever's left of the first 2. That's why I say any variant needs to be mostly or entirely based on objectives instead of last man standing. I was thinking a king of the hill scenario might work to encourage engagement, where players get points for remaining inside a certain zone in the center. Also, terrain placed in between deployment areas might help to funnel armies into the center.

What about a capture the flag ... er ... dragon rune type scenario? Kind of like a moving king of the hill.

19 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

What about a capture the flag ... er ... dragon rune type scenario? Kind of like a moving king of the hill.

How would it work? Everyone rushes for a flag in the middle? I'm having trouble visualizing it.

Yeah, capture the rune is thematic, but I think it's more appropriate for skirmish level games like Imperial Assault, than for rank and file games like Runewars Miniatures Game.

I'm just imagining getting to the end of eight rounds, and one faction is in possession and it never made it to anybody's home base. Things move in Runewars, but they're not very efficient at going back-and-forth.

Capture the rune, and bring it home? If the unit carrying the rune is destroyed it drops the rune right there to be picked up by some one else?

The best way to avoid ganging up in a multiplayer game is to only count the score from your second highest total.

Example: John, Paul and Ringo play a 3 way game.

John kills 70 points worth of Paul's units and 45 worth of Ringo's.

Paul kills 100 points of John's units and 30 points of Ringo's.

Ringo kills 60 points of John's units and 50 points of Paul's.

Ringo wins as his second total of 50 points is better than the others, even though his total is less.

Rob

Interesting, and a little tougher to 'feel' if your winning

11 hours ago, Asmo said:

The best way to avoid ganging up in a multiplayer game is to only count the score from your second highest total.

That's a pretty elegant solution, but it sounds cumbersome to keep track of how many points you kill and from which player.

How about this?

King of the Hill: Place an objective token in the dead center. After 8 rounds, whoever's unit is closest to the token wins.

Assassination: Each player chooses a commander by placing an objective token on one of their units. If the player on your right's commander is destroyed, you win.

Make it more interesting - put that objective token on top of the Dimoran fissure!

That gives me an idea for a future variant. Co-op. A big dragon in the middle, and all of Terrinoth has to ban together to save it ! Haha

7 minutes ago, Ywingscum said:

That gives me an idea for a future variant. Co-op. A big dragon in the middle, and all of Terrinoth has to ban together to save it ! Haha

Save it? Or Destroy it!!!

4 hours ago, Parakitor said:

Make it more interesting - put that objective token on top of the Dimoran fissure!

King of the Hole?

There's a really easy way to stop 3 player games becoming 2v1.

Assign each tray 1 victory point. Characters should be about 3-5. So each victory point equals very approximately 15ish points of army.

Your final victory point count is equal to the lowest score against the two other players. So at the end of the game you may have killed 5 trays from 1 player and 3 trays from another player, therefore you final score is 3.

This forces players to go after both armies if they want to win. We've played this in 40k quite a number of times and it is very effective.

Edit, I see I was sniped by Rob (Asmo), we play in the same gaming group.

4 hours ago, Ywingscum said:

That gives me an idea for a future variant. Co-op. A big dragon in the middle, and all of Terrinoth has to ban together to save it ! Haha

Ooh! Ooh! In BattleLore, there is a scenario where an AI dragon flew around the board and the two armies had to race to defeat the dragon and claim its treasure horde. Damage the dragon took from each player is scored separately. After you get a certain amount of damage, you have to claim the dragon horde in the top-center of the board. Not a co-op, but still a fun way to play.

+1 for chasing a giant dragon around the board.

Some sort of automated movement rules would have to be whipped up if you couldn't find someone to play the dragon. But that's been done before so it shouldn't prove too difficult.

It would be a lot of fun to negotiate chasing a dragon while fending off opponents and trying not to get tabled by the dragon.

I'm currently working on a multiplayer scenario for this. At the moment, the dragon sits on a gold hoard (terrain piece) in the center. Players get objective points for killing and/or damaging the dragon (similarly to the dianoga in imperial assault skirmish), as well as stealing the treasure. The dragon will breath fire (ranged attack) on all units within range unless engaged, and will melee attack the unit with the most trays in contact with him. Units in contact with the treasure hoard can perform an action to collect treasure. The dragon has to be super strong (I'm thinking 4-5 armor and 10 hp), attacks with 2 white and a red die for melee, double red for ranged, brutal 2, and probably the same panic giving ability as the spined thresher.

I'm also not too attached to the dragon part though. I think i would prefer a rogue demon and a pit of souls, or something along those lines, but to each their own.

1 hour ago, CerberusUC said:

I'm currently working on a multiplayer scenario for this. At the moment, the dragon sits on a gold hoard (terrain piece) in the center. Players get objective points for killing and/or damaging the dragon (similarly to the dianoga in imperial assault skirmish), as well as stealing the treasure. The dragon will breath fire (ranged attack) on all units within range unless engaged, and will melee attack the unit with the most trays in contact with him. Units in contact with the treasure hoard can perform an action to collect treasure. The dragon has to be super strong (I'm thinking 4-5 armor and 10 hp), attacks with 2 white and a red die for melee, double red for ranged, brutal 2, and probably the same panic giving ability as the spined thresher.

I'm also not too attached to the dragon part though. I think i would prefer a rogue demon and a pit of souls, or something along those lines, but to each their own.

5 armor 10 hp, that's 50 hits, at a minimum of 5 hits to hurt. Getting attacked with 2 white and a red at melee or two red brutal 2. You're not going to live very easily. The idea that it attacks the largest unit is an intriguing one. Build one unit with high armor (Rune Golem and spears) and then some Cavs to start attacking. Be interesting for sure.

i'd give it resistance to mortal wounds. Perhaps as simple as the DK's ability

Otherwise people will just spam mortal wound abilities and say screw damage.

Just now, Vineheart01 said:

i'd give it resistance to mortal wounds. Perhaps as simple as the DK's ability

Otherwise people will just spam mortal wound abilities and say screw damage.

This is true.