I’m still waiting for some official rules through FFG for multiplayer games and barring that I’d take anything that our posters might suggest.
Maybe this thread would be a placeholder of sorts till these rules eventually become released. ?
Please don’t be shy; if you are willing, tell us what you would like to see in multiplayer. (I promise not to post another thread on this topic, as this is my 2nd or 3rd attempt)
?
If they do multiplayer, I'd like to see roles similar to GoT.
Multiplayer also imposes the problems of rings available, so there would have to be a completely different mechanic there.
I think multiplayer could work if you limited conflicts to 1 per player per round. Then rings would not be an issue and you could play with up to five. There would have to be alot of player politics in order to make alliances and not get ganged up on, but still leaves open treachery. It would make for a possibly longer game in some instances but it could work. Thoughts?
There are two immediate problems - selecting rings for conflicts and Honour bidding for cards
I would suggest that there are a number of sets of rings depending on the number of players
Each ring is treated as different rings, for whether they are selected and putting fate on them.
I am tempted to suggest something like the GoT roles: Left Hand, Right Hand, Voice etc, which tell you who you compare your honour dial with. I may put some more thought into this with further details.
I think it depends on what type of multiplayer you want to run: free-for-all or team based.
Having 2 sets of rings for 3 or more players. But set them on one side. I.e. military water ring only is a military water ring. If it has been chosen it is gone.
For multiplayer roles, that would be outstanding, especially if they were different from standard roles. First player token could move counter clockwise, where as player order is clockwise.
3 hours ago, SideshowLucifer said:If they do multiplayer, I'd like to see roles similar to GoT.
Would you be so kind as to elaborate, for those of us who never hopped on the Thrones train?
It's been awhile since I played, but a role that helps military, one for political, one for economy, one for card draw, and maybe one for rings.
I can't remember how the roles were chosen, just remember we loved playing with them.
10 hours ago, suburbaknght said:I think it depends on what type of multiplayer you want to run: free-for-all or team based.
Right now I can only see a free for all type of multiplayer that FFG might go with.
(I SERIOUSLY want team based rules, but this might run against FFG's wishes as it might compete too highly against their current 1-vs-1 player tournaments)
8 hours ago, Molinext said:Having 2 sets of rings for 3 or more players. But set them on one side. I.e. military water ring only is a military water ring. If it has been chosen it is gone.
This was actually suggested by a poster months ago with a brilliant write up in explaining how the interaction would work. I would love to go this route. !!!
19 hours ago, Molinext said:Having 2 sets of rings for 3 or more players. But set them on one side. I.e. military water ring only is a military water ring. If it has been chosen it is gone.
You then introduce the problem of abilities that interact with the ring being too OP now. Especially Tsukune.