I was watching Robert Florence's Chaos in the Old World promo video again last night (for the nth time). If you haven't seen it already, then you should get your cave(wo)man ass outta the bunker from time to time. Watch it here. In it, Rob mentioned how the Chaos' Gods' dials were ticking away as if they were their own separate game (which got me to thinking about Dune, but that's another story). Now bear with me for a minute as this won't be a thread about Chaos in the Old World (Mr. Lang's other excellent game set in the Old World...you should check it out). I was thinking...what if the multiplayer rule set for Warhammer: Invasion was its own game-within-a-game? Kinda like how the melee play for AGoT LCG is, but more involved.

In my mind's eye, this could go two ways: a weird RPG-esque adventure path (think WoW, but with armies...maybe W:AR?) or a conquest-slash-RTS-kinda way. Or both.
The former road may be too funky to process it in words, but the latter definitely has possibilities.
You can have a map of the old world as the multiplayer board and preferably without fixed starting locations for races.

Certain card interaction, such as I don't know, killing/discarding X opponent's cards, may allow you to take over a neutral territory or part of your foe's domain. After a cleverly designed timer has counted down to zero, you can see who has the largest chunk of the Old World and pronounce him or her as the victor. Each faction may have their own thing (or agenda) happening too, such as Chaos corrupting the land for extra points/advantages, Orcs ravaging the country side and fighting things, Dark Elf enslaving/sacrificing, High Elf restoring and purifying, Dwarf protecting and adding/striking off grudges, and Empire making alliances & proselytizing. Or you could enlist the aid of Neutral factions via simple perks, such as the Ogre Kingdoms granting a small bonus to fielded neutral warriors. All of this would have to be fairly simple, or the rule complexity would overload the potential thematic cool that a game-within-a-game could bring to table. Should Mr. Lang go down this road (oh please, please, please!)...I have utmost confidence that he will pull it off with flying colors.

The reason I'm even talking about multiplayer rules at this point is because: A) There is a demand for it. B) The upcoming Assault on Ulthuan Deluxe Expansion doesn't seem to sport rules for multiplayer play from the look of things (a big MEH! from me if that's the case). Since there is less than a month to its release, FFG would have mentioned it by now. At any rate, if B is true, then let's hope there is another Deluxe Expansion in the near future (oh, I don't know...a faction one such as for Dwarves a la AGoT: LoW) which includes a fully functioning multiplayer rule set.

I like this idea very, very much. Maybe there could be a Map in the centre of the play area, and each player chooses a territory to be their Capital (place a Capital marker or something on this space). Units played to their Kingdom zone are effectively in that Capital space. If your capital is attacked your Kingdom zone defenders can defend and your Kingdom zone takes damage as though it was being attacked in a normal game of Invasion.

You have a Quest marker and a Battlefield marker which you place on your Capital at the start of the game. During the course of the game your Quest and Battlefield counters can move across the board, the Battlefield marker can launch attack on other player's Quest and Battlefield markers (and thus those zones and the units in them), and if they reach the opponent's Capital they can launch an attack on your opponent's Kingdom zone. Your Quest zone marker can't attack other markers, but they can reach various objectives on the map and trigger special effects based on that objective.

I think this would be very interesting, as you have to consider maneuvering into position to attack your opponent's zones, and the inherent difficulty in attacking a Kingdom means you have to weigh up whether you want to bother moving to their Kingdom or just harass their Quest and Battlefield markers.

Although I like your idea of a roaming army or roaming anything, I think adding "distance" between your point of attack (Battlefield zone) and a target zone (one of 3 capital zones) would be working against the inherent game mechanism. I would envision that any multiplayer rule set has to be additive to the existing mechanism in a simple and non-disruptive way and not game changing in the basic level of game operation. Maybe your roaming idea would be better instituted as a questing unit powering up a multiplayer ability?

The easiest and likeliest solution for Invasion multiplayer may be one where each player assumes one of many interactive roles, just like AGoT.

I just thought that since Warhammer: Invasion is so thematically RTS, it would make sense for an Old World map, or any abstract map, as a multiplayer board. This "map" however would not depict the physical distance between you and a target, but rather your gains or losses in your campaign to conquer or protect your part of the Old World.

SUPER RAD idea! would add much depth...however, i also think that the map should not be manipulated much, if at all, during a normal game. It would make it cumbersome, less fluid, etc. That isnt to say it's a bad idea to treat zones differently, but i dont think that should affect the way a game is played now. Perhaps advantage could be gained (and applied after the game for the next game - like a campaign) based on if one of your zones burn/you burn a zone or you lose/burn another player's second zone? Maybe surviving Heroes at end of game keep their attachments when called upon in the next game without paying for them or something - i dont know. But then that really is independant of adding multiplayer capability or not - it can be done with 2 players.

I already see it as a RTS game - your units are always being produced & upgraded, attacking opponent at different areas, you're being attacked at different areas, the "battlefield" isnt necessarily the same each round, you're building up your resources by constructing buildings, etc. The 'Map' is already there, just conceptualized, not realized. So, for me, to make it go beyond 2 players and keep the RTS feel, you'd want teams, free for all, or like scenarios in a PC RTS campaign where it's one (w/ advantage - more starting cards or resources) vs. two kind of thing. Again, a map is as necessary then as it is now unfortunately, unless it's tracking some sort of experience/advancement.

Don't mean to be negative; i'm not familiar with other card games and dont have many ideas. Just wouldnt like to see the core game mechanics messed with is all

These ideas seem very cool but also very complicated to impliment in my opinion. While I would love to see this in the future, I think they should start with something simple until the game gets on its feet. There are a couple of issues that need to be addressed by FFG (like word consistancy on cards for example) before they should try adding an extra layer like this.

If you want to do multiplayer, try something like they do in VTES where you attack the player on your left and have to defend attacks from the player on your right. You could make the player on your left your close opponent and the player on his left your distant opponent (distant opponents cannot be attacked directly but do get affected by all cards that read "all opponents" or "choose an opponent"). There should also be a reward for defeating an opponent in the game. For instance: whenever you defeat your opponent you can do something pretty significant like heal your capital or search your deck for a card and put into your hand or in play at a reduced cost. There could even be a couple of different options you could choose from which would make sense since this game works heavily on tactics and strategy. The winner would be the last man standing.

I wonder if a rush deck would still dominate this type of multiplayer....

Toberk said:

Reaper Bolt Thrower is pretty **** efficient in multiplayer, against 3 other players (if I remember correctly) you can convert 2 resources into 6(!) indirect damage. Of course, it'll definitely make you a target, but with the Dark Elves new board wipe arriving in Assault on Ulthuan I feel a proper Reaper machine gun deck with Hate, Innovate and lots of high power units in the Kingdom zone could be pretty fun (for you that is ).

LordMalinari said:

Yea there is no doubt that decks designed to hit multiple opponents will be much better in multiplayer games. What will be funny is someone playing a card like brutal offering and wiping the entire board of attackers.

our group actually do 3 or 4 players games and we find the system adapts to it really well, especially as cards like hate state all other players in it's text it's clear the intention was or maybe still is to allow for that within the game

deviant-dj said:

So in yor games what system do you use? Do you just attack whoever you want or are there some kinds of limits?

Toberk said:

I've stated it before and I'll state it again, I hate the very concept of VTES style multiplayer for W:I. Put simply I would never play. Ever.

Why? First because it is an arbitrary abstraction that in no way matches the fluff or feel of the game (it actually makes no sense in VTES either but that is another issue entirely, but at least the mechanics support it). Second is yes a rush deck would most likely dominate this game. It would be very easy to create a rush deck that spat out cheap strong characters early and let you burn your single opponent to the ground while providing just enough of a offensive or active defense (probably heavily supplemented through tactics) to slow your aggressor down until you received the bonus for ousting your victim which would likely make it easier to defend yourself or burn down your next victims capital. The only deck i could possibly competing against this would be a sniper deck which could inflict enough indirect or directed damage to hamstring their aggressors battlefield forces while still taking down their own victims zones.

If there was going to be some sort of arbitrary restriction regarding who you can attack I'd prefer it was you can attack the Quest Zone of the person to your left, the Kingdom Zone of the person to your right, and everyones Battlefield Zone.

Toberk said:

We run it that you can attack anyone but you can only go after 1 player that turn, that way you have to be tactical about who your going after, it's made for some interesting games and some shock wins

We have been running different multiplayer games since we began our League in Fall 09.

Until now, we have come up with three different modes.

1. Free For All
   - Player is eliminated if all his zones burn. Besides being the only one left in the end a player can also win by burning a total of X zones, where X is the number of players (Who burnt a zone is determined by the total damage each player dealt it, we use special colored tokens)
2. Team 2v2 (v2)
   - A team wins if it burns 4 zones. A player is eliminated once all his zones burn. Team mates can send each other unspent resources with a 1 round delay
3. Pentagram
   - As the Mtg variation. You win if you are in the game and the two players opposite you are defeated. If your wing gets defeated, you lose 1/2 of remaining hit point in each zone (rounded down)

The pentagram worked by far the best for us. Being a highly enjoyable variation for if not all players then 4 certainly. Sometimes one gets defeated early on and then the politics begin.

These are all really simple modes we use and i would welcome something more innovative like the AGOT Multiplayer.

I think an interesting limitation during a four-player game with the players seated around the table in a circle would be:

A player can only attack the Quest zone of the player immediately to his left, the Battlefield of the player across from him and the Kingdom of the player immediately to his right. This way, a rush deck can't quickly remove a player from the game unless a second player also makes an attack. I.e. You can only attack the zone belonging to each player that is closest to you.

Also, it might be wise have the first player be unable to attack and draw on this first turn, and the second and the third players also unable to attack (but still able to draw on their first turn) to stop a player swinging the balance of the multiplayer game too greatly off an attack against a player that has had no chance to mount a defense (something the two player rules prevent using the first turn unable-to-attack rule).

Once a player is knocked out (either to your left or your right) you can attack the closest two zones of the player who has lost the player adjacent to them.

I.e. Player A is in the 12 o clock position, B in the 3 o clock, C in the 6 and D in the 9.

Player C makes an attack that burns player B's capital. Now there is no player between player C and player A, so played C can attack player A's Capital and Kingdom, but can only attack player D's Quest zone.

I think I've hit on the best way to do Multiplayer (as I've posted here previously) and I agree with Dormouse about NOT wanting to do awful V:TES multiplayer style. No thanks.

I like Ruvion's ideas BUT only for an over-arching league-style campaign, not for the actual MP itself.