Could this game work as-is with 3 or 4 players? The rules wouldn't need to be changed, apparently.

Pro: the win condition is gathering resources, it's not free-for-all player elimination which can easily feel unfair.

Cons: there are some AoE cards which could become too strong.

I guess that the possibility was considered, but discarded. What do you think?

Just now, Canopus said:

Could this game work as-is with 3 or 4 players? The rules wouldn't need to be changed, apparently.

Pro: the win condition is gathering resources, it's not free-for-all player elimination which can easily feel unfair.

Cons: there are some AoE cards which could become too strong.

I guess that the possibility was considered, but discarded. What do you think?

Richard Garfield said they were looking into it, and have done some testing with multiplayer in the bgg forum. He made no promises this would be a thing, but said he had enjoyed the multiplayer games played during testing.

It seems you could do it, but the capture mechanic needs some looking into.

1 hour ago, Palpster said:

It seems you could do it, but the capture mechanic needs some looking into.

Yeah, would it go back to the pool of the player it was stolen from, or would it go to the player who killed the creature?

Personally I'd go with the latter, as it means you don't have to keep track of wich creature has stolen aember from wich player.

4 hours ago, Robin Graves said:

Yeah, would it go back to the pool of the player it was stolen from, or would it go to the player who killed the creature?

Personally I'd go with the latter, as it means you don't have to keep track of wich creature has stolen aember from wich player.

I'd go with killed the creature, for the same reason you cite. It also doesn't get tripped up by whichever card it is that forces an opponent to capture from themselves.

It *would*, however, become a problem with self-damage/removal like many of the board wipes feature. Hrm.

20 hours ago, blindside14 said:

Richard Garfield said they were looking into it, and have done some testing with multiplayer in the bgg forum. He made no promises this would be a thing, but said he had enjoyed the multiplayer games played during testing.

Thanks, found that thread.

Multiplayer was not dismissed but postponed because card interactions became too complicated.

So, we may expect rule clarifications for multiplayer later - maybe specific decks for multiplayer (decks are unique anyway) ...

I think the best way would be a 2vs2 team match with shared keys and a shared pool of æmber. There wouldn't be a problem with stealing/capturing æmber. Friendly creatures would be creatures of you and your team mate, opponent creatures of both players of the other team. You could support your team mate with several effects as taunt, flank etc. Turn order would be team A, B, A, B an so on. There would be a shared battleline, too. But creatures and other cards should be marked. Otherwise they could be activated by your team mate, too (if he has the same house), which is a thing I don't know if it would be that good, what do you think?

I think with this variant there wouldn't that big change in gameplay, but enough possibilities for some cool synegry effects.

Team matches does seem to be the way to go, with alternating turns of each player on each team (so it goes, Team A Player 1, Team B Player 1, Team A Player 2, Team B player 2- or some variation on this). There needs to be a consensus on what different effects do, like what does "your opponent" mean? Is that a singular opponent that you choose, or both opponents on the opposing team. The latter is stronger but as long as you're all agreeing to it, should be okay. There are some other effects like that which need to be considered. Another big question is whether your teammates creatures count as friendly. Do you have a single battle line, or separate ones? Can teammates use each others creatures and artifacts?

I wonder if a 3v3 could work where you're limited in what things you can do against the player on your right vs the player on your left. I've heard of some MTG variants of this nature but they wouldn't be as straightforward to port over. The same questions about who "your opponent" and similar effects come up here, and there would also be a question of who you are allowed to attack, and who's creatures and artifacts you can affect. This is interesting because no single player can be eliminated from the game like in 3v3 MTG, so there's no gaps that ever develop.