Okay these are just some of the other games out there and how they handle multiplay

Game of Thrones - offers the titles. Seems to play more like a game of Citadels, only not as limited in choice of actions. (I doubt W I will make a new box just to take the unique game variant away from AGoT)

Legend of the Five Rings - after declaring attacks/battle, attacker gets to invite other players to aid him. After attacker makes alliances the defender gets to ask for the non-involved players' aid. (I can see taking this concept and allowing players to send troops from their battlefield to aid a player. With resources being tokens they can even make rules for bribes. The incentive being that a player will gain more resources before having to reset them on his turn. Of cource only Order can aid Order and Destruction can only aid Destruction)

Magic The Gathering - has 3 variants I can see W I taking up
FFA (Can see W I taking the approach of Call of Chulhu multiplay, by not allowing anyone to attack on the first turn).

Emperor - Played between two teams each team has a core player they MUST protect. If that player loses then both do. (I can see this being used with Order and Destruction only team ups).

Knight and King - Similar to Emperor but only the Knights can attack and also must be defeated before the King gets to attack or can be attacked. So while one player plays the game normally the other player masses a huge army. (Don't see W I because it would be a mess with how resources and such work and defeats the purpose of choice).

Pokemon - adopts the two headed ogre variant in WoW and MTG. Basically teams take turns. Each team shares a turn, so they acquire reasources, draw cards, and attack at the same time. (I can see W I using this and just making it so that each player gets their own kingdom and quest zones but both players share a common battlefield zone. Possibly even getting to trade/share a pool of resources).

My take on a Warhammer Invasion multiplayer system is a combo of L5R's allys mechanic and Call of Chulhu forcing everyone to suffer the first player penalty.

So that Free for All is just that, a free for all bout where the option to help a player comes available with the ability to acquire resources. And no player can attack on the first turn.
Then for team games use the hybrid of the two headed giant from MTG, Pokemon, and WoW. Having the ability to share resources is extreme, so i think just sharing a turn and all phases, to open up for team discussion and tactics, works better. In other words, both players will uncorrupt one of their units each, then both reset resources and gather their own private stash. At some point during the turn the players can trade resources (not sure when). Then both players draw cards. The players now act as a team purchasing cards. During attacks, the team shares a single battlefield zone, but keep their units near the top of their capital so that they don't mix up the cards. The only issue I find with this is that with such a large battlefield attack a zone that is not shared will be over whelming, so maybe allow player whose capital is not being attacked to send defenders from units that they control from the battlefield to the attacked zone.

even tho the battlefield is shared the actual zones are separate as far as damage goes.To all players on a team must be defeated.

Just some ideas to get everyones brains conjuring up a brainstorm. Please posed any ideas for variants you think James and Eric will create for a multiplayer rules variant.

Do you know Vtes system?

I have and do not much care for the theme...I am Vampired out at the moment lol thanks to twilights slaughtering of the lore. First Deadpool, then GI Joe, and now Vampires!? what's next to be a passion that is ruined for me.

Vampire has a forced gameplay unlike L5R which is why I did not include it as an influencing system for Warhmmer Invasion. What do I mean by "forced"? Well you are told whom your target enemy is (player to the left) and whom you HAVE to protect from (player to the right). Killing or "ousting" a player gains you some more resources (blood) to use. Sounds cool, however I do not like how the person to the left is a target, because even after "ousting" the target the player to the right remains until to "oust" every player in a circle but them.

Invasion's theme of flatout war does not fit the theme of being limited to who your target is. Warhammer is not a world like Westros, WoD, or L5R. In those games you have betrayals, forced wedlocks, and honor to obey by. In warhammer the armies seem to have that notion "there ain't enough room for anyone but us". Orcs try to take over the mountains that they claim are theirs by the right or gork and mork. Chaos is invading the Empire because their realm is not big enough for their limitless armies. High Elves are fighting back to gain control of the land that once belonged to them. The only reason they ally is for survival.

If you have played WAR you get the chance to play each race and see how they view each other. For example, the Chaos feel like elves are frail and too weak, but serve a purpose to counter high elf magic and also set assassins. Most armies are like this and you never get the feeling of an actual alliance between forces of Order and Destruction. Order only works together because of a treaty that their lords made ages ago.

Lastly, the V:TES system of multiplay works wonders for that game because it is a CCG format. You will have weak players that need defending because they cannot match the cards the predator attacking them is using. In W I everyone will have pretty equal decks so the need to protect a weaker opponent and prevent a sweep from happening is lesser.

I have a feeling FFG will find influence for a ally system of rules based on Cosmic Encounters. You offer to pay the player X number of resources. If your side wins as either attacker or defender, then that player gets the resources offered. They can use these to pay for actions until their turn when the resources are reset. Attacking ally gets resources if the attack successfully deals damage to the target defending player's capital. Defending ally gets the resources if the defending player's capital is untouched.

I am in no ways bashing the V:TES system. It works wonders for that game, but I do not see it working and fitting into the theme that is Warhammer.
I am however trashing/bashing twilight. The other day I saw a little girl with a shirt that read "A vampire will be your BFF forever." ugh

OOF! This is gonna go over like a lead zeppelin. But the rules that our group has been using and were debuted at the Orlando Regionals as a side feature, ahem, attack restrictions. Here's the link www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp. You have to read down to one of the later posts, because initially the thread had a link to our Regionals promo page on the main FFG site, but it's been removed now that the Regs are done.

I think that a good point is made here about the savagery that exists on a battlefield. It's a bit more hectic in all-out warfare than in other environments. I concur that the adjacent attack thing does fit best in a realm-based game of diplomacy and geographical logistics. I will make the tweak to my rules that states this:

• A round begins with the first player's turn and ends just before the beginning of his next turn.
• A player may attack anyone at the table who has not been attacked twice in a given round. Use markers to reflect the number of times each player has been attacked each round.

These rules are critical for game balance, we've found. The reason we initially played with limited attack targets was to counter the unavoidable gang-up. Even amongst friends, the best (or the most annoying) player at the table was the one who was making a lunch run first...every time. True, we all have similar decks, but not similar disposable incomes or skill levels. One copy of a J-Bomb is manageable; three copies are not. And how you play what when is every bit as important as what you put in the deck. Therefore, attempts at player exclusion must be mitigated.

As far as the ally idea: while very creative and intriguing, I wouldn't include it in my rules set by primarily the same line of reasoning that led me to amend my attack rule. The Warhammer field of battle is no place for hasty alliances, self-serving or not. That sort of thing is, like targeted attacks, best suited for a tournament of champions or civilized kingdom struggle or an extended battle that would afford the type of negotiations that sort of thing would entail. There's no way I can bandy about offers of compensation while the Runefang of Solland is bearing down on my neck. Racial "alliances", if you will, are represented in your deck construction. If you're an Orc board that stripes Dark Elf, then those are your "allies" from another army. They showed up to battle via a prior arrangement and now join the fray. From a game balance standpoint, the gaining of free resources without cardplay creates a host of potentially game-breaking scenarios. Epic spells, Bolt Throwers, and multi-tactic combos are all amped through the roof if your resources gain a sudden spike without having to play cards to do so. In Cosmic Encounters, there's a great deal more investment necessary to bring about massive effects. In W:I, the whole world can come to an end in an instant if one player gets enough resources.

Still, I know that folks are very protective of their ideas, and I mean absolutely no disrespect whatsoever to anyone. I encourage folks to playtest many rule sets and ride the griffin that gets you where you want to go.Diff'rent strokes and all that, yeah?

No problem. I don't bite. Just have a look in the other FFG product forums. I love to get the community to brainstorm together while a game is HOT!.

I have my own thoughts about some of your suggestions which I have gathered info from them. I wasn't saying these are my playtested multiplayer rules just encase that is confusing. I just was throwing ideas and predictions out there.

I will respond later tonight after playing a few games of Cthulhu and Invasion. Need to do some thinking, Hoping to get others views and ideas out there too.

Come on people 100 views and only 3 replies, please post shared ideas. We could come up with a variant together that everyone agrees on. Possibly even get a FFG developer to post some of the ideas Eric and James have thrown around. Maybe even get a special thanks and credit for coming up with the multiplayer variant.

A few suggestions.

Try telling an orc he can only attack certain targets. I agree with the resources and bribing being bad for the game with epic spells out now. I don't see how my friend using the same army as units I have in my army for the minis game is any different than a card game. Just imagine certain units and heroes joining one cause to further their agenda and other units joining a different cause for their personal agenda.

So say my deck is Orcs and Dark Elves. another player joins me on the battlefield. The dark elves in my deck work for the orcs to capture more slaves. The Dark Elves in my opponents deck are looking for land or resources. I am glad we both see eye to eye for the most part.

The War Hydra: Multi-Player Game Option (Two-Headed Giant rules for WH:I)

This is my suggestion for a two-man team game of WH:I; I chose the name “The War Hydra” for a little Warhammer Fantasy flavor.

Set-up:
1. Two players represent Order, and two players represent Destruction.
2. Team-mates should sit next to each other on one side of the table so they can clearly face-off against the other team of players.

Rules:
1. Each player’s army will be directly engaged with the enemy player’s army that he is directly facing-off against. For example: If Order Player 1 (O-1) is facing-off against Destruction Player 1 (D-1), then the Units in O-1’s Battlefield will only assault against D-1’s capital zones. Until D-1 has two burning zones, O-1 is unable to directly send his Units into battle against player D-2.
2. Any player’s Tactic or Action that has the ability to target or effect any Capital Zone, Unit, Support, or Development may use that ability for/against any player’s legal target. For example: Player O-1 may use an Action that targets/effects Units in any opponent’s Battlefield may legally target Units in either D-1 or D-2’s Battlefield.
3. All four players must suffer the “First Player Penalty”.
4. The players will determine which player will be first. Play then proceeds in the following sequence: Player 1 from Side A, Player 1 from Side B, Player 2 from Side A, then Player 2 from Side B.
5. Players do not share Resources or Developments.
6. Object of the game: Burn two zones in both enemy capital boards.
7. Once a player has two zones burning, that burning player’s direct opponent may now use the Units in his Battlefield to attack the capital zones of the remaining opponent.
8. A player with two burning zones is not out of the game, but he does suffer the Burning Army Penalty.
The Burning Army Penalty:
a. The player must divide his available Resources in half, (rounded down), at the beginning of his Kingdom Phase. This penalty cannot be overridden.
b. The player must divide the number of cards he is to draw at the beginning of his Quest Phase in half, (rounded down). This penalty cannot be overridden.

c. The player may no longer develop any zone of his capital.
s not able to redirect the Units in his Battlefield to the opponent that his team-mate is battling. It is still his team-mate’s responsibility to engage that opponent, but now with the Burning Army Penalty.

Ok, like every one I have my own multiplayer ideas>

Every one for himself (for 3 or 4 players):

- everyone is fighting with everyone

- each zone in every capital has 10 Health Pionts

- the game goes normal (everyone has 1 Kingdom, 1 Quest and 1 Battlefield phase) with one exeption in the Battlefield You can attack two players. Every attack goes in one zone - you can't attack the same player twice the same turn.

- the winner must burn 3 zones (2 in one players Capital and 1 in the second players Capital)

Fight in Couples (for 4 players):

- sit like would play bridge

- the teams must be all Order or Destruction

- each zone in every capital has 12 Health Pionts

- everyone has 1 Kingdom, 1 Quest and 1 Battlefield phase. With one exeption in the Battlefield You must attack two players (one on the left and one on the right - If You can't you choose the player you are going to attack). Every attack goes in one zone - you can't attack the same player twice the same turn.

- the winning team must burn 3 zones (2 in one players Capital and 1 in the second players Capital)

I ihink my rules are simple and maybe someone will like it - and maybe even use them like me.

If you do a search you'll find my suggestions, posted way back when the game first launched. To my thinking, they're still the most elegant, easy-to-use and best solution for MP. These other solutions or variants are just way too finnicky. Just remember K.I.S.S. - Keep it simple stupid.

First player to burn a number of Zones equal to one less than the number of players playing, wins the game. It's that simple. No one can get knocked out (so it fixes that retarded problem), and there are no bizarre wonky restrictions on who can attack who or who has to sit where. Just nice and simple. Works really well (our group has already done a ton of playtesting with this format to prove this). The last player to do the damage that burns the zone gets the recognition for doing so. No one can lose by running out of cards - if your deck runs out, just reshuffle and keep on playin'.

There you go. Enjoy.

@Wytefang.

The goal of my post wasn't really to just copy same mechanics used in other games. My post was to see what other fans of W:I guess FFG will do for official multiplayer rules for the LCG. I also wanted to see what other variants of multplayer rules other players have used to "creatively" design their own cool multiplayer rules.

I don't mean to sound too harsh, but if I wanted to design a variant of rugby and then got told just make it soccer....that kinda defeats the purpose of trying to push the creative thinking.

When you look at CoC and AGoT they made multiplayer have "finicky" rules. If FFG was not planning to make a unique multiplayer system for Warhammer don't you think they would have just posted your K.I.S.S. solution on the front page or in support?

Warhammer is a game with choices and impacting effects behind every decision a player makes. Sending units to 1 of 3 target zones, having to manage card draw in quest zone without decking yourself out, regulating cards between battlefield and kingdom forcing the balance to be made between need of resources vs need for attack power. Finally, it is almost always a great idea (especially early in the game) to play a development on a turn. This forces the players to decide which card, if any, to place for extra life or to end the opponents.

Many elements of W:I are just the best of every card game to dates offerings. The core is Magic the gathering and Spellfire (I think was the name). The attack/health is magic and the zones are spellfire. The playing of cards face down for extra buffing is a combo of CoC and WoW TCG. In Call of Cthulhu you must sac a card to play it as a resource if you are to ever gain resources beyond what you begin with. In WoW TCG you may place a card face down to act as a resource, but WoW also has cards that act as resources while face up with ways to gain more cards, these are called quest. You can find elements influenced from lesser known card games like Doomtown and 7th Sea. The locations in Doomtown work very similar to how quests work in W:I.

I like that you want to keep it simple, but in doing so you also removed a lot of the core mechanics of the game. Such as it appears in your variant you can't deck out. This means that there is no penalty to stacking a wall of guys in quest zone and drawing 7 cards a turn. In almost every CCG to date, the most prized cards are free resource providers and cards that allow you to draw more cards for very little resources. There is a reason for this. Say I play the no deckout rule. What is stopping me from just placing a development in the battlefield every turn (giving the same outcome as placing cannon fodder units) to absorbs hits while I a mass a wall of units in Kingdom and Quest to have huge resource piles and a ridiculous hand to from every turn? Where is the penalty in being able to play epic tactics without worry?

Say I am playing Dark Elf. I place developments in battlefield to soak damage. Place units in Kingdom and Quest. Draw 7 cards and gain 10+ resources a turn (by turn 3). I get my epic tactic. Play it to take your units. Then play my units for the turn. Now I have your units for attacking AND still a wall of protectors in my other two zones. After the first time of playing like this, the players would catch on. They would realize that the battlefield is a waste and a game of aggression turns into a game of turtling.

I would also like to point out that with no penalty (such as losing game) for drawing huge hand sizes would render the scout trait useless. Maybe I am wrong though, since your group plays with those rules. If it works for you awesome! However I was hoping the community would brainstorm rather than just spit their variants out. If I am wrong in my assumptions please, by all means, let me know. On same note, if you have ran into the above issues I assume you would, please also let me know.

This is an intense discussion. People (including me) are going to be proven wrong or right, through constructive critiques.

@Everyone else.

I seem to have started this topic wrong. Let's start over.

What needs to be included in Multiplayer rules?

What measures can be taken to take away the limiting of choices (such as times a player can attack, who they can attack, and not removing core rules to the games mechanics)?

What traits seem to not be as impacting in 1 v 1?

Can we make them more useful in a team/multiplayer variant?

What core rules need to be changed based on flavor and broken combos that could arise?

Should a unique card be limited to one per team like they are now or should they be limited to only one unique can be in play at any time like other games have done?

That should be a good start.

So we played over lunch again today, except this time we improvised a 3-way multi-player game.

I was High Elves, Jason was Chaos, and Kevin was Orcs.

The game was played very similar to the regular game with only a couple of tweaks.

1. All players suffered the "First Player Penalty" during Turn 1.

2. A player may not attack the same opponent in two consecutive turns. So, if Player A attacks Player B in Turn 2, then in Turn 3 Player A must either direct his attack at Player C, or attack no one during this Turn. Then in Turn 4 Player A may choose to re-attack Player B again.

3. A player with two burning zones is not eliminated, yet instead must suffer the Burning Army Penalty I described earlier in this thread.

Burning Army Penalty
a) During your Kingdom Phase, when you calculate your available Resources, you then divide that number in half, (round down). This penalty cannot be overridden.
b) During your Quest Phase, when you calculate the number of cards you will draw, you then divide that number in half, (round down), without going below 1. This penalty cannot be overridden.
c) You may no longer develop any zone of your capital. This penalty cannot be overridden.

The game ends when 2 out of 3 players each have two burning zones in their capital.

It was a crazy-fun game!!! Chaos got off early strong, as did Orcs. I was building up a nice set of healers in my zones, but I was still low on attackers in my Battlefield. Suddenly, the Orcs use Troll Vomit and Smash 'Em All to clear the board!!!

The High Elves and Chaos were hosed; we were back down to base Resources and card drawing, but Orcs still have Supports in his Kingdom and Quest to boost his Resources and card drawing. It was brutal murder after that. I was burning first, and then Chaos right after. The green-skins won!

I hope you guys give this 3-way game a try.

Yes, there's a one rule that I think must be used in multiplayer:

- First Player Penality should be - 1st player must skip his Battlefield phase but he still has his Quest phase.

This is the only change I would make in the official rules from the core set.

Just posted in another thread.. Figured here is the more proper thread for it though.

Maybe Warhammer should have a way to play cards before game starts. You know? To represent the armies gathering the forces. The first turn then represents the acquisition of more troops to send out. It makes sense to send scouts, spies, questing parties, and even call on heroes before the war starts. I mean thematically it doesn't make sense for chaos to not have units prepped and ready for first turn. They have been planning this invasion for eons. So unless the first turn just represents the first units to make it through the portal, I think Chaos should start the game with units. Even if that is what the first turn for chaos represents, then I don't think they should be knocking on Empires capital the first turn of the game.

I think W:I needs a rule like that. Everyone has a set number of resources to spend on cards in their starting hand before the First turn of the game. Quests can not be played during this pre-game phase. Hands are not replenished. If you decide to muster troops, build locations, equip items you will start the first turn with less cards than normal. The person to place cards last in the pre-game phase becomes the first player and suffers the first player penalty of skipping quest and battlefield phase. It is unfair for the last player to place cards to also be able to attack after reacting to where the first player to place cards decided to place his (if any were placed). Sorry I know last sentence could be made more clear but head hurts atm of typing this.

So if you like this idea. Please give it a try. Tomorrow I will be playing non stop games to develop a multiplayer rule set with my Local Store. First thing we need to determine is if it is fair and fun to use this pre-game phase. Second we need to come up with a number of resources each player has to spend on cards for the pre-game phase. If it seems broken I will say so, and head back to the drawing board. If it works I will report the changes it brings to the game and post the rules in an actually rules layout format.

All of these ideas seem a bit... contrived and stem from the normal issues arising in elimination based multiplayer games. As an old Game of Thrones player I thought I would try and incorporate the core philosophies from their multiplayer rules into WH:I. There are only a few changes to the rules.

1. No one is ever eliminated, regardless of how many of their zones are burning.

2. Whoever takes an action that would result in the burning of an opponents zone (normally by dealing enough damage, but also by removing enough developments from a zone to it below the burn threshold) also receives a burn token to be used as a counter (not on one of their zones). Note: It is whoever actually burns the zone regardless of the amount of damage done. If Bob does 7 damage to Joe's Quest Zone and the next player is John who deals the final point of damage to burn the zone, then John gets the token and credit for the burn.

3. The first player to accumulate three burn tokens wins the game.

We have been playing with this format for a few weeks now and it has done a great job of eliminating most of the issues I find annoying about multiplayer.

- No one ever gets eliminated and has to sit around watching while the rest have fun.

- Since you can't eliminate anyone, there is less of a resason to gang op on a player. However, once you appear to have victory within reach on your next turn, be prepared to have your Support cards destroyed, Units stolen and card pulled from your hand .

- No restrictions on the actions you can take. You can declare an attack on whoever you want or interfere with any attack.

Try a few games with this format and I think you'll see it actually adds to the already high level of strategy present in the game. Do you attack a zone if you can't burn it since that only makes it easier for someone else to get the burn? When do you allow an opponent to burn a zone simply in order to prevent another opponent from grabbing it and winning?

One bit of advice, if you are going for the win with a Cacophonic Scream beware the Twin-Tailed Comet... aka I win first

Brad I like these rules a lot.

Simple. Friendly. And Challenging until the end.

Keeping it simple works when you also think outside the box. The reason I was throwing all sorts of crazy and overly complex ideas out there was to encourage people to post ideas. By posting a complex rules system, I knew I was bound to get negative feedback about the complexity I was adding to a great card game that didn't need all of these crazy improvements.

I will be using your variant for my games also. The only change I am adding to the game and testing atm is having a "Muster Phase" right after you draw the initial starting hand.

Players decide who is first to go in the Muster Phase. Starting with that player and going clockwise, each player has 3 resources they may use to pay and put into play any non-quest cards from their hand. The last player to place a card during the Muster Phase will be the First Player for the game and skips their Quest and Battlefield Phases on the first turn. Note: a player does not have to place any cards into play if they do not want to.

The Muster Phase is still being tested for balance. So far everything works. If you place no cards into play then you have the opportunity of beginning the game out numbered, but you will also have the best chance to adjust to the placement of the opponent. However, placing units and locations gains you early loyalty icons to get more expensive cards out faster.

The group of 23 that play at my local store also found this variant fun in two player games, so I figured it was worth sharing. In a two player game the Muster Phase is a bit more risky. By being the last person to place cards, you give the opponent the chance to react to your first turns actions.

Lastly, it is important to know that players do not fill their hands with replacement cards after the Muster Phase. Part of the downside you will face if you choose to play cards durning the Muster Phase is having a more limited starting hand.

Thank you Brad again for this great variant to the normal game. I just have a few questions, and I will send you a PM with it. What happens to a Zone after I burn it. I take the burn token and then what? Is the Zone still targetable or do I have to go for a different Zone now. How do you mark a burning Zone? Do the damage tokens reset? Just a few of the questions I can think off the top of my head.

Thanks.

When a zone burns you place a burn token on it and it follows the normal rules. The player who burned the zone gets an additional burn token to keep for himself for score keeping.

One point I forgot to bring up was the initial round. The first player skips the Quest Phase and Battlefield Phase. The last player in the round gets to do everything (just like the two player rules) and everyone in between skips the Battlefield phase. Seems to work well.

Sweet thanks for the clarifications.

Can't wait to try these rules with the variant Muster Phase. My group will love being able to keep it simple and also not have to worry about a person being ganged up on or eliminated early.