I was thinking about doing a 4-player version using 2 order races vs 2 destruction races.
An example of the turn sequence would be: Dwarf player's turn, chaos player's turn, empire player's turn, orc player's turn.
2 capitals zones from both players of either order or destruction would result in a loss for that team.
Has anyone ever done this? If so, does it work well?
What do you all think? Any feedback is welcome. Thanks!
I play 3-4 player way more often than 2 player. I've posted about our rules here before, but a quick summary of stuff we've tried:
3 player
- Our favorite rule set is that you have to burn 1 zone from each opponent to win. You are not eliminated if all 3 of your zones burn, but that very rarely happens anyway. If 1 player burns all 3 of your zones, it is then impossible for your other opponent to win. Problems with this: not much incentive to defend, especially early, burn-stealing is very common and can be annoying, players often don't want to attack unless they are sure they can burn you in a single turn.
- Other rules are a point-based variant:
End Game:
Game is over when 5 zones are burning (7 in a 4 player free for all, 9 in 5 player, etc. Modify this number if you want a short/longer game). Player with most points wins…
Note: You are NOT out when you have 2 (or 3) zones burning (but you are screwed in terms of points!!)
If you deal damage to yourself, you do not get a point for it. You can burn one of your own zones, but do not get the points for it. If you develop a zone, it is possible to get extra points for having more HP in that zone.
I actually really like this variant, but my friends don't like it as much.
4 Player
Usually we just play that a team wins when they have burned 4 total zones from their opponents. That can be 2 and 2, or 3 and 1. No one is eliminated until the game is over.
A more complicated ruleset is:
Players can only attack the KZ of the player on their right and the QZ of the player on their left, as well as both BZs (basically attacking the 2 "closest" zones to you when seated around the table) Your partner can help you defend attacks against any of your zones, but only using units in his BZ. This sort of weird defending can cause some rules issues, so be prepared to deal with that. Restricting attacking but not direct damage can give an advantage to certain deck types. We tried limiting what zones you can target, but found it totally unwieldy. I can't recommend it.
Also, here is another MP ruleset I saw somewhere. I wish i could credit it appropriately, but I just saved the rules and not the posters name.
We played a 3 player FFA the other night that was a quick bloodbath where my bud's wife emerged the victor. It was her first game, so we both didnt go full bore, but it got me thinking.
I think the attack right, defend left is a solid variant. However, people can be knocked out of the game unless you institute some kind of strange house rule. I havnt tried this variant, but would. Our group could care less about a player being knocked out. We have ample ways for a knocked out player to entertain themselves in the meantime: food, xbox, ps3, a number of laptops, other short games like arcana, ect.
Here is what I was thinking would work for team based games, and could easily be adapted for other variants with a little thought. Each player has starts with 16 empire tokens (representing the life of 2 zones). Damage is never done to a zone, so zones never burn. When a player takes damage in any zone, he hands a token over to the attacking player for each point of damage the attacker caused. For example, I attack my chaos opponent's quest zone and get two damage past his defenders. He gives me two tokens, life points, victory points, whatever you want to call them. A game is won when any player has 16 of their various opponent's tokens. This number can be adjusted based on game testing, of course. In a 2v2 or a 3v3, you could say a side wins when they have say 32 or 48 points, but points still would need to stay in front of the player that earned them (for bragging rights, and for my proposed heal mechanic)
A player is not out if they have no empire points remaining (or they can be if thats how you rule it). Again, this is a place to figure out what works best. You could say they arent out, but cannot win, and once reduced to zero empire points, and that healing doesnt have any effect. I think this keeps the power of healing in check. The dwarf player essentially lost, so this keeps healing from having a "come back from the dead" power it isnt given in the real game since a dwarf player cant lose, and then play heals to repair burned zones and be back in the game.
This addresses the issue of doing the last point of damage and getting credit and the issue of players not attacking. Any attack is worthwhile if it hits a capital and earns you opponent's empire points you need to win. I believe this also addresses the issue of defense not being worthwhile. If you cant heal, you had better be protecting your zones. You lose that last empire point, and you cant win. In a 2v2 or 3v3 this doesnt really matter since the team wins as a whole, but you are on your way to a loss if the other side is sitting on 16 points from you alone. Alternatively, you could say in a 2v2, if one player reaches 0 empire points, the other side wins (2 players in a 3v3). This would add another way to win beyond just spreading out damage.
I know the next concern would be developments. What'd be the point beyond boosting certain cards or preventing certain spells of doom from destroying all your units in a zone? I think the following would work. A development would generate one temporary empire point for the developer. Any damage done to someone with temporary empire points must come from this pool first. They count for no victory points. If your opponent plays a card that destroys a development, remove a development who's temporary empire point has been used if possible. If you cannot, then any temporary empire point left unused on a development is lost when it is removed from play. Additionally, they can only be used if the zone they are in is attacked, or indirect damage is assigned to that zone. Three developments with three temp points are worthless in my kingdom dont help if Im attacked in my quest zone, but I can use them to absorb the 2 indirect damage I was forced to assign myself.
A simple way to represent this would be to place a token/penny/jellybean on the development when it is placed. Onced used, it never regenerates (barring certain conditions I'll go over). All developments, regardless of whether their temporary empire point is used still count for triggering card conditions. For example. Im down to 8 empire points. I play Awake the Mountain and get 3 developments. I place these in my kingdom to ramp up some other cards I have there. I then place a temp empire point token on each card. Next turn the orks attack and power through 5 damage. The first 3 MUST come from the temp empire points first, for which the ork will earn no points toward his victory. The next two are counted as damage, and the ork earns two more dwarven empire points from me. The devs stay there and continue to buff my support cards, but the temp points they gave me are gone for good (barring healing).
When a player has a card that heals damage to the capital, he takes one token back from a player who has damaged him. This does increase the power of capital healing some, as the player can take empire points from the current game leader in an attempt to foil that player's victory. You could implement the following: When a player heals, he starts with the player on his left and takes back one point from each player for each point he heals. If a player has done no damage to the person healing, they are simply skipped since they have none of that players damage chits. For example, I play the rune of super healing (cant think of a real card atm), and it heals my capital for 3. I am playing a 6 player 3v3. I start with the opponent on the left across the table, he did 3 points to me, I take back one. I go to the center player, he's has none of my chits so I move on. The right most player (the Orks) have 8 of my chits, I still take one. Now, you could either say the player has the option of assigning the rest, or you could start over back at the left most player. In a multiplayer free for all, you could just start at the left and work your way around the table. Again, you could assign the rest after each player has lost one, or you could keep the distribution even.
If a player is at his full allotment of empire points, for each point they heal, one temp emmpire point can be placed back on a development for use. If the player's empire points are full, and all developments each have a temp empire point on them, any additional healing is wasted and has no effect.
A player is not out if they have no empire points remaining (or they can be if thats how you rule it). Again, this is a place to figure out what works best. You could say they arent out, but cannot win, and once reduced to zero empire points, and that healing doesnt have any effect. I think this keeps the power of healing in check. The dwarf player essentially lost, so this keeps healing from having a "come back from the dead" power it isnt given in the real game since a dwarf player cant lose, and then play heals to repair burned zones and be back in the game.
For general game setup I would use a free for all format for 2-6 players. For 3 and 5 player games, I think the first to 16pts would work well. You would tactically pick on weak zones, try and keep yours protected so you dont reach 0 points, and could foil/support the attacks of others with actions as it suited your strategy. If you worry about the ganging up issue, then the solution is attack left, defend right…still the first to 16 points. For 4 and 6 player games, either of these variants would work, but you have the option of playing side v side.
In a side v side game, each side takes its turn as one action. When it comes to attacks, this is handled normally. Declare attack zone, declare attackers, declare defenders, assign damage, ect. If multiple players attack the same zone, for each additional attacker beyond the first, the defender can call to one ally for aid. So, if my quest zone is attacked by the Ork and Chaos player, I the Dwarf can call on either the empire or elves to lend aid. All other restrictions still apply, so they can only lend aid to my quest zone from their quest zone, to my battlefield from their battlefield, and to my kingdom from their kingdoms.
Thoughts:
I know the healing mechanism might appear weighty, but with most things healing like 1-3 on average, its really not that complex. Now, if a player gets off a rune of hearth and home, thats another thing, but that just means that all players lose all dwarven empire chits since its a full heal (and that all developments each gain back a temporary empire point). I also realize that this variant would require markers or chits in order to reduce book keeping. Player empire points could be represented with life counters, 20sided dice, ect. Empire points awarded to other players could be anything you think of. Personally, I think making some cool looking chits would be very easy, and printing on card stock or gluing to foam core and cutting them out wouldnt take much time.
Im open for comments or questions, and I know this is a bit jumbled. I was thinking it through as I wrote it, but I think it'd be a solid and fairly easy system for multi-play. It might appear in depth, but we are really talking about life tracking, buffs, and minor rule variants. I dont think any W:I player would have trouble grasping the concepts, nor do I think any of these mechanics would slow the game or increase its complexity any more than the addition of more players already does. I know my terms might sound wonky, but I think the theory is sound. I also know that there are a number of places I say that you could go this or that way with a rule. I do this because thats somewhat beyond the scope of the core idea of the empire points victory conditions/healing mechanic I think would be a good core for multiplayer games. How you handle who attacks whom, whether players can be forced out, ect is up to you and your group. If a particular way of doing things lends itself to balance or better gameplay, I think Id adopt it as a rule for this variant, but I prefer to leave players with as many options as possible within a solid rules framework.
Thanks for the tips. I think we're going to try the straight-forward 2 vs 2 approach like you mentioned: 4 zones must be burning, either 2 and 2 or 3 and 1. That article your referenced was interesting, but did sound a little confusing to me (I'm relatively new at this whole LCG/CCG thing).
A buddy of mine plays WHFB and 40K and talked about how they have long, drawn out campaigns. The two players would just draw up a facsimile of a map and have 1 battle per "region". The campaign would be over when one army conquers the region. He and I talked about converting this style of play into W:I.
There would have to be an extra incentive for the winner of the previous battle, or a penalty for the loser of the previous battle. We haven't really ironed it out, but did think we should tinker more with the idea. It would be a cool way to "keep score" over multiple game nights. You guys ever done anything like that?
I haven't done a campaign yet but have thought of doing one quite frequently. I like the idea of a map based campaign that gives access to the restricted cards. For example, a dwarf deck can not have mining tunnels in their deck until they fight for the area on the map that would allow them to claim the tunnels. This gives the opposing army incentive to stop them. Also, warpstone excavation could not be used until it's corresponding area was controlled. I'm just trying to figure out the details of how to make something like this work.
Doc9: Those are interesting ideas. Let me know if you ever put some of this into action. I'd be interested to see how it works. My buddy and I are going to toss a few ideas around in a couple of weeks. I'll let you know if we come up with anything substantial.