I know that this expansion allows for 2-8 players but is this just one army against another? Are there rules in skirmish for example that allow a 1v1v1 games such as a Stark/lannister/baratheon free for all? That would be awesome!!!
|Page 1 of 1 (10 messages)||1|
Its always one big army against another, with troops and commanders divided between players in each team.
Check the rules for more details:
Ok thanks. What I don't understand is that in the books it's stanis, stark, lannister, greyjoy and renly wanting the kingdom. Surely you would have thought there would be rules for 3 armies on one large battle field: lannister, wardens of west and clansman as one army; stark, wardens of north and tully as second army; baratheon (and maybe brotherhood as they claimed to fight for Robert before his death) as a third army. Do you think house rules could be developed to create this scenario by taking skirmish cards in these combinations? That would make proper battle with deceit, lies and backstabbing etc. what do you think? You could do 1v1v1 or have 2 players on each team etc
Cant remember any battle with 3 participants, actually, but theres no one to tell you not to do one on your own :)
True three-way battles are somewhat rare, historically as well as in AGoT. It makes better sense to wait for both foes to tire before you make your play.
Gamewise it is certainly do-able but you'll need to revise Advantage to take into account 3+ players and how you settle ties. Multiple unit combats could probably be adequately covered under Flanking, so there would be no way for a unit to attack two others at the same time.
The hard part is motivating the players to engage. Worst case scenario you could end up with a standoff, either literally or just a lot of dancing before engagement. With more aggressive players your worst case scenario is two pile into each other before player three charges into the survivors for a rather predictable finish.
Do-able, yes. Enjoyable? With the right players, maybe. Experiment with board size and terrain to get a good balance between dancing and engaging.
You're right in saying you could having someone hanging back and just 'cleaning up' the remains of attacks (sounds like the late Lord Frey!!). I'm sure you could come up with rules to avoid this such as victory points awarded to those units engaged (with there own tokens?) etc. You could even have diplomacy where you could ask kthe 3rd army to lend them support if you were being attacked by the 2nd army so you can become stalwart or ask for support to add die to an attack.
I think that if I saw an army not doing much fighting I would just ask the other player to team up with me to place all attacks on the army that isn't doing much. Gives an incentive not to hang back.
Just like in real live, if you want the armies to engage, give them the need to engage. Like, having objectives which give victory points each round. If someone waits for the other two to fight, they will get points all the time, and the third one will be too late. Or give units back to the armies, when they hold certain points, lets say they get reinforcements or something.
I've been thinking about the alliance battles, and have put serious thought towards having a bannerman switch sides during a battle. Not really a true 3 army battle, but in essence could make the battle more interesting.
Thats a good idea. I remember blood bowl did a similar thing with a player called thud where here changed sides randomly. This would be fun.
The moral track could be used as the trigger. Or you could leave it up to the players decision, which could cause a lot of backstabbing in an 8 player game. The tricky part is what troops would go with the commander if they did switch. And I guess it would be up to the opposing "Lord" to offer him order tokens, but who would trust a turncoat?
Good suggestions. Possible issues with Victory Points, if unbalanced
1) Someone who rushes the objectives could end up with enough VPs to outweigh their crushing defeat in numbers
2) Someone who holds back and kills everyone could end up with enough VPs to outweigh the objectives
IMHO "time pressure" would be a better (easier) equalizer - this allows for the perfectly valid tactic of hanging back but also penalizes you if you fail to act. A 3 player game will, by necessity, run longer than a 2 player or 2 commander one. Remember, for every player turn there are two other players cooling their heels, and there's no guarantee either will be involved in any action. Time limits stop boredom or frustration setting in, and keep the game within the "average" length of time to play.
Obviously, YMMV. If you're all pro's and actually wanting a long game then I'd go with a sole game objective. King of the hill, first past the post, something that's nice and simple and hard to "game" i.e. not one you can win by following the letter rather than the spirit.
Traitors would be interesting in a megagame with a 4 or 6 player game, where you can all be in charge of a house. Randomly assigned by a "traitor" card at game start would probably give the most interesting result, or maybe pinch the system used in BSG? Could be a lot more provocative than a three way fight…
|Page 1 of 1 (10 messages)||1|