Jump to content



Photo

Crossing my fingers for... an expantion allowing more than 2 players


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Darth Hideous

Darth Hideous

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 19 March 2014 - 01:45 PM

I really hope FFG will design the game so we can enjoy games with more than 2 players (team vs team and an all vs all version).

 

I really think FFG did a great job with Star Wars, and an ok job with Warhammer invasion.


You, my children, are the water that will wash away all that has gone before. In your hand, you hold my light, the gleam in the eye of Set. This flame will burn away the darkness, burn you the way to paradise!

 


#2 TragicTheBlathering

TragicTheBlathering

    Member

  • Members
  • 168 posts

Posted 19 March 2014 - 02:04 PM

star wars was originally designed as a multiplayer game. Check out a interesting interview form eric lang (creator) on the ivory dice tower. Stil I agree, I would welcome rules for multiplayer


  • Internutt likes this

#3 BD Flory

BD Flory

    Member

  • Members
  • 109 posts

Posted 19 March 2014 - 02:47 PM

Haven't played the Warhammer Invasion multi rules, but I don't particularly like the SW multi rules. Team play is slow like molasses and involves too much shared information between teammates. The challenge decks are ok, but as a novelty.

 

Good multiplayer games really need to be designed from the ground up with multiplayer in mind, especially in competitive play, where you need mechanisms to prevent kingmaking, promote comebacks, and otherwise keep everyone involved until the end.

 

I love multiplayer games, but I hope they don't devote resources to it for this game. Doesn't seem like a good fit.


  • Internutt likes this

#4 Internutt

Internutt

    Member

  • Members
  • 215 posts

Posted 19 March 2014 - 05:12 PM

AGoT is a great example of multiplayer, that is even played at the tournament level.

Really, if you want multiplayer/co-op there are a dozen other 40K products out there to buy and play. This appears to have been designed as a 1v1 experience so they shouldn't try and phone in 3-4 player rules.

#5 borwol

borwol

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 05:33 AM

but they will :P  And wait another year to witness end of game



#6 Jvirtue55

Jvirtue55

    Member

  • Members
  • 158 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 02:53 PM

If they do the only way I would want to see is was like in WOW and VS with Raid Decks and Giant sized VS maybe against the Necrons or the Nids

But dont waste to much time or money on it thats for sure



#7 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:52 PM

I think multiplayer will happen at some point. Though unless a game is designed for it it is always a little flaky. I would suggest that they should focus on the single player.. if they DO introduce multiplayer.. I would not expect it for years.


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#8 dboeren

dboeren

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,174 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 08:42 PM

I agree with booored.  If a game isn't designed with multiplayer in mind then it's usually rough going trying to convert it and it will never really flow right.

 

Personally I would leave Conquest at 2p (which I think makes more sense for the theme anyway) and then release another LCG that is specifically designed for multiplayer.

 

btw, if anyone does want a game that shines in multiplayer I keep hearing people say that Doomtown works best as a multiplayer game so perhaps check that out when the new version releases this summer at Gencon.



#9 HappyDD

HappyDD

    Member

  • Members
  • 321 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 09:03 PM

You know dboeren, if you keep pushing this "Doomtown" business on every forum on the internet I'm going to have to go buy it. 



#10 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 09:25 PM

Doomtown is a great game.. no doubt! Isn't agot supposed to be better multiplayer than 2 player? It is the only LCG I do not play so don't know.


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#11 dboeren

dboeren

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,174 posts

Posted 27 March 2014 - 08:44 AM

I've heard both sides on Thrones.  My impression is that more "competitive" players seem to prefer 2p because then it's just a duel with no collusion/politics.  More "casual" players seem to enjoy multiplayer.  But these are only rough guidelines and most people who play enjoy both even if they have a preference.

 

Disclaimer: I only rarely play Thrones myself and when I do, it's with a borrowed deck.

 

The other game I always hear is awesome for multiplayer (because it was designed specifically for that goal and has no official 2p rules) is V:TES.  I've played a couple games only, but it seemed to be pretty cool and I think a cleaned up & modernized version would be awesome.

 

Whether you like Doomtown specifically or not, I think all of us would benefit from a 2nd major player in the non-random card game (i.e. - LCG-like) market.  Competition drives innovation and benefits consumers, so I'm hoping it's a success.  Not to mention that any LCG-like game that hits big (like Netrunner for instance) helps draw more people into the hobby and increases the market for all companies involved so it helps FFG too in an indirect way.  Bigger market = more pie for everyone.


  • HappyDD likes this

#12 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 27 March 2014 - 01:48 PM

they call 'em "ECG" Extendable Card Game 


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#13 ThunderChicken

ThunderChicken

    Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 27 March 2014 - 04:53 PM

Seems very similar in ways to the blood bowl card game. I bet they release multiplayer rules.

#14 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 27 March 2014 - 05:24 PM

except it is not similar in any way.. but w/e


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#15 Death Dragon

Death Dragon

    Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 27 March 2014 - 06:35 PM

Seems very similar in ways to the blood bowl card game. I bet they release multiplayer rules.

I agree with this.

Surely multiplayer is a possibility.


Edited by Death Dragon, 27 March 2014 - 06:35 PM.


#16 klaymen_sk

klaymen_sk

    Member

  • Members
  • 353 posts

Posted 28 March 2014 - 02:26 PM

Haven't played the Warhammer Invasion multi rules, but I don't particularly like the SW multi rules. Team play is slow like molasses and involves too much shared information between teammates.

 

Invasion is actually quite good as a multiplayer game.


  • HappyDD likes this

"To each of us falls a task. And all the Emperor requires of us Guardsmen is that we stand in line, and we die fighting. It is what we do best: we die standing."

-General Sturnn, Cadian 412th regiment


#17 BD Flory

BD Flory

    Member

  • Members
  • 109 posts

Posted 28 March 2014 - 05:49 PM

 

Haven't played the Warhammer Invasion multi rules, but I don't particularly like the SW multi rules. Team play is slow like molasses and involves too much shared information between teammates.

 

Invasion is actually quite good as a multiplayer game.

 

 

To be clear, SW = Star Wars. Just so no one's confused. I don't want people to think I said that I didn't like the Invasion multi rules in the same breath I said I'd never played them! :P

 

That said, I haven't played *much* invasion in general. To me, the main thing agitating against multiplayer would be the last man standing problem. Since you win 1v1 by eliminating your opponent, the natural assumption for a win in multiplayer is being the last one eliminated. To me, a good multiplayer game keeps every player involved as much as possible, which elimination games obviously don't do.

 

Strictly out of curiosity (I have no plans to start playing a game with so much extant product), did they address the elimination issue in Catacylsm? (That was the name of the multiplayer box, right?)

 

To bring this back on topic, 40k seems more naturally suited to multiplayer, because while you can win by eliminating your opponent, there is also an affirmative goal to achieve (winning 3 planets with at least one shared resource icon).

 

In fact, without seeing the card pool or full rules, it seems to me that multiplayer can be played with very few modifications. Highest number of icons present (or the only Warlord present) still wins command struggles, as is the case in 1v1. For actual battles, you can shoot any opposing armies in the same battle. Last unit standing wins the battle.

 

Everyone would be a little bit card/resource starved, since it would be dividing 5 planets' worth of card draw and resources 3 ways instead of 2. More players would also increase the number of Warlords that come into direct conflict, making elimination more likely (boo).

 

Not sure what other modifications would need to be made. We still don't know, for example, how to determine which player shoots first in 1v1, so it's hard to speculate on if the rule would need to be modified for more than two players.



#18 klaymen_sk

klaymen_sk

    Member

  • Members
  • 353 posts

Posted 29 March 2014 - 04:03 AM

Actually, I was just saying that the Invasion MP rules are good. I know that you don't like the SW MP rules and I wasn't responding to that (because I haven't played SW yet), hence the bolded part about Invasion in my post where I quoted your previous post. I guess it wasn't obvious enough. :)


"To each of us falls a task. And all the Emperor requires of us Guardsmen is that we stand in line, and we die fighting. It is what we do best: we die standing."

-General Sturnn, Cadian 412th regiment


#19 HappyDD

HappyDD

    Member

  • Members
  • 321 posts

Posted 29 March 2014 - 11:18 AM

They got rid of player elimination by introducing a new type of card ("Fulcrums") that you fight over and in turn give you points every turn you control them. Once you hit 8 points you win. You also lose points if your zones burn, but you don't get eliminated. There are some bugs in that format in that some cards are insanely strong, but it is basically the Wild West of Invasion. It also depends on player types, we are able to handle some trash talking around here so it's more of a good-time-experience than the supposed seriousness of 1v1 Invasion.

 

Since this game already HAS neutral cards for fighting over, it might just be a matter of changing those. FFG tends to write their cards to read "each opponent", "each player", etc, so those don't need to be redesigned for multiplayer.



#20 BD Flory

BD Flory

    Member

  • Members
  • 109 posts

Posted 29 March 2014 - 11:21 AM

Actually, I was just saying that the Invasion MP rules are good. I know that you don't like the SW MP rules and I wasn't responding to that (because I haven't played SW yet), hence the bolded part about Invasion in my post where I quoted your previous post. I guess it wasn't obvious enough. :)

 

Seemed apparent to me, too, thus the. :P Wasn't being super serious. :)






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS