Jump to content



Photo

Multi-player Rules??


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 gazzagames

gazzagames

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 03 October 2009 - 06:48 AM

Can anyone tell me if there are any plans for multi-player rules for the LCG?? Not sure how they would work, but if there are it would potentially make the game far more appealing....

Cheers,

Gary



#2 Ruvion

Ruvion

    Member

  • Members
  • 758 posts

Posted 03 October 2009 - 08:29 AM

It is indirectly implied that there will be a future ruleset for multiplayer. One was made by by Mr. Lang himself here. The other is from the cards themselves: some cards texts' reference more than one player as targets.

You can bet good money that there will be an official multiplayer variant in the near dark future...it may even have a dash of British humour running through it.



#3 A Paperback Hero

A Paperback Hero

    Member

  • Members
  • 40 posts

Posted 03 October 2009 - 05:13 PM

I am assuming their will be multiplayer rules at one point since I have found multiple cards that say they do their effect to "all opponents"



#4 gazzagames

gazzagames

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 04 October 2009 - 02:29 AM

Thanks guys.... our group enjoys the Cthulhu LCG, but generally as a multiplayer game...so as soon as there are rules for Warhammer we will most likely come on board..... the blood already pounds in my veins....BLOOD FOR THE BLODD GOD!!!!! or some such thing......

 

 

 



#5 ChaosChild

ChaosChild

    Member

  • Members
  • 526 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 12:45 AM

The game already works fine as a multiplayer game with few (if any) changes required. All you have to do is agree a turn order. Already played a 3 player game with no problems at all.



#6 mylastnerv

mylastnerv

    Member

  • Members
  • 165 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 12:55 AM

I was under the impression at first this was just a dueling game, then someone pointed out that on the back of the box it says 2+ players . . . so yes. Multiplayer will be on the way.



#7 Wytefang

Wytefang

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,095 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 05:31 AM

ChaosChild said:

The game already works fine as a multiplayer game with few (if any) changes required. All you have to do is agree a turn order. Already played a 3 player game with no problems at all.

 

I'd say it works fine as is ONLY if you're okay with a rather lame M:TG version/style of Multiplayer.  My hope is for some sort of clever and originally-created Multiplayer format to be developed for this game. 



#8 apkenned

apkenned

    Member

  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 03:16 AM

I'm thinking a multiplayer system like Vampire ccg (V:TES) would be simple to play. The player to your left is your prey and the player to your right is your predator. Players would be able to only attack their prey from the battlefield, but they could use tactics or actions on anyone. You get a victory point whenever the player who is your prey is ousted (no matter how or by whom your prey was ousted). You receive an additional victory point if you are the last player left. At the end of the game, the winner is the player with the most victory points, even if she has been ousted. Along with a victory point, may you remove 4 damage from your capital or put into play 4 developments from the top of your deck  when your prey is ousted.



#9 dormouse

dormouse

    LCG Designer

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 03:38 AM

 It would be simple... I don't think I care for it personally, the prey/predator left/right deal always struck me as being very artifical. The games, IMO, are too different for just an overlay and it doesn't capture any of the spirit of the Warhammer world no the feel of combat in the other IP games.

I am anxiously awaiting the rules for FFG's multiplayer


"words are like arrows, once loosened you cannot call them back"


#10 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,239 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 04:16 AM

I think the "attack left" rules are less critical here than in most other CCGs because there's no tapping for attacks, or similar issues for defense.

The rule came about in multiplayer because attacking with something meant you couldn't attack with that next round.  In a two player game that's a good balance, but when three other people have turns to beat on you, it's deadly.  End result, nobody ever attacks.  Attack Left rules put the attack/defense back into a 1v1 situation, even though the person you're attacking isn't the one attacking you.

With no tapping, and attacking units still able to defend, it should be less of an issue.  There's still the risk of losing units and such because of combat, but at least it's an improvement.  Free for all should be far more viable because of it.

 



#11 apkenned

apkenned

    Member

  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 04:25 AM

I'm not a big fan of the free for all mainly because the weaker players will be killed off first by people teaming up or the game degrades to a King of the hill type of game. But you are right not tapping helps a bunch in free for all, but no summoning sickness hurts the idea for free for all. Because one player can a mass enough power in one turn to oust someone. I think this will lead to a cold war style game..where the first to fight is the first to lose.

 

I've played multiplayer with the rules I've posted it makes it a very fun/tense game because you have a cross table ally or grand prey in a four player game. As you weaken your prey, you in turn strengthen your grand prey/cross table ally because she doesn't have any pressure from her predator. 

 

 



#12 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,239 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 07:43 AM

apkenned said:

Because one player can a mass enough power in one turn to oust someone. I think this will lead to a cold war style game..where the first to fight is the first to lose.

 

How could this happen?  You literally cannot knock an opponent out in one turn, no matter how much power you mass, because you can only hit a single zone per Battlefield phase.  Any scenario which allows this to happen has the opponent already beaten down rather badly in the first place.

You're never going to completely get rid of a cold war environment in any multiplayer game.  Whether it's cards, minis, or on a board, multiplayer games always tend to favor those who sit back and let the opponents beat themselves bloody, at which point they sweep in and clean up.  But this system makes it far less than in others, for a few reasons...  The lack of tapping - being able to defend with units which just attacked - is a major one.  The spread defenses of the capital is another, as you can take a shot at an undefended zone without any penalty.  I also think that being able to allocate your own damage will mean a lot - will well-timed attacks you can make sure that your target looks tasty to whoever goes next, too, and your vulnerability is less appealing.

You're also never going to get rid of ganging up on the weak one.  That's what multiplayer should be, IMHO.  It takes people out of the game and keeps it moving.

 



#13 dormouse

dormouse

    LCG Designer

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 07 October 2009 - 09:56 AM

I doubt you will see much picking on the weaker opponent when good players face off in multi-player. In this game two people ganging up on a third will allow that third player seeing themselves getting ready to be wiped out, to assign damage to their opponents characters in a way that favors one player over another. You take me out, I make sure you can't win.

Even if this game was a straight free-for-all I expect people to spread around their attacks trying to keep someone from getting to big of a force and keeping the number of damaged zones about equal until they are ready to push someone out of the game and then they rush in a fashion to complete the ousting.


"words are like arrows, once loosened you cannot call them back"





© 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