Jump to content



Photo

Do you think an official multiplayer expansion is a reasonable expectation?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 rzarectz

rzarectz

    Member

  • Members
  • 84 posts

Posted 09 December 2011 - 06:19 PM

Given that the cycles and box expansions now seem to be focussing on particualr aspects of the game. Do you think that either a box or cycle expansion will introduce official rules for a multiplayer game? And cards that might have a particular use in multiplayer games?  Here's hoping!  Single player will always be the core of this game but some FFA or team action would really be a fun addition imo.



#2 Mamut

Mamut

    Member

  • Members
  • 53 posts

Posted 10 December 2011 - 04:31 AM

I dont think so. First of all most of cards are not designed to multiplayer game. Moreover I havent seen good rules for such a game. 1 vs 1 is really good :) and enough I guess :-)



#3 Natarko

Natarko

    Member

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 10 December 2011 - 10:32 AM

1vs1 is good, but if you have three players, one will be just sitting there.

Not the best of options and not "enough", imho.



#4 Vitamin T

Vitamin T

    Member

  • Members
  • 309 posts

Posted 10 December 2011 - 05:04 PM

I'd love to see good multiplayer rules.  If they ever do it I would guess it would come in the form of a box expansion.



#5 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 810 posts

Posted 10 December 2011 - 10:25 PM

Not that I have any real need for multiplayer rules, as there's only one other guy who wants to play this game that I know, I have noticed quite a few of the Dark Elf cards seem to suggest a multiplayer game.

Caught in the Scent (Corruption Cycle 78) - "Look at one target opponent's hand..." (as if you have more than one opponent?)

Hate (Core Set 110) - "Take 1 resource from each opponent..." (as if you have more than one?)

Malekith (Legends 36) - "At the beginning of your turn, each opponent must sacrifice a unit" (again, as if you have more than one?)

Bathe in the Cauldron (Morrslieb Cycle 117) - "Choose a target player..." (because in 1v1, there are so many players to choose from?)

Your Will is Mine (Corruption Cycle 117) - "Choose a zone. Take control of each opponent's units in that zone" (not "take control of your all units in your opponent's zone")

Okay, so that last one is a bit tenuous, but it strikes me that they have been trying to set something up from the start for multiplayer, or at least leaving the language on the cards open enough that if you choose to implement a house rule for multiplayer games, you can do so. A lot of the cards in this race (I haven't noticed it on any others, but then I've not been looking out for it either) seem to follow a similar thing, talking about "an opponent" or "target opponent" rather than simply "your opponent", if this was strictly meant to be one-on-one. So maybe something will be in the works soon...


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#6 loken14

loken14

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 11 December 2011 - 02:00 PM

not that i have the cards in front of me  but a lot of chaos cards are the same



#7 cuttingrage

cuttingrage

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 09:03 PM

I hope that if they do release a new expansion it contains staple cards like Burn it down,Contested Village or the Alliances.



#8 LiouKen

LiouKen

    Member

  • Members
  • 65 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 02:31 PM

 My group play 2v2 house rule game (Destruction vs Order) for a long time, so far so good to us.

 



#9 Morbid666

Morbid666

    Member

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 08:36 AM

@LiouKen-We do the same and enjoy it very much! i would like to see your house rules though and compare them to ours ;0



#10 jokemon

jokemon

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 09:29 AM

 now me and my friends we have 3 set of games, it would be really nice if there's official multiplayer rules, we're looking forward to it

of course 1 on 1 is already good, if it could be 2 on 2, or even more, I'm sure the gaming experience will expand



#11 bitva

bitva

    Member

  • Members
  • 238 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 08:04 AM

There are TONS of cards that are written for multi player games, such as Zufbar Engineers. I don't see the point of "official rules" for multiplayer games, the rules as is work just as well for single or multi player. The only real decision you need to make is how you will play the multi player game; free for all, X vs. X players, clockwise/counter clockwise aggression, affect only players to immediate left or right, etc. What need is there for official rules to make that decision for you?


Ignorance if futile. Resistance is bliss.


#12 Dark Bunny Lord

Dark Bunny Lord

    Member

  • Members
  • 339 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 04:18 PM

bitva said:

There are TONS of cards that are written for multi player games, such as Zufbar Engineers. I don't see the point of "official rules" for multiplayer games, the rules as is work just as well for single or multi player. The only real decision you need to make is how you will play the multi player game; free for all, X vs. X players, clockwise/counter clockwise aggression, affect only players to immediate left or right, etc. What need is there for official rules to make that decision for you?

What he said. I don't see how a multiplayer rule set is even neccessary. The only rule you have to fudge is that all players skip their quest/battlefield phase (as the first player normally does) other than the last player. That aside each player is eliminated when they have 2 sections of their capitol burning and you're good to go. It's really that simple, the game functions very well since most cards give the option to "target" an opponent anyways.



#13 Professor Nomos

Professor Nomos

    Member

  • Members
  • 95 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 04:35 AM

In many ways this game (WH:I) has an objective (elimination) that is incompatible with an effective multiplayer format.  

Take the only FFG with an "official" multiplayer format, A Game of Thrones.  This objective in this game is accumulation.  Accumulation as an objective allows multiple players to work towards the goal until one achieves it and then the game is over. 

Elimniation on the other hand would take significantly longer

 



#14 HappyDD

HappyDD

    Member

  • Members
  • 322 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 01:19 PM

Have you guys ever tried multiplayer as you describe it with the regular rules but more players? It sucks, big time. The first person to get attacked is essentially dead, as the others just pile on the easy target while firing the occasional snipe at the non-dead-man-walking. That's why Rzarectz' question is justified, multiplayer normal-style just leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

I think the point of elimination versus accumulation is a good one. Games where the strong get stronger in multiplayer tend to be less of a positive experience for all involved as compared to games where you get points, or whatever. We tried a version of that with Invasion where you "accumulated" points for burning zones. Players were not eliminated when they lost 2 zones, we played that you could be in play with 3 zones burning. You got a point for inflicting the burning on other players zones, and 3 points won you the game. Unfortunately, that is an annoying mechanic too for the same reason normal rules suck in a multiplayer game: You just have to pile on to steal a "kill"...

Anyway, I too would like to see something on multiplayer rules. Maybe not official, maybe just extensively play tested, like the stuff they come up with in MTG (Elder Dragon Highlander, or whatever they're calling that format now.)



#15 Gothik

Gothik

    Member

  • Members
  • 97 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 08:52 PM

We sometimes play "epic" 6-player games with all factions and we use these simple rules, which - in my opinion - work very well, even with 4 players:

- There is the same number of players for Order and Destruction (2 vs. 2 or 3 vs.3) and they sit in this manner: one ORD player - one DES player, then ORD player, DES player and so on - so there is no situation that for example two ORD players sit next to each other.

- No attacks during the first turn of each player;

- A player may never be attacked TWICE in a row - if I was attacked by a DES player, next DES player have to choose another target when attacking.

- To win the game, you have to burn 2 zones of EACH opponent.

- Players with two zones burned remain in the game.

This way there is no situation that all players from one side eliminate opponents one by one with "concentrated fire". Also, players with two burned zones are usually `left aside` by opponents concentrating on other targets, so they can rebuild, help their attacked friends and still enjoy the game.

 



#16 HappyDD

HappyDD

    Member

  • Members
  • 322 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 06:41 AM

Hm, the team format with the "no piling on" rule sounds like it's the simple trick to make it all work. One thing you didn't mention, but I think is obvious, is that Order and Destruction win or lose as a team, right?



#17 Gothik

Gothik

    Member

  • Members
  • 97 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 08:22 PM

That`s right - you win or lose as a team.



#18 LiouKen

LiouKen

    Member

  • Members
  • 65 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 03:26 PM

@Morbid666

1.Destruction team vs Order team, it's a 2v2 team fight house rule.

2.Everyone must use different race.

3.You only can use the race you choose and Neutral cards

4.The teammates sit on opposite side.

5."first player penalty” extend to First, Second and Third player, only the last player can draw and attack in the first round

6.On your Battlefield Phase, you only can attack the left player.

7.The other rule is the same as the original game.






© 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