thereisnotry wrote:
We played this format last night with 3 of us, and it was a load of fun! We played on Rattatak (as suggested), with 1 activation per phase (as suggested), and with 3 squads each (as suggested). We actually did two things differently, though:
1. We tracked points by how much damage a piece did. Therefore, when my Jango BH did 60 dmg to Phil's Emperor Palpatine, I gained 60 pts (for simplicity we divided by 10). And then when Palpy zapped Nick's Boba BH, Phil gained 30 pts, and so on. And so, when it was Boba BH's turn, he stopped to ask who had the most HP left (my IG-88 Assassin Droid), and then proceeded to disintegrate him for 100 pts...lol. We found that this kept us from playing with the "I'm not going to attack until I can make the kill" mindset, and so the game progressed quite well. I would suggest this method of keeping score as a possible method for consideration in the future; it certainly seems to fit with the "Royal Rumble" feel, where you just want to get out there and lay down some hurt as fast as possible.
I am one of the folks who has been playtesting this with Jake (sthlrd2), and so I have a good feel for this format.
We tried this scoring method for about a minute. Here's what I don't like about it - What about healing? What about Regeneration? What about self inflicted damage? Also, it just gets minatinous. I don't see why it's a problem to wait for the kill - it adds another layer of strategy.
thereisnotry wrote:
. . .
2. We took the actual initiative rolls as the turn order for that round. That is, if I rolled a 19, Nick a 14, and Phil a 7, then the turn order for that round was me-Nick-Phil. Next turn is could be Phil-Nick-me if the dice went that way. This method of doing init added an element of un-predictability to the game, which was refreshing. It did remove some flexibility from the person who won init, who would ordinarily be able to make someone else go first, but we found that in every single case, we all wanted to go first anyway, so that we could do that last bit of damage before our 20hp piece was killed off.
I was thinking about this - I don't think it matters which way you do it with three people. It is equally random to have someone go first, then second place roll goes second and third goes third - as compared to someone goes first and depending on odd or even go clockwise or counter clockwise from there. The whole point is whoever wins does not necessarily have control over who goes second (and therefore by default third). So with your method, if I win, then I go first, and the person to my left will go next or last depending on if they got the next highest or not. With our method If I win and I go first, then the person to my left will go next or last depending on if I rolled odd or even. So it's just a different random factor that determines it - it doesn't really matter either way.
The reason we made the scoring method vs just last man standing is we wanted to reward agression. If it was just last man standing the best strategy would be just to hide. With the scoring, you are awarded for kills, and get a bonus (your own figs points) if you ARE the last man standing. In virtually evey game we've had - the most aggressive player (who also plays smart) wins.
Bottom line is this - the reason I love this format is it's the only 3 player format that I have seen work. Any other game I have played 3 player is with 2 vs 1 where one player operates 2 armies, so it's really 4 player. -OR- Someone ends up monkey in the middle and gets crushed. There are inherent balances in this game where it benefits everyone to not crush the monkey in the middle, but go after the leader.