Three person game - house rules?

6 posts / 0 new
Last post

I played in a three-man game as part of teaching someone new how to play, and I was pretty unimpressed. The new player got out a Drow Priestess with Lolth's Blessing, so he was drawing the same number of cards as both of us put together. It would have made sense for us to gang up on him at this point, but then he would clearly have been beaten up - even with the same number of cards, he isn't doing the same amount of damage - and that wouldn't have been a good introduction to the game.

My impression is that two of the three players can choose to make the game into a two-person game by focusing on one player. Does anyone have any house rules for a three-person game that help prevent this scenario?

In a 3-way game the victory condition should keep 2 players from beating up 1 other player because the player with the highest remaining morale wins, as soon as another player is out of business. Only the player being ahead of the other potential "ally" should profit from destroying the third player. This way players have to weaken both opponents at the same time. Otherwise the other partner only helps you winning by ganging up on the third.
We've been thinking about adding a third box so that everyone in our family can play. At first I was worried that two players would form an alliance, but if their morale is unequal, the alliance would immediately crumble, because the person with the lower alliance is at risk of losing the game and so would have to attack the ally with the highest morale in order to prevent the ally from winning the game, thus destroying the alliance.

This rule, I think, is designed to prevent alliances:

If several players are tied for Morale, then the winner is the player with the most total Levels of creatures on the battlefield. If there is still a tie, the game ends in a draw.

Forming an alliance is too risky. Ganging up on a player is a quick way for one of you to lose the game.

I'm guessing in a 3-warband game, the leader would focus attacks on the warband with the lowest morale, while the warband in the middle would want to attack the leader, and the warband with the lowest morale would go after the warband in the middle. Forming alliances definitely would pay off only for the warband with the highest morale--the others would have too much to lose from an alliance.
Regarding three player games, any views on untapping after another player's turn? From what I know of the rules, if one player is attacked and has a number of tapped creatures (as he used immediate actions to prevent damage), and it is not his turn next, he will be very vulnerable to attacks from the next player. We've therefore been untapping after every player's turn.


The thing about teaming up in a three-person game is that the player that has the most morale after one player is eliminated is the winner.  It is not in anyone's best interest in a three-person game to team up on the weak guy, because as soon as the first guy is eliminated, the game is over.

So, there really should be no need to untap after each person's turn, as you shouldn't be getting ganged up on too much unless you're in the lead, in which case, you'll soon nto be and you'll be safer from getting ganged up on.

That said, if it works for you, keep on doing it. 
In my experience with three-player games the two closest / easier to reach players start fighting early on and the third player turtles (stays back building up their forces) only repelling attacks that come there way, even if the other two put aside their differences and team up on them they usually have built up quite a force of uninjured / barely injured creatures and can still repell them.

Of course we haven't played any official three-player battles, only friendlies and we prefer the last-man-standing rule (Keep playing until there is only one army still standing.)