Three way battle

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
I played with the goblin faction pack.  My friends played with the undead and Cormyr faction packs.  The obvious problem we all saw with the three-way game was that each of us had a rational interest in not aggressively attacking the other players.  However, after a few turns of hiding I began attacking the undead horde since I knew that the game would be boaring unless one of us went on the offensive.   While the undead and Goblins mostly annihilated themselves the Cormyr faction pack collected treasure and increased their moral total to twenty.  

Once the Undead and Goblins were at or below five moral, they began working colaboratively to attack the Cormyr faction pack.  The two warbands were increadibly effective for about three whole turns until the undead turned on the goblins, which honestly wasn't a total surprise given the nature of an undead army.  The goblins were eliminated immediately and the undead narrowly beat Cormyr about two turns later. 

In conclusion, this might have been my favorite Dungeon Command conflict ever.  Having multiple armies on the field allows for a lot of complicated interaction amoung the many creatures.  And the cooperation and betrayal in a three-way game is great.  On the other hand, every player having a self interest in staying out of early conflict is a serious strategic problem.  My solution is to play two vs. two.   I haven't ever gotten four people to play this game at once, but as long as the players don't take forever to make decisions, a four person dungeon command battle is ideal.

The game ends when one warband’s Morale is reduced to 0, or
when one player ends his or her turn with no creatures in play.
Determine the winner in the normal way.

I have a problem with this line from the rulebook. If your behind in morale and you eliminate one player you lose. That doesn't make much sence. 
The way you played seems more fun. 


The game ends when one warband’s Morale is reduced to 0, or
when one player ends his or her turn with no creatures in play.
Determine the winner in the normal way.

I have a problem with this line from the rulebook. If your behind in morale and you eliminate one player you lose. That doesn't make much sence. 
The way you played seems more fun. 




It makes perfect sense; don't eliminate the other player, but go for the one that has more Morale than either of you. This mechanic will always ensure that the two weakest will have to work together to bring down the strongest.....at least until one of them becomes the strongest.

In short the strongest (Morale wise) player will benefit the most from trying to kill off the weakest, while both the weakest and the middle player will have to team up and face the strongest. Keeps it interesting all game long since who is strongest will naturally switch because of this mechanic.
I always like games like this when they go beyond two players. Adding a bit of diplomacy always makes the game interesting and adds another layer of depth. Of course, this can sometimes lead to Kingmaking, where people gang up on someone to make it almost impossible for them to win.
I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both rational and instinctive. I value self-knowledge and understanding of the world; my ultimate goal is self-improvement and improvement of the world around me. At best, I am focused and methodical; at worst, I am obsessive and amoral.

It makes perfect sense; don't eliminate the other player, but go for the one that has more Morale than either of you. This mechanic will always ensure that the two weakest will have to work together to bring down the strongest.....at least until one of them becomes the strongest.

In short the strongest (Morale wise) player will benefit the most from trying to kill off the weakest, while both the weakest and the middle player will have to team up and face the strongest. Keeps it interesting all game long since who is strongest will naturally switch because of this mechanic.



Seems like this will always lead to the third player being left alone by the player in second and targeted by the player in first, maybe it works better if you have three good players.(One of the players in my group was new)

Also thematically, I don't understand why the Drow warband would eliminate the Undead warband and then just give up because Cormyr is still there. Maybe I'm Nitpicking. 
 I've managed to get in one 3 player game. It worked well particularly because of the fact that the strategy would always push towards the players ganging up on the guy with the highest morale. The game board was constantly changing due to the way the strategy would change turn by turn as players morale changed. 
 The other thing is that we didn't play it with any time limit set in mind. The two player games I've done only lasted about 45 minutes on average, but the three player game lasted nearly 4 hours, because players kept switching whom they were trying to eliminate. We were all getting a little bored by the end, but it was still a blast to play.
 We decided to implement the hour and a half time limit after that. ;)   
The other thing is that we didn't play it with any time limit set in mind. The two player games I've done only lasted about 45 minutes on average, but the three player game lasted nearly 4 hours, because players kept switching whom they were trying to eliminate. We were all getting a little bored by the end, but it was still a blast to play.
 We decided to implement the hour and a half time limit after that. ;)   



4 hours?? How on earth do you NOT burn through creature and order decks well before that? (well, creatures could be influenced by Reinforcements, I guess).

I was teaching them how to play, and we were also snacking and *e-hem* drinking ...

The game ends when one warband’s Morale is reduced to 0, or
when one player ends his or her turn with no creatures in play.
Determine the winner in the normal way.

I have a problem with this line from the rulebook. If your behind in morale and you eliminate one player you lose. That doesn't make much sence. 
The way you played seems more fun. 




I think this rule was implemented for games where the number of players is odd (3 or 5).

In my experience any game with 3 plaeyrs never goes well, its always a 2vs1 fest. This rule sorta puts a stop.
IMO the rules for three player games are brilliant.  I wouldn't recommend 2v2s though to be honest.  I played a 2v2 and it was brutally slow going; not only do you have to wait for 3 other players to have their turns between your own, but also the teams will be constantly discussing strategy and looking over each others' cards and even leaving the room so they can talk privately; it wound up taking nearly 6 hours for the game to finish, and the outcome was basically foregone after the first hour anyway.  FFAs in general work better because players won't discuss strategy with each other; though they might do a bit of diplomacy, that generally doesn't take up nearly as much time, and generally speaking the rules make it blatantly obvious who you have to attack (whoever has the highest morale, or if it's you, whoever you can eliminate without losing your top spot) to win so diplomacy itself is often a bit of a no-brainer.

But in any case, as much as I was looking forward to 3-4 player games before I had tried any, now that I have had a few under my belt I think this game was meant to be played 1v1 and that's where it really shines.