*

Recent Topics

Author Topic: Table size or set up in multiplayer battles.  (Read 1840 times)

Offline wrinklestiltskin

  • Bookworm
  • Posts: 95
  • sexy beast
Table size or set up in multiplayer battles.
« on: 28 October 2015, 11:47:05 AM »
Hey guys,

Just wanted to throw this out there. Recommended table size for frostgrave is 3'*3', 2'*2' for quicker battles, 4'*4' for etc.. I can see this working for 2 to 3 players.
A couple of weeks ago we played with 5 players on I think a slightly larger table than 4'*4', this week we're playing a second battle. During the last battle only one treasure made it off the table. This could be due to placement of the treasures, myself I felt the amount of players (turn-length) but also the table size played into it.

I was just wondering how do or would you handle multi-player battles? Also how would you set-up the table to accommodate 5 players?

Thanks.


Offline Fencing Frog

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 459
    • Fencing Frog
Re: Table size or set up in multiplayer battles.
« Reply #1 on: 28 October 2015, 12:03:09 PM »
I did a three player game on a 3x6 table and it was probably to big but it was still interesting.  Five players I think you need on at least that big.

Offline monkeylite

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 457
    • Moedlhafen
Re: Table size or set up in multiplayer battles.
« Reply #2 on: 28 October 2015, 12:09:28 PM »
We play more multi-player games than two-player. Usually we play with 4 but have done 3 and 5 depending on who turns up. The 4-player is usually 54 inches square (coz of the size of our tables), and sometimes we start within six inches of a corner, and sometimes along the middle 12 inches or so of an edge.

We played a 5-player on that table where we just spread ourselves informally around the edge of the table at regular-looking intervals, nothing too scientific. We've played a 3-player on that table, too, it might look a little bit big for that, but the game went well enough.

Last three player game we made a triangle 54 inches along each side, and started from the the middle of each side. That felt a bit crowded but was a good game and we got all the treasure.

We haven't had an issue with a lack of treasure being captured. Usually all or nearly all the treasure gets got.

If I needed to make a 5-player table that was seen to be fair, I'd make the biggest regular pentagon that could fit on the table (handy for Summoners!) and start from the corners.
« Last Edit: 28 October 2015, 12:12:07 PM by monkeylite »

Offline sniperbait

  • Assistant
  • Posts: 44
Re: Table size or set up in multiplayer battles.
« Reply #3 on: 28 October 2015, 01:42:47 PM »
I think this game really lends it's self to multiple players as it's not about killing the other warbands but getting treasure and if another warband gets in the way....
Why did only one treasure make it off the table?
Was it a turn limit, everyone trying to kill each other and ignoring the treasure?
Of course, a player can claim all the treasure on the table if he wipes out all the other adventurers. Personally, I'm not a fan of that rule and would prefer to have a turn limit or to end the session when a band had been wiped out, awarding any treasure held by the victors. It's just not safe to assume that you can go wandering about the frozen city willy nilly.

I can imagine that 5 players on a 4x4 being quite a bloodbath but I'm surprised only 1 treasure made it off.

Offline wrinklestiltskin

  • Bookworm
  • Posts: 95
  • sexy beast
Re: Table size or set up in multiplayer battles.
« Reply #4 on: 28 October 2015, 04:59:44 PM »
It was our first battle, so turn did take a bit longer with five players. Though the rules are simple enough there's still quite some things that you need to figure out. We played 6 rounds I think in total. I found that it takes a number of turns to get treasure off the board. I wouldn't have managed without leap.

With opponents to the left, right and in front of you there are quite a few distractions. Afterwards we didn't discuss strategies as much as the game itself. But as far as I could tell there was only one other player like myself that had a spell deck that was geared towards getting treasure off the board. I had leap, telekineses and wall.
You need to realise that this game is not Mordheim, but again I haven't really discussed strategies yet.

Offline Skipper

  • Bookworm
  • Posts: 80
Re: Table size or set up in multiplayer battles.
« Reply #5 on: 28 October 2015, 05:10:54 PM »
I really like round table for this type of game.  Just Equally space out the starting zones.  This way no one is stuck in the middle.

Also,  you can work in a bit for smaller (2 or 3 player games).  Basically,  start 6" or 12" for the full edge and place terrain appropriately. 

There is also no table edge to hit or catch as you work your way around the table.

I would also place specific Wandering monster markers that show potential entry points at the edges or even from underground burrows.

Some of the big box stores have folding plastic ones that are pretty easy to store and transport.

Skipper

Skipper
Skipper

"No challenge is too small.......or too large!"

Offline Darkson71

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 694
  • Rolling 1s so you don't have to since '95
    • Home of the ARBBL
Re: Table size or set up in multiplayer battles.
« Reply #6 on: 28 October 2015, 06:02:56 PM »
Perhaps have a rule (which we use for all games) that if you're holding a treasure at the end of the game but are still on the table, you gain it on a 50/50 roll.  Will at least allow for a reason to try to get to the treasure even if the player knows they won't be able to get it off the board.
Home of the ARBBL
"I survived the 525"

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3477 Views
Last post 23 January 2013, 02:25:10 PM
by Red Sveta
6 Replies
2531 Views
Last post 08 July 2015, 11:09:54 AM
by SteveBurt
38 Replies
8994 Views
Last post 29 March 2014, 04:21:04 AM
by copeab
2 Replies
1623 Views
Last post 03 May 2014, 09:26:16 AM
by Argonor
16 Replies
7933 Views
Last post 08 May 2015, 01:19:20 PM
by eilif