Multiplayer Age of Sigmar

[lolwut]

Hey Everyone,

I have a few friends who play Age of Sigmar casually. In a general sense, with these folks, we like to play beer & pretzels style, with house rules, and fun random things. For instance, if someone rolls really badly, we rewind time and roll again. Or, if a really brutal thing happens and it tilts the game dramatically, we diminish the effect in the name of fun and continuing the game. So to preface, this is not about competitive Age of Sigmar, or any variation you'd find at a sanctioned event. 

All of that said, I'm trying to come up with a good way to play this with 3+ people at the table, both rules and missions. 

I would like a ruleset that could support 5 people playing Age of Sigmar, on the same battle mat. This can be done with the current structure, but it leads to a scenario where one person may be waiting an inordinate amount of time for their turn, especially if they go first, and the order reshuffles so the person on their left goes first in round 2. In this case, in a 5 player game, player 1 will wait 8 turns before getting his second turn. In some cases, this can also lead to people being flatly eliminated without getting much in the way of interaction. We tried this with 3 people, but I would like some help refining it. 

Each phase is treated as its own turn, with players rolling off to determine who acts first, and then play proceeds clockwise. Actions that happen specifically at the start or end of a phase happen before this sequence begins, if there are multiple such events they follow the order determined by the roll off. This means that players take turns acting on one unit at a time, split by phase, applied to every phase. When it comes time for combat, following the normal roll off for sequencing, players who charged get first priority to nominate 1 unit, following normal sequencing determined by the roll off, then, combat resolves normally in a clockwise sequence after the last charger has acted. 

It is also worth pointing out, due to the nature of how this plays, the points level is fairly low per person, around 500 to 750, scaling up or down depending on the number of players. 

Anyway, would appreciate your thoughts on how to improve the rule set.

In regards to missions, we haven't really put a whole lot of thought into it. Open War doesn't work very well considering the deployment zones must be dividing the board with some level of equality. I was thinking it would be fun to have cards drawn from a deck, which have objectives like "Death to <Race>" or "Death to <Faction>" where you get a point if a unit from that faction dies, or "Control X Objective," or "Hold the Relic," to things that are a bit more zany, like "Bring Objective Y to Location X." 

Thanks for your input!

[NemoVonUtopia]

Going phase by phase sounds like a good idea to make everyone more continually involved. If you have not already, I would recommend looking and the multiplayer and triumph and treachery battleplans in the generals handbook for ideas. Usually when I play with more than 3 people we do team games so several people are moving and rolling at the same time.

[amysrevenge]

We played a 14 player game once, with two active turns simultaneously on opposite sides of the board, cycling around.  Was crazy madness but we all had a good time.

[RuneBrush]

I play multiplayer fairly frequently.  The house rules we tend to implement:

Roll off for initiative each time a players turn is over.  A player can "pass" and the next highest initiative roller can choose.  Passing doesn't mean you go last either - you'll need to roll again.

During combat you can only activate units that are in combat with units from the player who's turn it is.  This is the biggest time saver as it means that you're not doing every combat

Maximum points size ~3000.  We've found that trying to play multiplayer games with a combined total of more than 3000 is when things become really slow and players start to get bored between turns.  A good size is under this but can make things a bit more tricky on picking the army list.

I'm sure there are improvements to make and the new Generals Handbook contains rules for epic games (10k+) which I think could be modified for faster multiplayer games.

[Jamopower]

We recently played a four way game using the General's handbook triumph and treachery rules without the cards, as there were first timers included and they are bit complicated. However we used the secret objectives as they were fun and simple. The game worked very well and it was very fun. The major rules tweak that we had in the game was, that we had 500 point forces each, but had simple limitations to make the game more interesting with the small forces. We had only one hero (although the undead player had also a banshee) and had a limitation of 10 model units with cost at around 150 points and we halved the minimum size. Thus most of the units on the board were 5 modesl, with few 10 model units. Should have made ti so that the elite units would have been required to be minimum size (i.e. 5 models) as 10 executioners were quite tough unit in this system. On the other hand no one got to charge them...

 

For a scenario, I recommend to use those with have as much "mayhem" as possible. The scenarios in the current and older GHB that give out points on the number f wounds caused during the turn are great as they balance out if someone gets between forces. Add on top of that some area controlling and the secret objectives and you'll have a great time of gaming. The new GHB rule where you choose an opponent for each phase and only shoot/magic/combat with that enemy worked well. Although I don't think it is required for the magic and shooting phases. It sorts of adds a tactical level on that though.

 

For five players, it might be bit hard to get the deployment zones fair. One altenrative can be to set up anywhere on the table one unit at a time. in rounds That can lead to a very brutal game

[alasdair]

The smoothest multiplayer experience in AoS I have had has been using the Trial of Champions battleplan in Path to Glory, which works in a very similar way to you described. However I expect there will be an overhaul in the new edition with the changes to priority and the importance of endless spells etc.

[amysrevenge]

The number one issue with multiplayer is managing expectations.  No matter how you oversee it, a multiplayer game of AoS is not a neutral, fair, objective measure of skill and ability where you can just do your best to win.  It is a random, unbalanced, crazy, fun mess.  If you are expecting the former, it has the strong potential to be a disappointing experience for everyone.  If you lean into the latter, you will have a great time.

That being said, the best tool in your toolbox is consistency.  It doesn't matter how you handle turn priority, but pick a way and do it each turn.  It doesn't matter whether only the active player's combats activate or whether all combats activate, but pick a way and do it each turn.

The next thing to have is flexibility.  If a situation is about to occur where the rules framework you have constructed won't support it, stop and have a chat.  Either come up with an ad hoc way to handle it, or do some other (less optimal?) action instead that doesn't break the game.

[DrDemento]

We play multi-player almost every game in our garage group of up to six players usually.  All the points and suggestions above are great (i.e., it's more random and crazy, 500 to 750 points unless 3-player game with experienced players, play teams if have even numbers of players, minimum size units sometimes, etc).  Some big picture suggestions:

1. Use optional add-on rules that give players something to manage and plan around when they're not active, such as malign portents, secret objectives and triumph and treachery rules.  New spell lists in 2.0 will also help with this.  If you get Malign Sorcery, could give everyone access to all of the spells without paying points.  Malign Portents, again, could be great for this because many portent abilities can be used in enemy phases, just like the Triumph and Treachery abilities.

2. Use cards, if available, to help minimize decision-making burden by randomly distributing options instead of using the full lists, especially for Triumph and Treachery and Secret Objectives.  Especially useful if have less experienced players to not get overwhelmed with reviewing and choosing from the entire list of options available in the respective full rules.  The randomness also tends to balance out the experience differentials among player.   Also, do discarding of a card when used, and allow all players to discard and redraw from the communal deck.  I got the cards for Triumph and Treachery and Secret Objectives with the GHB 2017 deluxe edition, and deal them randomly to expedite setup and balance the burden of decision-making in not having to review the full list of options.  GHB 2018 deluxe set does not appear to have cards for TnT or  secret objectives though... 

3.  Triumph and Treachery (TnT)! - which also rewards people who are left out of phases (i.e., not selected as opponents for a phase) by giving them more "treachery points" to spend to power their abilities.  

4.  Mandate army lists that have something to do in every phase - i.e., everyone has a hero for command abilities, a wizard to cast or unbind (or at least an unbinding option, like Disposessed Runelords, etc.), perhaps all have shooters (more flexible on this), etc..  I also like to mandate or encourage all to have a big monster model because I like the centerpiece models and the feel of warbands centered around monsters for small games, and it builds an internal balance across lists - but I've also had to be flexible when folks really don't want to do this.  Horde units can be problematic though, so could suggest either a monster or a horde but not both, or sometimes mandate/suggest both so folks can play a very simple 3 unit list (a horde unit, a monster, and a hero).

All this said, really looking forward to 2.0 multi-player rules and the massive battle (Apoc) rules to see how they now suggest keeping people more engaged in small multi-player games, and how they streamlined rules for giant multi-player games.