I was originally proposing a 2 vs 2 format with an additional winning condition (“hidden agendas”) in a previous post:
In the meantime, we have playtested the proposed format and it became clear, that the 2 vs 2 format and the hidden agenda rules can be treated independently. So this post introduces revised rules for 2 vs 2 format while a different post revises hidden agendas.
When we playtested the previously proposed rules for 2 vs 2, we learned some things:
- It is possible and even fun to share a faction with two players. Since you are in a team, you are sharing the thrill with your ally, which makes their dice rolls exciting rather than boring.
- Hidden agendas were a great addition to the game. They effectively avoided too many discussions between allied players, since every player was, to some degree, following their own agenda.
- Playing two different allied army lists introduces unnecessary complexity.
- Playing two different allied army lists allows the other team to focus solely on one ally’s list, effectively taking her out of the game.
The lessons learned bring me to propose the following 2 vs 2 format instead:
The 2 vs 2 format plays the same as the 1 vs 1 game with the following exceptions:
- The players form teams of two who control one side together.
- Each side determines which team player goes first and which goes second, e.g. by rolling dice.
- A pulse round in this format should have an even number of turns. The first player of a team takes all odd turns, the second all even.
- Each player chooses a Hidden Agenda at the start of the game.
These simple changes to the 1 vs 1 format already made a fun game with 4.
Comments are welcome as usual.
What I would like to know: Did anybody else try out playing with more than 2 people? How did you do it?