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.
Lessons Learned
When we playtested the previously proposed rules for 2 vs 2, we learned some things:
Good:
- 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.
Bad:
- 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.
Revised 2 vs 2 Format
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?