We are four players in our group, with only two factions. And, let’s be honest, watching people play is way less fun than playing yourself. Of course, it would be preferable to have the remaining players buy their own factions, but it will take some time for me to convince them and even more time for their armies to be painted (and we play only fully painted models).
So what to do in the meantime? I was thinking about a 2 vs 2 format to keep everybody engaged. I have the following prerequisites, though:
- Together: All four players should play at the same time.
- Collaborative: Every two players should share a faction.
- Timely: The game should take (roughly) the same time as a 1 vs 1.
- Independent: Players sharing a faction should not end up discussing every single move.
- Equitable: A player should not (routinely) have to (feel forced to) step back in favor of her team member.
- Competitive: Even if they share the same faction and cannot attack each other, players should somehow compete to spice things up.
Together/Collaborative
Let’s start simple: We make two (smaller) lists per faction, each led by its own hero. Models in those lists are “friendly” to the other list.
Allies share their cypher deck (literally), ARC pool and void gates. Story-wise, they represent distinct interest groups in the same faction, that are being sent into battle by the same warcaster.
I am not sure, yet, how the Cypher deck would be built. But it would have to be built together by the allied players.
Of course, every player would decide individually, which cypher card to discard. This should not be discussed with the ally because where would be the fun in that?
Timely
Activations between factions are alternating, with the addition, that activations between allies are also alternating. As a consequence, a game should have an even number of turns per round, so that all players get the same table time. Since skirmishes have 3 turns and primary missions have 5, our reference should be mid-sized “Sortie” missions with 4 turns instead. However, in contrast to sortie missions that have 11 units per list and 2 heroes, in order to have lists of equal size, every list in 2 vs 2 should have 5 units and 1 hero, summing up to 10 units and 2 heroes per faction.
Since faction players are alternating, each player gets two turns per round. This way, the number of turns stays the same as for 1 vs 1.
Independent/Equitable/Competitive
I feel like every player needs to have her own agenda in order to be independent of their ally. This will also lead to everybody accepting, that players make their own decisions, that are not necessarily completely in line with their ally. Furthermore, this will promote competition between otherwise collaborating allies, spicing things up.
I am taking inspiration from Gloomhaven here, an otherwise collaborative game, that grants every player their own battle goal. This selfish task should not be communicated to the other players. In Gloomhaven, these goals lead to seemingly erratic behavior that routinely endangers the group as a whole. An intriguing dynamic that I would like to catch in a 2 vs 2 as well.
This idea is similar to secondary missions for Warcaster, however, agendas should be different in two ways: They should be kept secret even from allies, and they should be risky to achieve. A player only wins, if their faction wins, and if they have successfully achieved their agenda. A player loses if their faction loses or if they did not achieve their agenda.
I don’t have a fully worked-out collection of agendas, yet, but the following ideas are examples:
- Invader: Be the first ally to score an enemy’s home objective (the one granting 3 points).
- Scrapper: Be the first ally to destroy an enemy warjack.
- Reserved: Always have at least one unit in your reserves at any point during the whole game.
There should probably be at least 10–15 different agendas. Every player would draw two before the start of the first round but after deploying and choose one. Players may choose (unbeknownst to them) the same agenda as their ally! Agendas cannot be shared with anybody at any time (this would spoil the fun).
I am planning to further flesh out this sketch and try it out soonish. What do you guys think of 2 vs 2? Any (critical) feedback and ideas are welcome!
Fleshing out further
Agendas
- Invader: Be the first ally to score an enemy’s home objective (the one granting 3 points).
- Scrapper: Be the first ally to destroy an enemy warjack.
- Reserved: Always have at least one unit in your reserves at any point during the whole game.
- Gatecrasher: Destroy at least one friendly or enemy void gate every pulse round. A friendly gate must be collapsed by removing ARC from it in the ARC allocation phase, not by putting units into play.
- Glorious: Be the first ally to kill an enemy hero.
- Selfish: Never play a cypher card on an ally model. Never channel a fury through an ally model.
- ARCumulator: Use every possible opportunity (including Cypher cards) to allocate ARC to your models or void gates. Allocate to friendly models instead if all your models are full.
- Furious: Have at least one model with the ARC Relay rule in your list. Deploy a model with the ARC Relay rule whenever possible. Play a Fury Cypher at every possible opportunity.
- Coward: Deploy your hero at the beginning of the game. Your hero has to survive until the end of the game.
- Traitor: Manage to roll blast damage on friendly models at least once every pulse round. Kill at least one allied model with a blast damage roll in this game.
. I already added some new ideas to the first post. The challenge after the initial brainstorming will probably be to come up with a good comparable set of agendas that are varied and challenging enough. Picking an agenda should always be a tough decision.
.
? Would any agenda failed lead to an outcome other than victory? Would failed agendas translate to -1 on the sum of chosen agendas to increase the risk of taking too many? Because what would hinder me otherwise to just take all?