Bill Cirillo
Elder Member
Have there been any new, true three-player scenarios released since the two in Journal 11? J164 Aiding the Local Constabulary and J171 Whom Gods Destroy?
Thanks!
Thanks!
RPT110 "Theirs Not To Reason Why" is specifically designed to be played as 2-player or as 3-player, with VC/SSR specifically for a 3 players. Not sure it came after, but was pretty close to the J11 release.Have there been any new, true three-player scenarios released since the two in Journal 11? J164 Aiding the Local Constabulary and J171 Whom Gods Destroy?
Thanks!
Thanks for the heads up! I was not aware of this scenario!RPT110 "Theirs Not To Reason Why" is specifically designed to be played as 2-player or as 3-player, with VC/SSR specifically for a 3 players. Not sure it came after, but was pretty close to the J11 release.
-Full disclosure, I was the designer.
Ken,Planning to stab someone in the back at ASLOK Bill?? You bastard!!!!
Ken,Planning to stab someone in the back at ASLOK Bill?? You bastard!!!!
But definitely among the best.not the most honourable moment is ASL history
Bruce, I agree with your observation about the first three scenarios, enjoying each for its unique play experience.I quite like the way that three scenarios like "The Dogs of War", "At the Narrow Passage" and "Whom Gods Destroy" all offer genuine three-player interaction while all feeling completely different in the way that they play out.
"In the Mouth of Madness" is a fine scenario, but it's essentially a clone of "The Dogs of War". I'm not saying that's a bad thing ("Dogs" is, after all, just flat-out excellent), just that it didn't feel as "unique" to me as those other three.
I wonder if that's as far as "unique" three-player expressions can go, or are there still more permutations to be discovered by designers?
Something about "all's fair" comes to mind, but then again my remembrance of who offered parley seems a little different.I had the pleasure of playing Bill and John McDiarmid in "For whom Gods Destroy) as a playofff for 3rd,4th,5th at ASLOK in 2016.
Bill crushed my partisans and then offered parley to mean John finished 5th, was not the most honourable moment is ASL history, and I
did split the Cash for 4th with John.
If this is ever used in a tourney again, the winner gets their place (in this case 3rd) and the two other "losers" dice off for the remaining two places. There should be no "playing" for second. With this in place, all should be trying to win until the last DR. JMHO...I had the pleasure of playing Bill and John McDiarmid in "For whom Gods Destroy) as a playofff for 3rd,4th,5th at ASLOK in 2016.
Bill crushed my partisans and then offered parley to mean John finished 5th, was not the most honourable moment is ASL history, and I
did split the Cash for 4th with John.
I think that was the Italian approach to World War II.Next to success, nothing is sweeter than being rewarded for total failure. JR
Uh-Oh!I think that was the Italian's approach to World War II.
Not yet had the pleasure, unfortunately.I also think the same applies to J164 Aiding the Local Constabulary, as it offers a unique set of challenges for each player that feels different than any of the other three-player scenarios. The need for cooperation to secure the railway station while positioning oneself for the end-game play in the village area is well crafted.