dave 65tdh
United States
San Diego
California
-
Review: War of the Ring as a 3-Player Game
Introduction
This review describes how WotR plays as a 3-player game and how the 3-player game compares to the 2-player game. Many of these same principles will also apply to the 4-player game, but here I’m focusing on the 3-player game. This is not a review of the 2-player games (but both the base and expansion games are absolutely outstanding) and, furthermore, I’m assuming that the reader is already familiar with 2-player WotR, Playing with or without the expansion does not change my analysis. So after extensively playing the base and expansion as 2-player games, we finally had occasion to play a couple of 3-players games, using the expansion rules. I was completely astounded at how different the game plays as a 3-person game and thought I would share my views.
3-Player Rule Changes
There are only a few major changes from the 2-player game. In a 3-player game, the 3 sides are the Free, Sauron, and then Isengard combined with the Southrons & Easterlings (I/S&E). The victory conditions are modified in that if the SPs win, the SP who has conquered the most FP cities and strongholds, less lost cities and strongholds, is the winner. There are several changes regarding SP Event Cards. During play, each SP draws only one Event card, of their choice, per turn, and has a hand size of only 4 cards. Upon drawing their cards, if both players agree, the SPs can chose to exchange a single card. Furthermore, each SP can only play cards that relate to their units. With regards to using Action Dice, the SPs alternate taking turns during the Action Resolution phase and can only move their respective units (both sides can use the Nazguls) while the FP cannot use 2 consecutive actions on the same nation. Finally, S&E Elite units are considered Leaders just as are Isengard Elite units.
The Players and Games
Both Shadow Players (SPs) were experienced with the base and expansion games while the Free Player (FP) was relatively new to the expansion as well as playing the FP. All are gamers and this was the first time we played the 3-player version. We played back-to-back games, keeping the same sides (well, with a game of RttG and pizza thrown in between). I played Sauron both games, and the FP won Ring victories, even as the SPs had a combined 10 VPs. In both games I think I managed to get ahead of the Saruman player, but only because the game went on one more turn, which allowed the FP to destroy the ring. A unified Shadow team likely would have been able to win militarily in both games. After writing this up, I played another game as the Free against cooperating Shadow players and, after a couple of turns of FP military conquest, the Ring was destroyed.
The Approach to the Game:
Cutthroat SPs
As opposed to playing this as a two-player game with 2 people on one side, our approach was to play it as a true 3-player game, with each player trying to win for themselves and with second and third place being equal losers since it’s hard to directly compare the Free losing and being the losing Shadow player. I think this is the way the 3-player game is meant to be played since there are specific victory conditions for the SPs, there are restrictions on sharing information between the SPs, and this seems consistent with both Saruman and Sauron being power-hungry megalomaniacs. Yes, eventually Sauron would rule using the One Ring, but Saruman certainly could not be described as simply Sauron’s lackey. This requires both SPs to cooperate with the other only as far as their mutual interests align (i.e., destroying the FP militarily) and not having one player undermine their chances of winning by unilaterally helping the other SP. You could play that the being the losing SP is somehow better than having the FP win, but again, we played this as a true 3-player game.
Cooperative SPs
In contrast, I also played one 3-player game as the Free against cooperating SPs. Although this was also fun and worthwhile playing, the game played more like a 2-player game with some extra “gaminess” due to the rule forbidding consecutive actions by the same Free nation. I spent much of the end of the game trying to figure out how to manage my action dice so that I could win militarily—unfortunately I needed to either use consecutive army dice to move both Gondor and Rohan armies, or attack with a Gondor army twice in a row—both prohibited with the 3-player rules. For example if the SP has 7 action dice, the FP can only use 4 of 5 dice on Gondor by alternating moving Gondor troops and passing; whereas if the SP has only 5-6 action dice, then the FP can only use 3/5 dice on Gondor troops. Thus I was not able to send my Gondor troops from Umbar to Minas Morgul in one turn for the win while cooperating SPs were able to maximally move the Southrons as the Sauron player didn’t use any of the Army dice. Furthermore, there were endless discussions by the SPs as to how to manage their action dice. Thus I think the 3-player game is much better with non-cooperating SPs.
SP Strategies
Due to the victory conditions, each SP must put conquering FP Cities and Strongholds as their first priority. As a result, both SPs have a common goal to destroy the FP militarily, but neither wants the other SP to gain an advantage in conquest. Consequently it is in neither SP’s self-interest to spend much, if any, actions on the FSP, as every action a SP takes to hunt the FSP, is an action that SPs is not using for military conquest so this is effectively an advantage to the other SP. As a result of this intense competition between the SPs, the game is reduced to a relentless, blitzkrieg-like military conquest on all fronts of the FP by the SPs.
The SPs must conquer FP’s Cities and Strongholds as quickly and efficiently as possible. There is no time to wait to muster large forces or wait for good combat cards. The SPs must attack right from the beginning in an all out assault. The first FP targets are the 4 FP Cities, as they are all lightly defended, can be conquered with one attack, and are all within 2-4 regions from the SP’s armies. The next targets are the easier Strongholds such as Helm’s Deep, Erebor, Woodland Realm, or possibly Rivendell. Thus, any well defended Stronghold is effectively off limits for the SPs as it would require too many action dice to conquer. As you can see, this is a great way for the SPs to hone their military skills.
FP Strategies
Since the SPs are focused on a military victory, the FSP is left largely unmolested. The FP must exploit this and move the Ring forward at fast as possible. All available dice should be used for this task. If the FP starts focusing on its military, the SPs will soon overwhelm the meager defenses. This is a great way for the FP to improve their FSP game.
Reasons to Play the 3-player
(1) Perhaps the obvious reason is that you have 3 players all wanting to play the game. Thus one person doesn’t have to sit out, nor do 2 players have to "share" a side. Each player acts independently and the sides are roughly equal (although see below).
(2) The 3-player game is challenging and fun. The approach to the game and resulting strategies are somewhat different from the 2-player game, but nevertheless, the 3-player game is still a good game. I prefer a 2-player game, but the 3-player can be quite entertaining as the SPs “fight” amongst themselves.
(3) The 3 player forces the players to approach the game from a slightly different perspective. The alternative victory conditions force each player, especially the SPs but also the FP, into playing each side differently from a 2-player game. This results in alternative and innovative approaches to the game which may provide new insights into potential strategies for the 2-player game.
Possible problems
One possible problem is that it appears that the I/S&E player has a stronger position than the Sauron player. This mainly comes from the geography of the map and leadership. All 4 of the FP cities are closer to I/S&E forces than Sauron forces. Because cities are much easier to conquer, and are worth the same as conquering a FP Stronghold for Shadow victory purposes (Edit note: this has been changed in the CE rules, i.e., individual SP victory conditions are now based on VPs and not number of cities/strongholds), the I/S&E player has an advantage over the Sauron player. Furthermore, the I/S&E player only has 3 Cities and Strongholds to defend while the Sauron player has 7 to defend. In addition to these geographical advantages, the I/S&E has better leadership since I/S&E elite units are also leaders (with Saruman) and the I/S&E player starts with 4 Leaders, while the 4 Nazguls starting with the Sauron armies can be used by either player. Granted, Sauron does control the Witch-king, starts with 6 more armies (28 Regulars and 2 Elites versus 20 Regulars and 4 Elite/Leaders), and only requires one muster action rather than 3 to bring its forces to War, but on the whole, the I/S&E player has a stronger position than the Sauron player. However, even in spite of this, the game is certainly not broken as I was able to play competitive games as Sauron. The stronger/better/more aggressive of the 2 SPs should probably be the Sauron player.
Another possible problem that may come up is common to many 3-player games: Kingmaking. The FP can easily ensure that one of the SPs definitely cannot win by simply attacking and defending against a particular SP. The rule forbidding the FP from taking consecutive actions by the same FP nation somewhat prevents this, but an unscrupulous FP could easily prevent a particular SP from winning. Similarly, one SP could disregard his own victory conditions and focus solely on the FSP and/or helping the other SP. Both of these scenarios are not in the spirit of the game, but certainly could be a problem if you weren’t playing with fair, competitive players. This is of minor concern since most players wouldn’t even be playing with such a jerk of a player.
Conclusions
3-player WotR is an exciting, fast-paced game and certainly worth playing. It is not as good as the 2-player game, but is still a good game. The simple change in victory conditions results in a fresh look at the game and provides a unique platform to find innovated strategies.
-
Andrew P
Australia
Melbourne
VIC
-
In-depth and insightful analysis of not just one, but two version of an oft disregarded configuration.
It does look like a corruption strategy is off the table in the cutthroat version.
-
dave 65tdh
United States
San Diego
California
-
viol8r wrote: thank you for posting this 3 player specific review for WOTR, it was exactly what I wanted to know. Also, if anyone would like to comment, does game length differ significantly between 2 or 3 players? I would assume 3 player is a bit longer, but I really dont know.
Actually, because I think the FP really should focus on the FSP while the SPs really should focus on the military (any corruption action by one player essentially helps the other SP), the game is actually shorter (on average) as a 3-player than as a 2-player. Even the game where I was the Free and the SPs cooperated against the FSP (the drew and played every C card), the game still didn't go very long--all the games were done in 9 turns or less, say 2.5 hours-ish.
And thanks for your comment!
-
Alija Vila
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Sarajevo
-
dave65tdh wrote: All 4 of the FP cities are closer to I/S&E forces than Sauron forces. Because cities are much easier to conquer, and are worth the same as conquering a FP Stronghold for Shadow victory purposes, the I/S&E player has an advantage over the Sauron player.
I'm a bit confused about this one. How do you mean "they are worth the same"? You want to tell that having Edoras, Dale, Pelargir and Shire (4VPs) worth the same like let's say - Minas Tirith, Erebor, Woodland Realm, Lorien (8VPs)?
Rules says:
Quote: If the Shadow team wins, count the Victory Points value of Strongholds and Cities captured by the nation of each Shadow player and subtract the Victory Points of Strongholds and Cities they lost. The player with the highest total wins.
I guess that tie is possible.
-
dave 65tdh
United States
San Diego
California
-
Lord Aragorn wrote: dave65tdh wrote: All 4 of the FP cities are closer to I/S&E forces than Sauron forces. Because cities are much easier to conquer, and are worth the same as conquering a FP Stronghold for Shadow victory purposes, the I/S&E player has an advantage over the Sauron player. I'm a bit confused about this one. How do you mean "they are worth the same"? You want to tell that having Edoras, Dale, Pelargir and Shire (4VPs) worth the same like let's say - Minas Tirith, Erebor, Woodland Realm, Lorien (8VPs)? Rules says: Quote: If the Shadow team wins, count the Victory Points value of Strongholds and Cities captured by the nation of each Shadow player and subtract the Victory Points of Strongholds and Cities they lost. The player with the highest total wins. I guess that tie is possible.
My rules say:
"If the Shadow team wins, count the number of Strongholds and
Cities captured by the Nations of each Shadow player and subtract the
number of Strongholds and Cities they lost. The player with the highest
total wins."
Which doesn't say anything about counting VPs it talks about the number of C/SHs. So yes, a city counts just as much as a stronghold for victory conditions. Now since your also quoting text, I assume that this is another CE rule change. So if this is indeed the case, then yes I agree with you.
Edit: So yes the CE rules now specify VPs and I've changed the article to indicate this.
-
|
|
Posted Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:07 pm
