Three player 40K

40k is a great two-player game. But what if, as the Warzone team has found recently, you have three players all wanting a game? While three-player 40k seems like an ideal solution, there are a few pitfalls to consider...

1. Deployments are unequal
With two or four players, each deployment is equally distributed around the table. This means that no player is significantly advantaged from picking their deployment zone first. The three-player deployment is more tricky and you will find one player is disadvantaged by facing two armies. While this means a struggle in the first turn (especially with night fighting), the extra dimension of the third player will negate this disadvantage as the game continues. 

2. There are two chances to lose the initiative
The chance of one of your opponents rolling a 6 is twice as likely as a regular two-player game. This makes going first a far less attractive prospect. 

3. Going last means you face two enemy shooting phases
While the prospect of losing the initiative may entice you to go last, if you fail to seize the initiative, your army will face two shooting phases before you get the chance to fight back. You'd have to be really unlucky for this to wipe you out but it's definitely worth considering when deploying your troops. 

4. It's easy to get knifed in the back
We all have tactics that have worked really well for us in two-player games. These tactics can prove far less effective when your army is fighting on two fronts. While it can be difficult to come up with a strategy that will work against multiple enemies, it's really enjoyable to try to balance your army to the strengths and weaknesses of your two opponents. Of course failure to do so can result in some spectacular losses - my Rangers were decimated by Crazy's Dark Eldar jetbikes while the rest of my army was concentrating on the Dark Eldar and Space Marine tanks.
On the flip side, there's something sadistically satisfying about changing your tactics mid-game to take advantage of one opponent's weakness. Players who seem to be winning can find themselves outflanked and overwhelmed - Ruby found this out the hard way when his Bikers (with God on a bike) swarmed the Dark Eldar army, only to leave his Tacticals and Whirlwind exposed to my Ork Boyz and Warbikers.

5. Alliances can be formed and broken at the drop of a hat
When Ruby and I faced Crazy's Zombie list, our natural reaction was to focus the majority of our attention on the advancing undead. We hadn't planned to do that, it was just the sheer number of Crazy's models on the board. However, Ruby's Scouts taking pot-shots at my Wraithknight triggered a shooting contest that ultimately meant death for Ruby's poor Space Marines.

6. Someone always feels the victim
When the dust settles and we're sitting in pub, someone will always claim that they were fighting both opponents who had unfairly teamed-up against them. It's easy to feel this way when you're killing lots of enemy and in a single turn, you're all but wiped out. But that's the nature of the game. It could be as simple as having a strategy and changing your target at the last moment because you have spied an opportunity. Alternatively, it could be a retaliation - the three player game is a lot more political.

Conclusion
The three-player game is a completely different experience to a 'standard' two-player game but it's certainly a lot of fun. Deployment can have a massive impact on how the game plays out but ultimately it's down to who is deemed to be the biggest threat at any time - and who makes the mistake of shooting at your warlord...

As usual, we'd love to hear your experiences and advice with three-player games