more then two people in a match

[Hatake Kakashi]

Originally Posted by Soushouryu

I gave my idea a try, The only problem I encountered was Asuma's ability. Since there were no battle rewards he was basically a 3rd turn drop with no drawbacks. If you guys have no problem with that then go ahead and try it out. Everything else seemed to work ok.

Well, you could chang his effect to "You cannot attack a player who has more damage than you with a team this this ninja in it."

That would work fine right?

I think it's impossible to do two on two though.

The problem with having multiple opponents is you are actually altering the game rules. Know what I mean? You could always do this for fun though. And in the future, there will probably be more problems encountered. Oh and for those of you who know how the tournies are run, you kow this won't work.

[Soushouryu]

I feel I've slaughtered the game rules enough and don't want to edit any wordings on cards (since that will confuse people).

[Kirigakure no Kijin]

in Asuma's effect you can count the cards put aside by one(only one) of your opponent's and if he has more than you,then you can use Asuma's effect

[Orochimaru's son]

Originally Posted by Soushouryu

Here's how I would do it:
1.Battle Rewards are non existant. When a person is damaged they remove the amount of cards based upon damage (4 or less=1, 5 or more=2 as usual)from the top of their deck.
2.These cards won't go to the person who dealt the damage, they'll just be put aside face down.
3. Cards that normally target battle rewards will instead target these put aside cards.
4. A person that has 10 cards put aside is eliminated
5. The winner is the only person not eliminated

It's good for free for alls or teams. The first rule maintains the battle reward/removed from play feel. The second rule prevents mixing of the cards. The third rule will allow cards such as Unwanted Child or Thousand Years of Death to still be used. The fourth rule allows individual players (in either Team or Free for all) to be eliminated and gives the team a chance to still win with only 1 player (I hate being eliminated due to weak team mates). The fifth rule decides a winner.

Was that too complicated? Any Questions?

that is a good way to play like that. how long did that take to come up with

[Mable]

the first player is decided random.
play passes to the right
the first two people can't attack
The rewards are increased to 14 and you must get 7 from each other player
you may not gain more than 7 from each other player.

[Silitha]

You could easily do something to prevent people from teaming up like "Player A can only attack Player B, and Player B can only attack Player C, and C to A" basically a circle jerk lol.

[DancingDoom]

Originally Posted by Kirigakure no Kijin

in Asuma's effect you can count the cards put aside by one(only one) of your opponent's and if he has more than you,then you can use Asuma's effect

dude i seriously like this idea

[Hatake Kakashi]

Originally Posted by Kirigakure no Kijin

in Asuma's effect you can count the cards put aside by one(only one) of your opponent's and if he has more than you,then you can use Asuma's effect

I literally just said that at the top of the screen

[DancingDoom]

but he said it so much more to the point, yours was long

[Tekkarath]

Just a repost of what I said in the other Multiplayer thread essentually.

The reason having 'damage' instead of battle rewards is a bad idea is because of this:

There are plenty of others TCG/CCGs out there you can play multiplayer, and in almost all of them 'damage' in some form or another is the way to win. The problem with damage is that you can 'gang up' on one person to get them out.

I'd reccomend something a bit more outside the box, continue to use the battle rewards system (It prevents you from ganging up on one person and knocking them out.) and substitute one new rule along these lines:


______________________________________
When you would normally receive 2 battle rewards, instead you can opt to take one battle reward from the opponent.

Something like this would considerably lengthen the game, and would prevent anyone from winning too quickly. [Scenario: Three players, one of the three just can't seem to get any low cost ninjas early game, naturally the other two would attack the weak player to recieve battle rewards at first (Well people I know would.) But would then turn on each other to prevent one another from from winning too quickly. Also giving the weakened player a chance to make a comeback.]

Variations:

1) The player with the lowest number of battle rewards can not have his/hers stolen.
2) Only the player with the highest number of battle rewards can have his/hers stolen. (Or players tied for most.)

______________________________________

You see, with the battle rewards system still in place, it will continue to be a multiplayer game untill someone wins. Nothing (To me at least) is more annoying than playing a multiplayer game and then having it knocked down to a one on one almost immediately. Or being kicked out of the game quickly due to bad draws or being ganged up on. With this rule in place (Or some variation of it.) the game will ALWAYS be a multiplayer match, and there will always be a chance for a comeback.



Naturally with this variation on the rules I'd say it would be smarter to keep up with your own Battle rewards rather than having a mishmash of 2+ players cards. And when a battle reward is stolen just shuffle the stolen one back into your deck instead of discarding it.



To me, turning a match into a (person with X amount of damage is knocked out.) game completely negates the entire purpose of the way the game is played. The point is to acheive victory for your village, not to kill everyone, my alternate rules continue on that path.

But with these rules, an almost clear victory for one player could quickly turn into a 'down to the line' finish.
_________________________


Regardless, even if you don't like my alternate rule ideas, 'damage' is not the way to go. Getting kicked out of a multiplayer game completely negates the purpose of it being a multiplayer game. Not to mention the fact that you never get three people of equal skill level, who all get decent draws, and have decently balanced decks against each other. I don't care what TCG/CCG you're playing, it just doesn't happen.

At least my way everyone gets to play, everyone has a chance to win, and as long as everyone isn't 'Seesaw Battle'ing the crap out of the arena the match won't last forever.



So to recap: Damage battles = bad

Battle Rewards = good

Getting kicked out of a multiplayer game = bad

Getting crappy draws early game and not being able to do much of anything but still coming back and beating everyone = Priceless.


And if you didn't feel like reading all that then you can bite me, your loss.