Guys, for those who have experienced such things, I am looking for a little advice.
I am looking to set up a multiplayer game of SBG. Thinking of a 6 player game with 3 players (commands) per side; so a central general commander and a subordinate commander on each flank, for each side.

Many players may be newbies to LOTR SBG, (but experienced gamers otherwise) .

I am trying to get a feel for
1. What would be a good overall scenario to play.
2. What would be a good number of figures per command.

Obviously looking to get set up and played to completion in an evenings play.

Any thoughts, experiences welcome.
regards
Scott

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

Maybe for an evenings game you could play 500-700pts a side, playing on say a 6'x4' board with an objective in each third. The side with the most models within 3" of the objective at the end of the game controls that objective. The side with the most objectives wins. The end of the game could be either when all a side is broken, or when a side gets to 25% numbers remaining, or a certain time limit if you definitely want to finish the game by a certain time.

I second the idea of a game based around objectives. If the other players have been gaming for a while they probably have some experience with such a scenario. The Domination scenario from Legions of Middle Earth works well. It allows for a draw, which would be much less common if there were three objectives as was previously suggested. (I don't know if you like the possibility of a draw or not.)

In terms of how many models to give them, it really depends on how quickly they pick up the game. If you think that they will rely on you for tactical suggestions, then I would not give them more than 25 models each. Otherwise, I don't think that there is any real problem to giving them lots of models. I would say that it is more important to give them few types of models so that they can remember their stats without constantly looking them up.

I would suggest that you run through a sample turn before the game just so they see shooting and combat.

Thanks for your replies and suggestions.

I was having a look through some more of the scenarios in Legions.
I was a little puzzled, by some of the victory conditions in a few of the scenarios:
Some of the scenarios say " game lasts until one side is wiped out".
Does this include models that have fled after break point has been reached. Or are models immune to break in these scenarios, and entire force fights until the last man regardless???

Regards Scott

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

Models who flee count as casualties, so it does include these models.

As you're playing 3-a-side then I would have more than one objective as it could end up in a muddle.

_________________
"War does not determine who is right, only who is left."
- Bertrand Russel

I used to play 3 aside games with my dad and little brother. It would normaly resolve around holding a position (hill, wooded bit or building).

Generaly, I used Wood Elves, my dad used Uruks (and Saruman) and my little brother used Goblins and a Castellan. It encouraged competion and teamwork, generally the two players who didn't have control of the high ground would work together to oust the player that did and would then would turn on one and other to take the objective for themselves. The games always was a good laugh and game went more quickly because their were more combats and scheming.

I started with anhillation games but they became boring because it was every-man-for-himself and any scheming or collaboration was seen as unfair. With objective controling games collaboration seemed a lot fairer and slightly more realistic ( the Uruks and Goblins working together to further their own evil aims...)

_________________
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Backlog Reduction Oath Participant - 6/53

if you're playing with begginers a good idea would be to lend them an army.
i remember the first time me and my brother used points and it was really confusing.
i'd make 3 armies of a small size and split them between people if i were you.

_________________
kill, kill

I don't have any experience of six player games or setting up multi-player generic (e.g. LoME) scenarios, but here are some thoughts on the matter anyway.

I have played some of the Fellowship in Moria scenarios with my beginner friends so that one player plays the Fellowship and three players each have a group of goblins with a captain or cave troll. That has worked pretty well, although there have been some "Oi! That's MY goblin!" moments. Then there is also the Amon Hen scenario group in which you can have Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli coming to resque of Boromir, but those scenarios work best when played in different rooms.

We have also played some Rohan vs. Isengard scenarios (e.g. Scouring of Westfold from the old Two Towers book) as multiplayer games. One player could for example play the Rohan cavalry and another infantry. I think an important thing has been that each player has a coherent group of warriors and at least one hero, and the group has some clear objective that is important to their whole side.

-- Pasi

I've played a few multi-player games, albeit with two or three players that hold equal responsibility (commanding a wing, for instance). Given the disparity of experience you might consider assigning the less experienced players as front-line generals, with lots of basic Warriors, while a more experienced player on each side acts as the overall commander with responsibility for assigning key units such as Trolls or Wizards and their attendant special rules. The newcomers can observe the more complicated rules in action and the commander can have great fun as his or her subordinates compete with wailing and threats for support!

With regards to a scenario, then I find that Domination is the best bet. Have ample objectives so that the whole battle does not hinge on one or two parts of the battlefield. In the past I've used a dozen objectives - terrain features such as a wood or open-sided sawmill, with clearly-defined edges - on an 11 foot by 6 foot table (roughly one per two feet squared). We've alternated selection and placement of these specific terrain items, with one third of them touching the centre-line, one third on each base-line and the remainder in between. There is an element of strategy in placement of these items, but a few smaller terrain pieces such as marsh sections or walled fields help break up the areas in between the objectives. We use the LoME Domination scenario to determine when the game ends - once one side is broken and a 1 or 2 is rolled - with the victor being the one in control of the most objectives. To control an objective a side must have more models completely on the terrain template than their opponents. Empty objectives are neutral and are ignored; this leads to reserves staying back to guard/claim objectives and snatch squads rushing to grab weakly-defended positions.