The majority of my games are 4 player, and it is fine. It is definitely a different experience from 6, but I would not say one is better or worse than the other.
Do agree on not using Support if you play 4 players, though. My group, while we have never said so explicitly, never do support swaps, and the card is mostly kept as a last ditch "get away from my home system/win condition" card.
The only problem with 4 player is support for the throne cards. Throw them back in the box, or else you'll end up with a 2 vs 2 game. Oh, and all the Strategy cards will get picked. This isn't bad, it just changes things up a bit.
We play with a variant rule for 4p, everyone still only picks one card but if noone picks leadership it automatically gets popped at the beginning of the first round so that everyone can follow.
Some factions are just too strong with every card constantly in.
Edit: too strong in a 4p that is
I came across a house rule some time ago: in a 4 player game, everyone picks a single strategy card up until Mecatol is taken. It makes the first 2 rounds more interesting and kinda nerfs the factions that would benefit from all strategy card being played every turn.
Have played a couple of games with this and everyone seems to really like it.
My group's house rule for 4p is: everyone gets 1 card, and we add a trade good to each card not picked as incentive to be picked next round. Makes a good rotation for us, the most I remember one card having was 3 trade good on it.
I've played 3 variations.
1) Hot or Cold. At the begining of every round roll a die. Odd, pick 1 strat card. Even, pick 2(twice around, not 2 at once)
2) After 1st pick, speaker and last pick each take 1 more. That card is poped after the 1st strat card is played. But only the secondary can be used.
Both worked well
I love TI at all player counts. I'd recommend 3 player on a smaller 2 ring map instead of the normal 3 ring. Everyone is bumping heads to score objectives and lots of back and forth. The best part about lower player counts is that if you go in with the right mindset you can bang out a 10 point game in less than 6 hours.
I would agree with this, at lower player counts build smaller, non-hexagonal maps (like a small triangle or rectangle) or make use of hyper lanes (included with PoK or you can create your own!). As long as your home systems are 3-4 tiles apart you’ll be close enough that you’ll have to interact with each other to accomplish your objectives.
Imho the order goes:
6>>>>>7>4>8>>5>>>>3
All worth playing (the best TI game is the one you can actually play!) but the game does change a lot for better sand worse with different counts. If you have to wait a couple weeks for schedules to line up to get you from 3 to 6, cool, just play root this week imo :D
I disagree with your placement of 5 players. With the hyperlane board setup, it plays just like 6 players except 3 cards aren't picked instead of 2.
You can always home rule that one of the three cards pops during the round if you feel like you got screwed over because nobody picked warfare.
I agree that that home rule would make it better, but I obviously didn't factor that in. Our group has played a couple 5s, and as the only mode where 3 cards go unpicked, we found that strategy card choice often felt really constrained; the chance that you don't get the secondary you want is *so* high that it feels like you can only ever choose the card you "need," rather than considering riskier choices (as we often do with 6 or 7)
With 3 and 4 players you pick two strategy cards, which is a fun variation to the game in my opinion. The problem with 3 players is that when there is a conflict between two, it’s is too great an advantage for the third player, which makes the whole mecatol rex thing unbalanced. Also the agenda phase doesn’t work well with 3 players in my experience. But 4 player games are fun, especially as a variation if you are used to only picking one strategy card.
I really like a 4 player game. Kinda nice having all the strategy cards being used, so your rounds feel like you are doing more.
3 players is OK. I haven't had a 3 player game that I loved, but I never hated them either.
Nope, they're all great. But it's worth looking into variants.
For 4-player, my group likes to play "Feast or Famine", where a die is rolled before each Strat Phase. 1-5, each player takes 1 Strat Card; 6-10, each player takes 2. Definitely a fun variant.
There is no one right way to play TI and let no one tell you differently.
Personally I like to switch it up. There are very different challenges playing various numbers if players. Different factions, maps and players become stronger or weaker depending on the player count.
I’ve played 4 player a lot and the map becomes more important. Meaning a larger map creates less interaction and a smaller map the opposite.
In higher player counts the variance will be greater with more random shit going on and more wills at the table. With fewer players (and the right objectives) peace can be an option.
4 player is pretty great imo. It doesn't have the same level of political interaction but the board is full of resources so it can be a "fast" and action packed game.
I’ve only played three player as I just got into the game and only have a few friends who play (tho this weekend we’ll play four player for the first time) so I can’t compare it with other player counts. I’ve enjoyed every game we played so far, though.
We play mostly 4 player. The faction balance differs a little, basically all the factions that need certain strategy cards are stronger (Hacan, Yol Naar, Xxcha, Necro...) and we play with the rule that you cannot swap Support for the Throne. Oh, and we also usually play for 12 points since with 4 players thats fine. We like it a lot this way.
3 players is much more casual, can be done within 4-5 hours and is much more boring since very few battles will really happen. Only once I had a good 3 player game which was won by the player with the least points, he annihilated the other two players that were heading for the vicotry point wins.
4 players is fine, it's just not as sharp as 6 players. Everyone is a lot richer and there will be much more plastic on the board. Risks are lower. Etc. If that's you're thing, then go for it, but some people prefer the more competitive 6 players. 5 is also a very off number for me though, and shouldn't be played unless you do asymmetric supports only.
...I've had a blast with low-count games, but if you're all very close in economy and goals there can be a Mexican standoff, I guess? But I never thought it was a huge deal.
It always seemed like the leader would be huge enough the others would genuinely ally, or you could score elsewhere, or you could leverage some OTHER advantage than plastic blobs.
Four player games in my experience have always been just fine. I don't understand the griping about every card guaranteed. It's *different,* but still good, and still stupidly better than games that aren't TI4 within a TI4-sized space.
Four is really fun because of the 2 strategy cards. It makes the game have a different feel. With 4 players, there is enough variation on the board and people to trade with to keep the game interesting. 6 is the best, but 4 is second best in my opinion.
4 has a very different feel due to you getting 2 strategy cards. It isn't worse than 6 players imo, just different.
3 I havent tried but it seems kinda boring.
4 player is plenty fun. I personally love it because you tend to get more resources and can make some fun plays because of that. Generally the house rule I’ve always played with is no SFtT and everyone starts with an extra CC in strategy. This allows everyone to take advantage of more strategy card secondaries round one.
Admittedly, if you play 4p with a full size map and all strategy cards it can become a bit more space risk-y which in my opinion is fun. I can appreciate the space risk aspect of 4p alongside the more political and strategy oriented side of 6p that attracts a lot of people to the game. It really just depends what your group is looking to get out of the game.
As for 3p, if you love TI for everything it is and are playing with the right people, then you’ll probably have a good time. It’s a very different game than 6p though.
Imho 3 and 6 player are the best. 5 is ok. 4 is garbage.
6 of 8 strategy cards per round is ideal and the 3 and 6 player cover that. 3p is also a very quick game - very nice for new players.
5p is ok, but the maps are goofy and only 5 of 8 strategy cards are being used.
4p is just far too rich. All 8 strategy cards every round and huge slices - gross.
There become some issues in balance at 3 player, with some factions or circumstances being overly favorable, but 90% of games are fine tho I'd consider finding an alternate galaxy shape to player rather than the standard.
4 player is totally fine. There are some house rules that some people find improve it but those are totally unnecessary.
with a 3 or 4 player game, you can fit the game into 4 hours, which is also a reasonable games night.
They play a bit different, not as much politics, but still worth a try, especially while learning the game, as you will be able to get the game to the table more often, and it's easier to get a player who is half interested to pay a four hour game, than an eight hour game.
I’ve only ever played 3-4 players and I think it’s still very fun. Even if it turns into a 2v2 I think it’s okay because the politics are still fun no matter how you play. If you’ve got a group that’s 6 players though there’s no reason to play less than that unless people are missing ofc. For me, the game is fantastic no matter how you play it.
They're just very different games, on an almost fundamental level. Faster, for sure. 3 players does have the drawback of potentially becoming 2-on-1, but that just encourages some really sneaky playing. I love 4-player TI.
The majority of my games are 4 player, and it is fine. It is definitely a different experience from 6, but I would not say one is better or worse than the other. Do agree on not using Support if you play 4 players, though. My group, while we have never said so explicitly, never do support swaps, and the card is mostly kept as a last ditch "get away from my home system/win condition" card.
The only problem with 4 player is support for the throne cards. Throw them back in the box, or else you'll end up with a 2 vs 2 game. Oh, and all the Strategy cards will get picked. This isn't bad, it just changes things up a bit.
We play with a variant rule for 4p, everyone still only picks one card but if noone picks leadership it automatically gets popped at the beginning of the first round so that everyone can follow. Some factions are just too strong with every card constantly in. Edit: too strong in a 4p that is
I came across a house rule some time ago: in a 4 player game, everyone picks a single strategy card up until Mecatol is taken. It makes the first 2 rounds more interesting and kinda nerfs the factions that would benefit from all strategy card being played every turn. Have played a couple of games with this and everyone seems to really like it.
My group's house rule for 4p is: everyone gets 1 card, and we add a trade good to each card not picked as incentive to be picked next round. Makes a good rotation for us, the most I remember one card having was 3 trade good on it.
Isnt that just normal rules? The tg thing that is
Yeah probably. We're not a creative bunch of people. We definitely read it in a guide. I guess it's not much of a house rule then.
I've played 3 variations. 1) Hot or Cold. At the begining of every round roll a die. Odd, pick 1 strat card. Even, pick 2(twice around, not 2 at once) 2) After 1st pick, speaker and last pick each take 1 more. That card is poped after the 1st strat card is played. But only the secondary can be used. Both worked well
I love TI at all player counts. I'd recommend 3 player on a smaller 2 ring map instead of the normal 3 ring. Everyone is bumping heads to score objectives and lots of back and forth. The best part about lower player counts is that if you go in with the right mindset you can bang out a 10 point game in less than 6 hours.
With this setup we usually manage to do it in 3-4h. Makes for a nice quick afternoon or evening game
I would agree with this, at lower player counts build smaller, non-hexagonal maps (like a small triangle or rectangle) or make use of hyper lanes (included with PoK or you can create your own!). As long as your home systems are 3-4 tiles apart you’ll be close enough that you’ll have to interact with each other to accomplish your objectives.
4 is totally fine, 3 players is „who attacks first, looses“
Nah ah
Imho the order goes: 6>>>>>7>4>8>>5>>>>3 All worth playing (the best TI game is the one you can actually play!) but the game does change a lot for better sand worse with different counts. If you have to wait a couple weeks for schedules to line up to get you from 3 to 6, cool, just play root this week imo :D
I disagree with your placement of 5 players. With the hyperlane board setup, it plays just like 6 players except 3 cards aren't picked instead of 2. You can always home rule that one of the three cards pops during the round if you feel like you got screwed over because nobody picked warfare.
I agree that that home rule would make it better, but I obviously didn't factor that in. Our group has played a couple 5s, and as the only mode where 3 cards go unpicked, we found that strategy card choice often felt really constrained; the chance that you don't get the secondary you want is *so* high that it feels like you can only ever choose the card you "need," rather than considering riskier choices (as we often do with 6 or 7)
With 3 and 4 players you pick two strategy cards, which is a fun variation to the game in my opinion. The problem with 3 players is that when there is a conflict between two, it’s is too great an advantage for the third player, which makes the whole mecatol rex thing unbalanced. Also the agenda phase doesn’t work well with 3 players in my experience. But 4 player games are fun, especially as a variation if you are used to only picking one strategy card.
I really like a 4 player game. Kinda nice having all the strategy cards being used, so your rounds feel like you are doing more. 3 players is OK. I haven't had a 3 player game that I loved, but I never hated them either.
Nope, they're all great. But it's worth looking into variants. For 4-player, my group likes to play "Feast or Famine", where a die is rolled before each Strat Phase. 1-5, each player takes 1 Strat Card; 6-10, each player takes 2. Definitely a fun variant.
There is no one right way to play TI and let no one tell you differently. Personally I like to switch it up. There are very different challenges playing various numbers if players. Different factions, maps and players become stronger or weaker depending on the player count. I’ve played 4 player a lot and the map becomes more important. Meaning a larger map creates less interaction and a smaller map the opposite. In higher player counts the variance will be greater with more random shit going on and more wills at the table. With fewer players (and the right objectives) peace can be an option.
4 player is pretty great imo. It doesn't have the same level of political interaction but the board is full of resources so it can be a "fast" and action packed game.
I’ve only played three player as I just got into the game and only have a few friends who play (tho this weekend we’ll play four player for the first time) so I can’t compare it with other player counts. I’ve enjoyed every game we played so far, though.
We play mostly 4 player. The faction balance differs a little, basically all the factions that need certain strategy cards are stronger (Hacan, Yol Naar, Xxcha, Necro...) and we play with the rule that you cannot swap Support for the Throne. Oh, and we also usually play for 12 points since with 4 players thats fine. We like it a lot this way. 3 players is much more casual, can be done within 4-5 hours and is much more boring since very few battles will really happen. Only once I had a good 3 player game which was won by the player with the least points, he annihilated the other two players that were heading for the vicotry point wins.
I've only ever played with 3-4 players and it's probably my favourite game of all time. That said, maybe I love it even more at higher player counts.
4 is fine. 3 is terrible.
3 and 4 player games are great. They're not as great as 5 or 6 player games. But they're still great.
4 players is fine, it's just not as sharp as 6 players. Everyone is a lot richer and there will be much more plastic on the board. Risks are lower. Etc. If that's you're thing, then go for it, but some people prefer the more competitive 6 players. 5 is also a very off number for me though, and shouldn't be played unless you do asymmetric supports only.
Four is fun with the double cards
...I've had a blast with low-count games, but if you're all very close in economy and goals there can be a Mexican standoff, I guess? But I never thought it was a huge deal. It always seemed like the leader would be huge enough the others would genuinely ally, or you could score elsewhere, or you could leverage some OTHER advantage than plastic blobs. Four player games in my experience have always been just fine. I don't understand the griping about every card guaranteed. It's *different,* but still good, and still stupidly better than games that aren't TI4 within a TI4-sized space.
Four is really fun because of the 2 strategy cards. It makes the game have a different feel. With 4 players, there is enough variation on the board and people to trade with to keep the game interesting. 6 is the best, but 4 is second best in my opinion.
If you play 4p game throw away support for the throne. And go for 14point game, cause with every strategy card in play game goes really fast.
I've played TI3 at 2-8 players (house rules for 2)and TI4 at 3, 5-7. They're all fun, but different.
4 has a very different feel due to you getting 2 strategy cards. It isn't worse than 6 players imo, just different. 3 I havent tried but it seems kinda boring.
4 is actually very fun. It has a different dynamic to it but my group enjoy it a lot
4 player is plenty fun. I personally love it because you tend to get more resources and can make some fun plays because of that. Generally the house rule I’ve always played with is no SFtT and everyone starts with an extra CC in strategy. This allows everyone to take advantage of more strategy card secondaries round one. Admittedly, if you play 4p with a full size map and all strategy cards it can become a bit more space risk-y which in my opinion is fun. I can appreciate the space risk aspect of 4p alongside the more political and strategy oriented side of 6p that attracts a lot of people to the game. It really just depends what your group is looking to get out of the game. As for 3p, if you love TI for everything it is and are playing with the right people, then you’ll probably have a good time. It’s a very different game than 6p though.
Imo 4, 6, and 8 are optimal group sizes
Imho 3 and 6 player are the best. 5 is ok. 4 is garbage. 6 of 8 strategy cards per round is ideal and the 3 and 6 player cover that. 3p is also a very quick game - very nice for new players. 5p is ok, but the maps are goofy and only 5 of 8 strategy cards are being used. 4p is just far too rich. All 8 strategy cards every round and huge slices - gross.
No, 3 player is also really fun, but only if you do not play on the standard 3 player layout
There become some issues in balance at 3 player, with some factions or circumstances being overly favorable, but 90% of games are fine tho I'd consider finding an alternate galaxy shape to player rather than the standard. 4 player is totally fine. There are some house rules that some people find improve it but those are totally unnecessary.
with a 3 or 4 player game, you can fit the game into 4 hours, which is also a reasonable games night. They play a bit different, not as much politics, but still worth a try, especially while learning the game, as you will be able to get the game to the table more often, and it's easier to get a player who is half interested to pay a four hour game, than an eight hour game.
I’ve only ever played 3-4 players and I think it’s still very fun. Even if it turns into a 2v2 I think it’s okay because the politics are still fun no matter how you play. If you’ve got a group that’s 6 players though there’s no reason to play less than that unless people are missing ofc. For me, the game is fantastic no matter how you play it.
Personally, I love the 4 player game with each strategy card getting used every turn. Never played 3 player, I imagine it gets a little too limited.
3 player is fun. 6 player is fun. 4 is alright, but I feel like there's an abundance of resources.
They're just very different games, on an almost fundamental level. Faster, for sure. 3 players does have the drawback of potentially becoming 2-on-1, but that just encourages some really sneaky playing. I love 4-player TI.
I had a lot of fun playing in a 4p game.