oh, the person your shooting at chooses the target. if both other players are with in 14cm the owner of the original target chooses. our first game i met with one opponent and we obbliberated each other and by that time the third player had to many men and we didn't have enough. we allied and then lost anyway

the second game was a lot more even i lost a lot of guys to their shooting but then i came back and placed second in capture the hill

_________________
When Isengard marches to war their is no stopping them.

me and my friends use to play like that we had 4 people we were isengard, lothlorien, harad, and gondor but it got really boring cause we played on such a small board and we didnt know about the 33% bow limit rule so everyone just had a army of archers!! but yeah.. i think if we tried it now with all the rules we now know it would be much funner to play.. and yes usally we all ganged up on the guy who was harad he started crying once, when his mumkil died...

but yeah General Elessar you should try it some time even if some times people gang up on each other its still fun.

its quite a bit different though. you have to play a lot more defensively

_________________
When Isengard marches to war their is no stopping them.

I'll give it a go.

By the way, if you're playing with three players do you need a board in the shape of a triangle?

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

I generally play most of my games with 3 people. ME, my best friend and my brother, it does sometimes end up with a bit of unfairness with people ganging up (mainly on my brother ) but generally i find it is more fun than a game with 2 people, as there are many more tactical options for you, and you have to build an army that can contend eith 2 armies rather than just 1, the game is also generally more fun, especially in special scenarios such as Take and Hold.
Also it saves time haivng to play against 1 person and then the other, although you can always do it that way if you want, and also there is the advantage of having an Independent Ajudicator (the person not involved at that point) to solve disputes overs dice rules, rules or whatever crops up, this makes the game fairer, even if it does take slighty longer.

It also feels better when you win because you have beaten 2 armies with 1 army, double your points!

_________________
Sun is by sea-men always hoped for,
when they fare away over the fishes' bath,
until the brine-stallion they bring to land.
OERP

What about this: imagine this situation:

there is a Haradrim. He is charged by a Warrior of Rohan and an Uruk hai at the same time, but those two are not in base contact. So you basically have a one guy between two guys who are also on different teams. How would that work? The Uruk and the Rohirrim would not be in combat, so would the Haradrim choose an opponent to fight? How would this work?

Like this:

_________________
http://napoleonicstrategybattlegame.yolasite.com/

Well i would work it out like its just the Uruk kai and Rohhirim vs the haradrim so just a normal 2v1 fight(count the uruk kai and the rohhirim as same team) , But each player rolls a dice. then if the haradrim wins he can choose who he wants to kill. then make it so the uruk kai and the rohhirim have to use there own fighting/strength values.

we play that everybody roles and the winner can strike any model he is in base contact with. eg. the haradrim wins he can strike at either opponent. if the uruk wins he can only strike the haradrim.

_________________
When Isengard marches to war their is no stopping them.

yeah thats basically what i ment just mine was a bit longer and all..