Might Makes Right: 3-Way Scenario for Traitor Bash in April

We are planning our next three-player three-sided scenario in April. I am thinking about some clarifications for the rule in a three-sided game, as well as a scenario. 

Rules

Reactions:

Reactions will be tricky to balance in a three-way game. The base rule is that a player gets one per phase but with most warlord traits giving one extra in a specific phase. Each unit can only make one reaction per phase but the same unit can react in all three phases, if desired. In a three-way battle, this would result in a lot more reactions as you would be facing the potential for two reactions (one from each opponent) in each of your phases.

My initial thought is to let each player have their full reactions to each of the other two players, but that a given unit can only make one reaction per game turn, unless they have a special rule that allows more. In a relatively smaller game like we are planning (2000 points), the limitation that a unit can only make one reaction per game turn (instead of one per phase) could be a good constraint to keep reactions from dominating. 

The other option would be to keep the current rule that each unit can make one reaction per phase but limit a player's reaction allotment to one Movement phase reaction that can be used in either of the two opposing player's movement phase, but not both. (Same for Shooting and Assault reactions.)

The last option would be to have the full allotment of reactions. Reactions would play a bigger role in the game but maybe that is OK when you have to wait for two opponents to go in between each of your turns. More reactions keeps all three players more engaged all the time and gives more balance to the player that goes third. 

Fight Phase:

I think melee would only be fought during a player turn in which at least one engaged unit was controlled by the player with the current turn. So if units controlled by player A and player B are engaged, they would fight during player A's turn and again during player B's turn, but not during player C's turn. If all three players have a unit engaged in the same melee, then all units in that melee will fight during that player turn. 

Challenge:

If units from all three players are engaged in the same melee, then the player with the current turn gets the first option to issue a challenge. If both opponents have characters in the melee, he can issue the challenge to either of the opponents. Only if he does not issue a challenge, then the player whose turn is next can opt to issue a challenge to one of the other players. If he declines, then the third player can issue a challenge. It would still be only one total challenge per melee. 

What do you guys think of these?

Scenario:

We also need a good scenario that makes for a fun three-way battle where you are rewarded for diving in rather than hanging back and letting the other two players destroy each other. The one we used last time was great, because you earned points each turn for control of the central objective, meaning you had to get in there early and could not hang back until the end. This time, the battle takes place at the start of the Heresy as the Traitor legions purge their loyalist elements so we wanted to emphasize the animosity and rivalry between the leaders, and the desire to prove their dominance over each other.

Might Makes Right

"It is self-evident that the strongest should rule. The Emperor commanded mankind because he subjugated his rivals through force. When he a appointed the Warmaster to lead the Great Crusade in order to return to Terra, the Emperor abdicated his right to rule. Now Horus will prove he deserves control of the galaxy by crushing all who would oppose him."

-Praetor Ezman Vyke, XVI Legion

In the bloody chaos of the Battle of Istvaan III, as the Traitor Legions purged themselves of any elements that may have remained loyal to the Emperor, there were also old grudges to settle and a new hierarchy to be established under Horus. As they hunted and slew their enemies on the ravaged surface of Istvaan III, these three bitter rivals crossed paths. In the heat of battle, none of them were willing to give way to the other, for to do so would set the precedent of deferral and see a hated rival ascended in stature in the view of Horus. All three commanders insisted on marching their armies directly forward on their intended path and demonstrating their power and leadership. This would establish the victor at the pinnacle of the rebellion and lay claim to stand first at the side of the Warmaster.

Deployment

To determine deployment order, players roll off. The winner chooses to deploy first, second or third. The player with the second highest score then has the second choice of the two remaining deployment options.

Whoever deploys first, selects his deployment zone and deploys his army. 
Whoever deploys second, selects one of the remaining two deployment zones and deploys his army. 

The final player takes the remaining deployment zone and deploys his army. 

Turn Order

The turn order is the same as the deployment order.

The player with the second turn can attempt to Seize the Initiative from the player with the first turn.

The player with the third turn can attempt to Seize the Initiative from the player with the second turn.

(If both players roll a six, the player who originally had the first turn would end up with the third turn!)

Game Length

At the end of Turn 5, roll a die. Add 1 for each warlord that is still alive. If the result is 5+ there is a sixth and final turn. 

Primary Objectives

Slay the Warlord: 

3 VP for destroying an enemy warlord in turns 1 - 3 

2 VP for destroying an enemy warlord in turns 4 - 6

By My Own Hand:

+1 VP if your warlord destroys an enemy warlord in a challenge (stacks with Slay the Warlord; does not count if the warlord is lost to a sweeping advance or due to "spillover" wounds from outside the challenge)

Secondary Objectives

Glory Unto Me:

1 VP for each other enemy unit destroyed by your warlord or his attached unit (does not stack with Slay the Warlord)

1 VP any time an enemy unit fails a morale check caused by wounds inflicted by your warlord or his attached unit (destroying a unit with a sweeping advance counts as 1 VP, not 2 VP)

Assert My Will:

Controlling your objective at the end of the game is worth 3 VP.

If you  have two or more scoring units on your objective at the end of the game, you gain +1 VP.

Mission Special Rules

Reserves

Night Fighting

The focus of the battle is on the warlord's demonstrating their dominance over the opposing forces, justifying their claim to lead. Controlling your objective at the end represents marching your Troops along your intended path, forcing your rivals to stand aside. The emphasis is on the warlords but there is a solid benefit to bringing scoring units as well.

What do you think of the scenario? What would you change?