Tiebreaker rule - for real?

[Evreka]

I don't like the tie-breaking rule either, because it is 100% luck, and depending on how the slides happen to look, more often than not very much more favourable for one of the two players. Further it ought to warn that you have just one pick, you can't remove one ingredient and then pick as usual. It would have made more sense to use any of the data obtained from the game as number of potions (brewed or used), or number of times you used help or something. But maybe that would alter people's strategies for winning? Is that why it is this random method?

Either way, it feels like a let-down after a magical gem of a game.

[Tokoloshe79]

Just adding +1 to this... it's a truly appalling tie-breaker.

Use of "-2 help" is clearly a superior method of deciding. If those are equal then just call it a tie!

[blockmonoid]

I agree with the above comments. The game itself involves some degree of luck, but a lot of skill. To have it end in a tiebreak that is purely luck, since it doesn't allow any manipulation of the board before the drop, is hugely unsatisfying. A better tiebreak, as many have suggested, is to have the winner be the person who used the professor's help the least. After all, that meant you got to the same place as your opponent, but without as much help, meaning the achievement was more your own skill at playing. That's a far more sensible tiebreaker and I would guess that, if it was ever considered by the designer, it wasn't used because it would require too much bookkeeping during a casual game. But BGA does that bookkeeping for you, so it's no issue. Speaking of? Why does BGA even keep track of the number of uses of the professor's help, if it has no bearing on the game?

[Athanagilde]

Every time there is a need for a tiebreaker, this spoil the end of the game. And I've never met someone that didn't hate it too. BGA, please bring up the option of just letting it be a tie if it's a tie

[Silene]

I think it should be "most unused potions" (because that means more potential still there). And if that's equal than let them share the win. But yeah, most likely this won't change unfortunately...

[robinzig]

However daft the tiebreaker, it indeed won't change assuming that's what's in the official rulebook - because BGA doesn't implement house rules.

I actually quite like the idea of a "sudden death" round, it's just a shame the current one is so random. If we are proposing alternatives, I'd quite like to give each tied player, I dunno, 4 or 5 "standard" potions, and see how many of them each player can complete in one turn. That would reward people for having unused potions and leftover marbles at game end.

[andwilk9176]

Re-opening this thread… the tie-breaker rule is horrendous. Can we get an option to disable this rule? I see custom options programmed for a number of other games (i.e. the exclusion of “Lords” card in Kingdom Builder).

[moonie1077]

There also appears to be an issue when using the 5th ingredient expansion; an error gets produced when attempting to break the tie with a column that has a white marble in it.

[Phung7]

agree, all suggestions done here would be lots better than the current randommess

[Bob H10]

Just wanted to add my insignificant voice to all of the above. Definitely the worst tiebreaker I've seen in any game, and much worse than leaving the result as a tie. The tiebreaker rules may as well read, "In case of a tie, the first player wins."