> You compare a game in which a player gets a Raven and Killdeer but doesn't have the best strategy so (s)he loses, to a game where you get a Raven and a decent strategy, and win. For real?
I don't understand what you're referring two. I gave two examples of games which I won, where I did NOT get any raven or gull/killdeer during the whole game, in either of these games. In both of those games, the other player got a raven and played it as their second bird of the game, in round one. In the first game, the other player also played a killdeer shortly after playing the raven. In neither game did I have any raven or gull/killdeer.
So yes, for real, I was giving the most recent examples I had at the time I saw this post, of games in which the player without the powerful birds beat the player with the powerful birds. I experience this fairly often, so it is not unusual that at the time I read this post, I had a couple of recent examples I could easily find.
"Doesn't have the best strategy" is of course my point: Playing better is a stronger factor in determining who wins the game, than who got more powerful birds.
There's still plenty of luck aside from those factors, of course - sometimes you have to spend several turns drawing because you keep not getting good birds or birds that work well together or fit your goals, or your starting hand of 5 is all birds that are hard to play. Other times you luck out with birds that fit your goals, or that form a good engine together, or fit the shared bonus goals, or all of the above. These luck factors happen regardless of whether any of the 4 "powerful birds" are drawn by anyone.
Dismissing it as "not the best strategy" is dismissing the whole point I'm making without even bothering to address it. My point is that there are a lot of factors, including skill & strategy, and luck in several ways, in this game, and the 4 "powerful birds" don't dominate those factors.
buuut it’s still possible to win just REALLY REALLY hard 