Builder rules not correctly implemented

[fluffy-chick]

If you add to a feature on which you have previously placed the builder you get another turn. However, at the end of the game, you can lose your extra turn because your opponent already had the last tile in his hand. This is incorrect. The tile should be given to the player with the builder to place

[euklid314]

Yes, this is a well-known bug that is open since 2017. You can upvote the bug report (probably there are several others):

https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=7601

Unfortunately there seems to exist no active developer who wants to invest time into it.
To be fair, it is probably not trivial to repair the bug since at the moment a new tile is distributed as soon as you finish your move - which is nice since one can plan the next move. That is not compatible with the builder, though.

[Peltopeluri]

Why do you think it's not compatible with builders? Just like we play with the physical game, the last player gives his/her tile to the player with the builder.

[euklid314]

Why do you think it's not compatible with builders? Just like we play with the physical game, the last player gives his/her tile to the player with the builder.

Your approach is absolutely correct from a mathematical and probabilistic perspective. So you can play that way at home if everybody is fine with it. But technically speaking, you are not following the rules to 100%.

If you are playing a 4-player games and if there are still 3 tiles left when you start your move then *you* and only you can choose one of the remaining 3 tiles after making a move that triggers the builder. It is not correct that the other 3 players each choose a tile and you are "forced" to take the tile that the last player did choose (by taking the tile away from him).

Here on BGA we would have lots of complaints and bug reports saying: "I already had the winning tile in hand and then I could not play it. All of the sudden the tile was gone and the game finished without me being able to play it. This must be a bug."

Also, cheating could occur if friends are on the same table. They could privately communicate with each other and the 4th player could tell the 1st player "I have a curved road in my hand which is useless for you. If you don't play the builder I can win the game with this tile and you stay 3rd anyways."

IMHO, the best way to implement it here on BGA would be to not show the players their next tile at the very end of the game when it is still unclear (because of the builder in play) if they will recieve a tile.

Since there is nobody who will program your or my suggestion, the bug will be still here in 10 years - so our discussion is fruitless, unfortunately.

[clash]

This is an important bug that can easily change the outcome of the game if the scores are close, and it absolutely must be corrected.

Why not contact the publisher to let them know that the BGA adaptation is not correct on this specific point? That might get things moving.

Incidentally, there's also an implementation error in the river rule (with lesser consequences). See here: https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34363. And probably also with the inn rule, but I'll have to check.

[clash]

If you are playing a 4-player games and if there are still 3 tiles left when you start your move then *you* and only you can choose one of the remaining 3 tiles after making a move that triggers the builder. It is not correct that the other 3 players each choose a tile and you are "forced" to take the tile that the last player did choose (by taking the tile away from him).

In this case, the player placing a Builder could potentially have drawn one of the last three tiles allocated to the other players. He simply needs to be allocated one of the three at random (assuming we're playing without the "The Tower" extension, i.e. with several piles of tiles).

Here on BGA we would have lots of complaints and bug reports saying: "I already had the winning tile in hand and then I could not play it. All of the sudden the tile was gone and the game finished without me being able to play it. This must be a bug."

In this case, a message explaining the situation must appear, such as "According to the rule, your tile has been assigned to player X because he has activated his Builder".

Also, cheating could occur if friends are on the same table. They could privately communicate with each other and the 4th player could tell the 1st player "I have a curved road in my hand which is useless for you. If you don't play the builder I can win the game with this tile and you stay 3rd anyways. IMHO, the best way to implement it here on BGA would be to not show the players their next tile at the very end of the game when it is still unclear (because of the builder in play) if they will recieve a tile.

Fair enough, but there are plenty of games on BGA where two players who secretly communicate with each other can cheat. I don't think we need to adapt the rules for them. In my opinion, it's more useful to continue assigning tiles in advance, as BGA proposes, than to do away with it just to avoid possible cheating. But that's debatable.