Suggestion of rules variant

[cigma]

I played Caboodle only once, but felt somewhat frustrated as the rules are given now. This was my game: https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=440138790

For example, on move #16 (11 tiles left in the pile), there was a big block of 15 blue cross icons (4x4 missing 1). [I'd like to attach a picture of the situation here but are unable to do it. I don't know why.] Although I had six 4-color tiles in hand, none of them was allowed to be placed and score 16 points for blue, because the two neighbouring colors didn't match! I had to draw 5 more tiles before I got one by chance able to fit there. It felt like "the game was playing me".

Since the designer of the game, mikeprior2001, asked me to describe my thoughts, I write them down here. My suggested variant allows to place tiles no matter if the colors match or not (or only partly). Where they match, the player scores, where they don't match, the player doesn't score. By this variant you never have to pass a turn (which can be frustrating on its own), but you are always challenged to find the best placement for your highest scoring. You can also plan ahead and try to prepare for a big score next turn. I think this variant would be much more fun to play, mostly based on your skill, not your luck in drawing the matching tile.

I hope I could describe my idea clear enough. If not, please feel free to ask here.

[mikeprior2001]

Thank you Cigma,

I tried your variation out on my physical prototype copy and it works really nicely. I agree with you that your version would completely do away with the need to ever pass a turn which is quite appealing!

As we discussed privately, I’m reluctant to change the rules because the game so far has generally had overwhelming positive feedback, it has been played quite a lot now, both physically and on BGA and this hasn’t come up as a ‘problem’ before. I’d be really interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this thread though.

However, I do find myself wanting to try your version more. So whilst I don’t believe there is a ‘problem’ with the current rules, I do think you present a fun opportunity. I would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on publishing the rules of your version as ‘Caboodle Adaptations’. It’s unlikely these adaptations will be on BGA. However, that’s not out of the question. But it would be fun when there is a physics version available for people to invent their own interpretations of Caboodle and share them with the community. What do people think of that as an idea?

There are numerous options which I have explored before including solo and co-op variants, and different adaptations of the official rules as you have shared above.

I think it would be fun for the community to share their versions and we could publish the rules of ‘Caboodle Adaptations’ on caboodlegame.co.uk. Is an abstract game there are probably all kinds of different directions people could take it.

Looking forward to hearing people’s views on Cigma’s suggestion and the idea of Caboodle Adaptations.

Many thanks
Mike

[underdog1890]

Thank you for sharing your ideas Cigna and than you Mike for engaging with community feedback. I enjoyed the game quite a lot and expect to play it many times. The one thing that detracted from my experience was that I couldn't rotate the cards in my hand on my opponents turn.

When I first read through the game summary, I took it to mean that you could play pieces anywhere and score only for the matching symbols. I didn't find it to be a problem that it wasn't played this way, but there were several times where I felt there was a large swath of connected pieces that had grown too large and I didn't have a piece with the symbols needed to cut it off to make sure my opponent couldn't benefit. I didn't have to pass so that doesn't factor into my experience.

With all that said, I would really to try it as a variation. Could you create a new instance of Caboodle in Alpha to try out variant rulesets?

I'm would also really try a variation where at least one symbol on your tile matches.

As a final thought, since my opponent never passed and drew a new card after every play, I don't see any way to deduce what cards where in their hand. I'm curious if you've playtested with different rules for replenishing your hand?
e.g. Each player plays all 6 cards from their hand and then draws back up to 6.

I would like to know a little more about the card distribution so I could anticipate whether or not my opponent is likely to have a card to fit into gaps on the board, particularly for the cards with 3 symbols or fewer.

Thanks for taking the time to read my jumbled thoughts. Nice work on this game and best of luck with the launch!