Going second (base game)

[Pootie-noon]

Someone recently indicated that there was no disadvantage in going second when playing the base game.
If the first person gets to pick their animal card first, resources first, and has a better chance to set themselves up more than the second player (based on available animal cards plus available resources), why isn't there some compensation to the second player?

[RivaRain]

I agree that there is an advantage to going first.

If there is a good combo (tiles + creature) available in the starting layout, the first player gets it. It can be frustrating watching this happen.
Sometimes there are no obvious combos, and sometimes good ones pop up on the second turn, but more often than not the early bird gets the worm.

The only (tiny) disadvantage to going first is that, at the end of the game, you often don't know when your final turn is. The first player sometimes gets caught unawares (thinking they had another turn). If you are the last player, you always know your final turn is your final turn.

[Frogodo]

The 'tiny' disadvantage of not controlling the end game is actually quite a substantial one. I often prefer to go second because not only do you control the end game, the first player has to show their hand first and commit to something while the second player can be a bit more vague and leave multiple options open. I think the luck factor is maybe a 2, but you only lose to token droughts if you didn't plan accordingly. You just can't put all your eggs in one basket. You are right that you can only deny your opponent their needed resources so much, but they could get exactly what they need even if they didn't plan properly, hence the 2.

I won 79% of my 101 games so far, with most of my losses in the first few learning games. Even when I won the Wonderful World arena season, I only had about a 69% win rate (albeit 3 players).

[dschingis27]

I do think that this game has a mild first-player advantage, not set off by the endgame advantage of the last player.

Simple reason is that the first player gets a "fresh" batch of 5 cards and tokens at the beginning of the game. He can look for the best combos and takes the best cards and tokens away from this first deck. The second player then has to choose from a set of (1 random new card + [5 fresh cards - best card taken away]). The fact that the first player can always take the best card away given the entire starting situation biases the game slightly towards the first player. The second player doesn't have a "fresh" set of cards, but a set of cards deprived of its best starting card.

Moreover, the first player is always one move ahead which also feels somewhat like an advantage to me.

[Frogodo]

I think you're right about the mild first player advantage, although there are definitely some shenanigans you can pull off if you choose to end the game early or late going second. I think 'being ahead' is a disadvantage though, since you've shown more of your hand and are easier to counterplay against (since you'll be more restricted by virtue of having 3 more tokens on the board.

[pahakuukkeli]

At least with Spirits, I think going 2nd is actually an advantage. In addition to controlling the game's end, seeing your opponents Spirit (well, the whole round one actually) before choosing yours is equally (even more in some cases) advantageous as having the 1st pick at Animals and tiles.

I haven't played enough games without Spirits, but I'd assume the 1st player may have a tiny advantage there. That advantage is still likely smaller than going 2nd with Spirits, in my opinion.