Eliminating the "Friendly Robber" Rule

[Phosrik]

I don't mind friendly robber one way or the other. But if implemented then it should be deactivated when someone gets either their first point or two dev cards. Otherwise, someone can just stock up on cards without fear of the robber for a while.

[Katekhon]

The friendly robber variant makes the original arena game lame.
Defeats the whole purpose of even having a robber knight to help slow down a best position first drop or whatever.
There is too much advantage for a well placed opponent that has a undeveloping player on the same tile because you cant rob the better player.
Games go way too quick with usually one person dominating the game entirely and the two others seriously lagging behind.
By forcing friendly robber in arena you have eliminated a balancing mechanism.
Arena is no fun anymore, at all, with friendly robber!!

Completely agree.

Some boost themselves with development cards, maybe 4 development cards, 2 routes of 4, but no village so no public third point. Then, in a turn all changes suddenly, when is too far from the others

I don't mind friendly robber one way or the other. But if implemented then it should be deactivated when someone gets either their first point or two dev cards. Otherwise, someone can just stock up on cards without fear of the robber for a while.

Also, the idea of allowing the robber to people with an extra point card makees no sense. Because it's part of the game is not knowing what other dev cards are. Unless we make people able to put the robber to anyone if it has a dev card, no matter what it is.

[LukeDan]

I really cannot see how much of an unbalancing effect that it has in the game when it doesn't apply after a player gets three points and the game is up to ten points. I understand people getting annoyed with it but I think there are greater issues with the game than this one.

[YoYoAdrian]

Initially I was hoping for a default FR in the arena games. But what they've implemented is a joke. There is no balance anymore. Whoever gets the best grain ore and sheep spot wins the game. Period. That player gets to 6 development cards and no 3rd point and it is game over for the others. You cannot robe the better place player anymore. THis is ridicuous.

[YoYoAdrian]

Also, the idea of allowing the robber to people with an extra point card makees no sense. Because it's part of the game is not knowing what other dev cards are. Unless we make people able to put the robber to anyone if it has a dev card, no matter what it is.
[/quote]
IT should not been when the system knows you have an extra card. IT should've been implemented as played before when any player has any 2 development cards is considered as haviing reached the threashold for being robbed. And that would've been definatelly more fair.

[Katekhon]

Example of why that rule is terrible. A game from the arena, where a guy won having 7 dev cards before making his second point. It completely destroys the way that this game shoud be played, being the other two users unable to stop him with the robber:

https://boardgamearena.com/12/catan?table=579651319

This nonesense must end.

[euklid314]

Example of why that rule is terrible. A game from the arena, where a guy won having 7 dev cards before making his second point. It completely destroys the way that this game shoud be played, being the other two users unable to stop him with the robber:

https://boardgamearena.com/12/catan?table=579651319

This nonesense must end.

First of all: I do not like the Friendly Robber rule, have not played it myself and do not understand why it is so popular on BGA. But it is highly popular, that is a fact.

I just do not agree with your assessment "the way this game should be played".

Catan with Friendly Robber rule is a different game and the correct way to play it is to initially collect lots of development cards, build roads but no settlements and cities. A Friendly Robber game on high level should see all 3/4 players buy the complete(!) stack of development cards before the first settlement/city is built.

If more players would play in this way I think the lovers of Friendly Robber would not be so happy with the variant any longer.

My conclusion: Don't play Friendly Robber or if you do: play Friendly Robber the correct way, i.e., building only roads (securing settlement spots and perhaps blocking opponents, but dont take longest road) and development cards.

[euklid314]

I don't mind friendly robber one way or the other. But if implemented then it should be deactivated when someone gets either their first point or two dev cards. Otherwise, someone can just stock up on cards without fear of the robber for a while.

This would probably be a better rule but BGA does not implement house rules. The Friendly Robber as implemented at the moment is an official rule variant by Catan author Klaus Teuber. He wrote the rules exactly as they are implemented at the moment by BGA.

If you prefer the rules differently you can try to convince your playing partners before the game but do not wonder if they refuse or do not stick to the gentlemens' rules when they fall behind.

[Mathew5000]

My conclusion: Don't play Friendly Robber or if you do: play Friendly Robber the correct way, i.e., building only roads (securing settlement spots and perhaps blocking opponents, but dont take longest road) and development cards.

I've been attempting — unsuccessfully — to do this in Arena since FR was implemented there. Often an opponent will quickly build a third settlement, and then the opponent's increased resource production outweighs my advantage of being immune from the robber. Sometimes the opponent can get 7 VP by the time I get my third visible VP (with maybe 1 additional hidden VP); this headstart is usually enough for the opponent to win. I can get Largest Army with all my dev-cards, but I just don't have enough resource production to catch up before the opponent reaches 10 VP.

It's a small sample size though, and I admit that I haven't been keeping careful records tracking the performance of this strategy. Plus I'm not the greatest of players; I'm probably not executing the strategy optimally. Still, I'd tentatively conclude that this strategy for an easy win when FR is enabled, is not all it's cracked up to be; often an opponent who counters with a conventional strategy (i.e. not delaying building) is able to win.

Example of why that rule is terrible. A game from the arena, where a guy won having 7 dev cards before making his second point. It completely destroys the way that this game shoud be played, being the other two users unable to stop him with the robber:
https://boardgamearena.com/12/catan?table=579651319

I watched this game on replay from Blue's perspective; very interesting, thanks! Blue was very lucky in the initial stages of the game rolling so many 7's. Yes, the FR rule helped Blue, but even without the FR rule, Blue's production would not have been blocked very much because such a high fraction of 7's rolled (in the first half of the game) were rolled by Blue. (Blue also was lucky to get a generous number of 3's rolled in the first half of the game, providing the sheep to buy all those dev-cards.) Finally, I think I'd question White's choice of second settlement, the 9-4-2 wheat-wood-brick in the northeast. A better selection might have been the 6-5-11 brick-wood-wheat, with road pointing northwest to race Orange to the northwest-corner 9 wheat hex. This would have completely cut Blue off from brick in the endgame. But in saying that, I might well be biased by hindsight.

[euklid314]

As I said, I have never played FR myself - thus I might well have exaggerated.

But if I imagine a 3-player game where 2 players dont build a 3rd VP and one player does (playing traditionally) it is hard to imagine that this player can make much progress. 2 opponents will always block and steal him whenever they get a 7 and he has to place it on the desert or another neutral hex if he himself gets a 7. Even worse in a 4-player game with 3 players refusing to get to 3 VP...

Thus I assume the game would change drastically with FR when more players would delay 3rd VP...