Problem with New Rule Set

[jamesgore]

Parks is one of my favourite games. I was disappointed when the first version was discontinued but was happy and hopeful when a new edition was announced.

There are a couple of new things I like about the new version (like the new canteen system), but I think the new version is not as good (for example, I liked the random trail design of the first).

However, preferences aside, one thing I strongly dislike with the new version is that once there is only one player left on the trail, they must move their hikers to the trail end, even if they still have both hikers on the trail. This was not the case with the first version and it forced players to be strategic as to how they moved down the trail to not allow their opponent(s) to have too much space to slowly pick up resources and visit parks.

The big issue though is if you have a decent lead to begin the third round, you don't even need to play. In a game I was playing recently, I was up by over 10 points. All I did was move my hikers from the start to finish in two moves. My opponent didn't have a chance and the game ended with me winning handily.

For this reason, the game feels broken. I hope that the rules do eventually get revised so that it feels more fair.

[Stu_1977_SEmelb]

Yeah, that's a dreadful change. I don't think I particularly care for any of the changes, frankly, but that one in particular... yikes.

There's a fair chance, I reckon, that a change as drastic as that will end up being nerfed in a rules errata (or in the very least be offered as an official variant – I've no doubt players will house rule the heck out of that) but in any case it would be really good if the original version of the game could still be played online.

I guess I probably shouldn't hold my breath.

[Mogri]

The big issue though is if you have a decent lead to begin the third round, you don't even need to play. In a game I was playing recently, I was up by over 10 points. All I did was move my hikers from the start to finish in two moves. My opponent didn't have a chance and the game ended with me winning handily.

Shouldn't the Teddy (or 3rd-player) hikers have prevented this?

[GTSchemer]

The big issue though is if you have a decent lead to begin the third round, you don't even need to play. In a game I was playing recently, I was up by over 10 points. All I did was move my hikers from the start to finish in two moves. My opponent didn't have a chance and the game ended with me winning handily.

Shouldn't the Teddy (or 3rd-player) hikers have prevented this?

Since the player you quoted mentioned "my opponent", I assume it was only a 2-player game.

I also clicked the player's profile and noted that Ranger Teddy was disabled.


If Ranger Teddy is required in 2-player games to avoid this weird situation, I could understand that, but he seems to be optional.

[Stu_1977_SEmelb]

Oh, there's a dummy player? Well that would certainly change things... But he's optional? That's... weird.

[GTSchemer]

Oh, there's a dummy player? Well that would certainly change things... But he's optional? That's... weird.

Right, there's discussion here: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/345001 ... ayer-games

[jamesgore]

Shouldn't the Teddy (or 3rd-player) hikers have prevented this?

The original rule where the round didn't end because one player (in a two-player game) went straight to the trail's end was much better than needing to have a dummy player. It forced players to be strategic on how they moved down the trail. Previously, move too fast to collect weather but risk the other player having their pick of spots along the trail or slow play and try to block your opponent from spots they need.

Instead of a dummy player, I would just want an option to play the game with the old rule.

[Mogri]

Shouldn't the Teddy (or 3rd-player) hikers have prevented this?

The original rule where the round didn't end because one player (in a two-player game) went straight to the trail's end was much better than needing to have a dummy player. It forced players to be strategic on how they moved down the trail. Previously, move too fast to collect weather but risk the other player having their pick of spots along the trail or slow play and try to block your opponent from spots they need.

Instead of a dummy player, I would just want an option to play the game with the old rule.

You're free to house-rule it however you like with your physical copy; on BGA, we have to abide by the published rules.

[j_sweater]

I completely agree with the OP. I just played a 2 player game and my opponent would visit maybe 2 or 3 sites and then jump to the end before i could do much. By the third round, was jumping board entirely. Isn't the point of having a hiker to.. hike across the board? This version just makes it so you gain a lead season 1, and then don't let your opponent play at all. In my opinion it completely misses the goal and vision of the game.

I would like the rule back that if you have both hikers still on the trail you can keep playing. I want to actually PLAY the game. Have time to enjoy it!

[JoeJoeBinks]

I came here to gripe about this very thing.

I loved the previous edition. This new rule seems to really handicap the overall gameplay and strategy. In my case, my opponent was able to visit a park and buy a bunch of photos in the first round and then proceed to head to the trail end immediately in the second and third season. It just felt cheap.

I do like some of the changes. The artwork is pretty sweet. The fact that you can visit as many parks as you are able or want to on a turn without a special gear card helps even out some of the imbalances of the first edition.

I'm still learning my way around the strategies of this new edition so maybe there is a way to subvert this strategy but so far it seems like a cheat code.