Rascal scoring needed

[Mazedriver]

The Rascal’s scoring (from original rulebook) makes far more sense than the original, since players are not punished for being dealt poor cards, making the game far more strategic.

I respect that many want to play with the classic scoring, but not having the Rascal’s scoring at least as an option for those who want it is a travesty. Even the creator of the rulebook himself has said that this scoring system is superior…

As a Top-10 leaderboard player (check my profile for achievements / trophies if you wish to verify) trust me that games with regular scoring are far too often won by the player that got lucky, not the one that bid more sensibly.

Rascal’s scoring is an elementary fix to this and can of course be optional.

[tchobello]

I don't see the point in this new thread as the same has already been opened recently.

The devs have already answered it won't be implemented.

[Mazedriver]

Couldn’t they at least provide a brief reason? Obviously understandable if it’s hard to implement, but lazy four-word answers of “it won’t be implemented” don’t help at all.

I’m guessing the scoring system is somehow challenging to add, but people are likely to keep asking about this if no reason is communicated.

[Le007n]

The scoring system is nothing revolutionary so it is obviously a publishing reason. It's a shame but they probably want you to get a dose of the game then go buy a copy to play this variant!

[MathCT]

We remind you that the implementation choices are defined by the editor and not by BGA or the devs