Tie-breaker would improve game. Thoughts?

[pault111]

I just had my 2nd tie-game in a short period of time and found frustrating to have a tie after a long game. I looked at the official rules and it does say that tied players "share the win". To me that just doesn't make sense.

Here are my 3 suggestions for tie-breakers, in order of implementation.

1) Value of highest valued column
2) # of columns used
3) # of cards in the discard pile
4) share the victory (highly highly unlikely after 3 criteria above).

Give me a like if you agree and maybe we can get this implemented on the BGA adaptation.

[Strode]

I thunk this would have to come from the designer or publisher. The developer can't change rules.

Also, I personally don't mind the occasional tie. I think you had a fluke situation to have two ties in quick succession.

But if we really want them, I'm not sure about yours as they seem to pull in different directions. If there's a tiebreaker, then people should play towards it during the game.

If you want a simple tiebreaker, just say whoever has the highest card in their columns. No second tiebreaker needed.

Or, if there's concerted a first (last) player advantage, have the last (first) player win the tiebreaker.

[SRE Turner]

I could accept the value of the highest value column as a tiebreaker, but I’m not sure it’s necessary as ties are very rare in my experience.

[LukeHeinz57]

I'm just philosphically against changing the scoring from what the designers laid out. Kiesling and Kramer aren't exactly new to this game design thing! I believe if they thought there was a meaningful way to break ties they would've had a tie-breaker. But I'd love to hear their thoughts if anyone finds where they have said why they decided not to include a tie breaker.

For data's sake I've had one tie in 60 games so far.

[pault111]

I think having the highest card as the tie-breaker is a bit arbitrary, as high to low and low to high columns are just as valuable. That's why I suggested the value of the highest value column as a tie-breaker. Its a bit more meaningful I feel.

Don't really see any good reason to not have a tie-breaker. Having the value of the highest value column encourages players to build monster columns, which I feel is the point of the game.

Paul

[Strode]

Having the value of the highest value column encourages players to build monster columns, which I feel is the point of the game.

Paul

The point of the game is to score the most points. I don't think the game should necessarily favor a 'monster column' strategy over a more balanced approach. In fact, it's more interesting if the game doesn't pull you towards one strategy over another.