Proposal: Start of game

[Lord Chanter]

Since our proposal for bidding for startposition is sadly leading nowhere, because it is not written in the OG rulebook, here is another proposal:

After shuffling a startposition, both players have to agree to play that starting position, if not it will get reshuffled.
One could have like 3-5 reshuffles, to not abuse the function - you still could have bad starting positions, but the amount would greatly decrease.

The idea came, after i played some friends over the board, and when the shuffle was terrible, one or both just agreed to not play that pattern.

[JaredLisa]

That sounds like a good idea

[Bencoudon]

I'd give a "Reshuffle token" to each player at the start of the game

Then both player has to take a decision to "Reshuffle" or not

If both wants to reshuffle, then so be it, both player loose their token.

If 1 player wants to reshuffle, the 2nd player still has it's token. Once the board is reshuffled, he may reshuffle as he wish.

If both player doesn't want to use their token, there's no effect and the game starts.

This could reduce the randomness at the beginning and preventing any abuse of the option.

And then if people wants to gamble, it's their decision

[Lord Chanter]

I'd give a "Reshuffle token" to each player at the start of the game

Then both player has to take a decision to "Reshuffle" or not

If both wants to reshuffle, then so be it, both player loose their token.

If 1 player wants to reshuffle, the 2nd player still has it's token. Once the board is reshuffled, he may reshuffle as he wish.

If both player doesn't want to use their token, there's no effect and the game starts.

This could reduce the randomness at the beginning and preventing any abuse of the option.

And then if people wants to gamble, it's their decision

I'd like that

[alejayo]

I think another option would be to identify which starting positions are clearly disadvantageous and automatically discard them.

That way, those positions would not even be offered to the players, and there would be no need for both players to agree on a reshuffle.

If it is possible to define, in a reasonably objective way, which starting positions are bad, I think this would be a cleaner solution and less open to abuse than allowing a limited number of reshuffles.