Board Game Arena

RicardoRix wrote:This game plays best when you can't turn back any markers. Can that be added as an option?

when you can't turn back any markers, it becomes a pure luck game with very minor strategy. BGA would lose most of the players who are currently playing it, with little prospect of compensating gain.

senatorhung wrote:

RicardoRix wrote:This game plays best when you can't turn back any markers. Can that be added as an option?

when you can't turn back any markers, it becomes a pure luck game with very minor strategy. BGA would lose most of the players who are currently playing it, with little prospect of compensating gain.

Add as an option.

It can't be just luck, where is the dice or card draw, there isn't, it's not luck at all on a symmetrical board. It would be very similar to how LITS plays, which is a nice little quick fire strategy game.

Turning back means turning a nice little quick fire game into an outdrawn yawn fest.

RicardoRix wrote:It can't be just luck, where is the dice or card draw, there isn't, it's not luck at all on a symmetrical board. It would be very similar to how LITS plays, which is a nice little quick fire strategy game.

Turning back means turning a nice little quick fire game into an outdrawn yawn fest.

from the rules summary:
"Game Play: On each turn, the sum of the random discs indicates how many Prospecting Area Markers may be turned face up."

do you not understand that random discs = random dice = luck ?

even the random dice rolling of can't stop or yahtzee result in more gameplay strategy than straight up china gold. and being forced to play each roll means you inevitably give points away to your opponent, with no guarantee that luck will break back your way.

your 'strategy' suggestion would be like being forced to play your lowest card every round in hearts or 6 nimmt! ... not strategic at all.

senatorhung wrote:

RicardoRix wrote:It can't be just luck, where is the dice or card draw, there isn't, it's not luck at all on a symmetrical board. It would be very similar to how LITS plays, which is a nice little quick fire strategy game.

Turning back means turning a nice little quick fire game into an outdrawn yawn fest.

from the rules summary:
"Game Play: On each turn, the sum of the random discs indicates how many Prospecting Area Markers may be turned face up."

do you not understand that random discs = random dice = luck ?

even the random dice rolling of can't stop or yahtzee result in more gameplay strategy than straight up china gold. and being forced to play each roll means you inevitably give points away to your opponent, with no guarantee that luck will break back your way.

your 'strategy' suggestion would be like being forced to play your lowest card every round in hearts or 6 nimmt! ... not strategic at all.

Which is the same for both players. Over the course of a game the average of rolls should even out.
Are you not accounting for which line to choose at all?? You have a very one-sided view.

I'm am asking to add an 'option' so you can play the game either way.

well, you've only played the game 6x on BGA .. so maybe you haven't been slapped upside the head with rolling 5's 5x in a row or more, which has happened multiple times during my nearly 100 games played on this site. if it weren't for being able to turn markers over, those would have been guaranteed losses.

i have no issue with suggestions that i don't like. i do have issues with suggestions that don't recognize how a game gets broken by the suggestion. your suggestion would move china gold from a game where you have to play tactically to manage luck, to getting lucky enough to play tactically .. which are completely different game designs. if you prefer that latter style .. give Nile or Love Letter or Lost Cities a try instead.

yeah, the 6th and last game was when the opponent couldn't stop turning back markers. I don't remember that being after 5 5's being thrown.

RicardoRix wrote:yeah, the 6th and last game was when the opponent couldn't stop turning back markers. I don't remember that being after 5 5's being thrown.

That was an experience I just had as well. However, I have no interest in not allowing markers to be turned back. I've still only played 20+ games total (only some of them here), but one time out of all those is still a small percent.

I actually sit somewhere in the middle of this disagreement. I still don't know the game all that terrific myself, but I really don't see it as pure luck without turning back markers. Also, I've looked at a few games on Yucata from some folks at a higher level than me and they hardly ever turn markers back. I'm still guessing there's disagreement on this issue even among the better players.

In the end, they won't do a variant that isn't official, so unless you've found that as an official variant somewhere, it's a moot point anyway.

Absolutely right, but I thought I'd add it to the discussion because from my point of view I really liked playing the game up to the point where one of my opponent couldn't stop turning back markers and it changed the game from 'fast short and fun' to a 'long drawn out snooze fest'.

Adding it as option (you're right it will never happen anyway) would mean that BOTH games could be played an enjoyed, it would take NOTHING away from the original, although if you listen to senatorhung you'd think I was trying to chop his right arm off.

DrKarotte wrote:The actual edition of Chinagold has a rule which is not implemented in BGA and should be added, at least as separate option.
It concerns the possibility to turn one gold marker back. This can't be [d]one as often as you want anymore but only two times more than the opponent. This is realised by two gold nuggets both player[s] get at the beginning. When turning back one disc you have to give one nugget to the opponent. When no nugget is left you cannot turn back discs anymore - you have to wait until you get one back from the opponent.

Perhaps let's go back to this suggestion?

This new rule (which, by the way, comes from the game inventor himself, and this alone is a reason to respect it) does not forbid turning back markers (as some people have understood it?). It only prevents one player from doing nothing than this (unless both players decide that turning back is great and then they can do this as often as they want ). If both players turn back from time to time, most likely nothing in gameplay changes at all.

Does this rule not reflect the "middle way" and applies to the problems encountered in some matches with particular players?

DrKarotte wrote:

DrKarotte wrote:The actual edition of Chinagold has a rule which is not implemented in BGA and should be added, at least as separate option.
It concerns the possibility to turn one gold marker back. This can't be [d]one as often as you want anymore but only two times more than the opponent. This is realised by two gold nuggets both player[s] get at the beginning. When turning back one disc you have to give one nugget to the opponent. When no nugget is left you cannot turn back discs anymore - you have to wait until you get one back from the opponent.

Perhaps let's go back to this suggestion?

This new rule (which, by the way, comes from the game inventor himself, and this alone is a reason to respect it) does not forbid turning back markers (as some people have understood it?). It only prevents one player from doing nothing than this (unless both players decide that turning back is great and then they can do this as often as they want ). If both players turn back from time to time, most likely nothing in gameplay changes at all.

Does this rule not reflect the "middle way" and applies to the problems encountered in some matches with particular players?

Since this is a new rule they should be able to implement it, yes. It should also be an option. I'm not sure I like this rule, but I never had any issue with turning back markers until my most recent game when someone did it a ton. (And not very strategically cause he obviously was never thinking ahead.) I'm going to look at that as an unusual and bad game. Besides, variants in rules should always be options.

If they've seen this thread and care to do it, they'll do it. If not, they won't. But someone has to have the time to change it, which is always a consideration. It's also possible it's even more difficult and time consuming if the original developer doesn't do it.