Board Game Arena

Just as an illustration,I started a recent turn with eight plants.So I made a greenery.Placing it gave me two more plants.I had drafted the card great convoy.So I wanted to wait until the following turn before playing it,getting four plants,plus two when I played the ocean,and making another greenery. If I don't wait,I expose all eight plants to possible destruction,before I get the chance to convert them to greenery.

This is a non-discussion.

1) As players have pointed out, there are various reasons to do one action.
2) The rules of the game permit a player to take one or two actions per turn.
3) BGA's developers are not allowed to change core rules of a game.

If anyone wants to waste time writing a suggestion in the bug/suggestion forum, feel free to do so. It will promptly be marked "rejected."

FrankJones wrote: ↑30 January 2026, 19:53 This is a non-discussion.

1) As players have pointed out, there are various reasons to do one action.
2) The rules of the game permit a player to take one or two actions per turn.
3) BGA's developers are not allowed to change core rules of a game.

If anyone wants to waste time writing a suggestion in the bug/suggestion forum, feel free to do so. It will promptly be marked "rejected."

Frank, a mod (or as close to that as we have) makes good points here. Perhaps we should have a 'sticky' or FAQ in the forums and one of the FAQ should read 'I dislike the game rules that allow one actions, can't we force players to do two actions?" and then have it link to the multipage thread here that makes all of the above clear. Thanks all!

yeh not saying it should be implemented, but gameplay would just be adjusted to forced 2 actions, I think it'd overall be a positive thing and add some extra nuance. WOuld buff certain stuff like tapping and stall actions (tardis), but overall not change that much.

Indeed, if the rules of T Mars were revised to force two actions, the game would change very much. In 2 player at least, stall actions like Tardigrades, search for life, power infra etc. would shoot up in importance. These cards (or the activated ability of search for life) are not often played in high level play, right?

It would never be implemented, sure, but it is abundantly clear that the optional 1 action design of TFM might be one of the worst "unique" design choices of all time in a serious board game. The devs are simply being stubborn.

Everyone would agree that 1 actioning the majority of the time is technically optimal. Yet nobody wants to play with 1 actioners for the entire time because it is a gross waste of time.

Passively aggressive replying 4 times to a legitimate "house rule" suggestion does not contribute to the topic whatsoever.

matthewcrumby wrote: ↑04 February 2026, 04:54 It would never be implemented, sure, but it is abundantly clear that the optional 1 action design of TFM might be one of the worst "unique" design choices of all time in a serious board game. The devs are simply being stubborn.

Everyone would agree that 1 actioning the majority of the time is technically optimal. Yet nobody wants to play with 1 actioners for the entire time because it is a gross waste of time.

Passively aggressive replying 4 times to a legitimate "house rule" suggestion does not contribute to the topic whatsoever.

It is "abundantly clear?" Really?

To whom?

I would assert that the players who think this way represent a minuscule minority.

There is nothing "passive aggressive" about my replies. I manage the bug/suggestion forum for Terraforming Mars, and in such capacity, I am stating unequivocally this will not be implemented.

I'm not sure what your definition of "passive aggressive" is, but I have been unequivocal and crystal clear, with fully-explained reasons.

Can you show me any evidence or polls on any site (such as BGG) in which any significant number of people indicated that the option to do a single action is "one of the worst design choices of all time in a serious board game"?

Thanks for the great (volunteer) work you do, Frank. @ The guy continuing to talk about one actioning - perhaps you can convince the game designers to issue some errata. They have at least informally posted about this (on boardgamegeek, for example about how they would buff UNMI / Inventrix to make them less terrible etc.).

PleaseAGB1 wrote: ↑04 February 2026, 16:19 Thanks for the great (volunteer) work you do, Frank. @ The guy continuing to talk about one actioning - perhaps you can convince the game designers to issue some errata. They have at least informally posted about this (on boardgamegeek, for example about how they would buff UNMI / Inventrix to make them less terrible etc.).

Exactly. The negative attitude toward me in this thread is akin to "shoot the messenger".

My opinion, or Victoria_La's opinion about single actions in TFM are irrelevant. If people have an issue with single actions, they need to take it up with Jacob Fryxelius. Only Jacob is allowed to change the rules. We here at BGA cannot change the rules of his game.

Those are facts. I have stated these facts clearly.

I'm baffled why one person said I was repeatedly being "passive-aggressive" when all I am doing is stating inarguable facts.

And, being that I am the person who manages the bug/suggestion forum for this specific game, that is literally my task and responsibility to do so.

Thank you for your kind words. Less than 1/10 of 1% of Terraforming Players actually thank me for all the work I do.

FrankJones wrote: ↑04 February 2026, 05:14

matthewcrumby wrote: ↑04 February 2026, 04:54 It would never be implemented, sure, but it is abundantly clear that the optional 1 action design of TFM might be one of the worst "unique" design choices of all time in a serious board game. The devs are simply being stubborn.

Everyone would agree that 1 actioning the majority of the time is technically optimal. Yet nobody wants to play with 1 actioners for the entire time because it is a gross waste of time.

Passively aggressive replying 4 times to a legitimate "house rule" suggestion does not contribute to the topic whatsoever.

It is "abundantly clear?" Really?

To whom?

...

I'm not sure what your definition of "passive aggressive" is, but I have been unequivocal and crystal clear, with fully-explained reasons.

In my experience, abundantly clear usually means to the speaker, and passive aggressive usually means that the speaker is mad at someone who didn't actually do anything wrong.

This appears be a usual case.

And besides, the worst design choice of all time is the attack effects in Ark Nova