Board Game Arena

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

pault111 wrote: ↑02 January 2026, 06:58Having 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.