Board Game Arena

After many plays, I’ve noticed a potential balance issue regarding the card draw RNG. It feels quite polarizing when one player draws multiple cards with the Market Track Development icon, while another player might only see 2 of them across both rounds. This heavy reliance on luck can force players entirely out of the delivery strategy, as your crates are worth very little without those market bumps. I understand there are alternative strategies (like focusing on Assets/Agencies), but the card distribution can still feel overly punishing. Perhaps the game could benefit from a mild drafting mechanism or a way to mitigate bad card draws?

Interesting point. I’ve noticed the same variance in Market Track cards across games.

However, I’m not entirely convinced it’s a balance issue.
In my experience, the game rewards flexibility rather than commitment.
If you lock into a delivery-heavy strategy too early, low market progression can indeed feel punishing - but that might be part of the design tension.

The card distribution creates different economic climates each game.
Some sessions favor deliveries, others favor Assets or Agencies.
Adapting to that flow seems to be a core skill.

That said, a light mitigation mechanism (even something subtle) could be interesting to explore, especially for competitive environments.

B4r4k wrote: ↑23 February 2026, 13:08 Interesting point. I’ve noticed the same variance in Market Track cards across games.

However, I’m not entirely convinced it’s a balance issue.
In my experience, the game rewards flexibility rather than commitment.
If you lock into a delivery-heavy strategy too early, low market progression can indeed feel punishing - but that might be part of the design tension.

The card distribution creates different economic climates each game.
Some sessions favor deliveries, others favor Assets or Agencies.
Adapting to that flow seems to be a core skill.

That said, a light mitigation mechanism (even something subtle) could be interesting to explore, especially for competitive environments.

I did some quick math on the potential scoring, and the balance issue becomes pretty obvious.

If you try to push the Assets strategy, the absolute best case I’ve managed is maxing out 2 Assets (to the 7th multiplier). Assuming you have 4 tiles of each, that’s (4 * 7) * 2 = 56 VP. Even if we generously assume you get the other 2 Assets to the 3rd multiplier with 3 tiles each, that’s another (3 * 3) * 2 = 18 VP. Total: 74 VP. Throw in the Secret Investor and maybe 5 Investments (15 VP), and you peak at around 89 VP. And let’s be honest, this is a highly idealized scenario that rarely happens in a real game.

On the flip side, focusing on the Market track easily allows you to rack up 8-10 Deals and 8-10 Agencies, which alone can score you 80-100 VP. Moreover, pushing the Market track simultaneously advances your Benares and Calcutta tracks. This generates a massive amount of money during the Investment phase, which in turn gives you the purchasing power to easily grab even more Assets!

Just by looking at the numbers and the economic snowball effect, it’s clear that the Market track is the core engine and dominant strategy of the game. When one path has such a massive VP ceiling and economic advantage, being locked out of it just because of bad card draw RNG feels completely unbalanced