I would like to report what seems to be a serious flaw in the way this game can currently be played.
A player is using a strategy where they intentionally avoid playing many of their cards. They only play a few cards strategically, while keeping a very large number of playable cards in hand. In the game I just played, the player had the equivalent of more than nine “frim” cards and simply did not play them.
The problem is that this blocks the game and creates a situation where the other players eventually run out of options. The player then wins by default, not because they played better, but because they exploited a loophole in the game mechanics.
After thinking about it, I realize that part of the issue may be that there are not enough cards in the deck to prevent this kind of situation. If one player can simply keep playable cards in hand and wait until the deck runs out, then the game mechanics allow the game to be blocked in a way that feels unfair and very unpleasant.
I also mentioned this to the player during the game, saying that I found it questionable to use a strategy based on not playing in order to win. Their response was that the rules allow it. That may be true, but this is exactly the problem: if the rules allow this kind of exploit, then the rules or the BGA implementation should be reviewed.
This is extremely frustrating and, in my opinion, unfair. It feels like an exploit rather than a legitimate strategy. A player should not be able to win simply by refusing to play cards that could be played, especially when this prevents the normal flow of the game.
Giving the player a red thumb will not solve the problem. The issue is not only about one player’s behavior; it is about a loophole in the game that makes this behavior possible and rewarding.
I strongly believe this should be reviewed and fixed by BGA. There is clearly something wrong if a player can block the game this way and still win.
Thank you for looking into this.
A player is using a strategy where they intentionally avoid playing many of their cards. They only play a few cards strategically, while keeping a very large number of playable cards in hand. In the game I just played, the player had the equivalent of more than nine “frim” cards and simply did not play them.
The problem is that this blocks the game and creates a situation where the other players eventually run out of options. The player then wins by default, not because they played better, but because they exploited a loophole in the game mechanics.
After thinking about it, I realize that part of the issue may be that there are not enough cards in the deck to prevent this kind of situation. If one player can simply keep playable cards in hand and wait until the deck runs out, then the game mechanics allow the game to be blocked in a way that feels unfair and very unpleasant.
I also mentioned this to the player during the game, saying that I found it questionable to use a strategy based on not playing in order to win. Their response was that the rules allow it. That may be true, but this is exactly the problem: if the rules allow this kind of exploit, then the rules or the BGA implementation should be reviewed.
This is extremely frustrating and, in my opinion, unfair. It feels like an exploit rather than a legitimate strategy. A player should not be able to win simply by refusing to play cards that could be played, especially when this prevents the normal flow of the game.
Giving the player a red thumb will not solve the problem. The issue is not only about one player’s behavior; it is about a loophole in the game that makes this behavior possible and rewarding.
I strongly believe this should be reviewed and fixed by BGA. There is clearly something wrong if a player can block the game this way and still win.
Thank you for looking into this.
