Board Game Arena

Since there is always a final turn (whether the one who triggered the end game was first player or not), the first player either gets equal turns or an extra turn. It also gives an advantage to getting the double seven +2 before the other player.

In [current year] I can't believe game design hasn't advanced enough to come up with solutions to first player advantage in any game!

pikeoff wrote: ↑23 June 2026, 16:53 Since there is always a final turn (whether the one who triggered the end game was first player or not), the first player either gets equal turns or an extra turn. It also gives an advantage to getting the double seven +2 before the other player.

In [current year] I can't believe game design hasn't advanced enough to come up with solutions to first player advantage in any game!

I brought this point up with the game's developer. He replied that I should take this up with the game’s designer or publisher instead. However, since the game has already been released in physical format, it is unlikely the rules will be changed. Alternatively, to resolve this issue, I considered a scenario where, when a player triggers the end of the game, only those who have played fewer turns than that player get to take one final full turn.
The other players those who have already played as many turns as the player who triggered the end would only be allowed to place tiles from their rack if possible, without the right to draw new ones.
I’ve lost several games precisely because I was playing second in two-player matches; in three of those instances, I tied the score but lost because the other player makes a double 7 before I did.
It’s incredibly frustrating, as my current Elo is 255, whereas it should be around 350 if the first player didn't have such an advantage.

BGA has a stubborn policy that only rule variants approved by the publisher are allowed. For example, people wanted a houserule to stop starvation strategy in Stone Age, but because the publisher didn't approve, it isn't allowed on BGA.

I agree that there is an unfair first player advantage. Each turn is worth around 2-3 points (1 card played is 1 point). If I had to fix it, I'd either have a "everyone must have equal turns" rule, or give players 2-3 +1 staring card and player 4 +2 starting cards.

Yes a more competent game design would at least make the tie breaker go to second (or last) player.

Or play n times, rotating the first player. That is what happens in Lucky Numbers, for example. But maybe it would take too long for this game.

I agree that the first player has a big advantage, though I would like to see actual data on what proportion of the times the first player wins.

I looked at my game history. I've only played 20 times, and that includes when I was new to the game, but my data doesn't support the hypothesis: in fact I've done slightly better as second player.

Of the 8 games I was first player, I have W5 L3 (62.5% wins).
Of the 12 games I was second player, I have W8 L4 (66.7% wins).

Also I was second player in 8 of my first 10 games, so I should have been worse then.

Obviously there's randomness and it's still a relatively small sample, so I'd be interested in other people's data too.

With that sample size your margin of error is over 20%. You need 100 games to achieve a 5% margin of error.

If adding some stats to the game would be helpful for you, don't hesitate to create a suggestion accordingly!

I've now played 41 games, and the stats are looking more like we expected.

Playing first (13): W8 L5
Playing second (28): W12 L16

But still a long way from statistically significant (using chi squared test).

What is statistically significant is the number of times I've played second. I've been significantly unlucky there.