Quantcast
Channel: The Castles of Burgundy | BoardGameGeek
Viewing all 11902 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: Rules:: Re: Tiebreaker in different language rules

December 3, 2012, 8:12 pm
$
0
0

by freddieyu

Einsiedler wrote:

EyeInSky wrote:

Hello Michael...

We just played our first game last night, and I have two questions:

1) Regarding the initiative track: When multiple players reach the final spot, do they stack ON TOP of the player that reached the spot first? Or do they stack BELOW the player that reached the spot first? Macao (and possibly Luna & Trajan I believe) have a specification in the rules that say the discs go BELOW the player that reached the final spot first. Is Castles different (pieces go on top)?

2) What is the consensus of the real tie breaker? Is it LEAST vacant spaces or MOST vacant spaces?

Many thanks!


1. Come as second - jump on top - be first in next round

2. Less tiles on board wins.

Der Einsiedler


On the tiebreaker, I copied this straight from the PDF of the english rules:

"The player who is the farthest along on the victory point track is the winner. In the case of a tie, the winning player is the tied player with the fewest empty estate spaces. Should there still be a tie, then the winning player is the tied player who went later in turn order."

So it's the one with less empty spaces actually who wins.
↧
Search

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: Rules:: Re: Tiebreaker in different language rules

December 3, 2012, 8:43 pm
$
0
0

by EyeInSky

Can someone please verify the correct rules for tie-break?

The top of this thread points out the German text states the player with the MOST spaces wins the tie breaker. The English rules states the player with the LEAST spaces wins.

Many were speculating the German rules are the more correct way of playing, and the English rules may have been a bad translation - which isn't uncommon in this hobby.

I can imagine it possible the rule rewards the player with more vacancy because he was able to pull off the same score by bringing less tiles into his estate (perhaps a more challenging effort).
↧
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: Rules:: Re: Tiebreaker in different language rules

December 3, 2012, 8:49 pm
$
0
0

by EyeInSky

p.s.

In similar fashion, the player who did not advance as high in initiative is rewarded the tie break because he was able to pull off the win at a disadvantage (a greater challenge).

Personally, I prefer the more elegant Macao / YoTD style mode of play where the player highest on initiative wins. For Castles of Burgundy, it seems highly unlikely 2 players will tie in such a high scoring game anyway (200-300 points). But if Feld had the rules favor the player behind on initiative, it may have been for balance purposes.

Like Michael said, it does feel "counter intuitive" but the logic of rewarding the player who had a tougher score (to tie) versus the player who had an easier road to tie makes perfect sense.
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: Rules:: Re: Turn Order and Boats

December 3, 2012, 8:51 pm
$
0
0

by EyeInSky

Hello Thom,

We played that the white dice immediately moved to the player with highest initiative. Obviously, the white die makes little difference to who rolls it (it's all random). Having such a rule like this may just offer the start player with the added "fun" of rolling the white die (just like the start player in Macao gets to roll the 6 colored dice).
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: Rules:: Re: Tiebreaker in different language rules

December 3, 2012, 8:58 pm
$
0
0

by freddieyu

EyeInSky wrote:

Can someone please verify the correct rules for tie-break?

The top of this thread points out the German text states the player with the MOST spaces wins the tie breaker. The English rules states the player with the LEAST spaces wins.

Many were speculating the German rules are the more correct way of playing, and the English rules may have been a bad translation - which isn't uncommon in this hobby.

I can imagine it possible the rule rewards the player with more vacancy because he was able to pull off the same score by bringing less tiles into his estate (perhaps a more challenging effort).


Something got lost in translation methinks!
↧
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: Rules:: Re: Tiebreaker in different language rules

December 3, 2012, 11:56 pm
$
0
0

by Einsiedler

freddieyu wrote:

Einsiedler wrote:

EyeInSky wrote:

On the tiebreaker, I copied this straight from the PDF of the english rules:

"The player who is the farthest along on the victory point track is the winner. In the case of a tie, the winning player is the tied player with the fewest empty estate spaces. Should there still be a tie, then the winning player is the tied player who went later in turn order."

So it's the one with less empty spaces actually who wins.


Here you are.

You have a different version of the game. The English version.
The English version has a different tie-breaker rule.

The original German version works different.

I assume the author intended to have the German Rule as he is from Germany.

And why are your rules different?
I don't know! May be a translation error, may be an adaptation to the English market from the publisher...

Der Einsiedler
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: Rules:: Re: Tiebreaker in different language rules

December 4, 2012, 12:04 am
$
0
0

by liken@xtra.co.nz

If you read the entire thread, it doesn't leave any room for doubt. The english translator freely admits that he got it wrong.
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: Rules:: Re: Turn Order and Boats

December 4, 2012, 2:56 am
$
0
0

by Great Dane

EyeInSky wrote:

If multiple players reach the final space, do the players place their disc(s) BELOW the top player?

I believe this rules specification is present in both Macao and Luna on their respective "initiative" tracks (and perhaps even Trajan too).

Sheldon. No need to use rules from other games, even with the same designer.

In CoB a player always move his token 1 space forward and on top of everybody else in that space. This penalises a player for finishing his ships too soon.
↧
Search

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: Rules:: Re: Turn Order and Boats

December 4, 2012, 3:00 am
$
0
0

by Great Dane

ParkinT wrote:

When that player moves up - and becomes "start player", is the White Die passed immediately? Does that player/b] begin the very next round in that phase?

The rules tells you to give the white die to the new start-player, but they don't tell you break up the game and change anything else. Just give the die to the players as they build ships, and then the correct player will have the die in his box ready to roll at the beginning of the next round.
↧
↧

Thread: The Castles of Burgundy:: General:: A great game spoiled by dice rolling?

December 4, 2012, 6:57 am
$
0
0

by llopis

I love dice. I really do, but I guess they have to be in the right game. I love them in many different games, from King of Tokyo, to Arkham Horror, and even for Escape: The Curse of the Temple.

However, after (only) two plays of Castles of Burgundy, I was left hating the dice. I've seen the almost universal praise that Castles has gotten, so it makes me feel that maybe I'm missing something and I wanted to bring it up for discussion.

My main objection is that dice in this game always feel very negative. They're not a randomizer to see how far I move, or to see if I get a bonus for something, they're just going do deny specific strategies I want. So at best, they have no influence, at worst, they deny what I want to do (or maybe the only thing I can do).

Both my games have been with 2 players. I don't know if that makes a difference, but it made it that certain resources (like mines) were extremely limited and sought-after. I can plan ahead to be the starting player when the new phase starts, just to be screwed with a dice roll that doesn't let me get the resource I wanted or even place any of the resources I had waiting in my board (even spending some workers).

This was less noticeable in the first game because I managed to build several knowledge tiles that let me change dice. But in the second game I didn't have anything like that and I felt crippled all game long.

I know I can get workers any time, but that's spending 1 action of the 2 I have per turn, which seems like a huge opportunity cost. I'm almost tempted to play with a house rule that either lets you modify a die once per turn, or gives you one more worker whenever you get workers, or something like that.

So what do you think? Do you feel that way? Is there a strategy you follow to make dice rolling less aggravating? Any good house rules?


↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: General:: Re: A great game spoiled by dice rolling?

December 4, 2012, 7:07 am
$
0
0

by Thunkd

The dice are a constraint on what you can do. You're forced to make the best possible choice with what is available. That's the game.
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: General:: Re: A great game spoiled by dice rolling?

December 4, 2012, 7:07 am
$
0
0

by whattheproblemis

I treat the game as if the object of the game is to mitigate dice rolling.

Let me explain:

If you want to place tiles on your player board, you're going to need to roll each of the six numbers roughly the same number of times. Furthermore, if you hope to get good tiles from the depots, you'll need to roll each of the six numbers roughly the same number of times (due to the random distribution, although castles, mines, and boats always go on certain depots, so perhaps certain numbers are more favorable, but over the course of the game, you'll just as likely [again, roughly], want as many tiles from depot 2 as you do from depot 5).

Goods tiles? Same thing. They are randomly distributed, so over the course of a game (or many games), you'll want to roll each of the six numbers for the goods action roughly the same number of times.

So in essence this game is about rolling each of the six numbers, roughly the same number of times, each game. The animals, the building bonuses, etc., is all window dressing (and good window dressing at that!), for what is essentially a dice rolling game.

If you think about it that way it does two things:

1. You won't want to house-rule anything, because that will break the spirit and/or the balance of the game

2. You will play differently.

Let me explain 2. If you go into the game thinking you have to mitigate the rolls of dice, you will make different choices about where to place a building (for example). You may want to place it in a nice juicy spot to complete a region, but if that spot is adjacent to only 1s and 2s, and most of the other open spots on your board that provide legal placement of new tiles are also 1s and 2s, it might be better to place that building somewhere else that opens up new placement spots that are NOT 1s and 2s. A place that provides legal placement for new tiles with a dice roll of 4 and/or 5 might be far better since it gives you more options with future dice rolls.

There's more I could say, but I think this is enough food for thought.

Cheers!
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: General:: Re: A great game spoiled by dice rolling?

December 4, 2012, 7:09 am
↧
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: General:: Re: A great game spoiled by dice rolling?

December 4, 2012, 7:11 am
$
0
0

by JeffyJeff

llopis wrote:

So what do you think? Do you feel that way? Is there a strategy you follow to make dice rolling less aggravating? Any good house rules?

I was going to point you to another thread I thought existed where someone felt that rolling doubles in this game was a bad thing and they proposed a house rule, but I can't for the life of me find it :(

Even though I can't find my (and others) comments on this subject, bottom line imho is this is a game not about long term strategy, but about getting the most with the numbers you roll.

Do note that I've never played 2-player so ymmv
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: General:: Re: A great game spoiled by dice rolling?

December 4, 2012, 7:12 am
$
0
0

by sfox

senorcoo wrote:

It's Feld. There will be dice.


Trajan, Notre Dame, and In the Year of the Dragon don't have dice.
↧
Search

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: General:: Re: A great game spoiled by dice rolling?

December 4, 2012, 7:20 am
$
0
0

by Thunkd

sfox wrote:

Trajan, Notre Dame, and In the Year of the Dragon don't have dice.

Nor Luna, In the Name of the Rose, Speicherstadt, or Strausbourg.

senorcoo wrote:

It's Feld. There will be dice.

It's Feld. There will be an innovative mechanic.
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: General:: Re: A great game spoiled by dice rolling?

December 4, 2012, 7:20 am
$
0
0

by arkayn

sfox wrote:

senorcoo wrote:

It's Feld. There will be dice.


Trajan, Notre Dame, and In the Year of the Dragon don't have dice.


And Luna and Die Speicherstadt. Possibly some of his other games, but those, Castles, and the ones you mention are the only ones I've played. I think this is the only Feld game I know that has dice in it (I think Macao does, also?).
↧
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: General:: Re: A great game spoiled by dice rolling?

December 4, 2012, 7:21 am
$
0
0

by senorcoo

Sorry, was typing on my phone and was distracted. Totally not thinking.
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: General:: Re: A great game spoiled by dice rolling?

December 4, 2012, 7:23 am
$
0
0

by macleodsr

This is a euro with dice. The randomness is introduced in the beginning of your turn, and then you plan your play. In my opinion this game relies less on the luck/randomness of dice rolling and more on the tactical decisions you make.

Therefore, I think the game plays just fine as is. But, I also believe that you have to invest some turns into obtaining workers. As you know, you can also build some tiles that enhance your action to obtain/use workers.

Personally, I try to stay ahead in the turn order so that I am not as dependent on workers. I also try to pay attention to what others are building and what they have rolled so that I can anticipate and stymie their play. I also try to maximize my turn. This is best accomplished by having some income (to purchase a tile), and placing tiles that trigger a benefit that allows me to continue making progress on that turn.

All that said, I will not take a tile just to take a tile. If my dice rolls aren't leaving me with good options, I invest that turn into workers and try to make a play next turn that maximizes my play while slowing down an opponent.

Having a handful of workers will keep your opponents on their toes. They will have a tough time anticipating and stymieing your moves because your workers allow you to cover much more of the board. And, they may not be able to count on a certain tile being around next turn.

One last thing...I'm not sure what player board side you used, but I feel the "basic/beginner" boards can result in some stale play towards the end of a two player game. BTW, I do feel this is an excellent 2 player game but, I do prefer it as a 4.
↧

Reply: The Castles of Burgundy:: General:: Re: A great game spoiled by dice rolling?

December 4, 2012, 7:25 am
$
0
0

by roberious

One of the best mechanics in this game is the workers and they help to balance the luck factor of the dice rolling.
↧
Viewing all 11902 articles
Browse latest View live
Search