We play with the variant setup in the published rules. The first round governor gets 5 cards, the next players 6, 7, and 8. What is the intention of this mini-variant with one less card to chose from?

Unless I'm teaching new people to play, we always use the 5,6,7,8 cards variant.

We always use the variant.

Always. The game is much better with the variant.

We always use this variant.

Vote

I had never even known that! Fixed.

Its in the published rules as a variant.

Only have the original and, frankly, was not impressed by the deluxe edition's new characters.

Nothing against the deluxe edition....I just felt like the original characters were so thematic and interestingly balanced, that I can't get too excited about the new guys.

We use a mixture.

This is my favorite. A draft of both characters for a different mix each time.

I don't really fit any of these, sometimes i play all variant and sometimes all original, but I hate the draft games (I might like them if you had to write down who you picked and give the list to the other player for reference). It's not a very fun game when you have no idea what your facing...

er... the standard rules for the draft game involve you putting out the cardboard tokens for the pieces you have chosen specifically to show your opponent who you are using.

Playing blind is the 4th variant.

mixture, without letting your opponent know what you chose.

Vote

Actually, I remembered some of the other issues like how farmer scoring works, but I decided to leave that open for someone else add to the geeklist themselves!

90% of the time we play by the book. No extra tile variants.

by the book.

By the book, basically. My 6.75 year old is too young for the farmer rules just yet, but the rest is strictly by the book.

And take away the player interactivity of everyone trying to see all the places it would work well?!? I don't think so. I like discussion and chat at my table

Starting hand of 2-3 and you draw immediately after your turn - much better strategically methinks.

Not all of the variants take that aspect away. For example, one I played recently is that a starting player turns up N tiles, then the players each choose and place one in turn, then the starting player honors go to the next person to the left, etc.

BUT, it is very clear that most people feel this game doesn't need to be fixed!

I normally play by the book because I play this game with non-gamers (my girlfriend and sometimes my parents). But my favorite variant is to play with a hand of tiles that is equal to the number of your meeples that are not in play.

If you place a meeple, you do not draw a tile at the end of your turn. As soon as one of your meeples comes off the board, you draw another tile. This means you start off with a hand full of tiles, but your hand gets progressively smaller as you place your meeples. This variant creates an interesting tension between placing meeples for points, and holding them back for more strategic control.

it also means the more meeples you play, the harder it will be to get them back, effectively punishing you for taking risks.

Also, when you have all your meeples deployed, do you cease taking turns?

Well, I play with them, but they are almost never used. (Basically, when someone is getting desperate, they go fishing in the tactics deck.)

"This question applies to either Battle Line or Schotten Totten!"

When playing Schotten Totten I don't use Tactics cards because (unlike Battle Line) Schotten Totten doesn't have Tactics cards...

Russ, you just have an older edition of Schotten Totten. The ones for sale nowadays, and when I got mine, do have them.

Mainly because we have Schotten Totten and Melissa has not bothered to translate the rules

Giving an opponent a rare chance to ditch a useless card is an important tradeoff for when the other player is able to quickly lay down an unbeatable combo. It is often better to just work on what you can, but having the option helps to mitigate the effects of a bad draw.

I've played a load of the computer game and in the end, I've decided there is a serious lack of control in 4-player-everyone-for-themselves play. If I make a sub-optimal play to stymie someone, I only hurt myself and one other player, and then the other two go to town at my expense. If I do nothing but play "optimally" then I'm at the luck of the draw.

At least in partnership, your luck is drastically reduced and you can be aggressive against the other team.

If you are going to play 4-player, I'd rather see a common visible stock that EVERYONE chooses from - it makes taking a tile more tactical as you can try and score to your advantage as well as keep it away from someone else.

Ingenious with more than 2 players is horrible. Ingenious with partnership rules is not as bad.

Boo, to partners.

This is the only way I've played it. Partnerships sounds worth trying ...

Cutthroat Ingenious works very well. It's a little confusing, but you just have to watch everyone's scoreboard. When you are in the lead in a color, you want to block it off. When everyone has a low score in a particular color, don't play that color until someone else goes first, because you know they will. Lots of plays to look for. Sure there is a lot of luck, but the good player is the one who makes best use of that luck.

Here we've been playing the Cutthroat version all along and didn't even know it.

But I think we may give partnerships a try as well.

The game goes from really, really good to simply outstanding by adding in the auction rules. Luck is reduced to almost nothing with this addition too (the only luck left is which treasure you draw).

I agree -- it really gives you more control over your own destiny, and I like that.

I prefer the Auction version.

Auction version when I play in person.

Simplicity is my choice here - I'm usually playing with either new people or people who haven't played in so long that they've forgotten most of the rules, so we kick the auctions to the curb.

If I played with people who were familiar with the game - auctions

I think auctions make this otherwise great game very, very tedious.

People keep claiming that auctions reduce the luck in Tikal, and I find that strange, as there is already very little luck to begin with (the tile draws and the treasure draws, which are really elements of randomness, not necessarily luck) and the auctions do little to change that (tiles are still drawn randomly and you're still only going to end up with one out of four of them, and your treasure draws are still entirely random).

There should be the level of randomness in Tikal that there is, as you are exploring into a jungle and digging for treasure, unsure of what might be there. And it's not as though you are tied to the tiles you draw... you can move into the tiles other people drew and they can move into yours. Yes, drawing a 5 temple late in the game when you can place it next to your camp where nobody else can reach it will benefit you and you only, but that is your reward for placing your camp where you did, or should be to the detriment of other players who didn't have their workers within range of that. Even the treasure draws can be mitigated somewhat by trading at the right times.

The auction variant is also a big negative for what is otherwise a nearly perfectly themed game. The mechanics in Tikal generally match what you would be doing in terms of exploration. Stopping every four turns to gather together again and auction which areas you each want to go to doesn't make much sense and loses the "exploration" aspect for me.

Non-auction Tikal is a 9.5 for me. Auction Tikal is a 5.

Regular version when I play at SpielByWeb, and some of the time in person. I think the auction version drags terribly in PBEM mode.

I don't like the auction in this game, but only because of the thematic aspect. I do think that it balances the luck somewhat; if you're always stuck with a volcano you're not going anywhere in this game...

This is the "by the rules" option?

Yes this is the "by the rules" option - there are 20 and only 20 UP shares. I find this rule doesn't matter so much with 3 or even 4 players, but if you play with 5 or 6 then unlimited shares is mandatory.

In my experiences, if you do not limit the number of UP shares then the game just degrades into a battle of who has the most UP. All the other shares get turned under and everyone just goes for UP. That makes for a horrible and boring game. That is why the rules limit the UP shares to 20.

Shares for all railroads should be limited, UP included, regardless of the number of players. In my opinion, it's a fundamental element in the game's design.

We need an answer for both. You can acquire UP by either directly picking a UP stock or by turning under another drawn share.

I meant this item to mean "both"! I considered it beyond question that you could do the exchange; doesn't everyone do the exchange? Was I wrong?

Edit: ok, I reworded the description. thanks!

I believe the corrected rules state that this is the only way to acquire shares of the Union Pacific. One can no longer choose a UP share in lieu of taking one of the face-up shares (or random share).

We also play with these sub-variations:

- Each quest can only make one player a knight (i.e. if someone is knighted by beating the black knight, no other player can get knighted by fighting the black knight in the future). Rationale: It's just not that heroic once someone else has done it.

- Squires cannot spend life to take a second action. Rationale: squires aren't heroic yet.

Vote