Ralph T
United States
Signal Hill
California
-
There's a potential runaway leader issue with the player who is first in points being able to choose a nice spot that either maximizes their happiness. It is definitely worse to be in second place than first place because of this. So have the player in first choose their position third in a four player game. I will give a disadvantage to the player in first rather than a slight advantage.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
I don't understand. How does having the leader choose 3rd instead of their normal last help?
That gives them more choice than usual, making it more likely they get a better spot, not less likely.
-
Chris Berger
United States
Volo
Illinois
-
What the UknownParkerBrother said... OP, could you go over what you think the rule is? Because I don't see any way that choosing last could give an advantage.
-
The Dave
United States
Brooklyn
United States
-
ralpher wrote: There's a potential runaway leader issue with the player who is first in points being able to choose a nice spot that either maximizes their happiness. It is definitely worse to be in second place than first place because of this. So have the player in first choose their position third in a four player game. I will give a disadvantage to the player in first rather than a slight advantage.
The player that is in last place points-wise chooses their wake-up time first. Choosing wake up time goes in reverse order of points.
-
Brian Brokaw
United States
Hillsboro
Oregon
It's not a damn moped!
-
I don't agree with the OP, but perhaps he is thinking about this:
There are 5 wake-up times in a 4 player game. The player to pick a wake up time last (VP leader) gets his choice of 2 spots. In many cases both those spots yield the same turn-order, so this player always chooses the "better" of the two in that particular instance.
...i dunno... maybe that was the point? I still don't see how that is better than having 3 spots to choose from!
-
Ralph T
United States
Signal Hill
California
-
In a four player game, whoever chooses his wake up time last gets two choices. One of these choices is usually obviously better than the other. It will usually be exactly the same as the other choice in position but the player can choose a later wake up time. The player who chooses third usually gets a less efficient choice.
Maybe this variant is better stated that the players place in point order or may choose to let the next player place before them. In some cases the second place player may want to place third in order but usually is better off placing fourth.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
Ok, I see now what you're getting at.
I haven't played it a lot 4 player, but haven't seen much of what you describe. The two choices for the last placement have often been spread out, 5:00am and 8:00am, or 7:00am and 9:00am, etc. Sure, sometimes it's 8:00 and 9:00, and you obviously take the 9.
I can't imagine a time I'd ever let someone pick in front of me, though. I'd always rather have 3 choices than 2.
-
Chris Berger
United States
Volo
Illinois
-
UnknownParkerBrother wrote: Ok, I see now what you're getting at.
I haven't played it a lot 4 player, but haven't seen much of what you describe. The two choices for the last placement have often been spread out, 5:00am and 8:00am, or 7:00am and 9:00am, etc. Sure, sometimes it's 8:00 and 9:00, and you obviously take the 9.
I can't imagine a time I'd ever let someone pick in front of me, though. I'd always rather have 3 choices than 2.
Well, I still disagree with the OP, but it's like this... say 7, 8, and 9 are open. If I am picking third and choose 8, then the currently winning player will get the choice of whether to go before or after me. If I pick 7, they will pick 9. If I pick 9, they will pick 8. So the possible scenarios are:
Me: 8 Leader: gets to make the choice
Me: 7 Leader: 9 (in essence I had to overpay by one slot)
Me: 9 Leader: 8 (leader does not have to overpay)
So if I want to go first, I have to overpay. Or I can let him go first with no corresponding penalty, or I can pick in the middle and let him dictate choice.
So I do now understand where the OP is coming from. However, this only really applies if the 3 slots left are contiguous after 1 & 2 pick (which is likely, but definitely not guaranteed), and ignores the fact that the 3rd player to pick still has the choice of where to go in the turn order. The 4th player to pick only gets that choice if the other person defers to him. I think that makes all the difference in the world.
Really, it's not so much a bonus to the leader that he can pick the better of two contiguous spots as it is a penalty to the person in second place that he may have to overpay if he wants to go before the leader. Meaning there's a penalty to both the leader and the 2nd place person, which I think is the whole point of the rule.
-
|
|
Posted Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:41 am
