Kharagh Green
United States
New York
-
The Fishermen of Catan was introduced as a cheap independent expansion and then again, revised, as part of Traders & Barbarians. I love the idea and the potential for this expansion. Particularly the fact that it makes building on the coast something desirable instead of something dreaded (something that always bothered me about the standard Settlers). But surprisingly, the same glaring problems with the original version of Fishermen remain in the revision.
From the Rules:
"If there are not enough fish tokens to fulfill everyone's production, no one receives any fish tokens that turn."
"Place the fish tokens you spend face up next to the supply of
fish tokens."
"When the fish tokens are depleted: When the last
face-down fish token is drawn, turn over all the used fish
tokens and mix them up again to form a new supply."
This combination of rules frequently leads to the following problem (or would if one were to actually play by these rules): There is only 1 fish tile left in the bag and so my fish-producing cities can NEVER again collect any fish. To avoid this problem, players have to avoid ever building cities next to fish spaces - which is silly. There is absolutely no reason to have the first rule listed above. If I have a city and one fish token is in the bag, why not draw one and then shuffle the spent tokens to let me draw another? Isn't that better than creating this weird penalty for upgrading your fish settlements or having multiple settlements beside the same fish 'hex'?
Other problems with Fishermen:
(1) The fact that fish can't be stolen or ever lost is counter-intuitive (and makes them better than other resources in games with lots of 7s). Shouldn't fish go bad FASTER than every other type of resource?
Solution: continue to disallow the stealing of fish but have all of a player's fish be lost whenever the fish's owner rolls a "7" OR doubles. Alternatively you can have them all be lost when anyone rolls a 7, but I've always found it odd to have the likelihood of resources spoiling to be a function of the number of players.
(2) Allowing 3 fish to be used to steal a resource can create too much of a negative play experience. The average fish tile is more than 1.8 fish so that means that every time my fish city collects fish, I can steal a resource from another player. And because fish are never lost but resources are (see #1), fish can be used to completely shut someone down. I recently played a game in which I stole 2 resources from the same player on 3 consecutive turns. Not surprisingly, that person never wants to play with fish again.
Solution: Remove the option to spend fish on stealing a resource.
(3) 5 fish builds a road? I realize the fish are supposed to be like a "wild card" but they can already be traded for other resources, allowing them to directly build roads feels bizarre, and it's really not necessary.
Solution: Remove the option to spend fish on building roads.
If you feel like the above changes make fish not powerful enough, then consider allowing fish to be traded through ports. This means that anyone with a 3:1 port can exchange 3 fish for 1 resource instead of 4:1. This works thematically because it means port cities would be more desirable to those trying to thrive on fish. That feels a lot better than having roads paved with stinking fish.
In the Traders & Barbarians revision a new rule was added:
A 7-tile limit on fish tokens. Additionally, when that limit is reached you can trade unrevealed fish tokens for new fish tokens. This is a HORRIBLE and unnecessary rule. Horrible because of the old boot. One of the fish tiles is an old boot. If that is drawn you are supposed to reveal it immediately and now you have to gain 1 more victory point to win. The problem: If you can trade unrevealed fish tiles for new tiles, then you can easily not reveal the old boot and draw a replacement fish tile for it. Hopefully no one at your gaming table wants to cheat but why make it so tantalizingly easy? The 7-tile limit is also unnecessary. (1) If you have 7 fish tiles you can do anything that you might want to do with fish tiles and (2) as best I can tell, this revised rule was to compensate for the fact that fish tiles are never lost or stolen. Why not just allow them to be lost? See the solution to problem #1 above.
The above are problems with Fishermen that can all be easily fixed. I am writing this (admittedly, very negative) review because after having the opportunity to do so, the revised Fishermen not only failed to fix the problems but instead added new ones. Once these problems are fixed, however, Fishermen is a great addition to any Settlers of Catan game. And believe it or not, I highly recommend it.
Oh, one last thing that bugs me about this expansion. Why limit which water hexes have fish? Yes, that's right, I am still playing the version with water hexes instead of the frame. But the point is: with the desert converted to a lake, there are 10 non-port water hexes. And guess what, there are 10 non-7 numbers from 2 to 12. Why not have every non-port water space receive a different fish number tile (instead of having the lake use 4 numbers)?
Actually, one other issue. The Robber cannot shut down fish spaces like he can shut down other resources. This can make a huge difference. Anyone using Fishermen should consider using the pirate ship from Seafarers (same as robber but only goes on water spaces - when a 7 is rolled, the roller chooses which to move). Also, the pirate ship should shut down port-trading if on a port space.
-
Jupklass Jupklass2
Spain
Navarra
-
I don´t know if it is a house rule but the only time we went out of fish we just mix again and continue as normal.....
my experience with this expansion is that we usually use the fish to move the robber or take one resource not steal it.. just a few times some one have more than 4-6 fish on her/his hand...
Oh, one thing we never play with the lake hex.
we consider it a small expansion that makes "more fair" build on the coast... it dosen´t add a lot but i get easy some other things....
-
Matthew Cordeiro
United States
Cumberland
Rhode Island
-
Wow, this post rattled off about a dozen house rules for a mini-expansion. And you're certainly welcome to do this, of course. My thoughts below.
Kharagh wrote: If I have a city and one fish token is in the bag, why not draw one and then shuffle the spent tokens to let me draw another?
Agreed. This is what I would do. Although, we rarely run out of fish tokens.
Quote: The fact that fish can't be stolen or ever lost is counter-intuitive (and makes them better than other resources in games with lots of 7s). Shouldn't fish go bad FASTER than every other type of resource?
That's a very literal way of looking at it. I think a better solution than the elaborate one you proposed is just let players steal either a fish or a card.
Quote: Allowing 3 fish to be used to steal a resource can create too much of a negative play experience. The average fish tile is more than 1.8 fish so that means that every time my fish city collects fish, I can steal a resource from another player. And because fish are never lost but resources are (see #1), fish can be used to completely shut someone down. I recently played a game in which I stole 2 resources from the same player on 3 consecutive turns. Not surprisingly, that person never wants to play with fish again.
Why not remove the soldiers/knights? They allow you to steal resources, too. While we're at it, why not remove the robber? I've seen a lot of posts about people not liking the aggressive nature of the robber. And that's fine. Some people don't like conflict in their games. I think it's an interesting part of the game and the most effective way to keep your opponents in check. By the way, no one forced you to steal 6 resources from that player. Not only did you make yourself the bad guy for that game, but you also turned off the player from playing Fishermen in the future.
Quote: 5 fish builds a road? I realize the fish are supposed to be like a "wild card" but they can already be traded for other resources, allowing them to directly build roads feels bizarre, and it's really not necessary.
I think you're overanalyzing this. This fish are essentially a currency, and you're trading the fish for the resources need to build a road. The normal trade rate is what, 4 fish for a resource? So, you get a discount because you're forced to use the fish for specific resources that must be spent for a specific purpose.
Quote: If you can trade unrevealed fish tiles for new tiles, then you can easily not reveal the old boot and draw a replacement fish tile for it.
Can't you pass the boot to a player with as many points as you? As long as you're not in the lead, it makes sense to keep the boot and pass it off to the leader.
Quote: The 7-tile limit is also unnecessary.
This is the perfect solution to your fish spoilage hang-up. It also prevents players from stockpiling fish and then spending them all at the very end of the game. (Which would be a bad strategy anyway because you lose the ability to turn fish into resource-producing settlements and cities.)
-
Reiner Dr. Düren
Germany
-
I often use the fishermen as an addition to a game for 6 players where we play with different other additions (vulcanos, soccer fields, magic and glassy city) and the main expansions seefarers and City&Knights as well as inofficial expansions which gives commodities for brick and grain fields. In these games we add also the sea and a special doublets sea, which gives fish for adjacent settlements when doublets are rolled. But in these games, fish is only a minor source for resources and we have only changed the rule for 7 fishes: therefore a progress card can be obtained. In these games the pirate can be used to block the maritime fish production whereas the robber can block the fish production of the lakes - although these options are used seldom.
We never had the problem that not enough fish was there for all players but in one game the last taken fish token was the old boot - just in time to prevent the victory of one player.
-
Kharagh Green
United States
New York
-
cordeiro wrote: Although, we rarely run out of fish tokens.
Interesting. Since introducing fish, we have run out of fish (meaning cycled through all 29 fish tiles) multiple times in every single game. It might have to do with the fact that we have banned domestic (inter-player) trading. Which means games last for more turns and fish are more valuable (spending 1-3 fish tiles to steal a particular resource you don't have is far superior to spending 2-4 of some other resource to get that needed resource from the bank; especially when the 2-4 resources to-be-traded can be lost or stolen but the fish can't).
cordeiro wrote: That's a very literal way of looking at it.
I don't need my games to perfectly simulate reality, but when mechanisms work in the complete opposite manner to reality (fish never spoiling but stone and other resources frequently spoiling), that hurts the fun.
cordeiro wrote: I think a better solution than the elaborate one you proposed is just let players steal either a fish or a card.
I agree that this should also be done. I proposed it but was voted down by my group. Something about the excitement of everyone seeing which resource is stolen being better than an unrevealed fish tile being changed hands. (Oh, we play where all normal resources are revealed at all times. An important rule to avoid the incredible lameness of people trying to keep records of what everyone has gathered and spent. I find it very strange that this rule has not been added after 15 years of revisions/expansions.)
cordeiro wrote: Why not remove the soldiers/knights? They allow you to steal resources, too. While we're at it, why not remove the robber?
Those things probably should be removed/changed, but they can't produce the same degree of a negative experience as fish. You are only allowed to play 1 knight per turn. And you can only roll 1 "7" per turn. And it is much more difficult to acquire a knight than it is to acquire 3 fish. With fish, you can steal from a single player multiple times per turn, turn after turn after turn, without end. That is a much more negative experience.
cordeiro wrote: I think it's an interesting part of the game and the most effective way to keep your opponents in check. By the way, no one forced you to steal 6 resources from that player. Not only did you make yourself the bad guy for that game, but you also turned off the player from playing Fishermen in the future.
True. The problem is that when playing, I was thinking like you: using the most effective means at my disposal to keep my opponents in check. I only realized too late that I was also preventing them from enjoying the game. So I'm proposing that the rules be changed to prevent this kind of thing from happening - especially when there is no clear basis in reality for why fish would allow you to steal from people. Trading fish for resources makes sense, using them to steal? That's weird. Wouldn't a fisherman (who always smells like fish) be the least-capable thief?
cordeiro wrote: I think you're over-analyzing this. This fish are essentially a currency, and you're trading the fish for the resources need to build a road. The normal trade rate is what, 4 fish for a resource? So, you get a discount because you're forced to use the fish for specific resources that must be spent for a specific purpose. But why are fishermen particularly adept at road-building? Unless a player has excellent access to both brick and wood, building roads with fish is by far the easiest way to do it (less than 3 fish tiles, on average, to build each road).
cordeiro wrote: Can't you pass the boot to a player with as many points as you? As long as you're not in the lead, it makes sense to keep the boot and pass it off to the leader. I think you're missing the point. Drawing the boot, whether or not you can pass it, is still worse than drawing fish. So with the rule that you can trade in an unrevealed fish tile for another, you can easily trade in the boot. This makes the old boot rule (of having to reveal it immediately) completely unenforceable - that's a sign of a bad rule. That would be like allowing players to shuffle unrevealed development cards into the deck and then relying on them to report later what cards they had. "Oh, uh, yeah, I had all the victory point cards". On the whole, this game is great, but that is just blatantly bad game-design.
cordeiro wrote: This [the 7-tile limit] is the perfect solution to your fish spoilage hang-up.
Perfect solution? If I have 6 fish tiles that never go bad, for the entire game, how does a 7-tile limit solve that problem? I admit, it is an attempt at addressing the problem, but it is a weak attempt. It would have been much more elegant to simply make fish tiles count as resources or have 1/2 or all of your fish lost on a 7 than this weird rule about having a limit to how many fish you can have. This rule seems to be saying that fish never go bad but you just can't have very many of them. Whereas stone and other resources go bad every 6 turns but you can have what, 19 of them? Having these different rules for how fish and other resources work is unnecessarily cumbersome; but if there are going to be different rules, they should either improve gameplay or reflect reality - these do neither.
cordeiro wrote: It also prevents players from stockpiling fish and then spending them all at the very end of the game. (Which would be a bad strategy anyway because you lose the ability to turn fish into resource-producing settlements and cities.)
This was part of my point in saying that the rule is unnecessary. No sane person would ever stockpile fish to the end of the game, so why have a rule to prevent something that would never happen?
Finally, something I forgot to mention before while ranting about the problems with the fish expansion: Having all of the options for ways to spend fish drastically slowed gameplay for some players who were constantly referencing exactly what their different options were with the fish. You can say I should stop playing games with retards, but the simple fact of the matter is, having all of those options just doesn't improve the game, so why not throw some out to have a more elegant system. 2 fish to remove the robber is a nice, unique, reasonable (robbers like fish, right?), and non-negative addition to the game. 7 fish for a development card? I could go either way with that. Other than those 1-2 options, just allow fish to be traded like resources and you're done.
In general, making fish function like resources instead of these weird 7-limit, never-spoiling, and robber-immune commodities that can be traded for a bizarre variety of effects would make more sense and be more fun. Sometimes, simplicity is key.
-
Matthew Cordeiro
United States
Cumberland
Rhode Island
-
kharagh wrote: It might have to do with the fact that we have banned domestic (inter-player) trading.
Really?! And the game doesn't seem boring? To me, this is a crucial element to the game.
kharagh wrote: I don't need my games to perfectly simulate reality, but when mechanisms work in the complete opposite manner to reality (fish never spoiling but stone and other resources frequently spoiling), that hurts the fun.
Who said the resources spoil? Losing half your cards is more of a "Robin Hood" effect or a "gluttony" or "inefficiency" penalty. I've never perceived the resources as spoiling. Also, you'd see this happen less often if you allowed trade between players. You'd be able to unload resources you don't need and receive those you do need.
kharagh wrote: (Oh, we play where all normal resources are revealed at all times. An important rule to avoid the incredible lameness of people trying to keep records of what everyone has gathered and spent. I find it very strange that this rule has not been added after 15 years of revisions/expansions.)
Again, I feel you're taking out a key strategic element. Remembering what people received and spent is important when playing by the official rules. If you're concerned about people keeping track on paper, why not just make that illegal rather than completely revising an important rule? I've found the easiest way to remember what people have is to remember the last few numbers rolled. That will give you a very good indication of what people have in their hands.
kharagh wrote: But why are fishermen particularly adept at road-building?
He's not. Bartering is the backbone of this game. You're trading fish for a road. You're not telling a fisherman to build a road.
kharagh wrote: Drawing the boot, whether or not you can pass it, is still worse than drawing fish.
If I'm not in the lead, and the leader has 8 or 9 points, giving that person the boot is significantly better than even a 3-fish token.
Bottom line, you play with a ton of house rules. And if it works for your group, that's fine. But the game you play is very different than one played by the official rules.
-
Kharagh Green
United States
New York
-
cordeiro wrote: kharagh wrote: It might have to do with the fact that we have banned domestic (inter-player) trading. Really?! And the game doesn't seem boring? To me, this is a crucial element to the game.
I recognize most people might think so, but in general I find the disadvantages to inter-player trading in most games (from Catan to fantasy football) to far exceed the benefits. It is annoying to have hours of gameplay ruined by two players trading between themselves so that one wins despite otherwise inferior tactics/play. In Catan, inter-payer trading is particularly bad because it completely undermines the value of having harbor settlements (why lose out on the potential for gaining resources when you can just trade with other players instead?) AND all but eliminates the strategic importance of settlement locations (it doesn't really matter what resources your cities can gather if you can just trade whatever you get for whatever you need). That's in addition to the standard problems of trading in that one player can simply choose to make any other player win that he wants to, making the entire game a pointless enterprise (no need to play, just ask people beforehand who they want to win). There are a few games that have come up with mechanisms for inter-player trading that have seemed to work (Mare Nostrum comes to mind). But in general, inter-player trading is a game-killer.
The three games of Catan I played with inter-player trading were all miserable experiences. With the exception of the fish-abuse I mentioned before, the dozens of games I have played without inter-player trading have (at least seemingly) been fun for all. But yes, I will grant you the standard game is a tad bit boring - thus the need for fish, boats, and maybe a few other house rules.
cordeiro wrote: You'd see this (resource loss) happen less often if you allowed trade between players. You'd be able to unload resources you don't need and receive those you do need.
And this would reward players for gathering lots of resources that they can't use and not having port settlements with which to trade them. Inter-player trading would allow players with lots of useless resources to flourish and maintain their dominance - which would defeat the whole benefit of the "7 loss" rule: which cuts down players who have lots of useless resources (but only if they are unable to trade them).
kharagh wrote: (Oh, we play where all normal resources are revealed at all times. An important rule to avoid the incredible lameness of people trying to keep records of what everyone has gathered and spent. I find it very strange that this rule has not been added after 15 years of revisions/expansions.)
cordeiro wrote: Again, I feel you're taking out a key strategic element. Remembering what people received and spent is important when playing by the official rules. If you're concerned about people keeping track on paper, why not just make that illegal rather than completely revising an important rule? I've found the easiest way to remember what people have is to remember the last few numbers rolled. That will give you a very good indication of what people have in their hands.
I have tried inter-player trading and found that it ruins games. I admit I have never even tried playing by the resource-concealment rule. It is just so blatantly not-fun. I like strategy as much as the next guy, but concealing resources would change this from a fun game to a memory-siege of a test. Whether people slow down to write down what people have or slow down to try to remember what the last several rolls and purchases were, it would not just hurt any fun from the game, it would pulverize it. Why do you think people are required to show HOW MANY resources they have? Because having to record/remember that kind of thing is not fun. It makes no sense that people would be required to show how many resources they have but not be required to show what those resources are.
kharagh wrote: Drawing the boot, whether or not you can pass it, is still worse than drawing fish.
cordeiro wrote: If I'm not in the lead, and the leader has 8 or 9 points, giving that person the boot is significantly better than even a 3-fish token.
As I said before, in EVERY game I've played with fish, all the fish have been drawn. That means the boot WILL be in play, and it WILL end up with whoever is in the ostensible lead. Therefore it is ONLY a bad thing to draw the boot (instead of fish) and would ALWAYS be better to cheat by throwing it back in the bag for a fish replacement.
cordeiro wrote: Bottom line, you play with a ton of house rules. And if it works for your group, that's fine. But the game you play is very different than one played by the official rules.
Agreed (well 'ton' is a stretch, I think I've only mentioned 2 here; but yes, those 2 make a big difference [thankfully]). (And I don't expect any of the above to convince you to play my way - I'm just trying to explain why we do.) But, the fact that my game is different than yours doesn't invalidate my fish criticisms. Most, if not all, apply to both your version and my version of the game.
-
Matt 'Red Hat' Posey
United States
Houston
Texas
-
Kharagh wrote: It might have to do with the fact that we have banned domestic (inter-player) trading.
I think I figured out why you need so many house rules for the fish.
-
Kharagh Green
United States
New York
-
I wouldn't say we "need so many house rules for the fish". The house rules I mentioned with respect to fish are really just eliminating cumbersome official rules. A lot of the official fish rules add gratuitous complexity and I was pointing out how those can be done away with for both a simpler and a more enjoyable game.
The bottom line: The fishermen works best if you just make fish tiles resources, allow fish to be traded as resources, and allow 2 fish to return the robber to the desert. And when you trade fish, throw them back in the draw bag (just like other spent resources return to the bank).
No need for a 7-tile limit, a problematic fish-exchange after the 7-tile limit, no long list of things that fish can buy, no special fish-immunity to loss or theft, no problematic rules about not being able to collect any fish ever again just because there are a stack of spent fish that can't be put back in the draw bag until that last one is drawn and that can't ever be claimed if the fish # tiles have 2 settlements or a city. At best, these are rules just for the sake of having more rules - they do no good, so better to throw them out.
-
|
|
Posted Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:48 am
