Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

For Sale» Forums » Rules

Subject: Which set of rules do you prefer? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mark Tyler
United States
Orem
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have enjoyed playing both the FX Schmid and Uberplay versions of For Sale. Many thanks to Uberplay for reprinting this fun filler and special thanks for upgrading the game to support six players.

Some may debate the quality of components between the versions but other than a preference for the old red plastic chips, I am happy with the new version. Besides, only the Uberplay version is still in print so it is not like you can choose one set of components or the other (at least not without incurring some additional cost or hassle to buy a used copy of the FX Schmid version).

On the other hand, you can easily choose to play the game with either the FX Schmid rules or the Uberplay rules.

Here are the differences in the rule sets:
** FX Schmid **
Each player starts with 15 chips.
Each bid must MATCH (or exceed) the previous bid.
When you pass, you take back half of your bid (rounded UP).

** Uberplay **
Each player starts with 14 (5-6 player) or 18 (3-4 player).
Each bid must EXCEED the previous bid.
When you pass, you take back half of your bid (rounded DOWN).

I am curious as to why Stefan Dorra changed the rules (if in fact Dorra made the changes). Some say the rule changes were made because there are more property cards. With more property cards (and more bidding rounds) you would like for the money to last longer. The new rounding rule actually takes money away from players faster. But the new EXCEED bidding rule may cause players to bail out of the bidding earlier.

Anyway, I have played the Uberplay version using the old and new rules, and while both rule sets seem to work fine, I tend to prefer the old FX Schmid rules. I've read much debate about whether rounding UP or DOWN really changes things. I don't know about that, but for me, the key rule difference is the MATCH versus EXCEED bidding rule.

Using the MATCH rule, the game progresses at a slower pace but it tends to increase the tension as all players up their bid to 5 chips, then 6 chips, then 7 chips, etc. The first player to raise the bid is at a disadvantage when all the other players match. Now the player has to decide whether to go to the next level or bail out.

Using the EXCEED rule, the choices seem a bit more straight forward. For example, you might make a bid of 2, but by the time your turn to bid comes back you have to bid 7 or pass. The other four players increased the bid by one each. You say 7 is way too much to bid, so you pass. By using the MATCH rule you might have stayed involved in the bidding up through 4 or 5 chips.

The main advantage I see of the EXCEED rule is that since every player must raise the bid, you avoid the situation in the MATCH rule game where raising the bid puts you at a disadvantage.

I am curious if others have tried using the older rules with the new version. For those that have, what do you have to say about the pros and cons of the two sets of rules?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Kandrac
United States
Grand Prairie
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We don't play "take back rounded down." It should always entail a cost when bidding...only the player who passes immediately gets a property for nothing.

Gg
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Small
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gamegrunt wrote:
We don't play "take back rounded down." It should always entail a cost when bidding...only the player who passes immediately gets a property for nothing.

Gg


I think I get what you mean. (But you wrote "don't" when you meant "do".)

If you wish bidding to always end up with the bidder paying something to the bank, then I believe what you meant to say is that you *do* play "take back [half] rounded down."

To wit: The way you like to play is that when a person bids $1000, and it comes around to them again, and they pass (i.e., drop out of the bidding), they must pay that $1000 to the bank and take back no money at all.

Therefore, to expect a chance at getting any money back, along with a property, one must bid a minimum of $2000.

That's how we like to play as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James C
United States
McLean
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
We play with the Uberplay rules. As you say the game keeps moving forward like this and I think that's key.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrea Bampi
Italy
Padova
flag msg tools
badge
"Go suck yer blade!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jandks wrote:

I think I get what you mean. (But you wrote "don't" when you meant "do".)

If you wish bidding to always end up with the bidder paying something to the bank, then I believe what you meant to say is that you *do* play "take back [half] rounded down."

To wit: The way you like to play is that when a person bids $1000, and it comes around to them again, and they pass (i.e., drop out of the bidding), they must pay that $1000 to the bank and take back no money at all.

Therefore, to expect a chance at getting any money back, along with a property, one must bid a minimum of $2000.

That's how we like to play as well.


Just to avoid confusion, especially for other people reading this thread: you're answering to a 10-years old question. Meanwhile, several new editions/reprints came out and the latest one is the 2015 French edition by Iello, translated in German and republished by Uplay in Italy.

These 2015 editions use a mix of the aforementioned rulings:
** Iello/Uplay 2015 **
Each player starts with 14 (6 p.), 16 (5 p.), 21 (4 p.) or 28 (3 p.).
Each bid must EXCEED the previous bid.
When you pass, you take back half of your bid (rounded UP).
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul McKinney
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RickNash wrote:


These 2015 editions use a mix of the aforementioned rulings:
** Iello/Uplay 2015 **
Each player starts with 14 (6 p.), 16 (5 p.), 21 (4 p.) or 28 (3 p.).
Each bid must EXCEED the previous bid.
When you pass, you take back half of your bid (rounded UP).

I have the Uberplay edition and I've played both the taking back your money by rounding up and rounding down. I have to admit I like the taking back money rounded up as having to take into consideration you might loose some money because you didn't take rounding into account seems to actually detract somewhat from the simple fun of the game. So I'm glad to hear the Iello edition has the taking money back rounded up rule as I think that just make the game a bit more straightforward and enjoyable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrea Bampi
Italy
Padova
flag msg tools
badge
"Go suck yer blade!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
auspal wrote:
RickNash wrote:


These 2015 editions use a mix of the aforementioned rulings:
** Iello/Uplay 2015 **
Each player starts with 14 (6 p.), 16 (5 p.), 21 (4 p.) or 28 (3 p.).
Each bid must EXCEED the previous bid.
When you pass, you take back half of your bid (rounded UP).

I have the Uberplay edition and I've played both the taking back your money by rounding up and rounding down. I have to admit I like the taking back money rounded up as having to take into consideration you might loose some money because you didn't take rounding into account seems to actually detract somewhat from the simple fun of the game. So I'm glad to hear the Iello edition has the taking money back rounded up rule as I think that just make the game a bit more straightforward and enjoyable.


I think that the major reason was/is granting longer and more exciting (aggressive) auctions. Anyway, I understand people liking the "round down" version - much more punitive for people bidding low. We never tried this system in our games. We already love the game, so we don't see any reason to try an alternate version
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.