Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
38 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Stone Age» Forums » Rules

Subject: BGA what the crap? Opponent scoring exponentially twice for dual culture symbol sets rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Joseph
United States
Ewing
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Christmas Card Exchange: 2009 - 2014
badge
I play at EPGS on the 1st and 3rd Saturday of the month and if you live in Eastern PA, Western NJ or Northern DE ... you should too!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That is how the German rules score the game.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Toombs wrote:
Hey, just lost a game on BGA that I was SURE I would win--my opponent collected 15 culture symbols, 7 duplicates and one single. In my calculation this should have been scored as (8*8) 64 + (7*1) 7, or 71. Instead, BGA (boardgamearena.com) scored him (8*8) 64 + (7*7) 49, or 115 points!

That's not what my stone age rules book says is possible.


BGA is correct, it's the way the North American release was meant to be scored too.

Unfortunately, the rules used an example with just one duplicate, saying the duplicate scores (1x1), which makes folks think it was 1 point each. it was trying to say that duplicates score the same set rules as your main set.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Thompson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Valar Morghulis
badge
Valar Dohaeris
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Those are the only rules I've ever known. Why would you not get exponential points for your second (or third) set?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
You can't handle the truth?
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
Toombs wrote:
Hey, just lost a game on BGA that I was SURE I would win--my opponent collected 15 culture symbols, 7 duplicates and one single. In my calculation this should have been scored as (8*8) 64 + (7*1) 7, or 71. Instead, BGA (boardgamearena.com) scored him (8*8) 64 + (7*7) 49, or 115 points!

That's not what my stone age rules book says is possible.


BGA is correct, it's the way the North American release was meant to be scored too.

Unfortunately, the rules used an example with just one duplicate, saying the duplicate scores (1x1), which makes folks think it was 1 point each. it was trying to say that duplicates score the same set rules as your main set.
I look at it as a correction to a bad rule, which makes the game better. Rio Grande improves a great game!

Duplicate sets for 1 point each is a game with choices.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
You can't handle the truth?
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Thompson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Valar Morghulis
badge
Valar Dohaeris
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My rulebook does not have the part that Curt has posted above. The scoring example illustrates 6 symbols with one duplicate and explicitly does the math (5 x 5) plus (1 x 1), showing (poorly) that you square multiple sets.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Toombs wrote:
I think actually what makes people think that it was one point each is where the rules specify: you do not score for a second set. So it's hard for me to believe that the NA release was meant to be scored the German way too.

No, the first edition rules did not state this. Jay argued this interpretation and subsequently changed the rules for the next printings.

It makes me glad that RGG no longer distributes HiG games - so now he can quit slaughtering the rules.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Veillet
Canada
Boucherville
Québec, Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
crambaza wrote:


That is the way we used to play around here too... I might switch to the new points... But then again all the strategy will change as well.


Edit:

BTW... The french rules by Filosofia aren't that clear either...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith Carter
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
iPad version also scores each set exponentially.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Bart
United States
Winnetka
California
flag msg tools
designer
Baseball been bery bery good to me
badge
This is a picture of a published game designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:
No, the first edition rules did not state this. Jay argued this interpretation and subsequently changed the rules for the next printings.

It makes me glad that RGG no longer distributes HiG games - so now he can quit slaughtering the rules.

Yeah. Jay Tummelson is a wonderful guy, but if every he renders a ruling on a game, he stands by that ruling to the death, even when that's not what the designer meant and not what the original rules say.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hubert
Singapore
flag msg tools
I don't think you really deserve to win if you let your opponent get 15 symbol cards..
14 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
You can't handle the truth?
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
firexed wrote:
I don't think you really deserve to win if you let your opponent get 15 symbol cards..
But he was going to win, until he realized that the scoring wasn't the way he expected from his experiences with his copy of the game.

And that's why the scoring in the Rio Grande version is better. In the game he just played, there were choices to be made on what to do.

As you mention, with the scoring the other way, you have to take the Civ cards all the time, or your opponent will stomp you. That removes choice, and I think makes for a lesser game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
crambaza wrote:
As you mention, with the scoring the other way, you have to take the Civ cards all the time, or your opponent will stomp you. That removes choice, and I think makes for a lesser game.

That's one reason I don't care for Stone Age that much, actually.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carsten Jorgensen
Denmark
flag msg tools
I like that the rules are so simple - making sets score the same way keeps it that way too me. And I think it is only really a problem in 2-player games (and a small one). With more players to share the cards, getting both sets should be really rear. Still usually a good idea to keep your opponents from getting 7-8 different cards even in one set.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shane
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Train gamer, Euro gamer and War gamer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So just for curiosity sake, I checked the Zman edition rules .pdf (I have Rio Grande) to see if they explicitly printed the original scoring rules, and indeed they have.

Quote from the Zman .pdf:

The number of different Civilization cards with a green background is multiplied by itself. Each player can have more than one set of different green-backed Civilization cards. Example: Adele has 5 different Civilization cards.

She also has another Pottery card (thus creating a second set) : 1 point (1x1)
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Fischer
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
mb
SD40 wrote:
So just for curiosity sake, I checked the Zman edition rules .pdf (I have Rio Grande) to see if they explicitly printed the original scoring rules, and indeed they have.

Quote from the Zman .pdf:

The number of different Civilization cards with a green background is multiplied by itself. Each player can have more than one set of different green-backed Civilization cards. Example: Adele has 5 different Civilization cards.

She also has another Pottery card (thus creating a second set) : 1 point (1x1)


I've become a fan of Stone Age in the past year. It's a fantastic 2 player game, and my wife and I play regularly. The past month, I've been perusing the BGG forums on strategies, looking for ways to improve my game and bring variety to our matches by trying new strategies.

Reading this thread, I'm blown away that the US rules might be wrong, and to be true to the original game design, we should play where duplicate sets of Civ (unique item) cards score fully! Up to now, we've played (incorrectly), where duplicates scored no points. I realized that was wrong reading the strategy threads, and was going to start scoring their single points, even though that would never decide a game. But if they should be counted as a second set and squared, that will dramatically change our games!

I'm curious is there's any further information on this scoring. Is the US method based on improved balancing of the rules, for better gameplay? Or is it really an incorrect interpretation now codified?

Thanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Thompson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Valar Morghulis
badge
Valar Dohaeris
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Barticus88 wrote:
ColtsFan76 wrote:
No, the first edition rules did not state this. Jay argued this interpretation and subsequently changed the rules for the next printings.

It makes me glad that RGG no longer distributes HiG games - so now he can quit slaughtering the rules.

Yeah. Jay Tummelson is a wonderful guy, but if every he renders a ruling on a game, he stands by that ruling to the death, even when that's not what the designer meant and not what the original rules say.


I think I prefer the score-both-sets rules. But wasn't Jay one of the designers of the game? BGG doesn't credit him, but he's the Tummel- in Michael Tummelhofer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
CyanideNow wrote:
Barticus88 wrote:
ColtsFan76 wrote:
No, the first edition rules did not state this. Jay argued this interpretation and subsequently changed the rules for the next printings.

It makes me glad that RGG no longer distributes HiG games - so now he can quit slaughtering the rules.

Yeah. Jay Tummelson is a wonderful guy, but if every he renders a ruling on a game, he stands by that ruling to the death, even when that's not what the designer meant and not what the original rules say.


I think I prefer the score-both-sets rules. But wasn't Jay one of the designers of the game? BGG doesn't credit him, but he's the Tummel- in Michael Tummelhofer.

No, not a designer. At the time it was stated the name "Michael Tummelhofer is the pen name for Bernd Brunnhofer (the adding of Michael Bruinsma and Jay Tummelson in the credit is just a thank you for a very good economic partnership)."

I have since heard it as being a back-handed comment that since those two tweak his designs so much, he felt he should give them credit up front...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Thompson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Valar Morghulis
badge
Valar Dohaeris
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ahh. Well, this would seem to bear that out, then...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Drazen
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Reading this thread, I'm blown away that the US rules might be wrong, and to be true to the original game design, we should play where duplicate sets of Civ (unique item) cards score fully! Up to now, we've played (incorrectly), where duplicates scored no points. I realized that was wrong reading the strategy threads, and was going to start scoring their single points, even though that would never decide a game. But if they should be counted as a second set and squared, that will dramatically change our games!


The U.S. rules aren't wrong, so much as poorly written, where the example of a "second set" is shown as 1x1 instead of what would be a much clearer 2x2 or 2x1. But as I read it, it says you score a second set, and sets score the square of unique symbols, so I usually play it where the score is x² + y² rather than x² + y.

That said, in tournament play, I've seen it where duplicate symbol civ cards only score 1 point per card. I don't agree with that decision, and I'm actually curious how it's done at other major tournaments (such as WBC). There does not seem to be any consistency.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shane
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Train gamer, Euro gamer and War gamer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
alexdrazen wrote:
Quote:
Reading this thread, I'm blown away that the US rules might be wrong, and to be true to the original game design, we should play where duplicate sets of Civ (unique item) cards score fully! Up to now, we've played (incorrectly), where duplicates scored no points. I realized that was wrong reading the strategy threads, and was going to start scoring their single points, even though that would never decide a game. But if they should be counted as a second set and squared, that will dramatically change our games!


The U.S. rules aren't wrong, so much as poorly written, where the example of a "second set" is shown as 1x1 instead of what would be a much clearer 2x2 or 2x1. But as I read it, it says you score a second set, and sets score the square of unique symbols, so I usually play it where the score is x² + y² rather than x² + y.

That said, in tournament play, I've seen it where duplicate symbol civ cards only score 1 point per card. I don't agree with that decision, and I'm actually curious how it's done at other major tournaments (such as WBC). There does not seem to be any consistency.
However, in later printings the Rio Grande rules 'clarified' the (wrong) rule...

crambaza wrote:


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
You can't handle the truth?
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SD40 wrote:
alexdrazen wrote:
Quote:
Reading this thread, I'm blown away that the US rules might be wrong, and to be true to the original game design, we should play where duplicate sets of Civ (unique item) cards score fully! Up to now, we've played (incorrectly), where duplicates scored no points. I realized that was wrong reading the strategy threads, and was going to start scoring their single points, even though that would never decide a game. But if they should be counted as a second set and squared, that will dramatically change our games!


The U.S. rules aren't wrong, so much as poorly written, where the example of a "second set" is shown as 1x1 instead of what would be a much clearer 2x2 or 2x1. But as I read it, it says you score a second set, and sets score the square of unique symbols, so I usually play it where the score is x² + y² rather than x² + y.

That said, in tournament play, I've seen it where duplicate symbol civ cards only score 1 point per card. I don't agree with that decision, and I'm actually curious how it's done at other major tournaments (such as WBC). There does not seem to be any consistency.
However, in later printings the Rio Grande rules 'clarified' the (wrong) rule...

crambaza wrote:



I am so happy for my edition of the game, with the rules that make the most sense.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Thompson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Valar Morghulis
badge
Valar Dohaeris
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not following the argument that the no-score (or even the 1 per card score) version of the rules makes more sense or adds more strategy. It seems to me that it would actually strip away meaningful choices. It makes the duplicate tech cards almost wholly worthless, rather than forcing you to weigh wether it is worthwhile to take them (either for your own score or to block opponents).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
You can't handle the truth?
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CyanideNow wrote:
I'm not following the argument that the no-score (or even the 1 per card score) version of the rules makes more sense or adds more strategy. It seems to me that it would actually strip away meaningful choices. It makes the duplicate tech cards almost wholly worthless, rather than forcing you to weigh wether it is worthwhile to take them (either for your own score or to block opponents).

I think you stated your own answer above...

You state that it is more meaningful to weigh whether it is more worthwhile to take the card for your own score, or to block.

With your method of scoring,
If you take the card, you get lots of points = Win!
If you take the card, you block lots of points = Win!

Your method is win/win, always take the card.

With the Rio Grande version of scoring,
If you take card, you only score 1 = Boo, 1 point sucks
if you take the card, you block lots of points = Win!

So with this method, you need to actually make a choice, is it better to hurt my game, to hurt my opponents game? Who get's hurt more? I could use that action for a lot more things, that would help me a lot more. NOW we have a real choice!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Thompson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Valar Morghulis
badge
Valar Dohaeris
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
With the both-sets scoring, the choice is between taking a technology card or a different scoring card. If only one set scores, it will almost never make sense (UNLESS you're only playing a two player game) to take a duplicate card only to hurt your opponent because a better card (or hut) will almost always be available. With duplicate scoring, you actually have a choice to make about which might be more valuable. In a 3 or 4 player game, that choice is already made for you if taking the card might hurt an opponent some, but won't help you.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.