Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Splendor» Forums » Rules

Subject: Additional tie breakers rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
This Guy
United States
Durham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Just played a game where tied on points and number of development cards. We chose to use level 3 cards as second tie breaker (and level 2, then 1, if necessary).

Thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John
United States
Winston-Salem
North Carolina
flag msg tools
my shoes are laced with irony
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Would the winner be the player with the least amount of level 3 cards?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
This Guy
United States
Durham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
boywithcap wrote:
Would the winner be the player with the least amount of level 3 cards?


Sorry, didn't mean to leave that out. We chose who had the most because the level 3 ones take the most work to get to, and it seemed in the spirit of the first tie breaker: who got the most points with the fewest cards.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Clarke
United Kingdom
Caithness
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar
Aetheros wrote:
Just played a game where tied on points and number of development cards. We chose to use level 3 cards as second tie breaker (and level 2, then 1, if necessary).

Thoughts?

I love the notion of deciding tie-breaker criteria in the aftermath of a tie.

What's wrong with a draw anyway?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Hymowitz
United States
Elkridge
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seems to me that this is a game where you could just keep going until there's a clear winner.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith McNeil
United States
Watertown
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Aetheros wrote:
Just played a game where tied on points and number of development cards. We chose to use level 3 cards as second tie breaker (and level 2, then 1, if necessary).

Thoughts?


Potentially you could decide based on # of nobles, although I wouldn't want players to feel pushed towards focusing on nobles as a strategy.

You could decide based on # of gems in hand, although you would need to decide how many gems a gold token is worth. Based on the actions, a gold token is worth more than one gem (since it's wild) but less than three gems (assuming all actions are meant to be equivalent, because you also reserve a card when you get a gold). So, two?

You could decide based on who has the single most valuable card. And should there be a tie for 5-point cards you could then proceed to 4, 3, etc. as needed. However, this might also push players towards a certain strategy.

I sort of like the idea of just continuing the game, although this could allow someone who has not initially reached 15 at the "conclusion" of the game to then win when it is continued (which would be dramatic, but it doesn't feel right).

Declaring a draw also seems ok, but not ideal.

I really hope the designer or publisher weighs in.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr Poulpe
France
flag msg tools
publisher
mb
I've asked the author about tie-breakers.

Please note this is not official as of now, but you may use it if you need to determine a winner (in tournaments, for instance) :

So, in order of priority :

- The player with the less number of development cards (already there, and official)
- The player owning the most nobles tiles
- The player owning the most gems (chips)
- If you're still tied (highly unlikely !) : the last player in the order of play.

16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Clarke
United Kingdom
Caithness
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar

That'll be no more sleepless nights for me.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gillum the Stoor
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seems like you could also use the the number of reserved unpurchased development cards (in hand).

That is, ties would be broken in favor of the player holding the fewest such cards.

One could argue that a player who reached the same total points while holding the fewest reserved cards did so based more on skill than on stealing cards away from other players.

(Of course, you could use the same argument for breaking ties in favor of the player with the least gems held, not the most!)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Young
United States
Irving
Texas
flag msg tools
Aetheros wrote:
boywithcap wrote:
Would the winner be the player with the least amount of level 3 cards?


Sorry, didn't mean to leave that out. We chose who had the most because the level 3 ones take the most work to get to, and it seemed in the spirit of the first tie breaker: who got the most points with the fewest cards.



This is an interesting notion, but it seems a little fiddly. That is, it seems like the players involved with the tie would likely have an equal number of level 3 cards. Did someone have more level 3 cards in your game?

Someone may have more level 3 cards if another player has more nobles, which is another reason I do not like level 3 cards as a tie breaker. Most nobles as a tie breaker seems to punish players for not choosing the noble strategy, and this is not a tendency I like in the game because diverse strategies make for interesting and fun game-play.

I played a game where there was a tie on points and cards. I suggested using most chips as tie breaker because it can be seen as a marker of efficiency, which is why I believe fewest cards is a tie breaker.

hymie wrote:
Seems to me that this is a game where you could just keep going until there's a clear winner.


This is another good option that I did not think of. Players could continue for another round until the tie is broken. This could add some additional tension to the game because someone may potentially pull ahead of the tied players. There have been games where I could have made huge score differences if I simply had one more turn. This could definitely be interesting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Young
United States
Irving
Texas
flag msg tools
gillum wrote:
Seems like you could also use the the number of reserved unpurchased development cards (in hand).

That is, ties would be broken in favor of the player holding the fewest such cards.

One could argue that a player who reached the same total points while holding the fewest reserved cards did so based more on skill than on stealing cards away from other players.

(Of course, you could use the same argument for breaking ties in favor of the player with the least gems held, not the most!)


Using gems as a tie breaker is tricky because of certain assumptions. I argued for least gems because it could be a sign that a player had built an efficient economy to where he/she did not need to take gems. That is, he/she used development cards instead of gems to purchase more development cards. However, a player may have used all or most of his/her gems to purchase a development card and break the tie even though he/she was not as efficient as the other player.

Admittedly, using most gems is probably not the best tie breaker either.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Soot Sprite
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for this. We had a tie in our second ever game, decided by the nobles tiles.
 
 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.