Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Isle of Skye: From Chieftain to King» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Taking less than two tiles in a round rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
foldedcard
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
One thing that I find unusual (and to be honest, somewhat unsettling) about Isle of Skye is that the buying mechanic makes it possible for you to finish any given round with less than two new tiles because the other players buy one or both of yours and you are unable to replace them. If this happens it, is probably going to hurt your scoring for this round but you will have more money to set yourself up in future rounds.

Anyway, I am curious how much this comes up in real play for people. I could imagine that for some groups there will be an expectation that everyone finishes a round with only two tiles (or at least one), so if other players don't buy yours it might feel taboo to buy theirs. But I also wonder how often people will deliberately take less than two tiles to gain an edge in the next round.

Variant Idea: Thinking about this also made me think of a variant where instead of buying tiles outright, you can only swap one of your tiles for an opponent's tile. If your tile is cheaper than opponents tile, then you must pay your opponent the difference (the opponent adds the difference to his cash pile). If your tile is more expensive, you don't receive any change back. In either case, the cash that was placed for each tile goes to the bank. This rule would guarantee each player will get to place two tiles every round.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Netherlands
flag msg tools
       This space              intentionally              left blank.
badge
foldedcard wrote:
If this happens it, is probably going to hurt your scoring for this round but you will have more money to set yourself up in future rounds.

Anyway, I am curious how much this comes up in real play for people.
Too often. I consider it something of a flaw in the game, in that you can lose through no fault of your own if you have two rounds or more in the early game where both your tiles were bought. With quite a few combinations of scoring tiles, that'll be something you just can't recover from, no matter how much money you'll have afterward.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal Starek
Czech Republic
Sezimovo Usti
flag msg tools
badge
REALLY badass
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
a_traveler wrote:
foldedcard wrote:
If this happens it, is probably going to hurt your scoring for this round but you will have more money to set yourself up in future rounds.

Anyway, I am curious how much this comes up in real play for people.
Too often. I consider it something of a flaw in the game, in that you can lose through no fault of your own if you have two rounds or more in the early game where both your tiles were bought. With quite a few combinations of scoring tiles, that'll be something you just can't recover from, no matter how much money you'll have afterward.


I've seen it happen in 3p games frequently, in 4p rarely, in 5p next-to-never and in 2p never, by definition.

Please check out this dummy player idea, it remedies this "problem of yours", when used in 3p games.
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1421967/2-player-low-mainte...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zach Prater
United States
Hilliard
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Had it happen in a 5 player game. Last round, 1st player used all the money they had to set prices for his two tiles, so he passed on a purchase. I was next and bought one of the tiles. I think the 4th player also bought one of his tiles. It was a gamble and it destroyed his game. I don't see it happen too often, but it does occasionally.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Goodridge
United States
Windsor Locks
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
I don't want it, I don't need it, but I can't stop myself. - Stabbing Westward
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not sure how you can say it happens more frequently in 3p than 4 or 5. The more people there are, the more likely it is someone has both of their tiles bought. Might not happen every round, but it certainly does. I typically have the "fortune" to draw the only relevant tiles to the scoring objectives, so mine are always gone, no matter what I price them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Johns
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
a_traveler wrote:
foldedcard wrote:
If this happens it, is probably going to hurt your scoring for this round but you will have more money to set yourself up in future rounds.

Anyway, I am curious how much this comes up in real play for people.
Too often. I consider it something of a flaw in the game, in that you can lose through no fault of your own if you have two rounds or more in the early game where both your tiles were bought. With quite a few combinations of scoring tiles, that'll be something you just can't recover from, no matter how much money you'll have afterward.


I don't consider it a flaw. You always get one. If more of your tiles are bought then you make more money. You also potentially get fewer VPs on a given round, which can give you more money. With the more money you put more money on your next choices. Then either people pay a lot for them or you keep them. To me it's a balancing act between just enough to tempt the other player(s) to purchase your tile OR too much so they won't and you get to keep it.

It is irritating to only get one tile, especially several rounds in a row. But you can mitigate that kind of stuff, IMO.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chuck Rice
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
a_traveler wrote:
foldedcard wrote:
If this happens it, is probably going to hurt your scoring for this round but you will have more money to set yourself up in future rounds.

Anyway, I am curious how much this comes up in real play for people.
Too often. I consider it something of a flaw in the game, in that you can lose through no fault of your own if you have two rounds or more in the early game where both your tiles were bought. With quite a few combinations of scoring tiles, that'll be something you just can't recover from, no matter how much money you'll have afterward.


If this happens it is in fact through a fault of the player. A very big part of being "good" at this game is pricing your tiles correctly. In the early game, everyone has about the same money, so if you are being left with 0 or 1 tiles, you undervauled your tiles.

I'd also disagree that this is a huge detriment to winning the game. You're going to have more money to buy tiles if you bought fewer tiles than your opponent.

Again- a big part of the skill of the game is pricing tiles correctly. This is something learned over multiple playthroughs of the game.
7 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chuck Rice
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Arch City Zach wrote:
Had it happen in a 5 player game. Last round, 1st player used all the money they had to set prices for his two tiles, so he passed on a purchase. I was next and bought one of the tiles. I think the 4th player also bought one of his tiles. It was a gamble and it destroyed his game. I don't see it happen too often, but it does occasionally.


That's partially bad luck. I'd also recommend never EVER putting all your money on your tiles. So in that respect, the player made a mistake. If you think your tiles will both get bought, you should at least reserve some money to buy something yourself.

Player order is very important here as well. If you're going first, putting all your money on your tiles is a bad idea. If you're going last and suspect those tiles will be bought, then at least you might have a chance to overpay for something.

I still wouldn't recommend it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Krawhitham B
New Zealand
Napier
Hawkes Bay
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
First player in the first round can have a disadvantage because you might be forced to use all of your money to set the prices. Every other player might end up receiving more money before their turn, but not the first player.

If first player in the first round draws 3 'good' tiles then they can price them at 3 & 2 to maximise income. If they hold onto any money then they hand out their tiles cheaply and risk only being able to buy unwanted tiles.

They could price at 4-1 on the basis of handing out a cheap tile but increasing their chances of holding onto at least 1 tile.

Of course, this is only an issue if the first turn first round player draws 3 excellent tiles.

The first player, first turn 'problem' does get worse with more players but it really demonstrates how good this game is when this is the worst thing I can say about it. It is a quick enough game that I can tolerate getting screwed over on the first turn because I won't be stuck playing for long.
2 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J M
United States
Scottdale
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Krawhitham wrote:
First player in the first round can have a disadvantage because you might be forced to use all of your money to set the prices. Every other player might end up receiving more money before their turn, but not the first player.


If first player uses all of her money to set prices, where is this extra money coming from for player two? Player one bought no tiles, and nobody made any money from her buying turn. If player two used all her money to set prices, where is all this extra money coming from for player three...?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
foldedcard
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. It seems like there are two camps: those who believe they sometimes get screwed by the buying rules, and those that think careful bidding strategy eliminates the problem. Noone claimed to have deliberately taken less than two tiles to set themselves up for later rounds.

AceAceBaby wrote:
Krawhitham wrote:
First player in the first round can have a disadvantage because you might be forced to use all of your money to set the prices. Every other player might end up receiving more money before their turn, but not the first player.


If first player uses all of her money to set prices, where is this extra money coming from for player two? Player one bought no tiles, and nobody made any money from her buying turn. If player two used all her money to set prices, where is all this extra money coming from for player three...?


I think the potential issue is more that if you get the three most valuable tiles as first player in a 3+ player game, then odds are good that you are going to lose both of your tiles in the buying round. Unlike for players later in the turn order, you won't benefit from the extra money to allow you to buy a good tile until the next round. More an issue of randomness than fairness, I guess. And I think it's not really an issue at all in a 2 player game.

Swapping instead of outright taking opponents tiles would be one way to eliminate the disadvantage with 3 or more players, but I don't know if that would ruin some of the strategy in the game by making the gameplay too symmetric. I plan to test this out the next time I play with a higher player count, though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Dial
msg tools
mbmb
iamspamus wrote:
a_traveler wrote:
foldedcard wrote:
If this happens it, is probably going to hurt your scoring for this round but you will have more money to set yourself up in future rounds.

Anyway, I am curious how much this comes up in real play for people.
Too often. I consider it something of a flaw in the game, in that you can lose through no fault of your own if you have two rounds or more in the early game where both your tiles were bought. With quite a few combinations of scoring tiles, that'll be something you just can't recover from, no matter how much money you'll have afterward.


I don't consider it a flaw. You always get one. If more of your tiles are bought then you make more money. You also potentially get fewer VPs on a given round, which can give you more money. With the more money you put more money on your next choices. Then either people pay a lot for them or you keep them. To me it's a balancing act between just enough to tempt the other player(s) to purchase your tile OR too much so they won't and you get to keep it.

It is irritating to only get one tile, especially several rounds in a row. But you can mitigate that kind of stuff, IMO.


Trust me. You don't "always get one". If you have to pass for some reason and others buy your tiles; you are out of luck that round.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Konrad Teper
Germany
flag msg tools
It's depending on scoring tiles in the first round (or first two rounds). If there is some scoring tiles required a set of things or big closed area etc., probably nobody will get it in the first round (even if they bought 3 tiles), so if you don't get any tiles, you doesn't lose points at this rounds. But you get some money which you can use to buy best in the second round, therefore maybe other player don't get tiles and you score than.

At last few plays we have played, a player who built the largest territory didn't won.

I think, that what makes this game great is that you have to rethink your tactics every time. Depending on your position, scoring tiles, money available and tiles on the table. If you're good player you will deal with that.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Giesen
msg tools
yeah. If you think of extra cash only as purchasing power, it would be a significant disadvantage, but big piles of cash is also the secret to protecting good tiles you draw and potentially securing a three tile round for yourself.
 
 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.