Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
4 Posts

Habitats» Forums » Rules

Subject: Turns per player per year - typo? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Quinn Swanger
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

At the bottom of page 3 in the rule book there is a table specifying the number of turns per player per year:

year 1 year 2 year 3
------ ------ ------
With 2 players: 9 6 6
With 3 players: 8 6 6
With 4 players: 7 6 6
With 5 players: 6 6 6

... Where the number of turns per player is scaled only for Year 1! All of the other years have just the same 6 turns regardless of the number of players. This seems strange enough to me that I really have to wonder if perhaps a typo found its way into the final rules.

To me, it seems like the number of turns per player per year really wants to be this:

year 1 year 2 year 3
------ ------ ------
With 2 players: 9 9 9
With 3 players: 8 8 8
With 4 players: 7 7 7
With 5 players: 6 6 6

... Where every year is scaled in a consistent manner.

So, are the published rules actually correct about this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corné van Moorsel
Netherlands
Maastricht
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
No typo, the written numbers are meant this way.

I like that it is a bit different with different numbers of players and it makes the playtime a bit more equal for different player numbers.
During the Essen-booth-release I started to regret this differenciation because just 6-6-6 is easier to explain. But when we played 6-6-6 for easyness and for a fraction shorter try-out games, it did feel a bit short with 2/3/4 players. Especially new players learn the better tactics later in the game and want a few more turns to "complete" more.
In the prototypes the number of turns per player did go down from 30 (with more luck in getting tiles, and with 5 or 6 or 7 required tiles for animals) to 18 turns. I liked that but the most enthousiast prototype players who played it often liked a few turns more.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quinn Swanger
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cwali wrote:
... the most [enthusiastic] prototype players who played it often liked a few turns more.


Interesting. I wasn't a prototype player, but I'd definitely consider myself to be an enthusiastic player. In the couple of 2-player games I've played so far, I too thought the length was a bit too short (sadly, for me, only 2 players will probably be how I'll mostly play). That's why I thought maybe the game was meant to scale the way I had speculated. If you "like that it is a bit different with different numbers of players and it makes the playtime a bit more equal for different player numbers" I would say that the total game playtime would be even more equal among the different player counts if the number of turns per player per year was more evenly-scaled, as I'd mentioned.

To wit ...

The total turns (which approximates the game length) for all players in the published rules vs. the "evenly-scaled turns" is thus:

published vs. evenly-scaled
-------------- --------------
2 players - (9+6+6)*2 = 42 (9+9+9)*2 = 54
3 players - (8+6+6)*3 = 60 (8+8+8)*3 = 72
4 players - (7+6+6)*4 = 76 (7+7+7)*4 = 84
5 players - (6+6+6)*5 = 90 (6+6+6)*5 = 90


As you can see the playtime is "more equal" with the turns on the right.

Anyway, whatever decisions went into coming up with the number of turns, the game is brilliant, fun, and the artwork outstanding!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corné van Moorsel
Netherlands
Maastricht
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
qswanger wrote:
cwali wrote:
... the most [enthusiastic] prototype players who played it often liked a few turns more.


Interesting. I wasn't a prototype player, but I'd definitely consider myself to be an enthusiastic player. In the couple of 2-player games I've played so far, I too thought the length was a bit too short (sadly, for me, only 2 players will probably be how I'll mostly play). That's why I thought maybe the game was meant to scale the way I had speculated. If you "like that it is a bit different with different numbers of players and it makes the playtime a bit more equal for different player numbers" I would say that the total game playtime would be even more equal among the different player counts if the number of turns per player per year was more evenly-scaled, as I'd mentioned.

To wit ...

The total turns (which approximates the game length) for all players in the published rules vs. the "evenly-scaled turns" is thus:

published vs. evenly-scaled
-------------- --------------
2 players - (9+6+6)*2 = 42 (9+9+9)*2 = 54
3 players - (8+6+6)*3 = 60 (8+8+8)*3 = 72
4 players - (7+6+6)*4 = 76 (7+7+7)*4 = 84
5 players - (6+6+6)*5 = 90 (6+6+6)*5 = 90


As you can see the playtime is "more equal" with the turns on the right.

Anyway, whatever decisions went into coming up with the number of turns, the game is brilliant, fun, and the artwork outstanding!

Thanks!

Trying different numbers of turns is possible, but with "too many" turns per player, tactics become less interesting (too "forgiving").
4 
 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.