This variant attempts to eliminate the complaint that "the best hand wins" in a different and better way.
(Note: "[*blank*]" means optional rule.)

- At the start of the game, shuffle the Occupations and Minor Improvements. Take 7 cards per player out of each deck. Place the rest into the box. Now out of the remaining 2 decks, draw 7 Occupations and 7 Minor Improvements face up near the board as a common supply.

- During the game, a player taking an Occupation action and/or a Minor Improvement action takes the card of their choice from the common supply (an Occupation at the "Employment Office" or a Minor Improvement at "Home Depot"). They then immediately replace the card from the corresponding deck, so that there is always 7 cards in each type in the common supply.

[- No player may have more than 7 Occupations.]

[- No player may have more than 7 Minor Improvements.]


This was a cool idea of mine, though I have yet to try it. I think it would solve the problem of "the best hand wins" complaint even better than the Draft Variant in the official rulebook, because everyone has the same cards available at any given time!

Interesting, but I think you lose a lot by:

1. Not having a set of cards by which you can plan a strategy.

2. Not having secret cards, whereby you surprise people at the end with your big scoring cards.

Your variant completely eliminates any strategy from the game and makes it 100% tactical.

You are right about the strategy part, but the secret part doesn't matter except in a few cases, unless you care about a bit of that excitement that comes from the surprise, which I'm sure many people do.

It changes the game, yes, but will the "new" game please people that say "best hand of cards wins" better than the original???

A lot of cases actually... this is primarily true for most of the interactive cards but also for the great card combinations.

If you build Water Carrier, will anyone else ever build the Well?

If you get Carpenter, are they also going to let you get Clay Roof and Bricklayer? I bet not.

Can you play those cards and count on the other ones coming up? No...

Without a secret hand of cards, Agricola becomes a dry min-maxing exercise (i.e., the family game).

the "best card wins" argument will still come. first it benefits the start player alot. second, when a new card is drawn some players will be in the position to immediately play it (take the appropriate action), others won't. third, you don't know what (or how many!) cards will be drawn in the future game. having a card drawn that supports your already played card (example village well and well builder) means a big luck factor.

finally i think with this system you might get stuck with bad cards that no one wants more easily. the end-game cards won't be taken at start and the ones played might be replaced with other end-game or weak cards. following the usual rules if you start out with mixed cards you can play some at start. following your rules if you start with mixed cards they might convert to cards that make little sense in the early stages after 3 players have played an occupation/improvement (unlikely but possible and can spoil your game if it happens).

I think the title is very clever

Tim no like.

I think its an intresting varient and could be fun with the right group of friends.

That being said, I have to agree with most of the other posters.

A large, shared pool of cards makes it more like major improvements, and if someone manages to take a card before you it can mess up your stratagy.

I think a draft system, of just about any kind, may be a better strategy.

If you want everybody to have equal chance of getting good cards try the following drafts:

"The Horseshoe"
Pick the player who would be going last in round one (Player X).
They draw a number of occupations and a number of minor improvements equal to the number of players.
That player picks one of each type of card and passes the rest to the player on thier right. That player picks one of each and passes to thier right until all players have picked one.

The player to the right of the Player X then does the same thing (draw equal to players, pick and pass to the right)

Do this so that all players have at least 10 cards of each type and each player has drawn an equal number of times.

Discard down to seven of each type of card.

============

That should allow everybody and equal chance to take intresting cards.

Though in all honesty it might take longer and not give much better results that a 14/7 draw (Draw 14 of each type of card and take 7).

Another thing you could try is a varient on the 10/3 rule in the rule book (draw 10, discard 3).

Perform a 10/3 draw as normal, but all the discards are placed face up on the table. Randomly pick a player. That player may discard one card in their hand and pick one of the discards. Continue this action clockwise until all players no longer discard and draw a card from the discard pile.

It seems to take a very long time for the game setup. The complexity overweights the equal chances of card selection. Only pro-gamers would like that arrangement.

Sounds like Power Grid with the power plant deck. Remember, I said that it is not better than original, I thought it would be a very fun variant to try.

np

It is not complicated. Just as complicated/time consuming as dealing everyone 7 cards.

I tried this variant in a 2 player game and a 3 player game. It worked quite well! It had more of a "gamer's game" feel while still preserving the replayability. And it added more player interaction!!! Though it was more tactical. It is best played in a 2 player game, since it is still more strategic.

So my cry to you: try the variant before you criticize it!!! I'm sure you would want me to do that if you posted something along the same lines. That doesn't mean you'll like it, but it means you would understand it better, and make a better critique.

What if players had their own hand of cards, but still had the community pile? When you put an occupation or minor improvement into play, you can play one from your hand, or one from the Community pile, but if you take one from the Community pile, you must replace it with one from your hand (or the deck).

Interesting. Sort of like Texas Holdem', huh? That is a good idea. That would be 4 cards in hand with 3 on the table, right?

I hadn't thought about it more than just the general idea.

You could play around with how many cards players have in their hand vs how many are in the community pile, and see what you like.

But it would eliminate the complaints some have that it removes "secrecy" from the game, while still having the communal cards, which I think is an awesome idea...

Still people will complain... even before trying it....

No kidding... it's frustrating how readily people will "poo-poo" a cool idea without giving it a chance. That's BGG for ya, I suppose.

Completely not true. I've played it and you haven't, remember?

Looks very interesting. What are the actual rules after the first tests, Corin?

Thank you, Uwe! It's always nice to hear designers interested in my thoughts (especially one of my favorite designers!). Gotcha, Geeks!!!

I haven't changed the rules so far. I think the game works well with the rules contained in the original post. I would have to play it again to see if there is any room for improvement (it would be a minor improvement. ).

I wonder: Do any of those geeks out there like this variant any better now that Uwe thinks it's interesting?

BTW, Le Havre is fantastic!

I have played with a similar variant lately and is great for teaching the game. We set up a common pool of 7 minor improvements and 7 occupations. For two players games we don't replace picked cards but I think that for more that two players, it is a great idea to replace them.

This variant works really well with new players, as you can explain the cards and even comment the possible combos.

We have played about 5 two players games and 3 three players game and my gaming group agrees that although the games becomes more tactical, it increases interaction because you can try to avoid the other players to have too many powerful cards.

Yes that is what I found as well, though I was surprised at the comment that it was good for new players. Our experience was that the game became tougher strategically/tactically, but I didn't think about the explanation part of it. Wow, that's cool!