Rüdiger Dorn (#45568),

First, grats on an excellent game. It is much fun and well conceived.

Second, I disagree with the above clarification. Clearly not with your translation (since I agree that is what the German states), but with the rule itself. I think the English rule makes more sense. IMHO you should have the right to draw cards, examine them and then play or discard back down to hand limit. This way you have a chance for VP maximization at game end and for best use of cards. This is especially so since it would appear one may only use a single Expedition card per action turn. Further, since other rules state you may play a non-A expedition card at any time before, during or after an action, this ruling appears to directly contradict this right or severely limit it, since you have now removed the "during" portion.

I gather the new rule should be written as follows:

When a player chooses the expedition action, he takes expedition cards from the supply. The number of expedition cards he may take is shown by the position of his marker in the expedition column. The left number is the maximum number of cards he may take, the right number is the player's expedition card limit and he may draw a number of cards up to the lesser of his maximum draw or card limit.
Example 1: as is
Example 2: the player has 3 expedition cards in his hand and his marker is in the 4th row of the expedition column (2 4). He may either draw only a single expedition card, or he may first discard or play an expedition card (non-A) and then draw 2 cards. If the same player had 4 in his hand to begin with, he must either play 1 card and discard 1 card or discard both prior to drawing 2 more.

Again, I disagree with this. However, if this is to be the case, then, from a strategy viewpoint I would assume if you are over by two cards, one should always play an expedition card on the turn BEFORE you wish to play the expedition action so you may play another one prior to starting the expedition action.

Well, Arthur, I disagree with your disagreement
. I, too, enjoyed playing with the Rio rules. It was, in fact, key to my victory in the couple of Goa games that I actually won. I'm not entirely sure that the original rule will in any way hamper those people who most carefully track the expedition discard pile, but of course if the deck is newly shuffled when you start your fishing expedition (or tiger, or tree, or whatever) then you may be injured by this sequencing. In the meantime, this "change" forces people to play the auctions much more judiciously, in my completely non-humble opinion.

The principle argument in favor of pre-draw downsizing that I see is this: Why should you be allowed to bank actions? If you have cards you don't want to play, but are holding either because you don't want others to play them or because you are trying to hang onto a set, why should you continue to get additional utility from card draws without either spending the actions required to increase your hand limit, or giving up some of the banked utility that you've already obtained? I think it's deeply ingrained in many of us that drawing and playing/discarding down to a hand limit is standard operating procedure, but in a situation like Goa, where the cards have dual purposes, it makes perfect sense to restrict their convenience. I really despise having to ignore English language rules in favor of the original rules, but this isn't the first time it has happened, and undoubtedly will not be the last.

I agree with your comment at the outset--the game is excellent AND well conceived, and I trust Herr Dorn's opinion as regards the expedition cards.

With regard to your strategy comment: It's entirely dependent upon which cards you currently hold. If you're holding them, it's because either they form a set you want, or you haven't needed the action they provide. Just because you want to draw more for some reason doesn't automatically make the ones you are holding any more playable. If you have a hand full of "A" cards, none of which do jack diddly for you, then discarding is strategically just as viable as trying to force yourself to play some.

Of course I meant "principal argument."

ArthurF (#45579),

Having played the game about 10 times and spent a lot of time studying it, my only big concern with the game so far was that the expedition card track is essential to playing competitively. Using the RGG rules the cards are powerful enough that the players who advance fastest on that track have a substantial advantage over those who don't. With typical winning scores of between 52 and 55 in our 4-player games the points from a large card capacity are also essential.

Overall I thought that this one track being essential to strong play wasn't a severe flaw, but it seemed to offer fewer avenues for effective play than was intended in the original design. Now that I know what the originally intention was I'm looking forward to playing it that way. I suspect that it will reduce both the early and late rewards for upgrading the card track thus improving the breadth of the strategy.

Jim

If one has 3 cards in hand and is at the 2/4 part of the track, must one play or discard a card first before drawing the two cards or may he draw one (bringing his hand size to 4), play or discard one then, and only then draw the second card?

He never goes above the hand limit of 4 by doing this, but I realize that it is only in rare circumstances that one can break up an action to play an expedition card. Is this one of the rare circumstances?

dkeisen (#45816),

In that case, to draw 2 cards instead of 1 the player must play and/or discard at least 1 card before drawing cards.

Jim

Rüdiger Dorn (#45568),

:0
Gahh! Thats a pretty big rule to change.

We've been playing it so long with the Rio Grande rule that I doubt anyone will accept this rule. It will cause too much confusion.

Yep, I think we'll just play the way we've always played.

jttm (#46430),

I won't. There had been complaints in my group about how the expedition cards were overpowered. Complaints sufficient to mostly keep Goa from hitting the table.

The new ruling might change all that. I hope so.

dkeisen (#46437),

I have played with and without the new ruling, and I prefer the original rule - downsize *before* drawing. It's way too easy to form a set of 5 symbols otherwise, causing someone who really didn't play very well to storm ahead in the final few rounds. The original rule keeps the power of the expedition cards under control.

meowsqueak (#51697),


I agree...this rule is brilliant. I am so glad the designer came on board and set me straight on this one. It makes more sense and will lessen the power ( which is a good thing ) of the expedition cards and the way they are obtained and used.

Rudiger, thanks for posting this correction. The game, to me, seemed to become a race to get the expedition cards, with the person who got the most and/or drew the best, won. These rules may save the game for me. I like it, but found the Rio rules ended up making the game disappointing.

I will say I won one game by a point avoiding the expedition cards. Then lost badly doing the same. Person who got the expedition cards ended up winning. And I am not saying, "by symbols" either. They won because of the abilities the cards provided.

The cards are powerful, and a potluck on what they provide, making the chance level possibly higher than it should be.

The people who are saying "the English rule was key to my victory" have both conceded the reason why it is incorrect AND failed to see it.

We adopted the German rule and it makes the game BALANCED. With the English rule, the game turns into "expedition card roulette".

Note: the tiles which give you extra cards do so without regard for hand limits but once you get to, say, 8 cards, you obviously won't be able to pick up any until you get to 4 or less (depending on where you are on the expedition card track).

Even with this change, expedition cards are pretty powerful. The expedition card track directly translates to VPs (since 1 card is worth a minimum of 1 VP and more if it forms a set). Picking up 3 cards is pretty powerful. Those cards can do things like allow advance without resources or ships, harvest colonists/ships and colonize with 3 cards. All these things can save you actions and you get (up to) THREE of them in one action.

Even with the German rule we find that at least 1-2 players will still race down the expedition card track. Also, it wasn't until we adopted the German rule that someone one without maxing out on expedition cards. That says it all I think.

Just an FYI for anyone who has purchased the latest version of Goa from Rio Grande: this has been corrected in the new english rules so you can follow them now.

I'm not clear on this ruling. Does it mean that if you are at the 2/4 part of the expedition track and are currently holding 3 cards, you don't have the option to just draw one card?