Agricola | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

vivafringe — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:56:33 +0000

out4blood wrote:
Actually, you make a great point. With Clay Mixer, Clay becomes a great spot for you. Much better than the 1r or 2f.

Thinking about it, you are probably right. I guess I'll do that next time I play Clay Mixer. That said, I'm still not sold on DL being a bad first round move in general.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Your old, unloved, unmeepled, wooden counters

danmac — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:08:28 +0000

by danmac

Thanks to several generous BGGers, I have all the discs I need for the upgrading project. I'll have images of them in use in the Source of the Nile gallery soon.

Thanks,
Dan

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

out4blood — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:58:14 +0000

by out4blood

vivafringe wrote:
I think taking 1R is pretty horrible in this instance. Imagine this line of play:

Round 1: Sheep

Vivafringe: Occ/Clay Mixer
Opponent: 3W(3)
Vivafringe: 1R
Opponent: SP + improvement

Round 2: MIMI

Opponent: 2C.

Actually, you make a great point. With Clay Mixer, Clay becomes a great spot for you. Much better than the 1r or 2f.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Webnard — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:59:12 +0000

by Webnard

out4blood wrote:
Webnard wrote:
The disagreement with me is about something I'm not talking about. So addressing me as if I were the champion and defender of the idea that the Family Game and the Full Game of Agricola are equal is simply misplaced. I never said that. Please move on. It's getting to the point that I am losing confidence that what I wrote is being read.
It's always possible someone hacked your userid and password. Have you read what you've "written?"

You don't have to stop reading just because you come to the end of a line. I mean it. Really.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Webnard — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:55:06 +0000

by Webnard

Limey Sponge wrote:

And as far as Agricola goes, I'm going to be picky. There are more cards to choose from, but not more decisions. You still want to balance as much as you can, have a child, build up your house. What you want to do doesn't change, only the number and type of cards you have to pull it off.

So, ya had me then ya lost me. More cards doesn't make Agricola more deep, and it doesn't create more decisions, just choices. YMMV.

Sorry, I can't really see any way to parse this that doesn't end up sounding like "more choices in a decision does not add depth" and "more depth requires more decision points".

And I'm good with that. I'm also good with not knowing what I'm talking about. I've already admitted you (all) know the game better than I do. Enjoy it. I do. I rated the game an 8.

What I think about it doesn't change how much you enjoy it--or the fact that I'm happy for you. I think it may be time to cut me some slack.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

Jayolas — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:55:04 +0000

by Jayolas

I didn't play against other people at first because I also though you had to enlarge each card one at a time. BUT, as has already been mentioned, you can enlarge the whole card window by clicking on it and then hitting the + sign. So easy... When my brother pointed it out to me I felt totally stupid for not noticing this before...lol

My favorite way to play on this site is to call my brother up on the phone and talk to him the whole time as we play against each other. Super fun!!

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Webnard — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:46:08 +0000

by Webnard

vivafringe wrote:
Webnard wrote:
So addressing me as if I were the champion and defender of the idea that the Family Game and the Full Game of Agricola are equal is simply misplaced. I never said that.

Webnard wrote:
More cards doesn't make Agricola more deep

...

You have the choice between understanding that these statements do not contradict each other and or that you got me and I stand corrected. You choose. But you only get one decision. :)

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: 2 questions

MisterG — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:26:07 +0000

by MisterG

pijll wrote:
...2) No, what Bryann said. I disagree with Geoff: you can renovate in another player's turn. But you have to do it before or after his own action.

Aha! So, actually we agree, but for different reasons. I agree with your specificity of performing the renovation before or after another player's move/turn and not during. Given Mike's and Nate's further explications, I would find it rather ludicrous for the player attempting such a gambit to claim that they were doing it before the other player renovated, seeing as how they had no way of knowing the other player was renovating until they actually did so. I think my intuition that this "gambit is counter to the intentions of the designer, and the spirit of the game" is correct, despite my failure to defend it as well as Mike and Nate ultimately did.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Are Tavern and Clay Deposit improvements to the Village Elder?

btizo — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:33:56 +0000

by btizo

Yes of course they are. They are played and paid for by there respective owners. The only difference is they are available for use by others.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Base Components and the 5-player Game

jsciv — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:20:25 +0000

by jsciv

cferejohn wrote:
Also, the pieces that look like wood are supposed to be clay and the ones that look like clay are supposed to be wood (the ones that look like clay are more plentiful). Well, at least that's how they all look to me...

Haha! I would say that the ones that look like wood are supposed to be wood because they're the more plentiful ones. :)

Well played!

Reply: Agricola:: Reviews:: Re: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

Zimeon — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:03:17 +0000

by Zimeon

This review rocks in every aspect.

Thread: Agricola:: Rules:: Are Tavern and Clay Deposit improvements to the Village Elder?

Lord Chambers — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:59:30 +0000

by Lord Chambers

Village Elder (3–5 players) I221
You receive wood immediately when you play this
card: if played in round 12 or 13, take 1 wood; if
played in round 9, 10, or 11, take 2 wood; if played
in round 6, 7, or 8, take 3 wood; if played before
round 6, take 4 wood. At the end of the game,
all players with the most improvements in front of
them receive 3 bonus points each.

Tavern (2VP. Cost 2W 2S.) I100
The Tavern is an additional action space. Whenever
another player uses it, they receive 3 food.
Whenever you use it, you can choose either to take
3 food or to score 2 bonus points.

Clay Deposit (Req 3 occ.) I337
This card is an additional action space. A player
who uses this action space must pay you 1 food and
receives 5 clay. If you use the Clay Deposit yourself,
you may choose to take 2 bonus points instead
of the clay.

Are Tavern and Clay Deposit improvements to the Village Elder?

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

vivafringe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:47:02 +0000

by vivafringe

I think taking 1R is pretty horrible in this instance. Imagine this line of play:

Round 1: Sheep

Vivafringe: Occ/Clay Mixer
Opponent: 3W(3)
Vivafringe: 1R
Opponent: SP + improvement

Round 2: MIMI

Opponent: 2C.

How am I supposed to respond? Not only have I ceded the fireplace, but I can't even counter with reed, since I've taken it off the board. I am very suddenly losing - neither of us has reed but my opponent is heading towards a huge food advantage.

Day Laborer has the advantage that I force my opponent to deny my sheep, without much caring myself. Just because my opponent makes the best play doesn't mean they're not in a bad spot. They've been forced to waste an action, and meanwhile I have plenty of food, just as much wood, and equal reed.

*

Plowing a field round 1 is bad because it represents at least 2 more actions to get a marginal benefit. Imagine you plow a field, take SP with Corn Sheaf, and then Sow. Great, you've spent 2.5 early actions for a grand total of 2G. Oh wait, that's terrible! "Early plows" don't really exist, either. Taking 3W, playing a plow, plowing fields, taking one or two grain, and sowing is either 5.5 or 6.5 actions. If you are wasting that much on early infrastructure you are pretty much ceding the battle for early FG AND the early fireplace. In short, you are screwed. The earliest you can play a plow and use it is pretty much Stage 2, or you are just going to fall too far behind in resources.

Not to mention that baking in general is horrible in 2-p for the exact "zero-sum" reasons you bring up in your post. If you are mucking around sowing fields and baking, your opponent is buying a fireplace and eating all of the animals. He's getting more food for less actions. And don't throw in the tired, "I'll just deny him" argument. You can't possibly spend a bajillion actions on an early grain engine and hope to deny him of anything, while still competing for FG.

Fair enough on the Pottery, though. I probably underrate that card in 2-p simply because it pretty much only comes up with Clay Mixer/Clay Worker.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: wood cart+ basket and simular cards

TwitchBot — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:44:02 +0000

by TwitchBot

weisswurst wrote:

I would also see take and receive as the same thing.
I have the German version, and looking through the cards there are two things that I have noticed:

- Many German cards say "erhalten", which I would definitely translate/interpret as "receive", whereas the English cards say "take".
Examples: Berry picker, Woodcutter.

- If there is really a restriction, then it is mentioned on the card!
Examples: Net Fisherman, Clay Worker. The German cards explicitly say that they are NOT activated by occupations and improvements which bring reed resp. wood/clay.
Also Pig Catchers explicitly mentions a restriction. The German cards basically says "if you take wood which is lying on an action space".

So in all cases I would interpret taking/receiving/bringing without restriction to where the resources actually come from, unless the card says otherwise.

Thank you!

This is extremely helpful, and is what I'd become suspicious was the case. The use of the words "take" and "receive" in the English version seems very haphazard, and often there appears to be no logical reason for a distinction between two cards. (e.g. Grain Sheff says "take" where as almost all the other "pass-to-the-left" resource cards say receive).

For a while now I've thought that the most likely explanation was that the cards were translated by someone who was not sufficiently neurotic about this kind of seemingly unimportant detail.

Thanks again!

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: 2 questions

Limey Sponge — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:28:57 +0000

by Limey Sponge

vivafringe wrote:
2) I have Builder's Trowel out with Social Climber in play, with enough resources to pay for the renovation. My opponent puts a peep on a Renovate spot. In response, can I renovate and get the full bonus?

I would say that once their person is on the action, they have renovated. (Assuming that they have the needed materials.) The apparent gap between playing on the action and seeing the renovated house is that period in which the our perceived game reality alters itself to reflect that underlying truth. The house IS already clay the moment the person is played, all that remains is for us to conform our perceptions to that reality by flipping room tiles.

I might also say, "Have you every looked at your hand? I mean REALLY looked at it, man? It's like totally full of meaning, dude. Whoa." and then eat all your snack food.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

out4blood — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:12:45 +0000

by out4blood

vivafringe wrote:
out4blood wrote:
Also, I am pretty convinced that Clay Mixer is a decisive card in 2-player. I am shocked you didn't get Pottery.

Missed this the first time since I was in a rush. I was indeed hoping to get a pottery, but gave up in round 10 when I took 6W over 5S. As I said in the report my logic at the time was that I didn't want my opponent powering out a bunch of rooms with the carpenter (she had 6R at that point). My opponent only had a chance to use 3 of that stone by the end of the game, whereas she certainly would have used all of the wood, so I think it was the correct play. But yeah, it certainly hurt.

When Clay Mixer is in a 2er game, Pottery is always a priority for me. I get it for the easy food and points if I have CM, and I'll try to keep it from my opponent so they don't benefit from it.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

out4blood — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:09:08 +0000

by out4blood

vivafringe wrote:
I think your hatred of DL might mainly be to 4-p bias, where it is pretty horrible. For 2-p, I find it a strong first round move simply because the other options are just so horrible. Essentially, it prevents you from being forced to take DL later in Stage 1, where obviously it is much worse.

Also 1G/PF both do get better later in the game, because the worth of an action goes down (making spending an action on either a more affordable cost). DL is never better than it is Round 1, since food is most valuable then.

75% of my games have all been 2-player, so I don't think my bias is due to 4-player results. 2-er is all zero-sum, so if there is something that can mess with your opponent, then it can be a very good move.

As I see it, if I can force my opponent to take DL, that's like doubling his pawns in chess; it's not decisive alone, but I've managed to create a weakness.

Were I you in that game, I would have taken the sheep before going to DL. Why - why not let them build up? Well, building up 4 sheep is just ASKING for the opponent to take it - this is 2er, which is very zero-sum. With the Clay Mixer, you are guaranteed to get a cooker, so the sheep are yours for the taking. Having only 4 food on there is less attractive for them to take just to throw away, but 6 or 8 becomes a worthwhile action, just to deny you resources.

But even then, taking the one reed is also a reasonable action over the 2 food. With the sheep first, food is not going to be a problem. If she's snatching SP, you can blunt the effectiveness of that move by grabbing the reed.

Depending on cards available, Grain and early plows, coupled with sowing can create a powerful start. So I don't automatically rule them out. Yes, it's EASIER to get fields plowed LATER when actions are more prevalent, but you miss out on potential harvest phases that provide free resources if you leave plowing as an after thought. The benefits of this are all card-dependent however. You had a plow, so late plowing was the right strategy for you.

Reply: Agricola:: Reviews:: Re: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

smcmike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:00:17 +0000

by smcmike

First, great review.

Take a look at the scoring chart and see what makes you the most points – more people and stone houses with lots of rooms. That’s what you should be shooting for in every game. More people is even more self explanatory since the more people you have the more actions you get to take – that’s just a downhill slide to points right there. I don’t find it particularly stressful to figure out how to feed your people either. It always seems to me that you have ample ability to feed your starving mouths, either via your own produce or by the board.

Ultimately, when I play Agricola, and I do end up playing it quite a bit because it is a favorite of my gaming group and my family, I have a two hour session of minimal player interaction coupled with me putting a puzzle together that always ends up looking the same when I am finished. Sometimes the pieces I have to use are a little different, but it always looks the same in the end – a 4 room stone house with 4 or 5 people living in it with just enough fields and pastures to maximize my points. Usually I end up placing first or second but for the most part I don’t really care that much – I am just glad I am done.

Here's where I (predictably) disagree with you a little bit.

1. You say it's basically simple to feed your people. This is more or less true, but that more or less depends on the game size and your opponents. In a 4 player game, it's pretty easy to not starve. In a 2 or 3 player game, against an opponent determined to screw with you, it can be a different story. Sure, you might get your family fed, but you might not be able to do much else either.

2. While the 4 room stone house is a great way to get points, it's not the only one. I'm not saying that this isn't a valid criticism: there is a formula for a successful farm, but there's a bit more variety than you imply here. I've won games with a 3 room wood hut, and I've lost to an 8 room stone house.

Reply: Agricola:: Reviews:: Re: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

Alexfrog — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:50:43 +0000

by Alexfrog

UndeadViking wrote:

Yup. Recognition for how well it is made and the superior design. Not so much my personal enjoyment.

He knows that we know where he lives....
:D

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: 2 questions

smcmike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:37:36 +0000

by smcmike

2). I think you can Renovate at any time, including other people's turns, but responding to another player's action wouldn't work. There isn't really any "response" mechanism built into the game, which I think is a good thing. I wouldn't want to have to negotiate an MtG-style "stack" for every action.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

smcmike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:30:39 +0000

by smcmike

Educator is a card I never even considered playing with before, with that high food cost. Just the other day, though, I saw a victory based upon Educator/Patron/Bookshelf. It might be one that deserves a higher rating in drafts than in straight evaluation, since it's pretty strong with a combo.

Reply: Agricola:: Reviews:: Re: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

UndeadViking — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:28:29 +0000

by UndeadViking

cferejohn wrote:
However, for me, it is a tired, ponderous time of pushing and placing wood tokens at a table with a few friends doing the same thing, in which all of us are stuck on our farming treadmills until we reach a conclusion that is neither a surprise, nor as fitting a reward for the efforts we just went through.

...couldn't help but notice you rate it a 7...

Yup. Recognition for how well it is made and the superior design. Not so much my personal enjoyment.

Reply: Agricola:: Reviews:: Re: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

Alexfrog — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:21:40 +0000

by Alexfrog

UndeadViking wrote:
As I said before, for what it is, it is as close to perfect as I have found, and for the right people, it is gaming nirvana. However, for me, it is a tired, ponderous time of pushing and placing wood tokens at a table with a few friends doing the same thing, in which all of us are stuck on our farming treadmills until we reach a conclusion that is neither a surprise, nor as fitting a reward for the efforts we just went through.

Yep, this doesnt mean its a bad game, it just means that youre not a real gamer! REAL gamers love games about farming! :D :D

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/301443

Reply: Agricola:: Reviews:: Re: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

cferejohn — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:15:26 +0000

by cferejohn

However, for me, it is a tired, ponderous time of pushing and placing wood tokens at a table with a few friends doing the same thing, in which all of us are stuck on our farming treadmills until we reach a conclusion that is neither a surprise, nor as fitting a reward for the efforts we just went through.

...couldn't help but notice you rate it a 7...

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

BerZerg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:39:53 +0000

by BerZerg

vivafringe wrote:
Oh, yes, that is an excellent point that I forgot to mention. You need to be familiar with the game, since the card text is too small to read for any played cards. You can comfortably read the titles of the cards, so it's a bit better than in the screenshots (which suffer from the jpeg compression I used - thanks, MSpaint!). But you will need to be able to know most of the cards by name to play quickly, since the "click to enlarge" feature is somewhat clunky.

With the plus and minus signs you can zoom in/out.

Reply: Agricola:: Reviews:: Re: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

Bubslug — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:20:16 +0000

by Bubslug

I play games that I enjoy playing. I stop playing them when I stop enjoying them. [thing=13][/thing]/[thing=36218][/thing], are you listening?

Family is one thing, and I hear you there. But, you need to think about cultivating your gaming group into adopting a system (of game choice) that might rescue you from being subjected continuously to games you don't like. I imagine you may have allowed a small dose of hyperbole into the narrative, for effect, but it brings up a good question that could apply to a lot of groups and that is, "how do you go about choosing what game to play?" We don't outright grant a veto to anyone (I know groups that do), but we do strive for consensus in our games and we try to be sensitive to a person's strongly held opinions. Or, maybe you're just ridiculously easy to get along with.

This review reminds me a lot of a terse post I remember seeing a while back in response to another review: "I've been a farmer and it wasn't fun, and neither is this game..." I have no real life farming experience so the game elicits enough imagined rural nostalgia in me when I play that I haven't reached the saturation point, yet. And I don't think I've had to play the game as often as you might have either. But maybe I should start thinking about an exit strategy because I can't find fault with anything you've said about the game - and I've never understood why it is as high on the Geek meter as it is...

Reply: Agricola:: Reviews:: Re: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

oeolycus — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:08:17 +0000

by oeolycus

Great story! Why are grandpas always so much cooler than we are? (Mine escaped Stalin Russia before WW2, came to the US without much English, and went to Yale--wtf??)

I'm surprised to hear you think its work. Aren't you an RPG fan? Part of the fun for me in an RPG is the sweating over the best way to level a character. Anyway, just an interesting observation.

Thanks for another great review.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: 2 questions

pijll — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:03:56 +0000

by pijll

1) 3 stone, I completely agree with Bryann and Geoff.

2) No, what Bryann said. I disagree with Geoff: you can renovate in another player's turn. But you have to do it before or after his own action.

Reply: Agricola:: Reviews:: Re: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

MisterG — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:01:01 +0000

by MisterG

Nicely written. And I suspect you actually like the game a lot more than you're letting on.

Reply: Agricola:: Reviews:: Re: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

dysjunct — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:51:11 +0000

by dysjunct

Your grandfather is awesome.

Review: Agricola:: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

UndeadViking — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:33:12 +0000

by UndeadViking

First things first, yes I missed last week with my “review a week” series. I was fairly busy and had other stuff going on, but I will post two this week as long as you stay off my back, my adoring fans, or at least all one of you that took the time to send me a geekmail.

Anyway, as you may well know, this is my attempt to rate and review every single game in my collection. While some of my reviews have been quite topical, say the one about Middle Earth Quest, others have been a little behind in the times, such as this one you are reading right now. I will try to make it interesting, but I will be honest, I probably am not breaking new ground with this one other than my opinion, and probably not even there either, so if the teaser of the title brought you in here, you may want to skip ahead to my thoughts at the end. Anyway, on to my review.

Overview and Components

Well unless you just woke up from a coma, you should know that Agricola is a game about farming. Using workers, you earn resources that enable you to feed and take care of your “family”. As the game continues, you will upgrade your hut, till your fields, keep and slaughter animals, and try to have the best little plot of land as humanly possible. The components for the game are well made. You get a ton of cards, some cardboard place mats for the farms, and a ton of wooden components representing your farmers, the animals, grain, vegetables, and so on. There are a lot of options for people to pimp out this one, I myself own a bag of animeeples, but none of that is necessary to enjoy the game.

]]>

How do you play?

OK – there are tons of reviews out there that will take you through the game turns step by step, so I am going to skip the intensive overview and just touch on the basics. Agricola is essentially a worker placement game with some card driven actions and hand management thrown into the mix.

Going in turns, each person will place one of their farmers (you start with two, but if you have children you get more) on a spot on the board that will allow you to collect the resources placed there, or take the action that is printed on the space. Only one person can use each spot in each round, so you will have moments where you will have an action that you wanted to take but someone else has already taken it.

You will collect several different resources that will help you build your farm, such as wood, clay, and stone. You will also collect resources that will help you earn points and feed your family, like vegetables, sheep, and cows. Perhaps the most important resource of all is food, as if you cannot feed your family, you must turn to begging which causes you to lose points at the end of the game. Some places will allow you to collect food, like the fishing pond, but more importantly, a well made farm will let you grow your own food or slaughter your own animals to feed yourself, allowing you to use your actions to improve your farm instead of wasting them on collecting food.

Now the game would be the same thing over and over again if it was not for the cards in the game. Before you take a single turn, each person is dealt a hand of “Improvement” and “Occupation” cards. These cards usually allow you to break the rules in some way, such as using less resources to build certain improvements, or giving you an extra action because you have a guest staying at your house. Since the deck of these cards is huge, the combinations of the hands you will get will be different pretty much every time you play. It is up to the player to use shrewd actions and timely play to use the hand of cards they receive in the most efficient way.

After you get through the game turns, you will total up your victory points and determine who is the winner. Certain items will be worth more than others, like vegetables or cattle, but more importantly, if you do not have a balanced farm, you will lose points at the end of the game. This is a very good mechanic of the game since it keeps people from just focusing on one aspect and forgoing other options.
Agricola takes around 2 hours to complete, more with more players, and can be played solo or with up to 5 people.

My opinion

My grandfather Leo was a really awesome person. I don’t just say this because he was my grandpa, I say it because he did so much in his life. In World War II he was an artillery spotter that had to go on long reconnaissance missions behind enemy lines. He had tons of stories to tell me when I was a little kid about the things he saw, and he was smart enough to ignore my questions when I asked him anything that would have been a little too much for a little kid to comprehend. Plus, he was a bonafide war hero. He and another guy saved a bunch of lives when they ran into a burning ammunition depot to put out the fire after it had been hit by incoming artillery. I have a picture of him getting the silver star pinned on his chest by General Mark Clark for those actions. My grandma used to joke that If he hadn’t done what he did, he would not have got to come home that Christmas for three weeks, and then my Dad might never have “gotten started” as she put it.

Anyway, I tell you this because when my grandpa got home from the war, he inherited the family farm in North Dakota and started making a living, and he made a good one. But after 10+ years of running a farm, he sold off his land, ran for the position of County Sheriff, won it, and never looked back. One day, when he and I were hanging out towards the end of his life, I asked him why he had gotten rid of the farm. He mentioned lots of things, like how it was getting tougher to make a living, and how he thought the farm life was difficult on my grandma, but most of all, he said, “being a farmer was so damn boring!” – and then he laughed his infectious grandpa laugh and ordered another beer.

I told you that story for a couple of reasons. For one, I wanted you to know how cool my grandpa was. For two, that one statement succinctly describes Agricola for me to a “T”.

Let me say this though – Agricola is a fantastic game, and deserves the recognition that it gets. There is so much about this game that is just downright enchanting. Watching your little parcel of land grow and expand, pushing the little pieces around the board, figuring out some sort of fantastic synergy between your improvements and occupations – all of those things make Agricola great.

For some people.

For me, I see Agricola as a chore. Collect this, improve that, add this, take this job, have a kid, etc. People rave about having so many different options to win. I don’t see that I guess. Take a look at the scoring chart and see what makes you the most points – more people and stone houses with lots of rooms. That’s what you should be shooting for in every game. More people is even more self explanatory since the more people you have the more actions you get to take – that’s just a downhill slide to points right there. I don’t find it particularly stressful to figure out how to feed your people either. It always seems to me that you have ample ability to feed your starving mouths, either via your own produce or by the board.

Ultimately, when I play Agricola, and I do end up playing it quite a bit because it is a favorite of my gaming group and my family, I have a two hour session of minimal player interaction coupled with me putting a puzzle together that always ends up looking the same when I am finished. Sometimes the pieces I have to use are a little different, but it always looks the same in the end – a 4 room stone house with 4 or 5 people living in it with just enough fields and pastures to maximize my points. Usually I end up placing first or second but for the most part I don’t really care that much – I am just glad I am done.

I would never give Agricola a bad rating though. There are games out there that deserve to get trashed on, but this is not one of them. As I said before, for what it is, it is as close to perfect as I have found, and for the right people, it is gaming nirvana. However, for me, it is a tired, ponderous time of pushing and placing wood tokens at a table with a few friends doing the same thing, in which all of us are stuck on our farming treadmills until we reach a conclusion that is neither a surprise, nor as fitting a reward for the efforts we just went through.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Clarification - Net Fisherman

vivafringe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:29:55 +0000

by vivafringe

I think he has utility in pretty much every player format. In 2-p, you can start a very bloody fight by just taking a reed every turn, getting 1-2 food in the process. This obviously isn't as crushing as the Landing Net but it can be enough to cheez out an otherwise equal game.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: 2 questions

MisterG — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:59:11 +0000

by MisterG

1) 3Stone, since you were the first to renovate to clay. If and when you follow up with renovation to stone, you'll only get 2Stone, presuming you're actually the next player to do so.

2) In my opinion, no, if you're asking can you take the action-less renovation during another player's turn. I realize the card says "any time," but my first intuition is that such a gambit is counter to the intentions of the designer, and the spirit of the game.

I feel pretty confident about 1) and less so about 2), fwiw.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: Ronbo vs. MisterG: Match5Game1, or Hey, Look, Ron Does Win Upon Occasion!

vivafringe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:53:55 +0000

by vivafringe

Not everyone agrees with the first part of your statement (some say 2R > 2C, even with sheep as the first round card), but 2C is definitely the second best action, if not the best.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: 2 questions

btizo — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:52:28 +0000

by btizo

My opinion's only:

1) Yes because you were the first to renovate to Clay. You would only get 2s if you were the second to renovate to Stone.

2) I would say No because the instant his peep is put on the action space he executes the action, whether or not he's physically paid for anything yet. You would still get 2s though as being the second to Clay.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: Ronbo vs. MisterG: Match5Game1, or Hey, Look, Ron Does Win Upon Occasion!

MisterG — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:50:04 +0000

by MisterG

Okay, now I think I see what you guys are saying: A) Ron should have taken the clay over the reed in Round Two, and B) given his failure to do so, I should have done it with my third peep, and then MIMIed the fireplace. Is this correct?

Thread: Agricola:: Rules:: 2 questions

vivafringe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:38:04 +0000

by vivafringe

Did a search and didn't find anything.

1) One of my opponents plays conservator and is the first to renovate to stone. I play Social Climber, and renovate to clay. No one else has renovated yet. Do I get 3s or 2s?

2) I have Builder's Trowel out with Social Climber in play, with enough resources to pay for the renovation. My opponent puts a peep on a Renovate spot. In response, can I renovate and get the full bonus?

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: Ronbo vs. MisterG: Match5Game1, or Hey, Look, Ron Does Win Upon Occasion!

fbush555 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:57:29 +0000

by fbush555

2c + fireplace + 4 sheep is a really efficient set of actions that feeds you for the first 2 harvests. I would guess that the player who gets 4 sheep in one action is going to win 75% or so of 2p games. This is why Chambers questions the (2r, 3+1w, occ) actions that come before taking 2c in rd 2.

Once you get the fireplace, Ron can't block you out of food very effectively. Similarly, once Ron gets his seasonal worker out, you can't block Ron out of food effectively. Fishing thus loses a lot of value since it's not an effective block; neither of you plans to use it to feed. This is the point at which you take fishing at 3f -- too low to be worth it on its merits.

Reply: Agricola:: Reviews:: Re: Agricola vs. Puerto Rico - The Ultimate Show Down

Driver 8 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:41:01 +0000

by Driver 8

Here's another vote for Puerto Rico.

I find that Agricola is too unforgiving, where one wrong choice can cause you to go hungry or miss out on many future opportunities.

I also find that Puerto Rico plays more smoothly, whereas Agricola can be too much of an AP brainburner. Add to that the cards I have to manage (figuring out when to play them and what needs to be played before something else can be played.)

Just my 2 cents.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

btizo — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:28:57 +0000

by btizo

MisterG wrote:
Okay, Alex, how much did they pay you for shilling? :p

Just kidding, of course. Great game, great report, and say, where've I seen that format before? Your opponent definitely screwed the pooch (can I say that here?) by not building a room at an opportune time (me, I'd have done it most likely in Round Five), and the final score certainly reflects this. The fences play was a terrible, terrible mistake. At that point, she could have built a room and popped out up to four stables, an equivalent breeding capacity to the silly pastures she created. In fact, she should have forgone the wood grab with her first peep, and simply built a room and a pair of stables. You'd have still nabbed the button, fine; she could then DL (or take the wood, for that matter), and you'd be forced to take FG at the top of Round Seven or concede the edge to her. She'd then vacuum up the reed at three, and now she's in a much, much better position to get her next room and jump the gun on a fourth peep, and give you a real run for your money.

Anyway, thanks for a great post, Alex. You may have actually convinced me to give the site (which I've had bookmarked for ages) another peek, and maybe even join in the fun. I'm going to hold you personally responsible, though, if I become addicted, and I hope the residuals were worth it! :devil:

If you visit the site and I see you I'll definitely play a game with you and help you with any interface quirks you have.

Great post and thanks for the name drop Alex!

In regards to the Educator/Bookshelf (both cards you have rated too low, btw) I ended coming in second place with 43 points. I lost because the winner got the House Steward bonus and I didn't, I think. I can't recall clearly.

Over the course of the game, however, the Educator saved me 6 actions and the bookshelf netted me 12f, only 8 of which went to occupations. One of those occupations was the Grocer, which saved me even more actions (and the bookshelf's extra 4f paid for half of the Grocer's goods). Just food for thought.

I hope to see you online again soon Alex!

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

vivafringe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:14:04 +0000

by vivafringe

out4blood wrote:
Also, I am pretty convinced that Clay Mixer is a decisive card in 2-player. I am shocked you didn't get Pottery.

Missed this the first time since I was in a rush. I was indeed hoping to get a pottery, but gave up in round 10 when I took 6W over 5S. As I said in the report my logic at the time was that I didn't want my opponent powering out a bunch of rooms with the carpenter (she had 6R at that point). My opponent only had a chance to use 3 of that stone by the end of the game, whereas she certainly would have used all of the wood, so I think it was the correct play. But yeah, it certainly hurt.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: Ronbo vs. MisterG: Match5Game1, or Hey, Look, Ron Does Win Upon Occasion!

smcmike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:08:17 +0000

by smcmike

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, other than the fact that the fishing play was inefficient. Of course, I can be remarkably dense at times. :) To my way of thinking, the real mistake I made was failing to retake the button that Round to set up the probable stacked reed hit. To my way of thinking, the game is all about growth. Feeding is an adjunct problem, but rarely difficult. It's all about getting those early extra actions and using them wisely. I'd much rather develop a surfeit of actions and then worry about the food, rather than amass a surplus of food and then try to turn that into actions.

While I agree that not taking the button was a big mistake, I think Lord Chambers is right about the clay: with first-round sheep, getting the first fireplace is pretty huge, and the fact that you nabbed 2 clay with the 4th action is almost remarkable.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

smcmike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:59:45 +0000

by smcmike

I think your hatred of DL might mainly be to 4-p bias, where it is pretty horrible. For 2-p, I find it a strong first round move simply because the other options are just so horrible. Essentially, it prevents you from being forced to take DL later in Stage 1, where obviously it is much worse.

Also 1G/PF both do get better later in the game, because the worth of an action goes down (making spending an action on either a more affordable cost). DL is never better than it is Round 1, since food is most valuable then.

I think this is a great way to think about it. Also, PF gets REALLY valuable late in the game, when it becomes a blocking move as well. No one cares if you block PF early (unless they are trying to use their acrobat).

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

vivafringe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:58:45 +0000

by vivafringe

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

out4blood — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:06:42 +0000

by out4blood

I played dozens of games there when it first opened up, but haven't played too much since. But it's a great way to get your fix when you need it and can't get players to the table. I wish every game had some sort of online option so players could gather more efficiently.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

MisterG — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:57:07 +0000

by MisterG

Heh. I'm sure you realize I was only teasing. I assure you, the mere use of the format (such as it is) was compliment (and credit) enough. I like to think it's as clear and readable as one could ask, and know well enough that it's far from perfect. But I'm working on it. :whistle:

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: Ronbo vs. MisterG: Match5Game1, or Hey, Look, Ron Does Win Upon Occasion!

MisterG — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:51:29 +0000

by MisterG

Lord Chambers wrote:
I puzzled over the 3food fishing first action in round 3 for a while. To me, taking fishing in a two player at 3 smacks of desperation. So I asked, why so desperate? What had Ron done with the sheep? That's when I scrolled back up and realized sheep were the first round card. And that makes all actions between round 2 and the taking of the 2 clay extremely dubious to me.

It's hard to imagine conditions where one player should casually go about his business while letting the cheap fireplace at and a huge sheep bonus of 6 or 8 food pass to his opponent. In a two player game especially, you HAVE to compete with the other player so they don't get huge windfalls of sheep (or stone or wood). Even if you don't want the sheep you need to threaten to take them with a fireplace or fences of your own. If you don't, they just pile up on the square while the person with the clay essentially has dibs whenever he wants. Threatening to take the sheep and release them into the general supply is not sufficient enough.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

vivafringe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:31:33 +0000

by vivafringe

Glad you liked the post, Geoff, and apologies for not giving you credit for the report formatting! I had meant to do it, but when you write something up in a feverish haze at 4 AM and go back to edit it 3 days later, sometimes the small details get lost in the shuffle. Or so I'm told.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: 2 Player game: Second player best first action?

Lopakhin — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:29:30 +0000

by Lopakhin

Wood, innit.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: [Official] Tournament Agricola

MisterG — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:23:05 +0000

by MisterG

Ah, I see you haven't met the Taster yet. The I-Deck awaits you. Dragonspirit, meet the Taster! Taster, go easy on Dragonspirit, at least for the first game. :whistle:

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

MisterG — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:15:20 +0000

by MisterG

Okay, Alex, how much did they pay you for shilling? :p

Just kidding, of course. Great game, great report, and say, where've I seen that format before? Your opponent definitely screwed the pooch (can I say that here?) by not building a room at an opportune time (me, I'd have done it most likely in Round Five), and the final score certainly reflects this. The fences play was a terrible, terrible mistake. At that point, she could have built a room and popped out up to four stables, an equivalent breeding capacity to the silly pastures she created. In fact, she should have forgone the wood grab with her first peep, and simply built a room and a pair of stables. You'd have still nabbed the button, fine; she could then DL (or take the wood, for that matter), and you'd be forced to take FG at the top of Round Seven or concede the edge to her. She'd then vacuum up the reed at three, and now she's in a much, much better position to get her next room and jump the gun on a fourth peep, and give you a real run for your money.

Anyway, thanks for a great post, Alex. You may have actually convinced me to give the site (which I've had bookmarked for ages) another peek, and maybe even join in the fun. I'm going to hold you personally responsible, though, if I become addicted, and I hope the residuals were worth it! :devil:

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

smcmike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:21:49 +0000

by smcmike

This is a good intro to the site. As Alex says, you should definitely play at least one or two solo games before joining a bigger game... and log them, so others can see that you have done so.

One drawback to the site is the vast majority of games between experienced players are 4-player. If you like some other size, it can be tricky finding competition. For example, based on farm layout, I'm pretty sure I played your opponent recently, with approximately the same result.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

vivafringe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:06:32 +0000

by vivafringe

Oh, yes, that is an excellent point that I forgot to mention. You need to be familiar with the game, since the card text is too small to read for any played cards. You can comfortably read the titles of the cards, so it's a bit better than in the screenshots (which suffer from the jpeg compression I used - thanks, MSpaint!). But you will need to be able to know most of the cards by name to play quickly, since the "click to enlarge" feature is somewhat clunky.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: My first online game!

ousgg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:04:37 +0000

by ousgg

Good stuff.

I have played a handful of 1P games there, but I don't really think I'm going to dip my toe. The interface is a bit awkward (in fairness, it probably has to be, given the amount of information), and I'm not familiar enough with the cardset to remember the text - it's a big drag having to click and enlarge each of my cards in turn.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: Ronbo vs. MisterG: Match5Game1, or Hey, Look, Ron Does Win Upon Occasion!

Lord Chambers — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:49:39 +0000

by Lord Chambers

I puzzled over the 3food fishing first action in round 3 for a while. To me, taking fishing in a two player at 3 smacks of desperation. So I asked, why so desperate? What had Ron done with the sheep? That's when I scrolled back up and realized sheep were the first round card. And that makes all actions between round 2 and the taking of the 2 clay extremely dubious to me.

It's hard to imagine conditions where one player should casually go about his business while letting the cheap fireplace at and a huge sheep bonus of 6 or 8 food pass to his opponent. In a two player game especially, you HAVE to compete with the other player so they don't get huge windfalls of sheep (or stone or wood). Even if you don't want the sheep you need to threaten to take them with a fireplace or fences of your own. If you don't, they just pile up on the square while the person with the clay essentially has dibs whenever he wants. Threatening to take the sheep and release them into the general supply is not sufficient enough.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Clarification - Net Fisherman

Lord Chambers — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:20:24 +0000

by Lord Chambers

Do not undervalue the strategic benefits of having an occupation that others must "defang." If I can force you to take a 3food action to deny it to me then I'm probably going to beat you. I am quite happy to throw off the timing on what you want to be doing in order to block me. In early rounds this is an enormous problem for opponents of the Net Fisherman, when fishing or unneeded reed grabs will unravel the quest for family growth, room builds, and the development of a food industry. In later rounds players may be able to defang with a late peep at less of a cost, but they also may be developed enough not to have much use for the extra food and reed the defanging gains them.

Session: Agricola:: My first online game!

vivafringe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:53:38 +0000

by vivafringe

For a while now, I've vaguely known about the existence of a site that allowed you to play Agricola online. However, in spite of my love for the game and generally competitive nature, I've never made the plunge. The internet is a terrifying and intimidating place! I had nightmares of embarrassing myself as I made some boneheaded play because of my lack of familiarity with the interface. Or worse, committing some sort of online faux pau, like... I dunno, farting in a crowded chat room? However! After hearing an announcement about an upcoming tournament (exciting!), my curiosity was finally piqued enough to give it a try at this website.

To try to minimize embarrassment, I first played a solo game. If you are thinking of visiting that site, I would strongly recommend that you also do this for your first time! While the interface becomes intuitive after a while, it's bewildering for the first couple of games. Here's what it looks like, if you're curious:

In my solo game, I ended up scoring 67 points... with take-backs. All right! I was already kicking butt!

Feeling familiar enough with the interface, I went and watched a game that BGG user Btizo happened to be playing. He was going nuts with a crazy Educator + Bookshelf combo (both currently one star cards in my occupation/improvement reviews. Hmmmm!), when I heard a message in the game lobby that someone wanted to play a 2-p game. Neat! I left Btizo's game, and after some confusion about which room to join, I was in.

Deep breaths! As it turned out, my opponent was not the intimidating internet bogeyman that I had been imagining, but a fairly nice person that was both helpful and patient with me. She didn't seem to mind when I said it was my first game on the site, and overall seemed way nicer than the usual people I play with online in other games. Here's how the game went down, with super strategy included! As a note, I'm able to report this game because every game on Agricola Online is logged by the site - a handy feature to be sure.

Round 1: Sheep

Vivafringe: Occ/Clay Mixer
Opponent: 3W(3)
Vivafringe: DL(2f)
Opponent: PF

I have two decent early game occupations: the Clay Mixer and the Wood Deliveryman. While normally I think the two are pretty close round 1, sheep was the first round card here! As a result, Clay Mixer is definitely the best play among the two. My opponent counters with the standard wood grab, and I take DL, which is my favorite move after I have played an occupation in round 1. My opponent then does a very questionable plow. In a different thread, Alexfrog has said that plowing a field in a competitive heads up match is almost like conceding. To a certain extent I agree with him; I think SP is necessary here to not fall behind.

Round 2: MIMI

Vivafringe: 1C(2+2)
Opponent: 1R(2)
Vivafringe: 3W(3)
Opponent: SP + Corn Sheaf

I have two choices: take the reed or go for the clay. Since sheep was the round 1 card and since I have the Clay Mixer, I opt for the clay grab. When sheep is the first round card, I think the decision between clay and reed is usually close, but in this case the Clay Mixer made me go for the bricks. After that, the moves are fairly standard, with the possible exception of the Corn Sheaf. This card is a double-edged sword, as it enables me to easily retake SP whenever I want. I'm don't believe having a field plowed breaks the symmetry enough, and I feel that the fish trap my opponent played later would perhaps be a superior play.

Round 3: Fences

Opponent: 3W(3)
Vivafringe: SP + Fishing Rod
Opponent: Fish(3f)
Vivafringe: MIMI/CH4

My opponent grabs wood, and I waste no time in retaking the button. Since round 4 is coming up, I absolutely have to be SP next round so that I can take the 2R. My opponent fishes to block my Fishing Rod, but I'm not too worried since I already used DL in round 1. Also, I have a perfectly playable backup move: my Cooking Hearth! An interesting option is to take the fireplace instead, since it forces my opponent to get at least 3 clay before buying cookery. However, since my opponent is plowing fields, they might be planning on an oven anyway.

Round 4: Sow/Bake

Vivafringe: 1R(2)
Opponent: Sheep(4)
Vivafringe: 3W(3)
Opponent: Sow/Bake (1G)

As planned, I take the reed. My opponent responds by denying me the 8 food. Wow! While not unexpected, it shows that the internet is indeed a competitive place. My home games have only recently begun to involve plays like this. I take wood, and my opponent sows the single grain in their inventory. I think 2C might have been better here, as the cheap fireplace is still open at this point.

Round 5: Renovation + MIMI

Vivafringe: 1C(3+2)
Opponent: 3W(3)
Vivafringe: BR(1) + x
Opponent: Occ/Carpenter

I deny the clay, which means I have pretty much won the food war; my opponent will be unable to buy any sort of cookery for quite some time. My opponent takes wood, and I build rooms in the hopes that FG comes up next round. My opponent then plays their first occupation - the Carpenter. I'm not too fond of the guy myself, but most other people seem to like him.

Round 6: 1 Stone

Vivafringe: Fish(3f) + 1f
Opponent: 3W(3)
Vivafringe: SP + Corn Sheaf
Opponent: Fences(7)

I fish, which ensures that I'll be fed this harvest no matter what my opponent does. My opponent takes wood, and I make the questionable play of blocking SP. The idea here is that if my opponent takes SP and then builds rooms, I'll be forced to grow my family. At that point, they will be able to deny the sheep. However, this plan has a bunch of problems. First, if my opponent really wants to, they can just take the 2 sheep in this round, which will prevent the 6f play. Moreover, if I had been paying attention to my opponent's farm, I would have realized that they only had 2f! So my opponent won't be able to afford taking SP and denying me sheep. Oh well, chalk my misplay up to nervousness at my first online match.

However, my opponent responds with a play that's even more questionable: fences. I'm not sure what this was trying to accomplish, as there is no way I'm letting her have those sheep.

Here's what our farms looked like at round 6. These were created on the website after I played the game. Along with logging every single play, they can also generate these awesome images after you are done! Sweet!

Round 7: FG + Minor

Vivafringe: Sheep(3)burn2
Opponent: Starting Player + Fish Trap
Vivafringe: 3W(3)
Opponent: DL(2f)

I happily gobble the sheep, and my opponent immediately retakes the button. Here, I make a creative play that looks awful (why am I not growing my family?!?) but might actually be correct. The logic is this: my opponent can't Build Rooms this round without using both stored grain to feed (see the previous picture). As a result, they are probably taking DL. Also, if I grow my family this round, they will be getting 6W on their first action next round - definitely icky.

Taking 3W prevents the 6W play. If my opponent waits to build rooms until next round, I can block them from FG at that point, regaining the action that I lost by waiting a turn. If they choose to build rooms this turn, they will be able to take FG, but I'll be able to again deny them clay, and they'll be in a tough spot for feeding in the next few harvests. Furthermore, the 3W will let me play a wood-costing minor when I choose to family growth, which is another half-action saved.

Overall, taking 3W is an interesting line, and not clearly worse than growing my family. To the people reading this, I'm curious about your thoughts!

Round 8: Boar

Opponent: 1R(4) + 1f
Vivafringe: 3W(3)
Opponent: 3C(3)
Vivafringe: FG + Spit Roast

My opponent opts to take the reed, giving her 6R total. Crazy! At this stage, I decide that denying a two or three room build off of the Carpenter is more important than denying cookery. My opponent takes the clay, and I finally make a new worker.

Round 9: Vegetable

Opponent: Boar (2)
Vivafringe: Sheep(2)burn2
Opponent: Fish(3f) + 1f
Vivafringe: Occ(-1f)\Wood Deliveryman
Vivafringe: SP + Turnwrest Plow

My opponent takes the boar, again delaying family growth. I take the second best meal, and my opponent fishes rather than buying a fireplace to eat the animals. At this point, the game is pretty much over. I play a (late!) wood deliveryman to fulfill the Occ requirement on my plow.

Round 10: Cattle

Vivafringe: 3W(6)
Opponent: 1S(5)
Vivafringe: 1V
Opponent: SP + Corn Sheaf
Vivafringe: PF(3)

5 Stone or 6 wood? I decide again that blocking a multiple room build is the better choice, although at this point it probably doesn't matter.

Round 11: Stone

Opponent: MIMI/Stone Oven + bake 2G
Vivafringe: SP + Drinking Trough
Opponent: 3W(3)
Vivafringe: Cattle(2) burn1 + burn1 sheep
Vivafringe: Sow/Bake (Sow 1V1G)

Stuff happens! I take SP at the earliest opportunity, since round 12 is coming up. I do make a mistake here in playing Drinking Trough over Corn Sheaf; considering that Plow and/or Sow might be coming up, being able to sow an extra grain will almost certainly be better than wasting wood that should be going towards fences.

Round 12: Plow & Sow

Vivafringe: P&S(PF 3x + 1V1G)
Opponent: 1C(4)
Vivafringe: SP + Herb Garden
Opponent: BR(2) + x
Vivafringe: 1R(4)

Again, I take SP as early as possible, since I don't want my opponent jacking it for FG w/o room.

Round 13: FG w/o Room

Vivafringe: FG w/o
Opponent: 3W(6)
Vivafringe: Fences(10)
Opponent: P&S (2G)
Vivafringe: Boar(4)

Round 14: Renovation + Fences

Here, my opponent realizes that they've forgotten to grow their family, and asks for a takeback. I'm a little surprised, as in BIG BAD INTERNET world I assumed that takebacks wouldn't be kosher. Still, I have no problem with takebacks, and do them all the time in my home games! I give the OK, but my opponent changes her mind, choosing to play it out as is.

Vivafringe: 1S(4)
Opponent: Fences(7)
Vivafringe: Ren>C + Well
Opponent: Ren>C + Fences(0)
Vivafringe: Sheep(5)burn4
Vivafringe: FG w/o

Final Score is Opponent 18, vivafringe 38. Here are our final farms, before feeding:

Whew! In my opinion, I think my opponent's biggest mistake was choosing to build fences over rooms in round 6. I was going to be taking those sheep first, even before she built the fences! I also think she delayed FG for far too long, instead trying to deny me resources - an uphill battle, given that she was behind on actions.

Overall, the experience was fun and very friendly. While my game took longer than I'm used to (about one and a half hours), I chalk this up to still not being quite familiar with the website. Also, even though the game ran long and my opponent fell behind, she played it out to the end and remained friendly the entire time. As someone who regularly plays mean-spirited online games, this was a refreshing change!

Since then, I have played three more games (what can I say? I'm hooked!), and every one of them has been more enjoyable than the last. So far everyone there has been very friendly, although not everyone wants to play with complete neophytes; games are occasionally advertised as "experienced, fast players only." Careful, those guys mean business!

Overall, I think Agricola Online is just nicer than most competitive online gaming communities. Competition is tough, but if you don't mind the challenge, I'd recommend joining. The only downside is that sometimes you will have to wait a while to get into a game. Fortunately, there is an option that plays a sound whenever a new game is forming, so that you can do other stuff on your computer while you wait.

If you do decide to give the website a try, I'd again advise playing a few practice 1-p games first. As you probably know from face to face experience, slow play can really bog down the game, and most people don't like to wait around too much while you figure out the interface. Finally, make sure you ask before joining any games; in some cases, the seat may be saved!

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

out4blood — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:54:29 +0000

by out4blood

Webnard wrote:
The disagreement with me is about something I'm not talking about. So addressing me as if I were the champion and defender of the idea that the Family Game and the Full Game of Agricola are equal is simply misplaced. I never said that. Please move on. It's getting to the point that I am losing confidence that what I wrote is being read.

It's always possible someone hacked your userid and password. Have you read what you've "written?"

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Replenishing resources: how do you do it efficiently?

vivafringe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:35:32 +0000

by vivafringe

Dice are a cool idea, but I can see two problems.

1) For some, 4 sides is not enough. In particular, clay and fishing/TP often get to at least 4 before someone takes them.
2) Mushroom Collector is played pretty often and leaves a wood behind, which can muck things up. I suppose there you'd just add a wood next to the cube.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Limey Sponge — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:24:45 +0000

by Limey Sponge

And as far as Agricola goes, I'm going to be picky. There are more cards to choose from, but not more decisions. You still want to balance as much as you can, have a child, build up your house. What you want to do doesn't change, only the number and type of cards you have to pull it off.

So, ya had me then ya lost me. More cards doesn't make Agricola more deep, and it doesn't create more decisions, just choices. YMMV.

Sorry, I can't really see any way to parse this that doesn't end up sounding like "more choices in a decision does not add depth" and "more depth requires more decision points".

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

vivafringe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:59:52 +0000

by vivafringe

Webnard wrote:
So addressing me as if I were the champion and defender of the idea that the Family Game and the Full Game of Agricola are equal is simply misplaced. I never said that.

Webnard wrote:
More cards doesn't make Agricola more deep

...

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Webnard — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:51:37 +0000

by Webnard

Limey Sponge wrote:
I think that the other people in this discussion are balking at your apparent equation of depth to number of decision points.

I think so, too. But it's only "apparent," a straw man. It's not based on anything I wrote.

If that were true than playing Agricola without Family Growth would be just as deep as playing RSP 28 times. Same number of decisions, after all.

I don't disagree, only because I'm not talking about the depth of the two games. It wasn't the topic I was addressing (until very late, and only as a side comment).

On the whole, your reasoning seems to be that since there could exist a set of choices where A and B are non-trivially the only reasonable choices, and C, D, and E are unambiguously worse, that it should be assumed to be the case.

Not my whole reasoning. What you are talking about came very late in the discussion, and only in response to the decision 1/decision 2 tables. What you call my "whole reasoning" was a side comment to suggest the number of choices doesn't make for complexity either, if the choices are obvious.

But where did this come from? My only point--truly my only point--was that number number of decisions in a game should not be equated with the number of choices. Seems to be agreement on that. The whole "depth" thing is an a red herring, a reason not to agree.

What other people have been saying is that, that is typically not the case. That is where the disagreement lies, not with the number of decision points.

Yes, finally. And I don't disagree with the complexity camp because, except for my side bar, I am not adding to that part of the discussion, even if others say I am.

The disagreement with me is about something I'm not talking about. So addressing me as if I were the champion and defender of the idea that the Family Game and the Full Game of Agricola are equal is simply misplaced. I never said that. Please move on. It's getting to the point that I am losing confidence that what I wrote is being read.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: [Official] Tournament Agricola

Dragonspirit — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:50:05 +0000

by Dragonspirit

In the E deck, I have no problem with any of the occupations. The only minor action I feel deserves an outright banning in the Ax. It is TOLERABLE in a two player game, but beyond that it is degenerate.

There are only three cards I advocate banning so far in the game: Ax, Lover and Wet Nurse. There are many other cards I feel are strong, even overpowered for their costs but I feel these are actually bad for the game.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Short 1 food because of family growth = probably worth it

Dragonspirit — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:41:14 +0000

by Dragonspirit

If it were possible to gain an infinite number of family members, you would be absolutely correct. However, you only have the opportunity for five. Thus, even though there will be a net gain in your scenario (a family member IS worth more than a begging card costs, I agree with that contention), you will have minimized potential maximum profit.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Replenishing resources: how do you do it efficiently?

RobertDD — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:41:03 +0000

by RobertDD

I just got word that my submission was approved (that was quick) so here's the link:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/49069

I hope you like it. If you do, please leave acomment, and if you don't then let me know how to improve on this idea!

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Limey Sponge — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:20:00 +0000

by Limey Sponge

I think that the other people in this discussion are balking at your apparent equation of depth to number of decision points. If that were true than playing Agricola without Family Growth would be just as deep as playing RSP 28 times. Same number of decisions, after all.

On the whole, your reasoning seems to be that since there could exist a set of choices where A and B are non-trivially the only reasonable choices, and C, D, and E are unambiguously worse, that it should be assumed to be the case. What other people have been saying is that, that is typically not the case. That is where the disagreement lies, not with the number of decision points.

File: Agricola:: Agricola Replenishment Cubes

RobertDD — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:35:34 +0000

by RobertDD

Agricola Replenishment Cubes for Board Game: Agricola ]]>

New Image for Agricola

jaugusto72 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:12:36 +0000

by jaugusto72

]]>

Jogasampa - São Paulo 11/08/2009

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: Ronbo vs. MisterG: Match5Game1, or Hey, Look, Ron Does Win Upon Occasion!

MisterG — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:38:37 +0000

by MisterG

jhsjhs wrote:
Thanks for doing these--I learned the game yesterday and greatly enjoyed it. These reports are very enlightening.

Jim.

You're welcome, Jim, and this is just the sort of response that makes it all worth doing. Happy gaming to you!

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Webnard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:55:10 +0000

by Webnard

vivafringe wrote:
No, this just isn't true. What you are trying to do is say that Agricola and Family Agricola are equally complex because they have the same number of moves, which you call decisions. Using your semantic distinction of "decisions," let's use a simple example.

Decision 1
Choice A
Choice B

Decision 2
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
Choice E

Do you honestly believe that Decision 1 is equally complex to Decision 2?

Not sure this was addressed to me. Even so, I'll respond as though it was.

Your decision tables show that we agree. We agree that even though decisions 1 and 2 have differing numbers of choices, there is still only one decision each to be made.

We actually do agree, so I hope we can stop posting back-and-forth as if we don't. Besides, I've already deferred to you as a more experienced player. And "YMMV" means I'm ok with a different opinion.

Now to be fair, I said nothing about complexity, but if I were to, I'd agree with you again! It is obvious that decision 2 has a lot more to consider. Decision 1 has only two paths, decision 2 has 5.

However, it is possible that either A or B in decision 1 will open up to many more choices next turn. Imagine if choice A in decision 1 yielded only two more choices, but choice B yeilded 10!

Of course, if I didn't know choice B would explode into 10 choices, then the decision 1 remains simple. But, if I know that choice B will increase my number of choices for the next turn, depending on what those choices are, I may or may not want choice B.

If the 10 choices resulting from choice B are all good or all bad, then there's no real complexity in that decision. However, if the possible choices resulting from decision 1, choice B are mixed (or difficult to determine accurately) and choice B is also contigent on other players' choices, then decision 1 could be all as complex as decision 2.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Webnard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:34:12 +0000

by Webnard

out4blood wrote:
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

I'm surprised you recognized it. Have you seen one before? :laugh:

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Base Components and the 5-player Game

Karlsen — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:21:15 +0000

by Karlsen

MisterG wrote:
kantpaper wrote:
Have you (or anyone) ever played a game where the wood tokens and their corresponding multiplication markers were not enough such that you had to resort to some other tokens or counters to represent wood?

No.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: Ronbo vs. MisterG: Match5Game1, or Hey, Look, Ron Does Win Upon Occasion!

jhsjhs — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:44:27 +0000

by jhsjhs

Thanks for doing these--I learned the game yesterday and greatly enjoyed it. These reports are very enlightening.

Jim.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Base Components and the 5-player Game

Zark — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:26:15 +0000

by Zark

kantpaper wrote:
For those of you who have played the 5-player game with the base game components, have you had this experience? Was there a shortage?

I have never run out of multiplication markers, and if you did you could use a bit of paper!

There is a 6-7 player expansion coming out soon
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/431702 the player pieces were available at Essen but Hanno said that they rules aren't ready yet!
Maybe they will include some more mulitplication markers!

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Scoreboard?

oudknoei — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:38:26 +0000

by oudknoei

There are a number of generic score tracking sheets in the [thing=5985]Miscellaneous Game Accessory[/thing] section. A nice one with 50 points on it is here: [filepage=16376]Score Tracker[/filepage]

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Scoreboard?

indigopotter — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:33:43 +0000

by indigopotter

There's always a Cribbage board.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Draft Choices

smcmike — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:22:30 +0000

by smcmike

Oh, sure, I got passed some good stuff: Farm Steward was my other best occ. On the second go-round from my original hand I grabbed Constable, simply because I enjoy the challenge of Constable games. I ended up with bonuses from my Constable, another player's Village Elder, Half-Timbered House, and Chief's Daughter.

Mostly my score was the poor play of the other two players though. It's hard to separate the effect of early-game cards like Charcoal Burner from what your opponents hand you.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: Ronbo vs. MisterG: Match5Game1, or Hey, Look, Ron Does Win Upon Occasion!

MisterG — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:03:55 +0000

by MisterG

fbush555 wrote:
Quick note: Ron's power combo of Market Woman + Day Laborer is not possible, according to the rules appendix. Market Woman does not work with vegetables that are acquired through another occupation. I find this ruling inelegant and unsatisfying but it's nonetheless in the official rules.

As always, thanks for the cogent comments. I'm one of those guys who believes I can learn more from my mistakes than from my successes. I'll point out the infraction to Ron when next we meet; I'm sure he'll be thrilled. ;)

The questionable moves I see from you:

round 1 -- 1g

Agreed. As indicated, I was pretty much up in the air on this one, vacillating between 1G and PF. Since I never put the grain to good use until Round Twelve, it wasn't much good, was it? In truth, I might have well been best off by simply taking Day Laborer for the extra food.

round 3 -- MIMI+fp instead of sp + tongs to claim 2 reed (Ron has no clay and you can always pounce on the fireplace if he takes clay)

Good eye. I refrained from commenting on this error to see if anyone would notice. Lemme tell ya, right after I did it, I knew it was the wrong move. Generally, though, I'm not the type of player who, as preparations for the next Round are underway, suddenly says, "Oh, hey, that last move I made wasn't what I wanted to do, can I change it?" :whistle:

the combination of sheep on round 5, 2 stables on round 6 (build stables first if you're going to do this; Ron has no cookery and doesn't seem to like playing spoiler by making sheep run away. If he does like to jack animals then it's all right. This is all made more difficult by your need to grab 2 reed when it appears on rd6, of course, since that limits your flexibility.)

Yes. And, yes, Ron has played the game long enough to be liable every once in a while to play spoiler, just because he can. I couldn't chance it.

round 8 -- well with MIMI, instead of holding off for reno + well, when Ron had no stone and could not take well

Agreed. This was another error I refrained from commenting on to see if anyone would catch it. I could have simply MIMIed my fireplace to a hearth and saved the Well for renovation, allowing me to charbroil the boar in Round Nine instead of wasting time on the clay.

rd 9 -- starting off with 3c rather than 2 boars or build room. Ron doesn't need clay and you really don't need 3 clay, you need 4 if you want a 4th wood room, which you do. You already have your fireplace so even if Ron grabs the clay it's no big thing.

Yes, cf. above.

Thread: Agricola:: General:: Scoreboard?

matmo — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:03:42 +0000

by matmo

I think having a scoreboard a-la Carcassonne would be nice at the end of game, counting points player by player for each single category thus viewing the development on the board like a race (using maybe a stable as counting pawn).

It might add some suspence during points counting and help newbies figuring out where they lack important points too...
Anything I could download somewhere to print out without having to open Carcassonne every time?

THX!

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Card. By. Card. A FULL review of the Improvements of Agricola (v1.03)

vivafringe — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:50:07 +0000

by vivafringe

Thanks for the feedback, David. I agree with pretty much all of your suggestions and will go ahead and make the relevant edits.

Reply: Agricola:: Sessions:: Re: Ronbo vs. MisterG: Match5Game1, or Hey, Look, Ron Does Win Upon Occasion!

fbush555 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:39:38 +0000

by fbush555

Quick note: Ron's power combo of Market Woman + Day Laborer is not possible, according to the rules appendix. Market Woman does not work with vegetables that are acquired through another occupation. I find this ruling inelegant and unsatisfying but it's nonetheless in the official rules.

The questionable moves I see from you:

round 1 -- 1g

round 3 -- MIMI+fp instead of sp + tongs to claim 2 reed (Ron has no clay and you can always pounce on the fireplace if he takes clay)

the combination of sheep on round 5, 2 stables on round 6 (build stables first if you're going to do this; Ron has no cookery and doesn't seem to like playing spoiler by making sheep run away. If he does like to jack animals then it's all right. This is all made more difficult by your need to grab 2 reed when it appears on rd6, of course, since that limits your flexibility.)

round 8 -- well with MIMI, instead of holding off for reno + well, when Ron had no stone and could not take well

rd 9 -- starting off with 3c rather than 2 boars or build room. Ron doesn't need clay and you really don't need 3 clay, you need 4 if you want a 4th wood room, which you do. You already have your fireplace so even if Ron grabs the clay it's no big thing.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

out4blood — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:15:04 +0000

by out4blood

Webnard wrote:
out4blood wrote:
vivafringe wrote:
out4blood wrote:
Webnard wrote:
I like Agricola, though I've only played the full game once. I liked the variety of cards. The variety didn't change the number of decisions I had...
The only way this could possibly be true is if you never looked at your cards.
Or if at the beginning of the game, you decided to play completely randomly. Now that I think about it, this probably isn't too off the mark for someone on their first play through Agricola!
No, that is an EXTRA decision, you've made. :p
Choosing to play randomly prior to a game is not decision made from within the game. It isn't a decision peculiar to Agricola or me. Anyone could decide to play any game that way. Unlike where to place my "worker" under specific game conditions, choosing to play randomly is not a decision Agricola offers me. It's a decision I make above and beyond the game. I mention this because the comment about random playing doesn't address the difference between choices and decisions within a game, those choices and decisions Agricola provides while playing it.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Base Components and the 5-player Game

Steinman — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:54:20 +0000

by Steinman

kantpaper wrote:
Have you (or anyone) ever played a game where the wood tokens and their corresponding multiplication markers were not enough such that you had to resort to some other tokens or counters to represent wood?

I've played one or two cooperative games (where I've played all sides) where the tokens (wood, grain and food) and multiplication markers (used for wood, grain and food) have run out. Shouldn't happen in a competitive game though, I think =)

Session: Agricola:: Ronbo vs. MisterG: Match5Game1, or Hey, Look, Ron Does Win Upon Occasion!

MisterG — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:54:12 +0000

by MisterG

My buddy, Ron, has occasionally voiced complaints that I tend to post sessions of Agricola that I win more often than not. This is amusing not only because it’s true (after all, it’s far more fun to publish session reports where you do the handing of posteriors on platters rather than the other way around), but also because Ron’s never bothered to investigate this site (even though he has Internet access) and has therefore never read any of these reports. You hear what I’m sayin’, Brian?

No matter. In the interest of fair play and the illustration of various principles of proper play in Agricola, what follows is yet another 2-player competitive farming exercise in which Ron emerges triumphant. I will leave it to Constant Reader as to the whys and wherefores. Standard game: deal ten, drop three draft, and it’s off we go…

Round One/Sheep
Geoff – Occ/Woodcutter
Ron – 3W(3)
Geoff – 1G
Ron – SP + x

I open with the best Ock I have—trust me, nothing else was even close—and although I’m able to work it for a solid 6Wood over the course of the game, it’s just not enough. Ron counters with a predictable wood grab. With no playable Minors in my hand, I go eenie-meenie and pick up a grain. Ron jumps on the button, despite his own lack of a playable Minor as well. He wants that reed.

Round Two/Sow & Bake
Ron – 1R(2)
Geoff – 3W(3+1)
Ron – Occ/Seasonal Worker
Geoff – 1C(2)

And, it’s the reed he takes. I haul in some enhanced wood, and Ron drops his first bomb, the powerful Seasonal Worker. Uh-oh. I nab the clay for the potential fireplace.

Round Three/MIMI
Ron – 3W(3)
Geoff – Fish(3f)
Ron – DL(2f +1G)
Geoff – MIMI/Fp2

Ron pursues his favored wood-hogging strategy, goaded (perhaps) by my having the Woodcutter in play. I clear the pond to assure supplies, and Ron puts the Seasonal Worker to the same task. I claim my fireplace, despite the urge to snipe the reed, since I can’t see that that will help me.

Round Four/Fences
Ron – 1R(2)
Geoff – 3W(3+1)
Ron – Occ(-1f)/Clay Deliveryman
Geoff – SP + Stone Tongs

Ron stifles my building plans by swiping the stacked reed again, and I naturally take more enhanced wood. Ron now delivers a hammer blow by availing himself to a long-term 9Clay. Ouch! That doesn’t bode well at all. I respond with a button grab and one of my favorite Minors, which is, in fact, one of the few decent ones in my hand. It eventually translates into a utile 3Stone. We both feed easily.

Round Five/Family Growth
Geoff – 3W(3+1)
Ron – BR(1) + x
Geoff – Sheep(5)burn4
Ron – FG + Copse

I lead off the Fifth with another bolstered wood haul, and Ron properly recognizes the threat to his early expansion opportunity. He immediately builds a room, else I block the space by putting out a few stables. I torch most of the sheep, filling meat lockers to overflowing, and Ron then adds a new hire, playing the Copse for a point and a shot at some extra wood. We don’t think too highly of the Copse, but in this case it turns out to be a decent play.

Round Six/Renovation +MIMI
Geoff – 1R(2)
Ron – 1C(4)
Geoff – BR(1) + 2s
Ron – MIMI/CH4
Ron – 3W(3)

Finally, I’m able to pick up some reed; Ron responds with an easy clay grab. I build a room and pop out a pair of stables, hoping to breed animals, if possible. Ron claims his hearth, and snipes the timber to prevent me from getting a 6Wood next Round. This seemed very much like a scripted Round.

Round Seven/Stone
Geoff – 3W(3+1)
Ron – Fish(4f)
Geoff – FG + Guest> (-2f)
Ron – Sheep(2)burn2
Ron – PF

My first play this Round feels critical, and in retrospect, I probably miscued by taking the wood, bonus stick or not. Had I taken the fish or fried woolies, Ron would have been forced to take the other, and then I could have camped on Day Laborer. This would have compelled Ron to waste a peep on grain, and then lost both of his grain to feed his family, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. He’d have still been free to plow his field or snipe the wood, but I’d have emptied his silos and larder, and left him in a precarious position in Stage Three. Ah, well, spilt milk and all that. I add a much-needed worker, and cough up for the Guest as well. I’m under serious pressure myself. Again, we both feed without difficulty, and I am momentarily encouraged by my own surplus.

Round Eight/Boar
Geoff – 1R(2)
Ron – PF
Geoff – 3W(3+1)
Ron – DL(2f+1V)
Geoff – 1S(2+1)
Ron – S&B (1Vf/1Gf/2Wf)
Geoff – MIMI/Well (5f>)

With an eye toward further growth (and loathe to let Ron forestall me yet again), I snag the reed. Ron plows a first field, and I hack down more timber. Ron exercises the Seasonal Worker to pick up tomatoes (wait, is that a vegetable, or is it not?), and I boost the boosted stone for obvious reasons. Ron now farms furiously, including a few new stands of trees. I claim the Well and all its goodness. Things are looking up…maybe.

Round Nine/Vegetables
Geoff – 1C(3)
Ron – Boar(2)burn2
Geoff – Sheep(2)burn2
Ron – Occ(-1f)/Wood Collector (5W>)
Geoff – 3W(3+1)
Ron – SP + Guest> (-2f)

I take the clay, worried that Ron will snap it up; I should have bitten the bullet and built another room, and possibly another stable. Ron fries boar, I do likewise with the woolies, and Ron ocks himself another timely set of wood. Recognizing that he’s going to seize the button, I stupidly snipe wood instead of nailing down the button myself to guarantee first crack at room-building next Round. As expected, Ron retakes the button, and activates the Guest for himself. We both feed, and I can feel things looking right back down at the ground again.

Round Ten/Stone
Ron – BR(1) + x
Geoff – 1S(2+1)
Ron – 1R(2)
Geoff – Fences(13)
Ron – 3W(3)
Geoff – Ren>C +Fp2>CH5
Ron – FG + Writing Desk

Snickering, Ron builds another room. Again, I clear stone, and Ron takes the last reed he’ll need for the game. Desperate, I fence a standard three-pasture layout. Ron sequesters the wood I probably should have taken, I renovate and upgrade my fireplace, and Ron adds another dude and pointed Minor of situational usefulness. Regardless, I know I’m in trouble.

Round Eleven/Cattle
Ron – Boar(2)burn2
Geoff – 1S(2+1)
Ron – Sheep(2)burn2
Geoff – 1C(2)
Ron – Occ(-1f)/Market Woman + Occ(-2f)/Schnaps Distiller
Geoff – Cattle(1)burn
Ron – DL(2f+1V+2G)

As the midgame nears its end, I’m wishing more and more fervently that I had a choice card or two to aid my agricultural efforts. Ron torches livestock with abandon while I scramble for useful resources, and then uses the Writing Desk to bang out two more Ocks that spell my doom. I fry the cattle to make ends meet, and Ron delivers a nice one-two punch with a twice-enhanced visit to Day Laborer. Nice for him; not so nice for me. All I can think is, “Let’s get this over with, shall we?”

Round Twelve/Plow & Sow
Ron – 3W(6)
Geoff – P&S (PF +1Gf)
Ron – PF
Geoff – Fish(4f)
Ron – 1S(2)
Geoff – SP + Guest> (-2f)
Ron – Ren>C + Pottery

Ron clears the 6Wood, I plow a first field and plant some meager grain, Ron plows in response, and I haul in some food. Ron takes stone for a Major, and I make a last, futile button grab, activating the Guest once again. Ron complacently renovates and takes the obvious Pottery. I find myself whimpering like a whipped dog.

Round Thirteen/Family Growth w/o
Geoff – Cattle(2)
Ron- P&S (PF +2Vf/1Gf)
Geoff – FG w/o
Ron – 3W(3)
Geoff – Boar(2)
Ron – Fences(14)
Geoff – Sheep(2)
Ron – SP + Guest> (-2f)

I take the four-point cattle drive; Ron tops that with more intensive farming. I add my fourth worker, Ron tops off his wood for fencing, I herd boar, Ron fences, and I herd woolies. Ron drives the last nail into my coffin with a button grab and the Guest. I burn a zombie sheep to feed the shambly. The pain is nearly over.

Round Fourteen/Renovation + Fences
Ron – P&S (PF +2Gf)
Geoff – 1S(3+1)
Ron – Cattle(1)
Geoff – 1V
Ron – FG w/o
Geoff – PF
Ron – Boar(1)
Geoff – Ren>S +Stone Oven (4f)
Ron – DL(2f+1V+2G)

The last Round is fairly textbook elimination of negatives and completion of point sources. Some may argue that I should have taken FGw/o as my second play, but the six-point swing value wouldn’t have mattered, since this would have removed at least one neg-elim from my roster of plays; I’d have lost by at least one point, no matter what. The crux of this game was the action count, and I came up on the short end of that stick. I burn a pair of woolies, Ron puts the Schnaps Distiller to work and uses excess grain, and families are fed. It’s over, praise Ceres.

Final Score (Occupations Played, Minors/Majors Played)(Wood taken/bonus)(Rounds as Starting Player)(Total Primary/Secondary/Tertiary Actions)(Points Per Primary Action)(Food Spent)
Primary Actions are those actions first taken when a player claims a space with a family member. Secondary Actions are the “extra” actions allowed by certain spaces, such as a Minor Improvement when taking Starting Player, or Baking after Sowing. Tertiary Actions are all other “extra” actions enabled via card play or the seasonal rules of the “Through the Seasons” variant. Note that the “TtS” variant has two Action Spaces that allow Secondary Actions: Spring and Autumn.

Ron – 41 (5 Occ, 4/2)(21/9)(7)(43/7/7)(0.953)(50)
Geoff – 36 (1 Occ, 3/3)(18/6)(7)(38/7/10)(0.947)(40)

Player Fields Pastures Grain Veg Sheep Boar Cattle Unused Stables House Peeps Pts Bonus
[c]Ron - 5(4) 3(3) 8(4) 4(4) 0(-1) 1(1) 1(1) 0(0) 0(0) 4C(4) 5(15) (5) (1)
Geoff - 2(1) 3(3) 1(1) 1(1) 1(1) 3(2) 4(3) 4(-4) 2(2) 3S(6) 4(12) (8) (0)[/c]

Play efficiencies were, for all intents and purposes, statistically identical; the win was clearly a function of the extra actions Ron generated, and in no small part due to the timely appearance of Family Growth in Round Five. Argument could be made that Ron’s card holdings were superior to mine, at least in the Occupational category, but the peripatetic Guest seems to have made little difference (we both played it twice). I think my key error lay in Round Seven, when I should have pressured Ron’s food supplies and spiked his grain holdings. Constant Reader may feel otherwise.

Btw, Ron beat me even more senseless in Game2 of this match (44-32), mostly on the strength of a classic Round Seven button grab play of the Wooden Hut Extension. His PPA dwarfed mine; I made the mistake of early renovation to clay to get out the Maid, and misplayed the reed as a result. Ron came back from a three-action deficit, dominated livestock acquisition, and thoroughly thrashed me.

He’s getting pretty good at the 2-player game.

Next report: Oh, I Dunno, Maybe Another Game That I Win. As always, thanks for reading, and all comments, questions, and such will be duly acknowledged.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Base Components and the 5-player Game

MisterG — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:54:23 +0000

by MisterG

No.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Base Components and the 5-player Game

kantpaper — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:45:46 +0000

by kantpaper

Steinman wrote:
There are enough wood tokens for about 4 rounds in the 5-player game, but that is if you store all of your wood and not use it for anything.

Inevitably the supply will run out of wood tokens in the 5-player game sometime, but for those times the game comes equipped with multiplication markers that can represent 4 wood, for example.

So if you think it's important to always have physical bits to represent your resources then yes, you'll need resourcemeeples to play 4- and 5-player games.

Have you (or anyone) ever played a game where the wood tokens and their corresponding multiplication markers were not enough such that you had to resort to some other tokens or counters to represent wood?

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Base Components and the 5-player Game

cferejohn — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:51 +0000

by cferejohn

Also, the pieces that look like wood are supposed to be clay and the ones that look like clay are supposed to be wood (the ones that look like clay are more plentiful). Well, at least that's how they all look to me...

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

vivafringe — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:28:00 +0000

by vivafringe

No, this just isn't true. What you are trying to do is say that Agricola and Family Agricola are equally complex because they have the same number of moves, which you call decisions. Using your semantic distinction of "decisions," let's use a simple example.

Decision 1
Choice A
Choice B

Decision 2
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
Choice E

Do you honestly believe that Decision 1 is equally complex to Decision 2?

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Webnard — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:09:31 +0000

by Webnard

out4blood wrote:
vivafringe wrote:
out4blood wrote:
Webnard wrote:
I like Agricola, though I've only played the full game once. I liked the variety of cards. The variety didn't change the number of decisions I had...
The only way this could possibly be true is if you never looked at your cards.
Or if at the beginning of the game, you decided to play completely randomly. Now that I think about it, this probably isn't too off the mark for someone on their first play through Agricola!
No, that is an EXTRA decision, you've made. :p

We have different opinions on what a choice is and what a decision is.

A person getting married may have many potential spouses to choose from, many choices, but makes one decision. One at a time, at least.

In Agricola, the number of choices a player has is the the number of cards revealed minus the number of "workers" placed on those cards prior to a player's turn.

The number of decisions is much smaller, limited by the number of his "workers." Considering all revealed cards, I decide on one.

Choosing to play randomly prior to a game is not decision made from within the game. It isn't a decision peculiar to Agricola or me. Anyone could decide to play any game that way. Unlike where to place my "worker" under specific game conditions, choosing to play randomly is not a decision Agricola offers me. It's a decision I make above and beyond the game. I mention this because the comment about random playing doesn't address the difference between choices and decisions within a game, those choices and decisions Agricola provides while playing it.

That's my view. YMMV.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Base Components and the 5-player Game

Snipafist — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:03:54 +0000

by Snipafist

For the record, the only components that are intentionally restricted are the player-specific ones: 5 family members, 15 fences, and 4 stables per player. Otherwise, you should feel free to proxy or buy more counters for resources/animals.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Draft Choices

MisterG — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:02:46 +0000

by MisterG

Heck, I'll just take the Taster and the Chamberlain, thanks much. ;)

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Draft Choices

btizo — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:10:29 +0000

by btizo

smcmike wrote:

Of course, I set my high score for a 4 player game, with 61, so I can live with that.

Surely you had other cards to go along with the Charcoal Burner. He alone cannot give you a score of 61.

Now, if it were me, I would have taken Field Watchman and hoped that Rancher made it back to me. Field Watchman and Rancher are a great combo together.

Combine that with the grain cart/corn scoop you would have taken with the minors and you quickly have a powerful combo.

-B

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Base Components and the 5-player Game

kantpaper — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:49:49 +0000

by kantpaper

Great. Thanks for the info.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

out4blood — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:41 +0000

by out4blood

vivafringe wrote:
out4blood wrote:
Webnard wrote:
I like Agricola, though I've only played the full game once. I liked the variety of cards. The variety didn't change the number of decisions I had...

The only way this could possibly be true is if you never looked at your cards.

Or if at the beginning of the game, you decided to play completely randomly. Now that I think about it, this probably isn't too off the mark for someone on their first play through Agricola!

No, that is an EXTRA decision, you've made. :p

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Base Components and the 5-player Game

Steinman — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:48:42 +0000

by Steinman

There are enough wood tokens for about 4 rounds in the 5-player game, but that is if you store all of your wood and not use it for anything.

Inevitably the supply will run out of wood tokens in the 5-player game sometime, but for those times the game comes equipped with multiplication markers that can represent 4 wood, for example.

So if you think it's important to always have physical bits to represent your resources then yes, you'll need resourcemeeples to play 4- and 5-player games.

Thread: Agricola:: General:: Base Components and the 5-player Game

kantpaper — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:38:39 +0000

by kantpaper

I read somewhere, and now I cannot remember where, that the base Agricola does not come with enough wooden tokens to play a 5-player game; in such games, for example, you are eventually forced to use non-reed tokens to represent reed.

For those of you who have played the 5-player game with the base game components, have you had this experience? Was there a shortage?

(I do not current own a copy of Agricola, but I will be buying it some time in the near future and would like to know if upgrading to __-meeples is necessary.)

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

letsdance — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:11:42 +0000

by letsdance

vivafringe wrote:
However, I don't think such a spot would be good enough for player 3 in comparison to occ or 3W, so I'll also try giving an extra food to player 3 at the start.

you can't really solve the position problem by adding or improving actions because start/second player will always get better actions than the 3rd player. but IMO adding another resource for reed is a different matter anyways.

to reduce the position problem we play the settlers of catan start 1-2-3-3-2-1 (and then again 1-2 if you need more action due to the new expansion).

the new expansion makes everything easier btw :D (we had scores 53-43-39 in our first game and that was without occupations!)

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: wood cart+ basket and simular cards

weisswurst — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:24:38 +0000

by weisswurst

I would also see take and receive as the same thing.
I have the German version, and looking through the cards there are two things that I have noticed:

- Many German cards say "erhalten", which I would definitely translate/interpret as "receive", whereas the English cards say "take".
Examples: Berry picker, Woodcutter.

- If there is really a restriction, then it is mentioned on the card!
Examples: Net Fisherman, Clay Worker. The German cards explicitly say that they are NOT activated by occupations and improvements which bring reed resp. wood/clay.
Also Pig Catchers explicitly mentions a restriction. The German cards basically says "if you take wood which is lying on an action space".

So in all cases I would interpret taking/receiving/bringing without restriction to where the resources actually come from, unless the card says otherwise.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

vivafringe — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:17:39 +0000

by vivafringe

out4blood wrote:
Webnard wrote:
I like Agricola, though I've only played the full game once. I liked the variety of cards. The variety didn't change the number of decisions I had...

The only way this could possibly be true is if you never looked at your cards.

Or if at the beginning of the game, you decided to play completely randomly. Now that I think about it, this probably isn't too off the mark for someone on their first play through Agricola!

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

out4blood — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:36:35 +0000

by out4blood

Webnard wrote:
I like Agricola, though I've only played the full game once. I liked the variety of cards. The variety didn't change the number of decisions I had...

The only way this could possibly be true is if you never looked at your cards.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

MisterG — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:34:31 +0000

by MisterG

Now, why did Nate's post make me smile? Hmmmm....:devil:

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Webnard — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:33:22 +0000

by Webnard

Limey Sponge wrote:
Webnard wrote:
I'll use another analogy. At the beginning of a chess game, there are millions of choices, but each move is one decision. As the game progresses, the real choices become fewer and fewer, but each move is still one decision.

I like Agricola, though I've only played the full game once. I liked the variety of cards. The variety didn't change the number of decisions I had--having a child did.

I don't buy this analogy, [partly because I don't agree with your generalization of the "goals of the game".

Fair enough. You've played the game more than I have.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Limey Sponge — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:23:20 +0000

by Limey Sponge

Webnard wrote:
I'll use another analogy. At the beginning of a chess game, there are millions of choices, but each move is one decision. As the game progresses, the real choices become fewer and fewer, but each move is still one decision.

I like Agricola, though I've only played the full game once. I liked the variety of cards. The variety didn't change the number of decisions I had--having a child did.

I don't buy this analogy, [partly because I don't agree with your generalization of the "goals of the game". As I see it, in Agricola, I don't care about balance; I care about points, and balance may or may not help me get them. The cards allow me, as a player, to adjust the relative benefit of actions. Consider the Occupation cards. If I play chief, then getting a stone house is worth a lot more than getting that sheep that I am missing, so I may forgo them entirely. By not taking a 'standard action' (defined here as taking a resource or doing a non-card action like building rooms or fences), I am limiting my direct ability to do things that get me points, since I didn't build something or get the raw materials to build it, but I have altered my options, presumably in a positive way (let's not use those Skyp plays MisterG has transcribed as a reference here on this), for the rest of the game. In a poker example, it would be closer to my having the choice in 7 card stud to not have one card dealt to me but getting the ability to count all Hearts as Diamonds. I have improved my chances of getting a flush, and possibly a straight flush, but reduced the resources (cards) I have access to.

While the tactical options may number the same, I think that there is a broader scope for strategic choices. One of which is to forgo the Occs entirely, in which case you are essentially playing the family game, even if the other players are not.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Webnard — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:35:20 +0000

by Webnard

vivafringe wrote:
...Every competitive game should allow the best player to eventually win, but that's not the criteria that I was criticizing. Rather, I criticize the notion that the best player has to always win.

Then we agree. Whenever chance is on the table, outcomes will be typical, not absolute. To hold that the best player must win is a position not easily defended. Since we agree, I'm back with ya.

...In both HU NL Poker and Flip a Coin, the goal is to win as much money as possible! What you want to do doesn't change, so they have exactly the same amount of decisions.

Am I following your logic correctly?

Actually, I think you do, but it seems you twist it a bit to fit your point. You've switch from player goals to game goals. The heads up no limit player has a goal of winning more money than losing, but I don't see that as the goal of the game. Professional gamblers, whatever they play, have the same goal.

But that doesn't mean games have the same goals. So, while I do think you followed my logic, I also think you took a wrong turn trying to make a point about the decisions.

I'll use another analogy. At the beginning of a chess game, there are millions of choices, but each move is one decision. As the game progresses, the real choices become fewer and fewer, but each move is still one decision.

I like Agricola, though I've only played the full game once. I liked the variety of cards. The variety didn't change the number of decisions I had--having a child did.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Clarification - Net Fisherman

MisterG — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:55:26 +0000

by MisterG

In all fairness, I'm going to try using the Reed Fisherman every opportunity I get, no matter the number of players, just to see what happens. I really don't have very high hopes.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Clarification - Net Fisherman

MisterG — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:55:04 +0000

by MisterG

btizo wrote:
MisterG wrote:
Whereupon, if fishing has a 2food or better on it, and someone else has good use for a 2food or better, that someone will promptly occupy fishing. The Net Fisherman is, imho, a wimpy Occupation, hardly worth bothering with. It has a neglibly greater utility in 4- and 5-player games, for obvious reasons.

I think you're grossly underestimating the Net Fisherman, especially in the early rounds of 4 and 5 player games. If he is your first Occupation in Round 1, you can reasonably expect in Round 2 to get either 2R or RSF and the subsequent 2f from fishing. Additionally, this limits the available food for others.

I think he's an often underused, undervalued occupation. He is strongest in 4 Player because he turns RSF into RSF+1-3F, which is almost a food engine in itself

On further reflection, I admit that I've realized the error of my evaluation of this guy, at least in 4- and 5-player games, if you can get him out in Round One or Two for free, and are playing against opponents who have no real interest in defanging him (most likely by virtue of not needing reed themselves.

Beyond that, I can think of at least a dozen, if not a score of Occupations I'd rather play first.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Draft Choices

smcmike — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:47:54 +0000

by smcmike

In this pack, I thought there were 3 cards that stand head and shoulders above the rest:

Field Watchman
Charcoal Burner
Hut Builder

I took the Charcoal Burner.

While Alex is right that the Watchman is the only one here that has strong combo potential, it also has a fair amount of anti-synergy. Any other plow-focused card becomes practically pointless with the Watchman.

I went against it because of my personal play style: even with the increased efficiency of the Watchman, I'm just not that interested in early plowing/sowing.

Of course, when I looked at my first selection of Minors, it was:

Bookshelf
Corn Scoop
Corn Sheaf
Grain Cart
Gypsy's Crock
Moldboard Plow
Wooden Crane

If the Grain Cart or Corn Scoop was alone, I would have taken it just to block my neighbor, who surely took the Watchman. As it was, I went with the Plow.

As it turned out, Watchman/Grain Cart was pretty good for my opponent, who ended up with 45 or so.

Of course, I set my high score for a 4 player game, with 61, so I can live with that.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Agricola Online Update

Coyotek4 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:50:42 +0000

by Coyotek4

Just a quick reminder for the new guys: be sure to (a) register with the site, and (b) play at least a couple 'solo' games to get a feel for the interface. Your first game should not be against 3 experienced players. 3 fellow newbies, sure ... but be prepared for a very long game.

Make no mistake ... when you play the 'experienced' players, you are swimming with sharks!

Enjoy ... and good luck!

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: The Extra Card Decks

liken@xtra.co.nz — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:23:49 +0000

by liken@xtra.co.nz

You have several hundred cards to explore with base Agricola and Farmers of the Moor. As others have commented I wouldn't worry about the extra mini-decks. I have the Z-Deck but have never used it - plenty of variety with E,I and K.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Draft Choices

vivafringe — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:05:35 +0000

by vivafringe

Actually, on further thought, it doesn't matter what the turn order is. Given your info about your opponents, I would definitely pick the Field Watchman.

In trying to find the best pick, there are three things you should be considering.

1) What can I expect to come back, or "table?"

The best cards in the pack are:

Charcoal Burner
Field Watchman
Foreman
Hut Builder

The fact that two players are newbies is very relevant. For instance, Field Watchman has the smallest probability of coming back to you. New players love the Field Watchman (with good reason, admittedly) and tend to underrate Charcoal Burner and Foreman. This should lean you to picking the Field Watchman and not picking Foreman or Charcoal Burner.

2) What has the best possible synergies?

Charcoal Burner, Foreman and Hut Builder all don't have many possible combos. In fact, Hut Builder has anti-synergy with other good cards like the Axe. Field Watchman is the only card with combo potential. Limey already mentioned the Straw-thatched Roof, but it also obviously works well with the numerous baking minors.

3) What is the most powerful card?

Field Watchman! Duh.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Draft Choices

Steinman — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:56:26 +0000

by Steinman

I'd take the Field Watchman now (I like baking) and hope that Charcoal Burner came back to me :)

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Draft Choices

smcmike — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:52:10 +0000

by smcmike

This was an online game. The player directly downstream of me was my best competition, the other two were newbies.
Didn't know starting player, nor did I know what my options for minor improvements would be. More on that later.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Draft Choices

ousgg — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:37:36 +0000

by ousgg

Charcoal Burner, Constable and Foreman are all open to corruption from the other players, so I assume you play with a fairly non-cut-throat group.

Rancher is always a risk: not one I'd consider, I have to say.

I would consider Field Watchman and Hut Builder to be absolutely indispensable. Play them in the early rounds: they're easily worth a begging card each in the long run. The Resource Seller is a decent third choice which at least keeps your resources turning over.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Draft Choices

Limey Sponge — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:29:43 +0000

by Limey Sponge

Last game I played, I got Field Watchman and Straw-thatched Roof, which was a nice combo. so I would probably choose FW.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Draft Choices

vivafringe — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:25:36 +0000

by vivafringe

Do you know what the turn order is? Going first or second makes turn 1 occs like Foreman a lot better.

Ok, I admit that I'm just stalling while I think about it. :P

Thread: Agricola:: Strategy:: Draft Choices

smcmike — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:19:38 +0000

by smcmike

The nice thing about drafting is it makes you really think through how you rank cards. For example, in a recent 4-player draft, occupations followed by minors, my opening draw included:

Charcoal Burner
Constable
Field Watchman
Foreman
Hut Builder
Rancher
Resource Seller

I was taken aback, since this list includes several of my very favorite occupations.

Which would you choose?

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Clarification - Net Fisherman

TwitchBot — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:23:34 +0000

by TwitchBot

MisterG wrote:
Whereupon, if fishing has a 2food or better on it, and someone else has good use for a 2food or better, that someone will promptly occupy fishing.

The Net Fisherman is, imho, a wimpy Occupation, hardly worth bothering with. It has a neglibly greater utility in 4- and 5-player games, for obvious reasons.

Oh wow, I totally disagree with this. I don't think he's top of the line or anything, but I think he's at least of average or slightly above average strength.

The last time I played him, it was during round 2 or 3 I believe. I got all of the food off fishing the entire game (and I never went there once) except for the last 1 or 2 which were still on fishing at the end. Play an occ, gain 12 food is a pretty good deal.

I made sure I went to reed every other turn, so that fishing never got bigger than 2 food. (And this is key.) A two food action is generally very weak (though obviously it's sometimes necessary). Taking a two food action to deprive me of two food is obviously better, but so long as I never actually relied on immediately having that two food (like I'd starve without it) that was never the best use of my opponents time. Obviously if I'd put myself in a pickle and really needed that two food, my opponents would have stolen it. So don't do that.

The only trick is that you need to be able to afford to go to the read space often. So other bonuses for taking reed are important, or if not that at least the ability to use the reed.

I do think he's better in 5p than in 4p though, simply because reed is much more scarce, so it's not uncommon for a player to simply take one reed anyway. In 4p a one reed action is, IMO, kind of weak.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: 2 Player game: Second player best first action?

vivafringe — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:39:12 +0000

by vivafringe

The cards reference each other outside of the individual deck. For instance, Ladder reduces the cost for many minors outside of the I deck (Half-Timbered House from the E deck, Mansion from the K deck, etc.). There are also some awesome and fun combos that would never see play if you didn't mix the decks together (Axe + Mansion! Perpetual Student + Tutor!).

The decks were clearly designed for play either by themselves or mixed, and I think most people prefer mixed because it increases the variety of gameplay.

In conclusion, the best second player first action is to mix the decks together! There, now I'm on topic.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Replenishing resources: how do you do it efficiently?

FunkyBlue — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:05:15 +0000

by FunkyBlue

Mine are in baby food containers (the plastic ones with the snap lid. We normally designate one person for each resource and after each round, that person is responsible for stocking the board. Works pretty well.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Replenishing resources: how do you do it efficiently?

RobertDD — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:43:03 +0000

by RobertDD

I have created the Agricola Replenishments Cubes and uploaded the file. It is one page with the 16 cubes as described above, resource specific. I thought they turned out rather nicely. Look for it in the files section as soon as it gets approved.

For a 1 player game, where you likely do go through more than 3 steps for a resource, you could use a wooden resource marker to keep track of how many "full dice" you need to add to the result thats showing. So for instance, the 2 wood space would go to 2-4-6 wood in three rounds, then back to 2, but you add a round wood marker indicating +6 (the highest number on the 2 wood cube).

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: The Extra Card Decks

apatheticexecutioner — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:32:31 +0000

by apatheticexecutioner

Thanks for all the detailed answers and the help in making an informed decision.

Brian

New Image for Agricola

Guantanamo — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:24:05 +0000

by Guantanamo

]]>

Calliduxs3 (back), Bill, John, Scott, and JohnnyDollar at Mike's Mini Meet V

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: The Extra Card Decks

btizo — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:58:11 +0000

by btizo

MisterG wrote:
I swapped off the Z-deck that came in my game (which I bought in an FLGS, btw, without any pre-order whatsoever) for about $20 worth of Norwegian stamps, a birthday present for my brother. I don't miss that deck for even half a second.

Clearly you've never witnessed the awesome power of the Stump Jump Plow.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Clarification - Net Fisherman

btizo — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:55:55 +0000

by btizo

I think you're grossly underestimating the Net Fisherman, especially in the early rounds of 4 and 5 player games. If he is your first Occupation in Round 1, you can reasonably expect in Round 2 to get either 2R or RSF and the subsequent 2f from fishing. Additionally, this limits the available food for others.

I think he's an often underused, undervalued occupation. He is strongest in 4 Player because he turns RSF into RSF+1-3F, which is almost a food engine in itself

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: 2 Player game: Second player best first action?

TaxpayersMoney — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:22:06 +0000

by TaxpayersMoney

megasycophant wrote:
cferejohn wrote:
Huh. I never mix decks. I in fact thought Uwe strongly discouraged it for balance reasons. I certainly wouldn't consider all 3 mixed together as "standard". Maybe I'm the black sheep here tho...

If so, you're not the only one. Looking at their contents, looks pretty clear that they're intended to be played as individual decks. This is most obvious when you consider the cards that interact with each other -- if decks are mixed, it's unlikely these combinations of cards would see play.

I always play with EIK, both face to face and online.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: 2 Player game: Second player best first action?

megasycophant — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:25:20 +0000

by megasycophant

cferejohn wrote:
Huh. I never mix decks. I in fact thought Uwe strongly discouraged it for balance reasons. I certainly wouldn't consider all 3 mixed together as "standard". Maybe I'm the black sheep here tho...

If so, you're not the only one. Looking at their contents, looks pretty clear that they're intended to be played as individual decks. This is most obvious when you consider the cards that interact with each other -- if decks are mixed, it's unlikely these combinations of cards would see play.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: 2 Player game: Second player best first action?

cferejohn — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:43:22 +0000

by cferejohn

Huh. I never mix decks. I in fact thought Uwe strongly discouraged it for balance reasons. I certainly wouldn't consider all 3 mixed together as "standard". Maybe I'm the black sheep here tho...

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

vivafringe — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:04:14 +0000

by vivafringe

Webnard wrote:
Ya had me then ya lost me. I still gave you a thumb, though.

I was about to agree with your poker analogy until I realized, actually the better players do make more money that crap players. And that's what poker is about, ultimately, making (a lot) more money than you lose--not who wins a particular tournament.

Does that mean they are always the last one at the table in every tournament? No. It means that the better players more consistenly place higher within tournaments and more consistently bring in more money.

That's identical to playing Agricola with cards. Occasionally a card imbalance will cause the best player to lose, but overall the best player should be winning more often than the worst player.

Let's compare HU NL Poker to Flip a Coin. In Flip a Coin, we flip one coin, and the loser has to pay the winner a dollar.

In both HU NL Poker and Flip a Coin, the goal is to win as much money as possible! What you want to do doesn't change, so they have exactly the same amount of decisions.

Am I following your logic correctly?

Yes you are trying to do the same things in both versions of Agricola, but the presence of more options to accomplish those goals increases the number of decisions.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Minor comments

David Grabiner — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:08:37 +0000

by David Grabiner

Harrow

Is 2W and an action worth a field, assuming you were taking SP anyway?
In most cases the answer is probably yes, but not if you have anything
better to play.

An interesting question is whether the second clause on the card is an
"ability" or not. In 2-p it is clearly not; your opponent should only be
making the trade if she thinks it benefits her more than it benefits
you. However, in 4-p and 5-p, cooperation and trading become much more
viable from a game-theory standpoint. Chances are that there will be
times where paying you the food for the extra plow will be mutually
beneficial to both parties.

Rating: :star::star::star:.

Since two plowed fields are so important, you probably expect everyone
else to use the Harrow if you play it early in a game with more than two
players. Thus everyone gets an extra field, and everyone else pays you
two food during the game. So you'll probably collect 2 food from every
other player but get no other benefit. The three-star rating still
looks right.

Joinery

This is the worst of the three resource-to-food majors, because wood is
so seldom available in such excess that you'd want to buy this. Early
game, you should be using the wood for stables, rooms and random minor
improvements. Late game, fences are usually a much better way to convert
wood into VP.

Rating: :star:

In games with a lot of players, the Joinery is viable; sometimes,
players renovate early (because of clay improvements) and piles of wood
build up. A round 11 Joinery can turn two stone and five wood into two
VP and six food. I have also had games in which I built all my fences
and still had wood left over. It gets bought enough that I would give
it two stars.

Madonna Statue

The best cards in the deck are ones that give VP for no
cost. Ironically, this means that the Madonna Statue is pretty bad,
despite being a card that gives VP for no cost! Most of the time, you
simply won't have two improvements that aren't worth VP sitting around.

Rating: :star::star:.

Usually, she is only 1 VP; you have to use another half-action to put out a second 0-VP improvement, or else trash a 1-VP improvement.

Moldboard Plow

In my version, the card is apparently miss-printed, allowing the player
to plow an extra field once, not twice. Depending on what your version
is, this is either a must play improvement that surpasses the Crooked
Plow, or an underwhelming but sometimes serviceable play.

As printed in my version, a lot of people underrate this plow, which
might have something to do with the fact that it has "mold" in its name
(ewww!). Still, think of it this way: if you value plowing a field at
one action and 2W at a little less than one action (3W for 1 action is
usually the default), this is a good trade if you have nothing better to
do with your SP/FG. The lack of any prerequisites and somewhat useful
effect sometimes make it worth the effect.

If you get two extra fields, the card becomes fantastic, and better than
the crooked plow. You're probably going to be plowing twice during the
game anyway, so at a bare minimum you are paying 2W for 4 VPs.

Rating: :star::star::star:.

The official correction is that the plow is usable twice, and that makes
it a fine card. Unlike the other plows, you can get it out early enough
that you can actually use the fields for planting. I would go with four
stars given the correction.

Ox Team

Just once I'd like to get this card with the Animal Breeder. POW! 3
fields for one action. Take that, Crooked Plow!

However, when you're not in magical Christmas land where you've acquired
cattle earlier than you should, the card becomes awkward. If your plan
is to acquire cattle fairly, there are two problems. First, you're going
to have to fight the other players for them (2 cattle is a premium spot
in just about any Agricola game). Second, half the time cattle are going
to come out in round 11, which will translate to only getting 2 fields,
not 3. Finally, after you acquire the cattle, there will be a very
narrow window with which you can play this; wait too long, and the
potential benefit evaporates.

As a result, in spite of its undeniable power, most of the time there
will be too many hoops to jump through to bank on this card.

Rating: :star::star::star:.

In a 5-p game, you can use the animal market to get your cattle. As
long as you can feed yourself somehow, two early cattle are feasible,
and then you get the three fields in mid-game, when you may
even be able to sow them.

Conversely, in a 4-p game, this is just about useless unless you have
some way to get extra cattle. There are only four or five chances to
get cattle, so the space always gets taken at one cow and you'll
probably have to use your first action if you want a second.

Pottery

This might be the best of the three in large games, where clay is easy
to obtain in bulk. In smaller games, clay is usually tight enough that
this card seldom comes up without something game-warping like the Clay
Mixer.

Rating: :star::star:.

And since I play mostly 4-p or 5-p, this is the one of the three I am
most likely to see come out. There can also be a large pile of clay at
the end of the game which nobody wants, so the Pottery turns into a lot
of VPs. I prefer it to the Basketmaker's Workshop and would give it three stars.

Punner

If you can catch someone with this after they've played a plow but
before they've used it, this is definitely worth the action. Of course,
plows are pretty rare, so most of the time this will just sit in your
hand.

Rating: :star::star:.

It can also be used to kill someone else's Harrow; nobody will use the
Harrow if he has to pay two food to the owner and let you plow a field.

Rake

Two VPs for 1W is always a good deal, and getting five fields plowed is
reasonable if you set out to do so. This works awkwardly with plows,
since more than 5 fields is usually a waste of space due to Agricola's
scoring cap on fields, veggies and grain.

Rating: :star::star::star::star:.

While I have done it, plowing five fields can get in the way of other
strategies. If you are a baker and are going to plow three times by
mid-game so that you can sow two grain and a vegetable, you can go for
five without too much trouble. If you are a rancher, you'll have to
plow several times in the mid-game when it won't help you, rather than
gathering more wood or animals. I would downgrade the Rake to three
stars.

Reed Exchange

Similar to the Raft, this can be a nice way out if all of the reed gets
taken by your opponents. However, it doesn't give a VP and so should
really only be used as a desperation move.

Rating: :star::star:.

It's not a source of VPs, but it's a double-strength Helpful Neighbors,
and getting you two reed is likely to save you an action, while the two
wood/clay you pay is only half an action if you planned to use them. If
Helpful Neighbors is two stars, Reed and Stone Exchange should both be
three.

Slaughterhouse

In 2-p and 3-p this is practically a dead draw. The stone in the cost
means that you won't be able to play it early. Additionally, the
presence of only one or two other players give this dubious
utility. There's a good chance that if someone is eating animals, that
someone is you!

In 4-p and 5-p, this card obviously increases in value, both for the
increased number of players and for the earlier access to stone. If you
rush this out, it can ensure a hefty, albeit unreliable, windfall of
food.

Rating: :star::star:.

It's a very good card in 4-p or 5-p. 2S/2C for 2VP is the same cost and
value as the Pottery for a minor improvement, and most ranchers will
have to slaughter every harvest. If you are a baker, so that you need
to keep food in reserve since you can't produce it at will, you'll get
even more from the Slaughterhouse. I would give it a number of stars
equal to the number of players, with an average rating of three.

Stable

Another excellent cheap pass-card that's useful in winning the early
race for 2R, a fireplace, etc. As always, though, the immediate utility
is diminished by the fact that your left-hand opponent will probably be
playing it himself.

Rating: :star::star::star::star:.

This doesn't usually save you an action, just one wood. One stable
isn't enough to keep a breeding pair of sheep, and building early
stables doesn't cost an action since you will get them anyway when you
build rooms. I would rather have one wood (or the option of clay) from
Building Material than one wood which must be used on a stable, so I
would downgrade this stable to three stars, possibly two.

Stone Exchange

Like the Reed Exchange, this is a nice out if you get cut out from stone
to renovate. Since you generally tend to play this late, your opponents
are unlikely to use it themselves. Still, two wood for two stone is
hardly a back-breaking deal.

Rating: :star::star:.

And like the Reed Exchange and unlike Helpful Neighbors, it gives you a
useful amount which would normally take an action; you can take a pile
of clay, and then use the Stone Exchange to get the stone for the
Pottery. I would upgrade this to three stars.

Stone Oven

This is very much a niche play, as it gives fewer pqoints than the Well
and costs about the same. However, it should never be forgotten, as it
can often be a fantastic way to feed your family in the final rounds.

Rating: :star::star:.

In particular, remember the free bake. If you have the Clay Oven as
well, this will solve your need to take repeated baking actions, as you
can turn three grain into 13 food when you buy it. If you don't have an
oven but planted grain earlier, turning two grain into 8 food (and
additional grain at 3 each in your Cooking Hearth) may save you some
cooked animals.

Yoke

Very similar to the Punner, but definitely worse due to the cattle
requirement.

Rating: :star::star:

But better because you can wait. The Punner has to be played after
someone plays a Plow and before he uses it. The Yoke can be played
at the end of the game once you see that one or two Plows are out, and
if you see that it will be worth playing, you can grab a cow first.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Webnard — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:55:10 +0000

by Webnard

vivafringe wrote:
...
What makes a competitive game good is not how often the best player wins, but how difficult it is to play perfectly. Luck is a dominating force in poker, but the game can lead to wonderfully complex and puzzling situations ...

Either way, Agricola offers interesting decisions. But the undeniable crux of the matter is, the full game offers a ton more. It's not close. The family game is just trivially easy by comparison. And by "easy," I don't mean that you're going to get a higher score, or that I'd be able to win against someone who knew the family game better. I mean "easy" in that it's much easier to make the perfect play. If I had to choose between programming an AI for the family game and programming an AI for the full game, I bet you can guess which one I'd choose.

Did you know that Checkers has been solved? As in, literally, perfect play has been discovered for both sides. But checkers is luck free! Why are we having so many mahjongg tournaments and so few checkers tournaments?

Ya had me then ya lost me. I still gave you a thumb, though.

I was about to agree with your poker analogy until I realized, actually the better players do make more money that crap players. And that's what poker is about, ultimately, making (a lot) more money than you lose--not who wins a particular tournament.

Does that mean they are always the last one at the table in every tournament? No. It means that the better players more consistenly place higher within tournaments and more consistently bring in more money.

And as far as Agricola goes, I'm going to be picky. There are more cards to choose from, but not more decisions. You still want to balance as much as you can, have a child, build up your house. What you want to do doesn't change, only the number and type of cards you have to pull it off.

So, ya had me then ya lost me. More cards doesn't make Agricola more deep, and it doesn't create more decisions, just choices. YMMV.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

MisterG — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:39:21 +0000

by MisterG

I enjoy both versions, although I prefer to play with the Ocks and MImps, simply for the "fun" factor. If my crew wants a quick session, though, we play the family version, since the decision tree is much reduced.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: The Extra Card Decks

MisterG — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:31:20 +0000

by MisterG

I swapped off the Z-deck that came in my game (which I bought in an FLGS, btw, without any pre-order whatsoever) for about $20 worth of Norwegian stamps, a birthday present for my brother. I don't miss that deck for even half a second.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Clarification - Net Fisherman

MisterG — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:25:49 +0000

by MisterG

Whereupon, if fishing has a 2food or better on it, and someone else has good use for a 2food or better, that someone will promptly occupy fishing.

The Net Fisherman is, imho, a wimpy Occupation, hardly worth bothering with. It has a neglibly greater utility in 4- and 5-player games, for obvious reasons.

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

Alexfrog — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:42:02 +0000

by Alexfrog

pilight wrote:
I'd use the Two Different Resources space from the 4p family game rather than the RSF. That will keep the food tight.

I agree.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

celiborn — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:55:25 +0000

by celiborn

I'm curious to hear from people why drafting cards, as suggested in the rules, isn't good enough to resolve balance problems. I've only played two full games, both with the E deck, but each time I thought the cards came out pretty balanced: in the first game, we both ended up with very powerful cards, while in the second our cards were equally weak.

I suppose if a single card is overpowered, the person who happens to draw that card first would have an unfair advantage. But you could also just take that card out of future drafts!

And to answer the OP's question: I think the family game is very good, but the cards make it one point more fun. I would still play the family game without hesitation.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

vivafringe — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:47:33 +0000

by vivafringe

Arrrgh, this thread drives me nuts!

I'd like to quell, once and for all, the idea that the worth of a competitive game should be measured by how often the best player wins. Poker is an excellent competitive game - one of the best! - and yet no one in their right mind believes that the best player wins all of the time, or even most of the time. By the same token, who in their right mind believes that Tic-Tac-Toe (which is completely luck-free) is a good competitive game? No one!

What makes a competitive game good is not how often the best player wins, but how difficult it is to play perfectly. Luck is a dominating force in poker, but the game can lead to wonderfully complex and puzzling situations (I know you know I know...). Tic-tac-toe is luck-free, but is trivially easy to play.

Either way, Agricola offers interesting decisions. But the undeniable crux of the matter is, the full game offers a ton more. It's not close. The family game is just trivially easy by comparison. And by "easy," I don't mean that you're going to get a higher score, or that I'd be able to win against someone who knew the family game better. I mean "easy" in that it's much easier to make the perfect play. If I had to choose between programming an AI for the family game and programming an AI for the full game, I bet you can guess which one I'd choose.

Did you know that Checkers has been solved? As in, literally, perfect play has been discovered for both sides. But checkers is luck free! Why are we having so many mahjongg tournaments and so few checkers tournaments?

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

Zimeon — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:34:03 +0000

by Zimeon

chris1nd wrote:
was wondering if anyone else has arrived at the conclusion that balance ismore important than teh variety of strategies the cards afford.

I've come to the conclusion that easyness is more important than the variety of the cards. I play mostly the family game because it's less complicated, simply. Some of those around me agree with me, some prefer with the cards.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Berry Picker and Building Material

pijll — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:31:22 +0000

by pijll

Lord Chambers wrote:
Shouldn't Uwe be the one clarifying contradictions and making rulings?

Uwe isn't that active on BGG; Hanno is the one mostly answering questions, both here and on the forum of the publisher.

Much of the wording on the cards was apparently written by Hanno, who was involved with German collectible card games (maybe even Magic:TG), and picked up the habit of precise wording of card effects there. Maybe Hanno understand the meaning of the card texts even better than Uwe; and if he doesn't I suppose he can always consult him.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: The Extra Card Decks

pijll — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:26:41 +0000

by pijll

Note that only E, I, and K are "complete" decks: roughly 100 cards per deck, enough to play the game. Z, O, and CZ are only 24 cards; you can only use them in addition to one or more of the other sets.

My opinion on the smaller decks, from good to bad:

CZ, O: are good decks, with cards that are on average a bit more complex than the 3 standard decks. If you deal 1 or 2 cards from one of these decks for each player, and 5 or 6 from a standard deck, they add some variety. They are not necessary to enjoy the game, but for a few dollars, why not buy them?

Z: contains some good cards, but others are spectacularly bad (Maypole, Mail Coach Driver). You probably won't receive these with your game: they were included in the first couple of thousand copies. If you can get them cheap, and you remove some of the words cards, it's ok, but they are not worth collector's prices.

L 2009: these could be collected at Essen this year. They were meant as gimmicks, and show several people connected to the publisher or to the designer. Reportedly, some of these cards would be playable. They were designed by Uwe Rosenberg. Probably not worth getting.

X: Worthless. In the first game I played, only a few of these cards came out, and none of them had any effect; in the second and last game, the first card immediately destroyed any chance of victory for my opponent. Note that this expansion does not contain an occupation and an improvement deck, but is a separate "event deck" with its own rules. Don't get this one unless your a completist.

L 2008: these were distributed at Essen last year, and were designed by Hanno Girke. They were not meant to be played, and it shows. It contains cards like "receive a bonus point if you answer a rules question" and "immediately play all your cards containing the letter Z". You can't get this one anymore, I think, but that doesn't matter.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Berry Picker and Building Material

Lord Chambers — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:23:37 +0000

by Lord Chambers

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hanno is a co-publisher of the game and Uwe Rosenberg is the designer. Shouldn't Uwe be the one clarifying contradictions and making rulings?

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Anyone prefer family game?

lightnng — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:55:43 +0000

by lightnng

I only play the family game.

I was taught Agricola with the cards, and absolutely detested it. Rated it a "2" and vowed never to play it again.

Had my arm twisted into playing it a year later without the cards. Enjoyed it, and subsequently bought it. Played two more games since, all family version, and am still enjoying it although I clearly do not understand how to do well in the game (I always seem to score in the mid-20's - 4 or 5 players - no matter what I do).

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: The Extra Card Decks

1nf1n1ty — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:24:01 +0000

by 1nf1n1ty

I would say that they are only necessary for the completest. I didn't find anything groundbreaking in them.

If you want to burn some extra cash on the game I would suggest buying the animeeples and vegimeeples. They make the game more visually appealing and much easier for new players to learn.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: The Extra Card Decks

generalpf — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:20:38 +0000

by generalpf

My copy came with the Z deck for some reason and we never, ever use it. We hate those cards. I've played Agricola 40+ times I'm sure and have never wanted for more cards. Please, no more cards.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: The Extra Card Decks

Limey Sponge — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:09:13 +0000

by Limey Sponge

Most seem to find the X deck is at best unnecessary, and at worst deleterious.

The other decks are nice but not necessary. You can probably play happily with just the E, I and K decks for years. Additional decks can be thought of as spices, you can live without them, but if a particular one appeals to you, add it and adjust your cooking.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: The Extra Card Decks

smcmike — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:07:22 +0000

by smcmike

I've played a lot with the O and Z deck. There's nothing wrong with them, and if you want to maximize your variability, they're worth picking up, but they aren't essential or anything. I'd say the average card utility in the extra decks is lower, but perhaps the creativity is higher.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Clarification - Net Fisherman

spearjr — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:58:28 +0000

by spearjr

ddlj81 wrote:
The rule book on the side column has this statement "As soon as a player who has played the Net Fisherman uses a Family member to harvest Reed,"

What does it mean to harvest Reed ... you could only harvest grain and vegetables right? -- or does it just mean placing the family member in the reed action space.

So if its the latter, then as soon as you place your family member in the reed action space and if you have already played the Net Fisherman do you place the claim marker?

It is the latter and yes when you place a family member on the reed spot on the board, if you have the occupation Net Fisherman, you immediately place the claim marker on the fishing hole.

Thread: Agricola:: General:: The Extra Card Decks

apatheticexecutioner — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:54:45 +0000

by apatheticexecutioner

Just ordered Agricola and Farmers of the Moor and would like to know how important the extra decks are and which of those, if any, I should add to my collection.

By the description, it looks like Z Deck is the deck that will come with the original game, O Deck is a deck with additional occupations and minor improvements, CZ is a special Chech Deck . . . pause . . . and the X Deck consists of alien catastrophes that will just set back your farm and make it harder to achieve goals.

Thoughts, comments, recommendations and personal experiences with the various decks, how they interact and any corrections of my assumptions are all welcome.

Brian

Thread: Agricola:: Rules:: Clarification - Net Fisherman

ddlj81 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:32:46 +0000

by ddlj81

The rule book on the side column has this statement "As soon as a player who has played the Net Fisherman uses a Family member to harvest Reed,"

What does it mean to harvest Reed ... you could only harvest grain and vegetables right? -- or does it just mean placing the family member in the reed action space.

So if its the latter, then as soon as you place your family member in the reed action space and if you have already played the Net Fisherman do you place the claim marker?

Thanks

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

vivafringe — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:31:11 +0000

by vivafringe

Whoops, thanks for that, you three. Just shows my experience with the Family game, I suppose. :P

That indeed might actually be better.

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

Jim Cobb — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:16:35 +0000

by Jim Cobb

vivafringe wrote:

pilight wrote:
I'd use the Two Different Resources space from the 4p family game rather than the RSF. That will keep the food tight.

This is an interesting idea as well, but I'm not sure I'd like the idea of being able to take 2R whenever you wanted.

It's two DIFFERENT Resources, so you can't take 2 reed...isn't that correct?

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

jebry — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:16:07 +0000

by jebry

That's different resources as in they cannot be the same type of resource. So two reed would not be available all the time.

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

btizo — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:16:05 +0000

by btizo

vivafringe wrote:
I'd use the Two Different Resources space from the 4p family game rather than the RSF. That will keep the food tight.

This is an interesting idea as well, but I'm not sure I'd like the idea of being able to take 2R whenever you wanted.

I bolded the key word, different. You could not take 2R, but I think this is a pretty solid addition instead of RSF or adding a food to the take 1 resource spot. More variable, more useful.

If this still proves difficult for the 3P, then start him with 4f and this spot and you're probably golden.

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

vivafringe — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:00:15 +0000

by vivafringe

letsdance wrote:
better idea would be to add +1 food to the "take 1 resource of your choice" action. that improves availability of food, reed and stone without breaking balance.

Ah, that is indeed a better idea. I think it would make Landing Net still strong, but much less of a crushing move. However, I don't think such a spot would be good enough for player 3 in comparison to occ or 3W, so I'll also try giving an extra food to player 3 at the start.

Thanks for the replies, everyone! I'll try out this change next time I get the chance to play a 3er.

pilight wrote:
I'd use the Two Different Resources space from the 4p family game rather than the RSF. That will keep the food tight.

This is an interesting idea as well, but I'm not sure I'd like the idea of being able to take 2R whenever you wanted.

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

Philip Thomas — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:51:02 +0000

by Philip Thomas

The Farmers of the Moor expansion pretty clearly acknowledges the food problem with 3 players in that it provides extra food for the 3 player game only (And slightly less food for the 2 and 5 player games). The expansion also increases the number of cooking appliances, doubling the number of "cooking hearth type" Major Improvements.

In the absence of the expansion I guess using RSF may be a solution. Maybe you could just make it RF, since I don't think Stone shortage is really an issue in 3-player.

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

TwitchBot — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:35:18 +0000

by TwitchBot

I'm not sure I like adding a spot as strong as RSF, but we have discussed that going last in 3p seems like a major disadvantage for the reasons mentioned.

We were toying with allowing that player to start with 4 food to compensate a little.

We also normally draft occupations and improvement, and we've realized that we need to select the start player and turn order before the draft because it is so critical that player 3 have a free minor improvement that actually does something. If you are drafting and you are player 3, you simply have to take a cheap improvement, like one of the pass to the left cards.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

btizo — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:15:44 +0000

by btizo

pijll wrote:

By the way, in your opinion, can you use the Hedge Keeper for the first fence you build? Or do you have to build at least 1 fence before you can build the HK fences?

For example, if you already have 4 fences, can you build fences like this:

5th: free (Hedge Keeper)
6th: free (Sawhorse)
7th: free (Hedge Keeper)
8th: free (Hedge Keeper)
9th: free (Sawhorse).

So 5 new fences for 0 wood.

I would argue No, because I believe the first fence must either be paid for or come from the Wood Carver / Sawhorse.

Limey Sponge wrote:
pijll wrote:

By the way, in your opinion, can you use the Hedge Keeper for the first fence you build? Or do you have to build at least 1 fence before you can build the HK fences?

Whenever you build at least 1 fence, you can build
3 additional fences without paying any additional
wood.

Since the HK says "Whenever you build at least one fence" it would need another source for the initial fence.

Better question: If you have built 8 fences could you do the following:

9th: free (Sawhorse)
10th: free (Hedge Keeper)
11th: free (Hedge Keeper)
12th: free (Sawhorse)
13th: free (Hedge Keeper).

For this I would say Yes, because the initial fence is coming from the Sawhorse, not the Hedge Keeper.

You could do this because of how Hedge Keeper+ Wood Carver interact. For example: Let's pretend you have a 6 Fence 2 square pasture. If you have Wood Carver (Pay 1 less wood for one fence, improvement, room once each round) you can Fence 1 (paying 0W b/c you pay 1 less) then get an additional 3 from the Hedge Keeper, meaning for 0W you get 4 fences, just like the above example, so I'd say it's legit.

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

pilight — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:52:02 +0000

by pilight

I'd use the Two Different Resources space from the 4p family game rather than the RSF. That will keep the food tight.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

Limey Sponge — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:56:11 +0000

by Limey Sponge

pijll wrote:

By the way, in your opinion, can you use the Hedge Keeper for the first fence you build? Or do you have to build at least 1 fence before you can build the HK fences?

Whenever you build at least 1 fence, you can build
3 additional fences without paying any additional
wood.

Since the HK says "Whenever you build at least one fence" it would need another source for the initial fence.

Better question: If you have built 8 fences could you do the following:

9th: free (Sawhorse)
10th: free (Hedge Keeper)
11th: free (Hedge Keeper)
12th: free (Sawhorse)
13th: free (Hedge Keeper).

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

pijll — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:47:50 +0000

by pijll

btizo wrote:
I imagine I will post a few more of these threads.

Yes please! All the opinions posted here are valuable input for the next version of the compendium. The ruling under discussion here for example will probably change in the next version (which may be released in a few days...), because the majority of the people here support your point of view.

By the way, in your opinion, can you use the Hedge Keeper for the first fence you build? Or do you have to build at least 1 fence before you can build the HK fences?

For example, if you already have 4 fences, can you build fences like this:

5th: free (Hedge Keeper)
6th: free (Sawhorse)
7th: free (Hedge Keeper)
8th: free (Hedge Keeper)
9th: free (Sawhorse).

So 5 new fences for 0 wood.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Card. By. Card. A FULL review of the Improvements of Agricola (v1.03)

Bercik — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:39:52 +0000

by Bercik

vivafringe wrote:
Bercik wrote:
In round 4 at least one other player always had 5W and 2R for a room, and actually may have built the room in round 4. Now when the round 5 card is FG then the Reed Hut player lost the momentum because he has no way to grow his family until he builds the 4th room, and for the 4th room, he needs to acquire 4 reeds again!

I think you're playing the card wrong.

From the compendium:

Reed Hut (K138)
(1VP. Cost 4R 1W.)

Place one family member token that you have not yet brought into the game onto this card, where it will live for the rest of the game. It can take actions and must be fed, but it is not worth any points while living in the Reed Hut.

1. The new person can be used in the current round, as it is put in “its own room” immediately when playing this card.
2. The occupant of the Reed Hut is placed after your family members [ref] and the guest from the Guest minor improvement, but before the guest received from the Keg.
3. Playing the Reed Hut does not count as a family growth action.
4. The person in the Reed Hut is not counted when checking if family growth is allowed. They do not count as part of the family.
5. You can move this person into your home with a family growth action later. That family growth action must be taken by another family member. [ref] The former occupant of the Reed Hut counts as newborn, and may not take an action that round, unless you use the Adoptive Parents.

So yeah, what makes the Reed Hut broken is
A. The fact that you can use him in the current round
B. The fact that it doesn't inhibit further FG like the Lover does.

Oh, looking at the Compendium, you're right! I'm in Slovak Republic, central Europe, and we have the Czech language version (Czech and Slovak languages are almost the same... it's like British and US English). Anyway, the card translation in Czech is wrong! It says I HAVE TO (not that I CAN) move this offspring into the house...

I checked all the E, I and K decks and found a few more differences between the English Compendium and the Czech translation. One huge difference was in the Wood Distributor occ. - the Czech translation said the player may take 2 wood EVERYTIME he distributes the wood! Can you imagine playing this occ. in the Round 1 and then take 2W in each of the remaining 13 rounds? :whistle:

I've just learned there's an updated edition of the K and I decks in the Czech language where all these errors have been fixed. Going to buy it today ;)

And, of course, changing my opinion on Reed Hut :)

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

letsdance — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:00:26 +0000

by letsdance

that takes the challenge out of the game. there is suddenly much more food (assuming that RSF gets taken almost every round which is likely) and there is as much reed and stone as in 4p games!

better idea would be to add +1 food to the "take 1 resource of your choice" action. that improves availability of food, reed and stone without breaking balance.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Agricola Online Update

smcmike — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:46:52 +0000

by smcmike

Yeah, there's real variation in game length. Sometimes you can't avoid the 1-2 minute turn, 2.5 hour game, which makes you want to never play again. But with 4 experienced players, it can go REALLY quick sometimes. Like a little over an hour.

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

MisterG — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:21:24 +0000

by MisterG

I've often thought of trying this variant, but never gotten around to it. I'll bring it up with the boys the next time we play threesies. I'm thinking it'll make for a much wilder, higher-scoring game.

For what it's worth, though, we just played two 3-player games tonight, and Player #3 came in second both times. The Landing Net got used both games, to varying effect, though not by #3. I'm thinking I may post both these games soon to see what people here have to say.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

Limey Sponge — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:54:39 +0000

by Limey Sponge

carlj wrote:
btizo wrote:
Happy to oblige. Nothing like some good 'ol fashioned rules lawyering.

I imagine I will post a few more of these threads. I'm running a tournament and we're using the compendium as our dispute book, so I'm going through it to make sure everything makes sense. Most do, some don't. If you want to add discussion to my Buyer thread, please do!

Geek newbie here. What's a Buyer thread?

His thread about Wood/Reed/Stone Buyer Occs.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Agricola Online Update

Lord Chambers — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:51:48 +0000

by Lord Chambers

Signups are on the forum:
http://banach.ucsd.edu/forums/index.php?board=43.0

Reply: Agricola:: Variants:: Re: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

cferejohn — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:13:51 +0000

by cferejohn

Seems like a reasonable thing to try. I have always found the 3p wild-card resource thing a little underwhelming. Let us know if it makes 3p more enjoyable for you.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Questions about Occupation card "Tinsmith"

Jiing — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:00:59 +0000

by Jiing

Thanks Johan and Duchess.
My mistake was to think the second sentence independently. When combining with the first sentence it is clear now.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

carlj — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:46:44 +0000

by carlj

btizo wrote:
Happy to oblige. Nothing like some good 'ol fashioned rules lawyering.

I imagine I will post a few more of these threads. I'm running a tournament and we're using the compendium as our dispute book, so I'm going through it to make sure everything makes sense. Most do, some don't. If you want to add discussion to my Buyer thread, please do!

Geek newbie here. What's a Buyer thread?

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Agricola Online Update

btizo — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:43:59 +0000

by btizo

Many games are quicker if all the players are experienced.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

btizo — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:42:49 +0000

by btizo

Happy to oblige. Nothing like some good 'ol fashioned rules lawyering.

I imagine I will post a few more of these threads. I'm running a tournament and we're using the compendium as our dispute book, so I'm going through it to make sure everything makes sense. Most do, some don't. If you want to add discussion to my Buyer thread, please do!

Thread: Agricola:: Variants:: Adding RSF spot to 3-p

vivafringe — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:19:56 +0000

by vivafringe

Most of my games are 3-p and while it's very fun, I feel it has definite problems in comparison to 4-p.

1. There isn't enough reed, making cards like the Landing Net brutal, swingy, and unfun.

2. Stone is a bit tight. This isn't too much of a problem but it does make baking pretty bad in general.

3. There isn't enough food. 4-p gets Traveling Players and 2-p gets a ton of animals lying around. 3-p gets nothing in that respect. Also because baking sucks in 3-p, all 3 players tend to try to get Cooking Hearths and the result can be pretty brutal.

4. And this is the big one: the third player in 3-p gets hosed. This is because there are only two good spots on the board in the first round of 3p: Occupation and 3W. After that the options suck: plowing a field and taking 1G are both way worse than 3W and 1 Occupation. Moreover if player 2 decides not to take SP then player 3 is forced to take it. At that point if he doesn't have a free playable minor he is pretty much toast.

My idea, then, is to add in the 4-p Reed Stone Food spot into the 3-player game, replacing the crappy wildcard resource spot that no one ever uses. The idea is that it should help in all 4 respects. It adds reed, stone and food into the game (duh!) and it gives player 3 a decent option to use with his first play, no matter what. It also makes baking a better option, which should add some more variety to the game.

Thoughts?

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Agricola Online Update

LetsGame — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:24:17 +0000

by LetsGame

The regulars who play a couple of times a week play 3-ER's in 75 minutes and 4-ER's in 100 minutes. That averages out to 25 minutes per player (for players who have experience with the game and interface)

New Image for Agricola

jphyman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:58:26 +0000

by jphyman

]]>

Two player boards from a five player game of Agricola; winning board in foreground; my board in background.

Reply: Agricola:: General:: Re: Agricola Online Update

IirionClaus — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:29:27 +0000

by IirionClaus

May I ask how long does an average game take?

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

carlj — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:57:39 +0000

by carlj

MisterG wrote:
carlj wrote:
MisterG wrote:
And, I might also add (and am), this entire discussion boils down to a quibble over a net difference of two fences (i.e. one victory point).

Not exactly. The question of whether you have to finish with the effect(s) of one card or action before applying the effect(s) of a second card or action, is important, or at least interesting to me. That justifies the whole argument, IMHO. :-)

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I've enjoyed reading this thread immensely. It's always interesting to learn how other people perceive things.

Hee hee. And I thought my post was rhetorical with the imHo and a smiley.

It has been an interesting thread, hasn't it? Thanks, Bryann.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

carlj — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:52:10 +0000

by carlj

Paul King wrote:
I have corrected the spelling. However there is no "less" benefit to using the two together. For any amount of wood you spend you get the same benefit from each as you would for having them individually.

Thank you.

Your interpretation allows fewer fences for a given amount of Wood than Mike's allows. Therefore there is "less" benefit when using your interpretation than there would be using Mike's.

None of the reasons given thus far for choosing one interpretation over the other are persuasive, so I think we have to give the nod to a creative use of the combo which was not foreseen by the the writer of the rules.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

MisterG — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:52:57 +0000

by MisterG

carlj wrote:
MisterG wrote:
And, I might also add (and am), this entire discussion boils down to a quibble over a net difference of two fences (i.e. one victory point).

Not exactly. The question of whether you have to finish with the effect(s) of one card or action before applying the effect(s) of a second card or action, is important, or at least interesting to me. That justifies the whole argument, IMHO. :-)

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I've enjoyed reading this thread immensely. It's always interesting to learn how other people perceive things.

New Image for Agricola

Imploded — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:39:42 +0000

by Imploded

]]>

Grandma plays Agricola

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

Paul King — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:17:12 +0000

by Paul King

I have corrected the spelling. However there is no "less" benefit to using the two together. For any amount of wood you spend you get the same benefit from each as you would for having them individually.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

carlj — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:59:19 +0000

by carlj

Paul King wrote:
Carl Olsen - the Sawhorse does make fences free rather than allowing the building of extra fences. And the effect of that is to disallow the Sawhorse working with - for example - mini-Pasture.
That is simply not deniable.

Mike Tanner - I see no reason why there needs to be an extra benefit from using both over and above the benefits they already give.

Bryan Turner - your alternate wording of Basin Maker is not the same as the original. In the original you would get 2 bonus points of 3 Wood and your wording gives nothing,

I see what you mean. Now I have to spend 2 Wood, not one, on my Fence action to get to 15 fences.

Re: Mike Tanner's comment - I see no reason why the there needs to be *less* benefit from using both than the benefits they already give.

Please spell my name correctly. Every time it is misspelled on a forum it makes it that much harder to get people to spell it correctly. I am not related to either Superman's pal or to the Olsen twins. Thanks.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Short 1 food because of family growth = probably worth it

dklx3 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:21:52 +0000

by dklx3

Cool. I play strictly 4 and 5 player so am a little blind to dynamics of two player.. add salt to anything I say.. :)

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

Paul King — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:55:42 +0000

by Paul King

Carl Olsen - the Sawhorse does make fences free rather than allowing the building of extra fences. And the effect of that is to disallow the Sawhorse working with - for example - mini-Pasture.
That is simply not deniable.

Mike Tanner - I see no reason why there needs to be an extra benefit from using both over and above the benefits they already give.

Bryan Turner - your alternate wording of Basin Maker is not the same as the original. In the original you would get 2 bonus points of 3 Wood and your wording gives nothing,

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

btizo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:09:01 +0000

by btizo

Paul King wrote:
carlj wrote:

Intuitively, I probably side with you, but we're playing by rules here, and by the rules, it's not the way you see it.

If all you are saying is that the rules aren't clear then that's the whole reason for the discussion.

However, if the best argument for allowing interleaving the builds is that the rules don't prohibit it, then that is not much of a case - certainly you cannot say that the rules actually support that reading. And after all, if it was not intended, it would be an odd oversight.

So, I think we have a good case that it should not be allowed:

1) The compendium disagrees with it (and that may well be a ruling from the designer). While it does not directly address the issue what it does say rules it out.

2) The wording of Sawhorse seems intended to disallow extra benefits from other sources of "free" fences.

On the other hand, the case in favour seems to be no more than the lack of an explicit rule against the interleaving, even though it is exactly the sort of thing that would be likely to be missed (it only matters in a few cases) - unless the designer actually intended to allow it, in which case it should have been mentioned.

The wording on the Sawhorse does not imply anything other than every 3rd fence is free. Similarly, the wording in Hedge Keeper states that whenever you build at least 1 fence, you can build 3 additional fences.

Furthermore, the Sawhorse wording is the not the only card to bear a similar wording. Take for example the Basin Maker:
"For each wild boar that you convert into food, you can place up to 2 wood from your personal supply on this card. At the end of the game, you receive 1 bonus point for each wood on this card except the 1st, 4th, 7th and 10th."

Why not simply say: "For each wild boar that you convert into food, you can place up to 2 wood from your personal supply on this card. At the end of the game, remove 5W from this card. The remaining Wood placed on the card are counted as bonus points.

This has the exact same effect as the original text, but it is worded differently. IMO, the Sawhorse is worded this way to make it different than the Hedge Keeper, but have a similar effect.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: 2 Player game: Second player best first action?

r0gershrubber — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:55:34 +0000

by r0gershrubber

It looks like there's not much disagreement here: Occupation may be better than Wood, if you have a good early occupation. Wood is almost always a strong opening.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Short 1 food because of family growth = probably worth it

Neo42 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:45:20 +0000

by Neo42

dklx3 wrote:
And as a side remark, I would worry about the overall quality of play if you took a -9 hit and still won. While I am sure some strange concoction of circumstances could be created to enable a win, in our group, -9 would be the end of you. Also, if the player is already that short of food, and the next harvest that much closer (shrinking times between harvests), the other players ought to have made it even harder for you to get fed moving forward with more begging cards to follow.

It was a 1 on 1 game. Both players are very new to the game.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

smcmike — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:43:44 +0000

by smcmike

If the designers had intended the Sawhorse to allow the Hedgekeeper to produce an extra fence then I very much doubt that they would rely on the player interleaving builds using wood and using the Hedgekeeper - it's way too unintuitive.

If this is an argument about intuitiveness, I think most people's first reaction would be to allow the full benefit of both cards, rather than limiting them. Only after seeing this thread, and reading the precise language of the cards did I even consider the other interpretation. If the argument comes down to precise wording, I don't think it can stand, since a lot of the wording in Agricola (particularly as translated) is ambiguous.

I think the other argument is this: what is the spirit of the cards? Does this combo feel abusive? To me it does not. Allowing all the free fences only gives you precisely the benefit implied by the card. If these two don't work together, Hedgekeeper essentially becomes a dead card in any hand with a Sawhorse (why not just take 3 wood and actually get your benefit?)

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: 2 Player game: Second player best first action?

vivafringe — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:34:42 +0000

by vivafringe

Winsome has some excellent points, and I'd also like to chime in that denying the 3W round 1 can sometimes prevent your opponent from having a relevant minor to take SP with that turn. It pressures them to have a free improvement in very much the same way that turn 2 DL does in your example.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: 2 Player game: Second player best first action?

Winsome — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:20:11 +0000

by Winsome

I think we both agree that "3 Wood" and "Occupation" are almost always the best two opening moves in a 2 Player game. But I personally think you overstate the gap in saying things like "I dont think that the comparison between occupation and 3 wood on turn 1 is even remotely close." Situationally, they can be quite close - or 3 Wood can be better.

Your custom rules might be having a greater influence than you think. By excluding the "I" deck and using a draft instead of a random deal, you are adopting a ruleset that significantly strengthens Occupation cards, especially in 2 Player, where the Occupation deck is already quite small.

Think about this: You are basically dealing out 14 of out a possible 46 cards (about a third of the entire deck), and then allowing each player to pick the best ones in a draft. So the player choosing second is going to get the "second best" card, out of a selection that covers 1/3rd of the possible deck. If he's hunting for a 'early Occupation' card, he's almost certain to find one. In most games under these rules, I could see how both players are very likely to have very good "early Occupation" cards.

But now consider a standard rules game using all three decks. Each player sees 7 out of a possible 65 cards - about 1/10th of the deck. They have no ability to pick from a larger pool or see what their opponent holds in a draft. I can tell you (since I play under standard rules), it is far less common to have a 'gimmee' Turn One occupation in this scenario.

So, for a player operating under the normal rules and using all the cards, the notion that Occupation is dramatically better may be quite misleading. A "random 1/10th of the deck" is just far less potent than "the second best card taken from a random 1/3rd of the deck" It is quite frequent to end up with a hand of Manservants, Maids and Mendicants. So don't underestimate how your chosen variants change the value of that space for you. You are, in a way, playing under custom rules that have an enormous impact on average card quality - it should be no surprise that you value the space. I just question whether that carries the same weight for people playing under traditional rules.

But even with that in mind, Occupation is not always the best move even if you have "good" Occupations. It simply depends on the Occupation.

The crux of the matter is that 3 Wood is always an objectively "good" first move, whereas "Occupation" is highly situational, and can range anywhere from "amazingly powerful" to "bad." So while there are many Occupation plays that are better than 3 Wood, there are also many that are worse, either because the card itself is weak, or simply because even though the card is good, it is premature to play.

To give a simple but compelling example, assume you are dealt Chamberlain. A novice reading these boards might see that Chamberlain is considered an extremely powerful (perhaps the most powerful) Occupation card you can get. Following the logic of "Occupation is clearly the best first move," it should be obvious that your first move should be "Occupation - Chamberlain." But I think any skilled player would agree that this is actually a *terrible* first move. Even though Chamberlain is a great occupation in the grand scheme of things, playing him in turn one effectively wastes an early move (he has no purpose prior to Round 11) and undermines the cards value (since your opponent now has 10 turns to plan for it). Good space + Good occupation . . . But bad move.

This is a great demonstration as to why Occupation is so highly situational - it may not be the best (or even a good) opening move *even if* you are holding some of the best occupations in the game. Certainly, there are specific occupations where the opposite is true - occupations that almost force you to play them as soon as possible. Seasonal Worker. Wood Distributor. Mushroom Collector. But unless you hold an Occupation that *benefits from early play,* it is not clear that it is a good move at all.

As to the other arguments, most of them apply equally strongly to 3 Wood.

DEFENSIVE PLAY: In terms of the defensive value of playing Occupation first, I'm afraid I can't give that much more weight than the defensive value of taking 3 Wood first. In most cases, the 3 Wood has a higher defensive value. You are right to say that you can often get 3 Wood - but in a 2 Player game, the same can be said of Occupation. In fact, it is actually far easier and far more destructive to deny your opponent Wood than Occupations. If he has one worth playing, it is nearly impossible to prevent him from playing it by Round Three without huge self-inflicted damage. You could easily, on the other hand, take Wood 3 times and put enormous stress on your opponent while simultaneously benefiting yourself. Remember we are talking about two player here - the space is just not that contested the way it is in multiplayer and Wood is far more scarce. He's *going* to get it before the first harvest.

The notion that you must take Occupation, even with a mediocre card, is important because your opponent might have a good one is also a bad bet. Yes, if your opponent drops "Seasonal Worker" on you, that's bad news. But the harsh reality is, he's going to drop Seasonal Worker on you before the first harvest and before he takes Day Laborer and there is nothing you can do about it - you can't block out Occupation for more than a turn or two. He'll just play it in Round Two as his second move or, at worst, in Round Three, when resources are once again generally back to starting values. Again, perhaps this is different in a draft situation - you *know* he has Seasonal Worker. But in a random deal, playing defensively because he has a 10% chance of having Seasonal Worker is not a no-brainer at all.

IMPROVEMENT CARDS: Certainly Occupations can be precursers to useful improvement cards - but the same is true of Wood. And, since we are talking about Round 1, this is sort of a weak argument. If your first move is Occupation, and you are hoping to use it to activate an improvement card for your Starting Player move, you better hope you have either Clay Roof or Acreage. Because to my knowledge, these are the only Improvements you can play with 1 Occupation and no resources. The reality is, Wood is far more powerful to combine with Starting Player in round 1 - there are a huge number of Minor Improvements that require Wood to play. At the end of the day, there are far more scenarios where taking Wood gives you a useful minor improvement than playing an Occupation does (for purposes of Round One).

Don't get me wrong - as I said at the onset, Occupation is a fine first move. At times, the best first move. Rarely any worse than second best. But at the end of the day, I can't agree with statements like "Occupation is actually massively better." It is *in some cases*, massively better. It is *in other cases,* massively worse. It is something that will vary tremendously depending on the Occupations you hold - and not just whether they are "good" or not, but whether they are "good" to play early.

Being able to accurately assess the value of your Occupations - including *when* they are most effectively played, is an important skill in Agricola. It is far too simplistic to declare categorically that, in all cases, the first player should simply shuffle through his Occupation cards and automatically play the 'best' one, regardless of his hand.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

carlj — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:18:23 +0000

by carlj

1) The Official rulings shown in the Compendium do not address the question at all. An unofficial ruling (in italics) is the only ruling, and it was based on the German text.

2) The text on the Sawhorse says nothing of the sort. Not even close.

There are tons of "oversights" in the rules. Not all of them are unintentional, but it doesn't matter. The rules are what they are. The card text on the English cards is what it is. This has been covered ad nauseum in another thread.

The general rule about reading any rules (or laws) is that if something isn't addressed or prohibited, then it is allowed. If a group has a different idea, then it becomes a "house rule" but other groups don't have to follow it.

If your group wants to play a house rule that disallows interleaving, no one will complain, but that is not the reason for this thread. If you ever play with others, your reasons and justifications might not sway their opinions. You'll need an official ruling. I can think of at least twenty people who disagree with you right now.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Short 1 food because of family growth = probably worth it

dklx3 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:04:21 +0000

by dklx3

And as a side remark, I would worry about the overall quality of play if you took a -9 hit and still won. While I am sure some strange concoction of circumstances could be created to enable a win, in our group, -9 would be the end of you. Also, if the player is already that short of food, and the next harvest that much closer (shrinking times between harvests), the other players ought to have made it even harder for you to get fed moving forward with more begging cards to follow.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: [Official] Tournament Agricola

Alexfrog — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:03:37 +0000

by Alexfrog

SevenSpirits wrote:
lewis wrote:
If you're playing with hidden cards, Uwe is right to start with the E deck only. Some cards in I and K are vastly more powerful than anything in E.

I'd suggest a different approach. Deal all cards face up with a set for each player. For example, a 3 player game would have 3 sets (A, B, and C) each containing 7 occupations and 7 minor improvements. It does not matter how you arrive at the sets.

Before the start of the game, have players bid victory points for each set, continuing until every set has a bid. So, if Joe bid 4 on set A, Bill has bid 2 on set B, then Sally overbids 5 on set A, if Joe then bids 0 on set C, we will start the game with Sally holding A and down 5 VP's, Bill holding B and down 2 VP's, and Joe holding C with no VP penalty. In this example, luck of the draw doesn't hurt anyone because all have paid up front in VP's what they think each set of cards is worth.

I think this is easily the best idea.

But slightly tweak it: assign each set to a starting position, so you're bidding for turn order at the same time.

I agree, this is the most balanced version by far, especially with turn order included in the bid.

While doing a draft is much more fair than randomly assigning cards, its still imbalanced. If there is a card available that is much better than all other options, then its a big advantage to whoever goes first. Yes it is going to end up being close to fair, but the bidding is perfectly fair, and reward good card evaluation skills even more.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

TwitchBot — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:53:38 +0000

by TwitchBot

gische wrote:
MisterG wrote:
My first instinct is to agree with Bryann. The Hedge Keeper merely specifies that you get three free fences when you build at least one fence. Pretty straightforward, I'd say. Likewise, the Sawhorse specifies that every third fence built is free, also pretty straightforward. Neither card says anything that can be construed as requiring a specific order of building.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a legitimate play. My crew would allow it.

I agree with this assessment, too. I don't see any reason to disallow this play.

I also agree with this.

Despite what the compendium currently says, I see nothing on the hedge keeper that implies that the free fences must come after the fences you pay for. I think that the hedgekeeper fences can be the first three that you build - it is simply required that you are building at least one fence through some other mechanism, whether taking a build fence action or through another card.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

Paul King — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:41:58 +0000

by Paul King

carlj wrote:

Intuitively, I probably side with you, but we're playing by rules here, and by the rules, it's not the way you see it.

If all you are saying is that the rules aren't clear then that's the whole reason for the discussion.

However, if the best argument for allowing interleaving the builds is that the rules don't prohibit it, then that is not much of a case - certainly you cannot say that the rules actually support that reading. And after all, if it was not intended, it would be an odd oversight.

So, I think we have a good case that it should not be allowed:

1) The compendium disagrees with it (and that may well be a ruling from the designer). While it does not directly address the issue what it does say rules it out.

2) The wording of Sawhorse seems intended to disallow extra benefits from other sources of "free" fences.

On the other hand, the case in favour seems to be no more than the lack of an explicit rule against the interleaving, even though it is exactly the sort of thing that would be likely to be missed (it only matters in a few cases) - unless the designer actually intended to allow it, in which case it should have been mentioned.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Short 1 food because of family growth = probably worth it

newuser — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:31:57 +0000

by newuser

Seems like there are way too many assumptions in this thread.

I think it can be worthwhile to take family growth action early even if means picking up a begging card... but there are a lot of factors you need to consider at the same time - most notably how early in the game it is, what other options you are passing up to grow, and what your position is going into next turn. I wouldn't say that it is usually worthwhile though.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Short 1 food because of family growth = probably worth it

Neo42 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:13:59 +0000

by Neo42

letsdance wrote:
the assumption of the original post was that you don't need food if you don't do fg.

Yes. I am speaking of a situation where you would be taking family growth in the harvest round (making the food cost for that new family member 1) where you only had enough food for your current family members.

I played a game the other day where I forgot that I could trade in 3 grain for food and didn't plan my actions correctly. I ended up taking 3 begging cards. This is probably the second harvest. I ended up winning anyhow, by just one point.

I think this shows that sometimes, it can be worth more points to you to take certain early actions if they can pay off for you later (even if it looks really stupid at the time).

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

carlj — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:04:45 +0000

by carlj

Paul King wrote:
btizo wrote:

I think it is merely to make the card different from Hedge Keeper. I still contend a free fence is a free fence, no matter/when you build it.

If the designers had intended the Sawhorse to allow the Hedgekeeper to produce an extra fence then I very much doubt that they would rely on the player interleaving builds using wood and using the Hedgekeeper - it's way too unintuitive.

There are many "unintuitive" rulings in Agricola. And your intuition is not necessarily the same as that of other people. Obviously, btizio, and MisterG and his group, do not feel the way you do.

Furthermore, what is *not* said in the rules is as important as what *is* said. The rules do not address "interleaving" turns, so right now, no one can definitively say yes or no. It's not prohibited by the rules.

Intuitively, I probably side with you, but we're playing by rules here, and by the rules, it's not the way you see it.

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Card. By. Card. A FULL review of the Improvements of Agricola (v1.03)

vivafringe — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:03:58 +0000

by vivafringe

Bercik wrote:
In round 4 at least one other player always had 5W and 2R for a room, and actually may have built the room in round 4. Now when the round 5 card is FG then the Reed Hut player lost the momentum because he has no way to grow his family until he builds the 4th room, and for the 4th room, he needs to acquire 4 reeds again!

I think you're playing the card wrong.

From the compendium:

Reed Hut (K138)
(1VP. Cost 4R 1W.)

Place one family member token that you have not yet brought into the game onto this card, where it will live for the rest of the game. It can take actions and must be fed, but it is not worth any points while living in the Reed Hut.

1. The new person can be used in the current round, as it is put in “its own room” immediately when playing this card.
2. The occupant of the Reed Hut is placed after your family members [ref] and the guest from the Guest minor improvement, but before the guest received from the Keg.
3. Playing the Reed Hut does not count as a family growth action.
4. The person in the Reed Hut is not counted when checking if family growth is allowed. They do not count as part of the family.
5. You can move this person into your home with a family growth action later. That family growth action must be taken by another family member. [ref] The former occupant of the Reed Hut counts as newborn, and may not take an action that round, unless you use the Adoptive Parents.

So yeah, what makes the Reed Hut broken is
A. The fact that you can use him in the current round
B. The fact that it doesn't inhibit further FG like the Lover does.

Reply: Agricola:: Rules:: Re: Hedgekeeper + Sawhorse

Paul King — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:41:11 +0000

by Paul King

btizo wrote:

I think it is merely to make the card different from Hedge Keeper. I still contend a free fence is a free fence, no matter/when you build it.

The wording is significant here. If the Fence already costs nothing, then making it free has no effect. This is why if the Hedgekeeper builds are taken together the Sawhorse as written provides no extra benefit.

If it had said "For every two fences you build, build one more for no cost" it would unambiguously work to produce the higher number, without any need to interleave "ordinary" fences with those produced by the Hedgekeeper.

If the designers had intended the Sawhorse to allow the Hedgekeeper to produce an extra fence then I very much doubt that they would rely on the player interleaving builds using wood and using the Hedgekeeper - it's way too unintuitive.

Thread: Agricola:: General:: Font on multiplication markers

RobertDD — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:40:48 +0000

by RobertDD

Does anyone know what the font is that was used on the multiplication markers? A font that looks like it would be good enough. Thanks!

Reply: Agricola:: Strategy:: Re: Card. By. Card. A FULL review of the Improvements of Agricola (v1.03)

Bercik — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:37:33 +0000

by Bercik

Well, after playing approx. 50+ mostly 4er games and usually ending up with 40+ points (regularly with 45+ and winning ;) ) in a good competition, let me disagree on Reed Hut a bit.

My group is very competitive and we all know how important reed is, especially in the early game. Everyone wants to FG first, so everyone wants to build room(s) first, and so everyone wants wood and reed first. In 4er and 5er games there are two actions that provide reed, and I can tell you the RSF or RSW actions never get missed in the first four rounds. 1R action space may get to 2 reed, but that's it, no more, SP grabs it. So, the earliest reasonable round one could potentially play this card is round 4, assuming he has enough food. Not bad, but...

In round 4 at least one other player always had 5W and 2R for a room, and actually may have built the room in round 4. Now when the round 5 card is FG then the Reed Hut player lost the momentum because he has no way to grow his family until he builds the 4th room, and for the 4th room, he needs to acquire 4 reeds again! With other players competing for the reed, guess what - the "Reed Hut" player doesn't usually get to 4th family member until stage 4 or even stage 5!

Meanwhile other players have built their 3rd room and grown their families, and are trying to build the 4th room. Or they've managed to build 2 rooms in one action and can FG twice in a row. Or they've managed to build one room, FG, grab more reed, build another room and FG again. Voila - they have 4 family members and reasonable food, and the Reed Hut player is still trying to get that 4th reed for the 4th room.

At the end of the day, the "standard" build procedure is 3W+2W+2R+room+FG (5 actions, could be 6 with RSF or RSW taken twice), while the Reed Hut builder uses 1R+1R+2R+3W+SP&MI (5 actions, again, may be 6 if he doesn't manage to get 2R in one action), which is the same, but there's one huge difference - for the next FG the "standard" player now needs less actions (only one more room, instead of 2)!

Well, this is slightly different when the FG comes in in round 6 or even 7. If it comes in in round 7 then the Reed Hut is obviously an advantage as it implies 3 or 4 actions more than other players can use. FG in round 6 is my opinion an equal game with the Reed Hut player.
On top of that, when Reed Hut is in the game (or Lover, but we never play an early Lover as it is a game-over for the player who played Lover in Stage 1, we obviously starve him out...), we tend to block the food engine when the round 5 card is not the FG. Of course, the Reed Hut player can manage to feed the offspring, but we can easily slow him down a bit to mitigate his advantage.

Net-net, I think it all depends on the playing style of the group. If you can grab 2 reeds twice in Stage one in your group than Reed Hut is a must-play. My group is very competitive, and as I said an early Lover in stage one is usually a very bad idea. Reed Hut is a nice, risky and fun play, but it never guarantees a victory. What it guarantees is a big fight :) Therefore I'd mark it as :star::star::star::halfstar:, and only for 4er or 5er games. In 3er game he is naturally a disaster and almost impossible to play.

Needless to say, if you don't play Reed Hut in stage 1 then forget about it for the rest of the game. As it's almost impossible to play it in Round 3 (perhaps only in a beginner group), there's a very narrow space to play this card - it's essentially the Round 4 only.