Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Stone Age is one of my personal favourite games. The game dynamics are excellent and requires plenty of skill and strategy to win, with the only exception of the dice roll when determining resource.

Has anyone modified the rules to make the game less dependant on the luck of the dice? I find it a shame to lose a game due to luck, rather than skill.

share|improve this question
up vote 11 down vote accepted

Sure, visit the Tool Hut. Tools are explicitly there to negate the luck factor.

Another option is to get more people. There will still be luck in the rolls, but if you put two people on a space instead of one, you'll produce more each time.

share|improve this answer

I think this thing of skill in games tends to be a little of too much pride and taking the game a bit more serious than it should.

In general I think it's best just to take a high risk once in a while if you think that 'luck' is not going your way; if you loose laugh about it and enjoy the game :)

Onto the house rules to modify results:

  • Die result for resources tend not to surprise much because you roll plenty of them; you may have a crazy roll once but if you complete the game it may have not decided it

  • The die results that have HUGE variance are the card rolls, where you roll N dice with N being the number of players. That's because you don't roll many of this (4 sets per game?)

For instance if you are 4 players one of you may buy this kind of cards two times in a row and roll 6,1,2,3 then 5,1,2,2. Or better consider 6,5,1,2 and then 6,5,2,2

That seriously affects the game because one or two players get two tools or agriculture level in a row while the other players get one resource. In particular the second player in the later case gets an edge over the other two players for free! (the first player is the one who buys the card)

To lower the variance we have sometimes agreed that in 4 players game the person who buys the card rerolls if two pairs of the result have a difference of 3 or more:

If you roll 6,6,3,3 = reroll because = > 6 - 3 = 3 , 6 -3 = 3. If you roll 6,6,3,4 = don't reroll because => 6 -3 = 3 , 6 -4 = 2. 6,5,1,2 = reroll => 6 - 2 = 4 , 5 -1 = 4.

That way the card MAY STILL be decisive, but with less likeliness. But I have to say that for our games it's still a minor thing

share|improve this answer

As I was playing it many times with two players only, I wanted to remove as much luck as possible. The tools hut may help, but it hardly does in the first few turns, which might be the most important ones.

I could eliminate most of randomness using this rule:

For resource production use one die only. For each two workers simply count 7 pips without rolling. So for five workers, you get 2*7 pips plus one roll.

I really love this alternative, but it makes the game take longer, since there's a lot of planning involved. But the planning is fun (if you're like me) and using the dice much more rarely saves some time.

I also made two other modifications described on BGG.

share|improve this answer
Are you comfortable with quoting those two other modifications in your answer? Link-only content is not reliable in the long term, as that link becomes useless if the link breaks for whatever reason. – doppelgreener Aug 4 '14 at 3:26
@doppelgreener I'm not sure, if it's a good idea as the other two modifications are unrelated to luck. I added the link as an additional information, that's all. But feel free to quote it if feel like this. – maaartinus Aug 4 '14 at 5:50
The first modification described on that BGG link is somebody trying to "fix" the fact that they read the rules wrong. – bwarner Aug 4 '14 at 13:27
@bwarner No, it's just that at the time of posting I didn't recall the rule. And yes, it's no fix. It's just an alternative I really like as it gives you more possibilities while the decisions are still hard. That said, the other two modifications are simpler and more important. – maaartinus Aug 4 '14 at 14:46

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.