0

I have the 1997 edition of Tri-Ominoes.

Beside the per tile and bridge/hex scoring, there are three kinds of scoring relating to getting rid of tiles quickly.

  1. First to get rid of all their tiles earns 25pts.
  2. They also score the tile value of all the tiles in the other people's hand.
  3. If you can't play a tile, you draw until you can, and score -5 points per tile drawn.

This essentially seems to score against a player three times for drawing tiles. That is, if they can't play and draw tiles, they're immediately losing points on each tile drawn, each tile draw will make them less likely to finish first, and those extra tiles they drew count against them again when they've got them left over!

It seems to me that you could get rid rule 3 and possibly rule 2, which would simplify score calculation, and seems far less punitive. (ie. it seems like in any game, the person who finishes first is going to win by a huge margin).

Am I missing something here?

The only consideration I can think of, is that if you don't provide any disincentive against drawing, then it may allow for someone to draw until they find bridge and hex pieces and win on those points.

Improve this question
3
  • How do you define "necessary"? It remains a fact that many games are not particularly well-balanced in terms of rules.
    – Philip Kendall
    Jul 20, 2022 at 9:22
  • No, it isn't necessary. This can be seen by playing the game without the rule. Aside from that, any other details/justifications are just a matter of opinion and not part of the scope of this SE.
    – L. Scott Johnson
    Jul 20, 2022 at 12:07
  • the first thing i would ask when someone want to make a house rule is have you played the game enough to understand why the rule exists. I would suggest tracking your score under both methods over a large sample and see how it affect the outcome.
    – Styxsksu
    Sep 7 at 20:56

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .