Once an end condition is reached, I like the house rule where you play until just before the starting player. It seems more fair to me.

Are there any counterarguments? It seems like the game designers have had ample opportunity to amend the rules or suggest this alternative in one of the expansions, and haven't.

  • The only balance to this issue of having some players play one more turn than others, is that in case of equality of points when the game end, the player that has played the least number of turns has won. Commented Oct 28, 2010 at 14:34
  • This would really even up two player games
    – Casebash
    Commented Oct 15, 2011 at 1:03

1 Answer 1


The game with all the expansions has 3 ending conditions, all of which require you to keep an eye on the number of cards remaining.

Those endings are:

  1. All Provinces have been bought.
  2. Any 3 (2-4 players) or 4 (5-6 players) piles have been bought.
  3. (New in Prosperity) All Colonies have been bought.

Short version:
It would discourage players from buying the last card to end the game if it's not a Colony or Province.

Long version:
The idea is that you watch the piles as they go down and adjust your strategy to compensate. For example, if I think my score is good enough to win, it's to my advantage to buy out the last pile needed to end the game, even if it's something I don't want.

Requiring the game to keep going around the table after that would likely discourage me from buying said card; I would rather buy more higher-point cards, hoping that someone else will end the game.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .