Generated Jul-25 12:28:15 GMT

You are not logged in.

Name: Password:

Or: Recover Account (Forgotten Password) / Register new user / Re-send validation email / Main Page

ADVERTISEMENT

General Brass Discussion

New rules in Roxley edition

This thread is open.

Posted by Shirley Dulcey 2017-05-11 17:14:02 GMT


There are some rule changes in the upcoming reissue of Brass. For all player counts, L1 cotton is worth 5 and the virtual link to Birkenhead is gone. For four players, two cards (one coal and one cotton) are removed from the deck, and therefore no cards are randomly removed in rail. The three player game takes more cards out of the deck and runs nine rounds in each phase instead of ten. The two player game uses a still smaller deck that removes a lot of the location cards, but the entire map remains in play.

So, two questions. Do you feel that these changes will improve the game? And would you like to see them here on the site, either replacing the original rules or as options that can be selected when you create a game?

Posted by xenotime This user is a supporter of the site. 2017-05-13 21:31:04 GMT


Will they improve the game? Not sure but it would be nice to test them. Option of using them here would be very welcome.

Posted by Shirley Dulcey 2017-05-23 12:00:41 GMT


I'm most interested in the changes to the three player game. I've never really been happy with it because the game play is so different from the four player version; I'm hoping that the updated rules for three make it more like the four player game.

I'm dubious whether the changes to four player are improvements. Increasing the value of L1 cotton could make some new strategies involving early cotton builds viable, but it may also enable some destructive strategies that are mainly designed to ruin the cotton game. Removing two cards removes uncertainty from the composition of the deck in the endgame and I suspect that will NOT be an improvement, especially in online play where you can check what the remaining cards are.

Removing the virtual link won't have a lot of effect. I've never seen anybody use it, but it might make it safe to build rail to Birkenhead in some rare turn 7 situations when a player knows that no player playing later has a Birkenhead or Shipyard card. (The point would be to do a final turn shipyard build in Birkenhead that otherwise would not be possible, perhaps because the player in question ALSO doesn't have a Birkenhead or Shipyard card.) It would also have to involve the other player being short of money and therefore needing to do a money-making coal or iron build, or needing to use an action to ship cotton. Otherwise, that player could go develop-develop followed by a double-card build.

I have no interest in two player Brass so I have no opinion on the changes to that.

You must log on in order to post messages.

Click here to return to the Board Page, or here to return to the Main Page.