The 12 hour rule was a deliberate attempt to ward off turn spam where someone just spends a ton of turns at once. This just replaces a possible problem for a known problem

I’m not sure turn spam is a bad thing. Right now it really does feel like placing any tiles is bad because it will just set up something for someone else. Perhaps we could change things so that turn spam is still punished some, but not as much? Right now it just feels like any move that advances towards a goal but doesn’t quite hit it just sets up someone to claim something before you. Right now unless you wait a long time and save up between weeks, you can only do one double turn per week, which feels like it’s not enough. Maybe we just double every turn (i.e. you take two Tile Actions for the price of one)?

I’m not sure we can take it as read that “turn spam” is a bad thing that we must avoid, rather than just a different level of zoom. My illegal six-action move felt like an interesting balance of gain and risk, building a little thing and then pushing myself below 5 turns to stop anyone claiming an easy Pennant off the back of it.

The turn cap and refill means that a move in the game is “5 actions, or more if you want to start burning your stockpile”, and that seems enough to make a clever self-contained move.

For me its less “Turn spam is bad thing that we must avoid” and more “Turn spam is a consequence of a system that lets you stockpile moves. We’ve already seen its pros and cons in past dynasties lets experiment with something else”

If the concern is that there isn’t much reason to make single tile moves, lets just find a way to raise the incentives for making single tile moves.

We’re capping actions at ten, though, which fixes the stockpiling problem. The basic timing is “you have five actions each week, and five optional bonus actions which don’t recharge”. The main problem we’re left with is stalemate, but I think the shared board might fix that - we’re not building things solitaire, and an opportunity that exists mid-week might be gone by the end, if you wait to see what else happens.

I think it’ll be hard to reconcile “add one tile every 12 hours” with “be the first to complete a pattern of tiles”.

The shared board helps, but I still feel that capping actions doesn’t actually fix any sort of stalemate issues. You’re ultimately incentivized to hold onto your actions until a good opportunity arises or its the end of the week and you might as well spend them. But if everyone looks at the board and goes “there isn’t a good move I can make” then the board won’t change, and people will continue to make the “there isn’t a good move I can make” until it becomes “well I’m not going to be on again until the end of the week might as well do something”

> I think it’ll be hard to reconcile “add one tile every 12 hours” with “be the first to complete a pattern of tiles”.

We could try adjusting the rewards for a adding a tile vs the rewards for completing a more complex pattern

the additional 1 adds up quick but i think a different solution should be attempted first

I like the current system. It encourages a more creative approach.

[Clucky] An utter stalemate of “there isn’t a good move I can make” - where there was literally no move which would advantage the player more than it set up subsequent players - can be avoided by tweaking the placement rules. I think we could reach reasonable dilemmas of “I can construct this configuration to score 5 Guilder and block anyone else from extending it, or this for 10 Guilder knowing that the next player could extent the pattern to score 5, or this cheap one for 2 to mess up that corner pattern which is useful to my rival with a Chisel…” - where deciding to do nothing might mean that you’re in a worse position when you check back later in the week.

@Kevan sure. But my concern if everyone goes “Its best to wait” then nothing changes until the end of the week.

I’d like to find a way that encourages players to make moves now rather than waiting.