SpielByWeb

[HappyProle]

I saw on BoardGameGeek that someone recommended removing 12 specific tiles from the 2-player game. Is this a popular variant? I think it would be very easy to add that variant here if there's any interest.

[phil]

I've never tried this variant, but if you implement it here I will try it. So yes, there is interest!

[spearjr]

The variant I've played and thought worked well was posted on the Fortworth gamers site. I think it would be great if this variant was made available here.

12 tiles are removed with 2 players and 6 with 3. Since their site appears to be down, I'm going to repost the text of it here:

[HappyProle]

Which tiles should be removed when there is more than one that meets the criteria? Randomly selected?

[stargate]

I would be very happy to try and/or play this Variant of Tikal
that said -----
I am one of many users on SBW who enjoy playing the 2-player game
just as it is

[spearjr]

[smlait]

I would be interested in this variant (though I love 2-player Tikal just the way it is). My only input would be that, if we're essentially removing 7 treasures from the game, they should be two sets plus one extra. In the later stages of the game, the decision of whether or not to spend action points on digging up a treasure depends significantly on the current distribution between players (could this complete a set, or is it more likely to be a single 1-point treasure that will help my opponent more than me). If the seven treasures removed are completely random, that introduces too much luck into the treasure draw (which is already rife with luck - if your first three treasures happen to match, you're well on your way to winning an otherwise even match).

[HappyProle]

I just finished coding this up and now you throw this wrinkle in it.

So you're suggesting in the 2-player game to have 4 sets of 3 + 1 set of 2. Would the sets be random?

And then what do you do in the 3-player?

I think I'd almost rather see a variant that kept the treasure sets intact; in other words, the total # treasures always divisible by 3.

Something else to consider is that we're not really bound here by what the printed tiles are. So if we had to make a 3-treasure tile into a 2-treasure tile or vice versa that could be done.

[spearjr]

[HappyProle]

Yes, there is one clear tile in G.

Here are the treasure tiles and the sets they come from:

A - 4
A - 4
B - 4
C - 3
D - 3
E - 2
F - 2
G - 2

My recommendation would be to remove one 4-treasure tile from A and the 2-treasure tile from G for 2-player.

For 3-player I would remove the 3-treasure tile from either the C or the D set.

[HappyProle]

The creator of the Ft. Worth variant does not want us using his variant unless it's done exactly as described.

So it sounds like we'll need to come up with our own variant. Since we're starting from scratch, some questions:

1) How many tiles should be removed per number of players?

2) Which tiles should be removed?

3) Should treasure sets be kept intact? If so, how many treasure sets per number of players?

4) Do we want to modify the tiles as published for any reason? It would be relatively easy to change temple levels, treasure counts and/or stones if necessary.

[mrbass]

Can we decide after the auction version is released and we've played a few 2 player games of that. It sounds like the luck is pretty much reduced.

[smlait]

Personally, I think a variant with all of the clear tiles removed would be highly entertaining, but I'm not advocating we test it here.

I don't know about the rest but, if we did make a variant with fewer tiles, I do think it's essential to keep the treasure sets intact. Maybe remove one set for three players and two sets for two players?

[HappyProle]

[Golux13]

Don't forget to remove excavation tiles as well. You have to keep the 10 available -- or do you? Why couldn't 9 or 8 be the highest, and only one of those left in the game? -- but the curve should be flattened correspondingly with the reduction in number of temples.