The problem appears every time Archer is in play.

Generally, it would not be too difficult to add this option, but it still needs some time which we must divide between all the different bugs and suggestions on all the games and there are currently more important ones. When this suggestion receives more thumb-ups we will definitely consider adding this option.

> When this suggestion receives more thumb-ups we will definitely consider adding this option.

BGA really needs to allow downvotes as well, particularly if developers are going to use the number of upvotes as any sort of indication of popularity/support.

In lieu of a downvote button, however, I will instead dispute the substance of and assumptions behind the critiques and appeals put forth by the poster of this suggestion:

> I understand that some people might care less about fairness - and more about adrenalin.

This is a false dichotomy. Some of us care about playing the game that the /designers/ designed, rather than some derivative that others wish to hack into being by adding or removing rules that they like or don't like, respectively.

> So, they don't mind if a great strategic game is turned into a game of chance.

You know who else doesn't mind? The designers. They published this game with the Archer as one of the possible cards that could appear in any given game. That tells me that they're perfectly fine with this level of chance in the game.

You're free to dislike that if you so choose, but don't pretend that you're somehow the only one who cares about fairness or the "greatness" of this game. Why should your opinion count for more than that of the designers?

> There are others, though - those who do care about the actual quality of the game. I am one of them, and I've tried to find a solution.

If you don't like the Archer, just say so and be done with it; but skip the cloak of nobility that you're pretending to wear in order to justify your preferred house rule. Why do you think that you care about this game's quality more than its designers do?

> My suggestion/request is simple: be fair to different people, not just those of a particular opinion.

What definition of "fair" and "fairness" are you using that would let you modify someone else's creation? If I don't like the ending to a book or a movie, what definition of "fairness" would allow me to rewrite that ending? There is none.

One is free to read a book, watch a movie, or play a game created by someone else and to like it or dislike it according to one's own criteria–but not to /modify/ it, certainly not under a vague and ultimately self-serving claim of "fairness".

> So, we can't play Troyes online anymore :-(

Yes, you can. You just choose not to. Which you're free to do, of course. But don't present this choice as something that's forced upon you.

> Multiple games allow for variants (play with/without such-and-such card, among others).

Multiple games do allow that, yes, but this game is not one of them, and there's nothing in its rules that remotely suggests that it is.

It's important to understand that games are individual creations, such that the rules for one have precisely zero bearing on any other—just as how the premise of a book or movie does not mean that some other book or movie will share that same premise, or that a character from one fictional universe will exist in some other universe.

Some additional thoughts: banning the Archer will not automatically turn Troyes into "a great strategic game" that is somehow not also "a game of chance", to borrow your phrasing. How do I know? Because the game will still have the a) the rolling of dice in the Assemble Workforce phase of each round (you know, that phase of each round where /all/ dice are rolled) and b) the rerolling of dice via influence.

Unless you also plan to house-rule these aspects of the game (no, I'm not trying to give you ideas), it will be still possible to have disproportionately beneficial or detrimental rolls that could make or break one's game.

I myself experienced the latter in a recent in-person game where I influenced-rolled a 1 into a 1... and another 1... and another... five consecutive times. No Archer involved here, and therefore your proposed house rule would have made zero impact–but this was certainly a situation where there was "no way to recover". I cursed my luck, to be sure, but I'm not using that experience as an excuse to modify someone else's game.

Luck is inherent to Troyes. Accept it, or find a different game that has an amount of luck within tolerances that you can handle, but again, don't distort someone else's creation in a misguided attempt to fit your vision of "a perfectly balanced game".

+1

>I myself experienced the latter in a recent in-person game where I influenced-rolled a 1 into a 1... and another 1... and another... five consecutive times. No Archer involved here, and therefore your proposed house rule would have made zero impact–but this was certainly a situation where there was "no way to recover". I cursed my luck, to be sure, but I'm not using that experience as an excuse to modify someone else's game.

To start with, you made hundredths of suggestions to modify someone else's games - it's just that those suggestions suited _you_. As for your luck, there is a rule in Troyes that you can flip your dice by paying 4 influence - and there are multiple ways to collect influence. So, you can plan for it. A good player can, in any case. And that's exactly what I meant by providing for every eventuality The Archer is the only card that gives no such option.

As for the rest... I've scrolled your tirade, and oh my - you love your imperative mood! So many "do" and "don't" combined with telling a complete stranger what and how he should enjoy. You've taken time and made quite an effort not to support a fellow player but to oppose a harmless change that doesn't hurt anybody, while helping some to enjoy the game more. Are you indeed from Canada? We, Canadians, are usually a much friendlier and nicer lot...
That said, I wonder if putting someone down in public and bossing around helps you to feel important, thus making you feel better about yourself, in general... If so, my heart goes out to you. I would rather not play Troyes online than have to treat people like you do, just to be able to bear myself...

This is a poor suggestion, but I assume one with little chance of being implemented, thankfully.

I've played and taught Troyes hundreds of times. It's among my favourite Euros and most played games. The Archer is *not* broken, you simply have to weight the odds of rolling 3–6 versus the number of chances you get to gain prestige points. And Prestige points are at game end not very useful, unless one of the players has the character card that gives points for that.

Furthermore, to activate it that many times you're burning through some very expensive and powerful dice, which is a second trade off you have to make when using the Archer.

I'd argue a far more powerful card that come into play is the Pilgrimage. 7 points of any dice colour to gain VPS? Often the much better choice.