It's a rule problem. Not associated with UI.

Please fix this, lost a game to it today: en.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=17311794

On the last turn, e1q3z9c7 has to gamble and eat a yellow bamboo for a chance to win, and then draws the panda card he needs, which should be disallowed by the rules. This rule not being enforced leads to panda objectives being more powerful as you can hoard bamboo all day with no penalty.

e1q3z9c7 does it once in this game:
en.boardgamearena.com/#!gamereview?table=17989488

Russian Red does it twice in this game:
en.boardgamearena.com/#!gamereview?table=18409976

Please fix this and the improvement placement rules bug so panda objectives aren't so overpowered as they are now. It is very frustrating to play when something I would consider egregious cheating around a table has become a popular strategy.

This is not a bug!

But the original rules state:
"Advanced Players Variant: If a player picks an objective card already completed in the bamboo garden, he must discard it and picks a new objective card of the category of their choosing."

As "bamboo garden" is referred to the area in the middle of the table while eaten bamboo is kept at the players' individual board. So Panda objectives are not completed in the bamboo garden and therefore should be allowed to be met when drawn.

The rules on BGA state:
"Objective - Take another objective card from one of the 3 decks. There is a hand limit of 5 cards. If the selected plot or gardener objective is already reflected in the current state of the garden, the objective is placed at the bottom of the deck and a subsequent objective may be selected. This is the only situation where an action can be cancelled, and a different action can be taken."

Again only referring to plot or gardener objectives.

I also think it makes sense to make a difference of panda on the one and plot/gardener on the other hand because when playing a panda objective card you're losing your eaten bamboo and therefore don't just get it for free.

Since original rules/ BGA rules are implemented correctly I suggest updating this to "not a bug".

(I don't know what it was about but your Link to FAQ doesn't work.)

Here is a current link to the FAQ (which seems to move around a lot):

www.matagot.com/IMG/pdf/takenoko_faq_eng-2.pdf

As you can see panda objectives are specifically mentioned. And for good reason, as bamboo hoarding makes bamboo objectives way too powerful, in my opinion.

I'm not sure where you are getting your definition of the 'bamboo garden' from either, as I do not see it clearly defined in the original rules. It could just as easily refer to the entire game-space. And besides, the Chibis expansion adds new panda objectives which require the panda to be on a particular plot. It wouldn't make much sense to have to return only new completed panda objectives while being able to keep the old completed ones, I don't think.

Anyway... it works like it's intended, so it's not a bug. A bug is when the programmer for some reason didn't manage to get the output he intended.

BGA doesn't use the set of rules that you do in your RL games. This doesn't make it a bug and no way is it cheating using strategies that are allowed in the rules implemented here. All players have access to the same strategies. I think many players like it this way (me included).

[And for your bamboo garden question: The original rules state "Each player owns the elements stored on his individual board, but all elements of the bamboo garden (plots, irrigation channels, improvements and bamboo sections) are common to all players.]

I realize the programmers may have intended it, but not adhering to the rules is still a bug in my opinion as you are no longer playing Takenoko. I mean, if the rooks in Chess were intentionally allowed to move diagonally on here, and everyone loved it, it would still be a problem for me if I wanted to play Chess. I understand making small rules tweaks to fit the practicalities of the interface, but this is a large rules change and the online medium actually makes this mechanic much easier to implement than in the physical game.

I am curious what people like about this change anyway, I feel it makes the game so panda heavy and it is already a little panda heavy... I would love to hear an explanation about what people like better about the game this way, either here or in a PM, if anyone would be so kind. It would bother me less if I didn't think it was so bad for the game.

There's a rule difference but imo the "big rule change" was not made by BGA but by that FAQ you refer to, that propably came out after Takenoko was published on BGA. You want BGA to update their rules as well but they stick to original version, so what?

<for veme about what i like about the rules implemented here>
What i like about panda-heaviness is that it gives Takenoko some tactical depth that it is lacking without. If you use it wisely you're able to outsmart your opponents because you can make moves in the beginning of the game that help you and not your opponent (which plot-building is often not - or only by chance...). If your version was implemented, bamboo eating might lead to a problem. As soon as you have 2 of each you can no longer draw any panda-objective-goals. As soon as you have 2 of one kind you have to wait to draw the 1-of-every-kind objective to ever use them which gets a lot more luck involved. Or on the other hand you should just avoid collecting as much as 2 of a kind which means you sometimes can't even make a smart move on stormy weather.
Also I don't understand why a game that is about a panda shouldn't be panda-heavy ;-).

First of all I'd like to point out that the date on the FAQ is 12 February 2012, and Takenoko was released on BGA on 11 December 2012. And besides, what does it matter? If the developer that implemented a game on BGA makes the best attempt they can at interpreting the rules, and then finds out later they were wrong, the appropriate response in your opinion is to just leave the game as it is... why? It has always been wrong so it should stay wrong? I don't follow this logic at all.

And I don't understand how always being able to eat bamboo 'adds tactical depth'. The fact that you can just eat bamboo with impunity to fulfill future panda objectives instead of focusing on the objectives that you ACTUALLY HAVE is what makes this so bad for the game. You can basically play as though you have all the panda objectives in your hand all the time, and completely ignore your other objectives. How does it add depth to the game to be able to always benefit by eating bamboo, instead of having to plan ahead? It just gives you a default move that always helps you without potentially helping an opponent. That is not depth, and it is not 'outsmart'ing anyone, it is doing the obvious optimal move in a broken game. The point of making bamboo hoarding illegal is that you actually have to think about whether or not you should eat bamboo, instead of like it is now where your best move is almost always to just eat bamboo.

And yes, I understand that if you eat two of a type, or one of each, before having any panda objectives in hand, you can't draw some panda objectives - this is just a restatement of the rule, not an argument against it. This effect is the whole point, and it is a GOOD thing - you should draw the objective first and then try to complete it. Why are you eating pink bamboo if you don't have a pink bamboo objective? Because you are assuming that you can eventually mine the deck and draw one - i.e., you are completing objectives that are not in your hand. Just don't do that. Simple.

You make a great point about the stormy weather, I agree that it will be less useful - but this is also good since as it is now storm is almost always the best possible weather condition to roll and thus could use a nerfing. Right now it is better than sun in my opinion, as it basically does the same thing except you can panda twice if you want (and the first panda move can be anywhere, allowing you to set up the second). Storm is still arguably the best weather on average even if the official rules are implemented, and it definitely remains stronger than wind, rain, and late game clouds.

Also, trust me, panda objectives are still very strong with the correct rules in place. If you want to go heavy panda (which remains a great strategy), just draw the objectives first like you are supposed to.

So... I remain unconvinced that this is a good change. The only actual argument you offered in its favor is that it gives you slightly more moves early in the game that don't potentially help your opponent and this somehow 'adds tactical depth' in a way that you did not explain. To me it still seems like it just let's one be lazy and unthinkingly eat bamboo every turn instead of actually doing some planning and trying to complete one's objectives.

It wasn't my plan to convince you. I just told you why I like the implemented version because you asked.

I appreciate you trying to explain your opinions on the matter. I was personally just hoping to be convinced so that I could play Takenoko again without feeling like it is broken and cheaty, regardless of whether or not it was your intent. :) I love the game and it really pains me that it feels so dumbed down on here; I have completely stopped playing because of this bug. Oh well!

Quick question: I thought you could only complete one objective per turn (prior to playing on bga).. is this true? Or a game variant?

Could this advanced variant rule just be implemented? Please?

Easy enough to reproduce - just play the game and stockpile bamboo and then pick a Panda Objective card!!!

This is still not fixed. Here are two working links for rule clarification:
www.matagot.com/IMG/pdf/takenoko_faq_eng-2.pdf
boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Takenoko_FAQ

This really would be a great improvement. Currently the variant rule is not optional but is only partially implemented.

@tchobello: perhaps we could have an option to play with the advanced variant or not? With consistent rules regarding the completed objectives :)

What does "BGA rule removed" mean? Is the decision that this won't be changed to be compliant with the FAQs for v1?