I'll generously assume this was supposed to be polite and not patronising :D

I'm sorry, but I could make a similiar list to argue that Catan is "a very strategic game with a lot of depth to it", and I trust anyone with any experience with board games know that to be bullshit. I just played too many really good games with great depth to agree with calling Carcassonne that, a game where your every turn rides on pure random chance - no matter how much decision making there is after that random draw. Your ability to meaningfuly follow up on those decisions, and even their eventual outcome still rides on future random draws, all the time.

And I just want to make something very clear - I'm not arguing that you're somehow "wrong" because you like the game. One can like something despite, sometimes even because of it's shortcomings. For example I kinda like Risk. Despite it being random as hell I find some childish glee in moving armies of figurines across the world map and having big battles. I'm just saying that I hate Carcassonne because of it's fundamental reliance on random chance in every turn.

It was, sorry. I do appreciate your posts.

I do think you're "wrong" about how much Carcassonne is luck vs strategy, but only that bit. Not your preference otherwise. I mean, I'd argue Inis and Carcassonne have about the same levels of luck. It's all about what you do with what you get. (Inis is great. Someday I'll be allowed to play games with my friends again.) Though you defending Munchkin even a little bit makes you suspect... :)

Now that, no offense, to me sounds like complete insanity. Really, this was basically what ent through my head when I read that statement :D

Still, I won't argue the point and derail the thread with discussion of a whole other game. Especially when at least we agree it's a great game.

All these arguments about luck based board game and random card pulls, but games like Uno and Ticket to Ride are pretty much random card pulls and and element of luck as well and how well beloved they are.

So today I played my first online games of Carcassone. I didn't have too much time, so I set the timer to 15'. Apparently the way they implemented this, when the timer runs out and all cards haven't yet been played, the game is over. You get booted to the main menu, all trace of the match is gone and no score is given.

Great design, guys! As if we can't decide IRL to cut a game short and tally the score as it stands. I don't care if the score doesn't count towards rankings. But it is in no way OK to just throw 30' of my precious time in the trash without anything to show for it in the way of closure or gratification.

[delete, delete, delete]