We had a really great 4-player game yesterday.

My brave Dwarf was start player, and managed to stay in the lead all the time, just to be beaten by Dandelion (played by my wife) by two points in the last round of the game.

The players where (1)Ron, (2)Sascha, (3)Claudia, (4)Andrea.

I was start player, Claudia ended the game by fulfilling the third quest. So Ron and Sascha had one more turn than Claudia and Andrea. And even Andrea won, my faithful wife started to rant how unfair that is, that she had one turn less than half of the other players.

I argued, that the designer/developer probably had in mind that - after the game end is triggered - the other players are allowed one more turn to make probably use of a few leads they have gathered by now to score a few VPs by fulfilling support or side quests. But she insisted that it is unfair.

I mean in a game with that many random events and dice rolls, with probably 30 or more turns per player, does one turn really matter?

What do you think?

I have played over a dozen games and won them all by a wide margin. My character of choice is Dandilion and, surprise surprise, I find him to have a huge advantage over the other players in terms of development cards that boost his VP gain just by being in the same colored areas of the board. That being said, there are many, many, games out there that play by the mechanic of whoever triggers the end game, the remaining people get one last turn and the game ends when it comes back to that person again. If I remember correctly, I haven't won by less than 15 points every game. I even was 2 points shy of looping the board for my scores.

Also, if the game ended with the person that completed the 3rd quest then the other players would complain because in this situation one person wouldn't have even taken a turn at all.