Joffre, Kaiser et The Lost Heir, mise-à-jour des recherches

in , ,
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1202257/lost-heir

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1202257/lost-heir

Il y a une semaine, j'ai reçu un courriel de "l'adjointe administrative" du site Products of Canada m'informant qu'ils avaient reçu des copies du jeu de cartes  The Lost Heir , édition contemporaine.

Ce matin, j'ai enfin reçu ma copie flambant neuve par la poste. Je crois que ce distributeur a simplement fait imprimer des copies supplémentaires après que je les ai contactés cet été. Un peu comme pour les copies de Joffre et celle de Kaiser, je crois que la compagnie "Papa's Toys" cache en fait des particuliers qui font imprimer des copies pas cher, au besoin, et les vends via des sites en ligne comme Products of Canada. Qui sait, peut-être qu'on en trouve dans les dépanneurs du quartier Rexdale à Toronto comme on trouve des copies de Joffre dans les dépanneurs de Saint-Anselme! Papa's Toys est situé dans un bureau près de l'autoroute dans le Nord-Ouest de Toronto. Les gens de POC sont justement un couple de Barrie en Ontario qui ont aussi une compagnie de solution web pour les entreprises*.

Bref, je constate que les cartes sont identiques à la version de Canada Game Compagny publiée en 1996. Les instructions sont très bien traduites, sans fautes ou ambiguïtés en français, ce qui me pousse à croire qu'elles aussi sont copiées de l'édition de 1996. Les instructions contiennent les variantes pour jouer en équipe, comme au Joffre, et pour jouer à trois joueurs. Cette dernière est une surprise complète pour moi. La boîte vient avec un petit bloc de pointage, mais pas de petit crayon de plomb. 

Je n'ai toujours pas de réponses à nombre de mes questions présentées dans une entrée précédente, mais on avance, un peu, quand même.

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/260470/lost-heir?size=medium

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/260470/lost-heir?size=medium

* Soit dit en passant que leur design web est épouvantable et qu'il semble sorti tout droit de 2003. 

 

Édité le 10/09/2013: corrigé les erreurs. 

Quelques ressources sur les jeux de table et de société, en français et en anglais

in , ,

État de la "gameuse", première partie

Depuis un an, je me suis re-immergée dans le monde des jeux de table, lentement mais sûrement, en achetant des jeux qui m'attirent, en finançant des projets de jeux sur Kickstarter et tout et tout. 

Un autre aspect de ma renaissance de gameuse, je me suis mise à la recherche de ressources sur les jeux, magasins, personnes, sites internet et bases de données. Les deux derniers ont été plus difficiles à trouver que je ne l'avais imaginé.

Comme je suis francophone d'Amérique du Nord, c'est vers le Québec que je me suis d'abord tournée. Je fus déçue. Il y avait un nombre respectable de blogues de jeux provenant du Qébec. Je cherchais des sites ou des blogues qui donnaient des nouvelles du domaine et des critiques de jeux. J'ai trouvé un nombre impressionnant de blogue de boutiques (dont L'imaginaire et Carta Magica, par exemple), mais je ne m'attends pas à trouver des critiques sur le site d'un magasin qui tente de vendre des jeux. D'après ce que je peux voir, ceux qui m'auraient intéressée sont inactifs. Celui qui m'aurait attiré le plus Ludicité est officiellement fermé depuis mars dernier.

morguefiles_com_pindiyath100_149489898.jpg

Il me fallait donc me tourner vers la France. Il y en a plusieurs, la plupart sans intérêt pour moi ou inactifs. Il y a une bonne base de données, plutôt complète à www.jedisjeux.net. J'apprécie beaucoup les liens vers les règles en français imprimables pour une foule de jeux. Leurs tests de jeux me semblent honnêtes. Ceci dit, le site le plus intéressant à mes yeux est trictrac.net et leur pendant vidéo trictrac.tv. C'est un site très actif, avec une foule de critiques et d'information sur le domaines et des vidéos de démonstration et d'explication. L'animateur principal est un grand très poilu barbu nommé Monsieur Phal qui est bien sympathique et engageant*. J'apprends bien les jeux en les voyant joués, d'autant plus si j'ai lu les règles auparavant, alors leurs "expliparties" sont attirantes pour moi. Ces démonstrations sont souvent faites avec des prototypes, ou des boîtes nouvellement sorties des presses, apportés par des représentants des compagnies de jeux et après quelques présentations des règles de bases et des composantes, vlan! on se tape une petite partie d'une demi-heure. J'aime beaucoup. Jedisjeux.net et trictrac.net ne font pas que dans les jeux profonds et n'ont pas peur des jeux plus légers, pour enfants ou des jeux "de party". Si je me fous des derniers, je suis attirée par les premiers, ce qui est un autre plus. Un désavantage du site, à mes yeux du moins, est l'impossibilité de s'abonner aux nouveautés; il n'y a pas de flux RSS sur trictrac.tv. Trictrac offre néanmoins la possibilité d'inscrire sa ludothèque et de lier sa collection à leur base de données. Cette dernière est intéressante, mais moins complète que d'autres plus connues en ligne.

La plus connue de toute est américaine et c'est l'énorme base de données expansive de boardgamegeek.com. C'est de loin la source principale pour les jeux de table, de plateau, de cartes et de miniatures sur la planète depuis 2000. L'écrasante majorité des jeux sont accompagnés de nombreuses photos (plus de 1 750 000 photos en tout sur le site) et de descriptions exhaustives. J'y ai inscrit ma ludothèque. Il y a des forums, des listes de souhaits, un bazar et j'en passe. Le design du site est horrible et laid, en plus d'être très difficile à naviguer. Les organisateurs du site avaient annoncé une refonte il y a quelques années, mais de toute évidence, elle a été remise aux calandres grecques. Il y a aussi dans les forums une atmosphère un tantinet snobinarde envers les femmes et les personnes qui ne préfèrent pas les jeux de guerre ou de miniatures. Malheureusement, sans surprise.

Pour les baladodiffusions, je n'en ai pas trouvé au Québec. Denis Talbot est merveilleux pour les jeux vidéo, mais pour les jeux de société, je dois me tourner vers les États-Unis encore. Pour une foule de raisons, en premier la variété, je me suis arrêtée au Dice Tower Network, un réseau d'une dizaine de balados audio et video, allant des nouvelles, aux critiques de jeux profonds, aux critiques de vieux jeux poches des années 1980 et 1990. Sous la direction de Tom Vasel, ce dernier et une foule de contributeurs [dont ses six (!) filles] décortiquent hebdomadairement les nouveaux jeux sortis aux États-Unis. Ils n'ont pas peur d'occire les mauvais jeux. J'apprécie beaucoup.

Comme j'ai beaucoup de retard dans le domaine des jeux de tables, avec toutes ces ressources, j'apprends beaucoup tous les jours. Et je me retiens beaucoup pour ne pas acheter un nombre éhonté de jeux sans place où les ranger. Mais au moins, je sais quels jeux m'attirent plus que d'autres.

 

 

 

* Ceci dit, il est aussi un peu énervant après un temps. Après dix fois, ces "internautateurs et internautatrices" et ces "comment vas-tu bien?", on en a eu un peu trop. Mamou dirait tout simplement que Monsieur Phal est "français". 

Critique rapide du jeu "À la dérive" de Diceless Games

in ,
derive_box.jpg

À la dérive est un jeu de carte pour 2 à 4 personnes où l'on doit s'assurer que ses pingouins restent sur la banquise, qui fond à vue d'oeil, et de pousser les pingouins adversaires à la mer. 

J'ai acheté ce jeu il y a plus d'un an, parce que Mamou et le Chaton aiment les pingouins et je me disais qu'un jeu de pingouins pourrait être drôle. Pour une foule de raisons, Mamou et moi n'avons pas eu l'occasion de le jouer avant hier soir.

J'ai trouvé les règles du jeu extrêmement confuses et nous avons du recommencer la partie lorsque nous nous sommes complètement trompé. En recherchant un lien direct pour inclure dans cette entrée, j'ai découvert que  Diceless Games ont publié des règles révisées. Sauf que les règles révisées sont celles qui se trouvent dans notre boîte. Je n'ose pas penser à la confusion que devaient causer les règles d'origine! Citation d'un des commentaires "Merci beaucoup pour cette SUPER mise à jour !!! Je viens d’en faire lecture et je comprend maintenant tellement mieux !" Misère... 

Après avoir placer les cartes de banquises sur la table, chaque joueur place ses pingouins sur les cases et après une phase de set-up plus compliquée qu'elle ne le devrait, les joueurs usent leurs cartes d'action pour faire avancer leurs pions, échanger des cartes et accumuler des oeufs frais (en évitant les oeufs pourris). 

Malgré des règles confuses, une fois le jeu engagé, la partie est amusante et ne prend pas plus de 45 minutes. Un jeu léger, qui plairait aux enfants de 8 ans et plus, mais les règles élèvent effectivement l'âge cible à 10 ans, contrairement à ce que le livret d'instructions indique. C'est malheureux.

Je ne peux recommander ce jeu. Il y a bien plus de jeux de pingouins qui ont une meilleure réputation, comme celui-ci par exemple. Ou achetez celui-ci. 

 

Remarks and proposed alternate rules for _9 Lives_ by @danielsolis

in ,

This post is primarily destined for Daniel Solis's benefit, but if you want to follow along, please download the Prototype B file for 9 Lives and try it out. It's very worth the effort.*

Copyright © Daniel Solis 2013. All rights reserved.

Copyright © Daniel Solis 2013. All rights reserved.

 Last night we played several rounds of 9 Lives, a game currently in development by Daniel Solis (@danielsolis). We played a few three-person games and mock-played higher-number games as well. My hopes for a five-person game were quashed when the fourth and fifth persons went to bed at 8pm and 9pm, they being 9-years-old and 14-years-old respectively. Note that all players are consummate board gamers and especially life-long card gamers.

We had several comments on the game as it exists in Prototype B form. We liked the game overall, but found some areas lacking.

Remarks on Prototype B:

 a) The cats on the cards are adorable, but the layout of the cards themselves, even in this prototype form, is difficult to play with. The cats were given nicknames within minutes (the fat, grumpy cat got named "that damn hamster" right away), which means that the cats are engaging (good sign). However, the tiny cats in the corners are so tiny, it makes it very difficult to differentiate between them when held in one's hand. Though the corner numbers are easy to see, the stars are nearly impossible to see when the cards are held in one's hand. Adjustments to make the cards easier to differentiate when in hand should be done. Keep the cats at all costs.

b) The game play following Prototype B rules is not very engaging, or rather it does not provide many opportunities for engagement between the players. As is, players basically only have to interact at the bidding stage and there is very little incentive to compete between players, this is even more true the more players there are since it becomes nearly impossible to follow each other's play beyond four players.

c) There are way too many cards in the middle, waaaaayyyyyy toooooo many. Everyone was annoyed by this. Adding one card per player at the end of every round just places too many cards in play. Everyone was annoyed by this and thought for ways to make this better from the beginning of the second round.

d) Everyone thought that the scoring phase after the bidding phase was, frankly, more than a little confusing. Everyone understood that this was meant to create opportunities for strategizing which cards to play, but were disappointed that it was basically the only time they could. They disliked this mechanic because it interrupted the flow of the game as well. Bidding -- stop for scoring-- adoption -- stop for scoring. No one liked that.

e) Everyone was looking for ways to block opponents from getting to their objectives and could not find satisfying moments to do so.

f) After a few rounds, we all started throwing possible alternative rules around. We came up with a set of rules that would keep the unique (and very innovative) mechanics of the Prototype B rules, such as the bidding and the adoption, and keep the spirit of 9 Lives, while finding ways to increase competition and especially ways of strategizing the gameplay. This is what we came up with.

Proposed adapted rules for 9 Lives:

The objective is to accumulate points scored by the number of identical cats in one's collection and the number of stars accumulated in each series of cats. 

SETUP: 

Do not remove any cards from the deck; use all 81 cards, regardless of the number of players.

Distribute five random cards to each player.

Each player should have room for a personal collection of cards.

Shuffle the remainder into a deck in the center of the play area.

Deal the three top cards from the deck to the center of the play area face-up. This is the first group of cards that are up for auction.

You also need a method of keeping score during the game. (A paper and pencil or chips are fine.)

PLAY:

A GAME of 9 Lives is comprised of 5 or 6 BOUTS, each bout being comprised of 5 ROUNDS. A game of 9 lives ends when one player reaches 50 or more points, which should take 5 or 6 bouts. [We noticed that with three to five players, the winner of a bout usually has gained 8 to 10 points, those 5 or 6 bouts to reach 50]

A ROUND is comprised of three PHASES, the bidding phase, then the adoption phase, then the betrayal phase [you can name it whatever you like; that's what we came up with]

Bidding phase: Exactly as in Prototype B

[There is no reward phase; this was found annoying and confusing]

Adoption phase: Slightly different from Prototype B. Each player takes turns starting with the player with the lowest bid and proceeding in ascending order. The taking of cards is the same as in Prototype B, but the cards are then placed FACE UP in one's collection. The goal of adoption is to collect cats to create series of two or more. A player cannot adopt a cat into her hand, only into her collection. All other non-adopted cards are moved to the centre of the table. Then, instead of ending the round at this point and turning cards over from the deck, we move on to an additional phase of play.

 @revverm troubleshooting a five-player game of 9 Lives

 @revverm troubleshooting a five-player game of 9 Lives

Betrayal phase: We also called it "last action". It could also be called the "Feral phase", the "Escape phase" or something. The player with the lowest bid has the choice to alter one of her opponents' play from the adoption phase. She can either:

  • Switch a card from one opponent's collection with a card with the same number of stars from her own collection,
  • OR switch a card from one opponent's collection with a card from the centre with the same number of stars, 
  • OR switch it with a the top card from the deck; in this case, the card taken from the opponent's collection is discarded;
  • OR does nothing.

This latter phase allows for the winner of the bidding phase to thwart one opponent's strategy or to better her own collection with an opponent's card. For instance, if Bill won the bidding phase and Jimmy has collected three same cats with 0, 1 and 4 stars each, Bill can replace the 4-star cat with a different 4-star cat, thus breaking Jimmy's series. This becomes important in the scoring of the bout.

A round ends when the betrayal phase is done and the lowest bidder then turns ONE card for the deck and places it face up with the other cards at the centre of the table.

The bout continues with four other rounds until all five cards in all players' hands have been played.

SCORING:

Each player counts the number of series of two or more cats she has gotten and gets one point per series.

Then each player counts the number of stars in each series. If two players have a suit of the same cat, the one with the most stars score that number of points and the other player scores nothing; if the number of stars is the same, neither player score points for the stars.

At the end of a bout, all played and discarded cards are shuffled back at the bottom of the deck and a new bout is set up.

ENDGAME:

As stated above, the game ends when a player has reached 50 points. With three to five players, this should take 5 to 6 bouts, for a total of about 30 minutes of play. 

______________________________________________________________

Further remarks:

a) With more players, it would most likely be necessary to bring the number of game points down if the game is to be played in about 30 minutes; for example, for 7 players, it would most likely be 40 points to win a game. 

b) Everyone agreed that the proposed altered rules would not work for 2 players, but would be ideal for 3 to 6 players. It very well may be that with the proposed adapted rules the game cannot be played with 8 or 9 players. Everyone agreed, though, that Prototype B was unplayable at more than 6 players.

c) Everyone insisted on the fact that a group of players should be given the option to decide that a game is going to be worth more or fewer points in order to adapt the gameplay to the length of time they have to play. For example, if all players agree, they should have the possibility to play for 100 points, for longer game play.

e) Lastly, we do not know if Daniel Solis will like the altered rules proposed here, but everyone involved said that they will continue to play with the altered rules regardless of what is chosen. All intend on teaching those to the younger members of our group as soon as we can. Everyone liked the new gameplay and everyone liked the bidding and adopting mechanic, a lot. I will be printing another copy of the prototype cards for the "youngings" to play with.

We all hope to see this game released one day. We all saw the potential and all want to see it succeed.

* Also, go buy Koy Pond, which is quite good! 

Hi. My name is Tournevis and I'm a born again tabletop gamer.

in ,

Time has come for me to abmit it. I am a gamer.

I always was a gamer, but I have been off gaming since 1989. With good reasons, but with age comes maturity and (hopefully) the end of some self dilutions. This is the story of one of them.

Dice, by Jonny Watt, aka Swiss Boneson Flickr

Dice, by Jonny Watt, aka Swiss Boneson Flickr

 I stopped tabletop gaming in 1989, at the same time as I gave up drinking. I was drunk when I gamed and when I gave up the juice I gave up the dice as well. I got rid of everything. All my games, my dice. With the exception of one deck of LO-Vision regular poker cards, because these are rather difficult to find. When I met he who would become my husband, a year later, I even made him give up gaming too. Yes, he got rid of his dice set (very basic red polyhedrals he kept in a vintage Sucrets tin) and his AD&D books for me. He is a very good and patient man.

In the following years, I tried to occasionnaly play simple family board games from time to time, and it would be dreadful for me. Literally deadful: I would get anxiety attacks playing Monopoly. SkipBo would make me sweat bullets. To top it off, I discovered I was a pretty bad loser. To be perfectly honest, I probably always was a terrible loser back when I drank too, but I don't remember much of it, on accounts I was drunk most of the time. I do remember not having a lot of fun and getting into loud arguments with fellow gamers, and it's probably a sign of just how bad a loser I was.  But I had stopped gaming. I was literally off my game! It did not stop the attraction to gaming one damn bit.

So for some two decades, I resorted to watching every video game show on tv, reading gaming mags in stores, going to Toys'R'Us and pining over all those pretty boxes (I thought that family games might be less dangerous than serious games, somehow). Mostly, though, I sat at the table whenever a card game or a boardgame was played in the same building I was in and I watched, attentively, for hours, studying the strategies, enjoying the gameplay and the repartie, loving every minute of it, all the while trying not to pee my pants for fear of joinging in.

In my silly little brain, boozing and gaming were so closely associated, they had the same effect on me. And my fear of drinking was merged with a fear of gaming. 

Stupid brain. 

Fast forward to 2011. My husband (the same as above) and I adopted a marvelous little boy. We were now responsibe for the forging of this little person, for teaching him everything from talking to walking to, yes, playing. And I realized I was scared of playing. I was scared of games. This could not be. My parents had not been into games much at all when I was a child, except for the occasional Scrabble night in the 1970s to which I was certainly not invited, because of too much cigarettes and scotch, because the 70s. I cannot say that my parents taught me to play, or to game, ever. My husband's family were card players, avid ones. We still have the booklets used to keep score in the endless games of 500 and Hearts. My husband and his brother even invented a card game, some trick taking thing they call "le jeu".

But I could not place the entire onus of teaching our son play and games on his father. It would not be fair to either of them. So I discerned, for about a year.

At the beginning of 2012, I decided that I needed to set myself straight and start to teach my son gaming. He turned two and I introduced him to the wonderful things that are dice. I bought him giant foam polyhedrals, as well as a full set of 22mm polyhedrals and an assortment of d6 of the same size. He loves them. We are learning numbers on them, though they are as often used as train cars or as meal for the imaginary fish we will be cathcing from the confort of our couch-cum-sailboat.

I bought a set for myself too. Then I bought more. Then I started buying tabletop games, mostly dice games, because that's always what I loved the most back in the day. I also started watching Wil Wheaton's TableTop show on Geek and Sundry and I came to the realization that I was a born again gamer.

So I bought DIxit and all the expansions and I brought it to a friend's house we were staying in last Christmas and we played. I played. I got beat so badly it was pityful. And it was all marvelous. 

Since then, I have participated in a bunch of Kickstarters for a bunch of games, all but one dice games. And I love it. 

Last night, I played solitaire on the living room table while my son played something with another deck of cards. We had a ball.