Pourquoi cette règle ??

Forum rules
Please DO NOT POST BUGS on this forum. Please report (and vote) bugs on : https://boardgamearena.com/bugs
User avatar
Desperis
Posts: 8
Joined: 31 July 2019, 14:19

Pourquoi cette règle ??

Post by Desperis » 01 September 2021, 09:23

Cinquième partie pour moi, je vois une combinaison qui va me faite gagner mais le jeu s'arrête avant qu'on y arrive :
"Il n'y a plus aucun anneau : le joueur avec le plus grand groupe d'anneaux connectés orthogonalement gagne la partie !"

Bon, j'ai gagné quand même mais je m'interroge. En terme de game design, je ne vois aucun intérêt à ne pas avoir autant d'anneaux que de cases. Insert pourrait être un très beau jeu abstrait à plateau variable. Des parties nulles ? Pas de soucis pour moi, beaucoup des plus beaux jeux peuvent se terminer sur une nulle. Un tie-breaker ? Pourquoi pas, mais pourquoi pas une fois qu'on a clairement établi que personne ne peut aligner 5 ?

Je sais bien que je ne vais pas faire réimprimer les règles de la boîte de jeu dans ce post, mais j'avais besoin d'exprimer ce sentiment...

User avatar
Shobu
Posts: 149
Joined: 04 January 2020, 04:14

Re: Pourquoi cette règle ??

Post by Shobu » 01 September 2021, 10:39

Le jeu n'existe pas en physique, ça pourrait valoir le coup de remonter ça au designer via la page BGG du jeu

User avatar
gilco
Posts: 25
Joined: 17 April 2020, 15:32

Re: Pourquoi cette règle ??

Post by gilco » 09 September 2021, 16:28

effectivement, j'ai vécu la même fin de partie tiebreaker sur le plus grand groupe et je me suis demandé pourquoi s'arrêter à 15 anneaux. D'autant que l'anneau suivant allait me faire une ligne de 5. Pourquoi pas 18 anneaux chacun ? question à poser à Bruno Cathala.
Et au fait, c'est vraiment un excellent jeu. merci, merci

User avatar
el cosimo
Posts: 94
Joined: 21 May 2020, 11:45

Re: Pourquoi cette règle ??

Post by el cosimo » 09 September 2021, 19:55

Because it is Just an extra rule to keep in mind. I just like the rule because you can be block other player to use all his rings if you know you have largest combo.

User avatar
Meeplelowda
Posts: 142
Joined: 14 March 2020, 10:31

Re: Pourquoi cette règle ??

Post by Meeplelowda » 10 September 2021, 06:32

el cosimo wrote:
09 September 2021, 19:55
Because it is Just an extra rule to keep in mind. I just like the rule because you can be block other player to use all his rings if you know you have largest combo.
There is a reason for this. It isn't just a randomly made up rule for no reason. The designer Bruno Cathala explained why on the live video today. When he was play testing the game he found that if you had enough rings to fill the board, the last several moves are usually forced anyway, which means it is not really a game at that point. Also, 99% of games end before you reach the point where all the remaining moves are forced. So for these reasons the number of rings is limited.

User avatar
gilco
Posts: 25
Joined: 17 April 2020, 15:32

Re: Pourquoi cette règle ??

Post by gilco » 10 September 2021, 12:25

Understood. Surely, he must have think of it, being such a great game designer. I would have watched the live if I could.

User avatar
Shobu
Posts: 149
Joined: 04 January 2020, 04:14

Re: Pourquoi cette règle ??

Post by Shobu » 10 September 2021, 12:43

Meeplelowda wrote:
10 September 2021, 06:32
he found that if you had enough rings to fill the board, the last several moves are usually forced anyway, which means it is not really a game at that point.
The latter half of the game feels on rails anyway, a few more token wouldn't have hurt to make a proper ending

User avatar
gilco
Posts: 25
Joined: 17 April 2020, 15:32

Re: Pourquoi cette règle ??

Post by gilco » 11 September 2021, 07:32

I believe that, as a great part of the tactic is to push your opponent to forced moves, the fact that the last moves are usually forced after the 15th ring is not an argument against continuing the game, because it doesn't go against the principle of the game.
In the game I played I was aiming for a win with a line of 5 and had calculated it, so it was frustrating to discover the game was over just before this 16th move. Even if I won by the largest group.
Also I think having the largest connected group at this point of the game (ie after 30 rings) would mean most of the times that you have the greater chance still to form a line of 5 before the end.
Last point : if 99% of the games end before the 15th ring why is it useful to create an alternative way of winning, instead of letting the game go on.

User avatar
Meeplelowda
Posts: 142
Joined: 14 March 2020, 10:31

Re: Pourquoi cette règle ??

Post by Meeplelowda » 11 September 2021, 16:49

gilco wrote:
11 September 2021, 07:32
Last point : if 99% of the games end before the 15th ring why is it useful to create an alternative way of winning, instead of letting the game go on.
I believe Mr. Cathala said that he would answer questions on his blog. You can ask him directly.

User avatar
Desperis
Posts: 8
Joined: 31 July 2019, 14:19

Re: Pourquoi cette règle ??

Post by Desperis » 17 September 2021, 12:20

I've actually asked this question to Bruno Cathala in the YouTube comments of his presentation video for the game. He seems pretty set on applying this rule to avoid the last few moves being tame.

I agree he is a great boardgame designer and Im a huge fan of 7WD. But he is, to my knowledge, pretty new in the world of Abstract games. And this rule does not make sense from an abstract point of view.

He mentionned that he likes the simplicity of the rules (pureté in French), but this extra rule actually breaks that simplicity in quite an arbitrary way.

The fact that the last moves are almost forced and that there is very little choice is a feature of every combinatorial game. Think of connect 4, Quarto, Othello, etc. Anticipating how the endgane is going to happen is part of the play. Once you get there, either you took an advantage by creating lines of 4 or inserts that will win you the game, or your opponent has, or you both have and you fight to be the first to get a free move, or none of you did and the game ends in a draw. That's what abstracts are about : reading deeper, anticipating further, exploiting early advantages in the late game.

Btw, I have a very nice idea for an advanced, purely abstract, variant of the game I believe. Instead of rings, use rings that are stroke by a line. Every time you play, chose the orientation of the line to force your opponent to play along that line instead of that being decide by the board. I think it might work.

Post Reply

Return to “Insert”