I have found Joan of Arc to be maybe the most difficult game to rate of all the hundreds of games that I have yet played.

Why? Well, it's because the game gets better and better the more you apply each of a half dozen rules tweaks. No one of them is enough to save the game, neither is any 2 or 3 of them, but by the time you've added 4 or 5 it starts to become worth playing. Add them all and it's going to be pretty interesting.

As things stand, it's as if Tilsit just didn't bother to finish developing it. The game feels like the runt offspring that Martin Wallace forgot about. Martin isn't great with his rules in that they are often impenetrable, lack clarity and need further explanation. These rules have the latter two problems, plus they are also under-developed. I don't know why companies do this. It's frustrating and it doesn't take that much effort - or play-testing to correct.

Alas, Martin didn't write the game, but I wish he had!! It could have been very good.

You can find reviews here about how the game plays, what the pieces are like, whether it's any good etc. What I'd like to do now is look at how I think the game can go from being a 5 out of ten to a 7 out of 10 and then even an 8 or 8.5 out of ten.

Is it worth this effort? Yes it is. 6 player historical games are rare - especially ones playable in 3-4 hours (depending how many turns you use). Ones that look this good and have this theme are rarer. True, it doesn't even begin to resemble a simulation, but that really doesn't matter. Actually, the game play in battle is closest to Condottiere - no bad thing as that game is interesting in the card-play respect and then this one adds a fair few layers on top of that.

Here are my quick suggestion about what needs to be done with the game:

1. Bid for turn order each turn (not the first one). This would mean that an unlucky player wouldn't always draw the postion he least wanted, and it would also have a knock on affect to point two below - basically this involves encouraging players to use their money for something other than cards and buildings.*

2. Allow only a certain number of extra cards to be bought each turn. I would make it about 6 or 7, but players could agree a sensible amount beforehand.

As it is you can get rich players buying large amounts of cards and using their already strong postion to get stronger than they ought. Battles can seem almost endless during the phase of a player who has lots of cards. Which nicely brings us on to point three.

3. In war time set a maximum number of attacks that a player can make. Four would seem about right. If you do this, you don't get weaker players having to sit around for 15 minutes whilst one player does attack after attack. It also balances the game up a bit between players.

4. Allow the hero card to be in the game as of right for one turn each per player. Providing he or she isn't killed they can then be reactivated as normal with the right roll after an ambasadorial play. This makes the game much more thematic and fun.

(incidentally we play that the Maid herself is allowed to double one card in a fight, but not add +2 as well - this seems to work well).


5. To make the game more historical and more intriguing, allow victory points for castle and stronghold building. You get them as they are bought. A castle is worth 1 point, a stronghold 2. Why? Well, first this is more reasonable for the period. At the time, you actually would get more prestige for building them. Second it would again mitigate against mass card buying (if you don't use rule 2 above).

6. Make events happen only once per game (though Big Battle retains its extra card). This makes for more variation.

* I have tinkered with the idea of having a system whereby turn order chits shift to the right after each turn, but I think the bidding is more interesting.

For rule 2, you could actually make the cards more expensive for the same result, but I think the above suggestion is cleaner.

Another suggestion, though this time less essential, is to start the game on turn 3. This shortens it nicely. It then comes in at just under 3 hours, which isn't bad at all for a game of this type. The full ten turns would be fine, but I quite like it shortened like this.

Summing up

I really like the colour and feel and look of the game, BUT I still feel short-changed by it. However, there is something worthwhile that can be brought out with a few changes. Perhaps if Tilsit ever do a second edition, they might tidy up the rules and add a whole string of suggestions like the above as options. That would help tremendously.

Recently I played the game using half of the above rules, even though I had thought of most of the others beforehand or read them here on the Geek. I only wish I'd used the others as well as it would really have brought the game out into the Wallace-type territory that I seek in a game like this.

I am very much indebted to Gerard Kilgallon for suggesting the fortification building score rule and for clarifying my mind on some of the other rules. As usual, he quickly grasps the strengths and weaknesses of a design.

(last two edits = typos)