Game: Schnäppchen Jagd

Thread: Re: Valley Games Release Date?

LittlePegasus — 2008-08-23T11:00:27+00:00

Any further word on the date for this release (summer 2008 is nearly over)...

Thread: Re: Valley Games Release Date?

otrex — 2008-07-10T00:01:38+00:00

Yes, it's still happening. See my note above.

Thread: Re: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Schnäppchen Jagd

Great Dane — 2008-06-30T16:37:30+00:00

David Vander Ark wrote:
The rules as written allow a player to play a second Super Sonder Angebot card to a trick and announce the value as "lower."

Technically a second Super-Sonderangebot must be announced as "lower". No choice.

...Not that this changes your reasons for playing the variant

Thread: Re: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Schnäppchen Jagd

David Vander Ark — 2008-06-30T16:12:29+00:00

Fine review, but I'd like to correct one error. In a three player game you need to discard at least three cards when clearing before setting a new number as your bargain card. So if you are collecting "8s" and you clear three "3s", you are still collecting "8s". If you cleared five "3s" you would discard three of them, and add two of them to your score stack, changing the number of your bargain to 3.

(Double checked my English rules and the most recent English rule pdf on the Geek before posting this).

Another subtle point. The Super Sonder Angebot card can never be cleared. The rules as written allow a player to play a second Super Sonder Angebot card to a trick and announce the value as "lower." I always play with a variant by Aaron Fuegi, which rules that a second Super Sonder Angebot played to a trick always wins the trick. See http://scv.bu.edu/~aarondf/variants.html for more interesting variants by Aaron.

Thread: Re: Valley Games Release Date?

Kaelistus — 2008-06-22T16:53:34+00:00

Is this still happening? I don't see it in the Valley Games website.

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-01-16T19:01:38+00:00

German Front Box from Queen Games

Thread: Re: Delayed Trump

Great Dane — 2007-12-25T17:03:41+00:00

Yes. A suit is either trumph or not - it cannot be both at the same time (trick).

Thread: Re: Delayed Trump

themore5@earthlink — 2007-12-25T05:54:46+00:00

Phil is correct, I believe. Once Anna announces that her blue card is not trump, blue cannot be trump. Shannon takes the trick.

Thread: Re: Delayed Trump

Spielfreak — 2007-12-25T03:08:15+00:00

I'm not sure, but I think Anna's declaration of blue not being trump makes Hans's play not trump as well. In this case, Shannon wins the trick.

Thread: Delayed Trump

hvddrift — 2007-12-25T01:46:35+00:00

What happens in this situation?

Shannon plays a red 4
Anna Plays a blue 5 and does not call trump
Hans plays a blue 3 and calls trump.

Does Hans or Anna win the trick?

Thanks

Thread: Re: Junk Piile Inspection

Verkisto — 2007-12-14T13:24:09+00:00

I don't recall the rules, but the few times I've played it, it's always been open for your inspection. Given that your target number can change from hand to hand, I would expect that it would be too much of a memory element, otherwise.

Thread: Junk Piile Inspection

hvddrift — 2007-12-14T13:14:37+00:00

Can you freely look at your own junk pile to help decide what cards you want, or is it closed till the clearing stage?

Thanks

Thread: Re: Valley Games Release Date?

Bobby4th — 2007-12-14T04:41:06+00:00

otrex wrote:
Officially, we're looking at a "2008" release date.

I'm advocating for a Summer 2008 release, mostly because I'm a fan of this game, and I'd like to see more people discover it too. I'm not sure if this will be an acheivable date, but we'll certainly try.
Thanks, Kevin!

Thread: Re: Valley Games Release Date?

Tatsu — 2007-12-13T23:58:33+00:00

Larry Levy wrote:
Tatsu wrote:
I can't believe you don't already have the original...
Are you kidding? Those games are rarer than hen's teeth. I've been trying to scare up a copy for several years, but no luck.

Given Valley's record to date, I'm in a wait-and-see attitude. But if they actually get this released, I'll certainly pick up a copy. It's a great game.
I was. This is the sort of game I was pretty sure Bobby already had.

Thread: Re: Valley Games Release Date?

otrex — 2007-12-13T23:35:02+00:00

Officially, we're looking at a "2008" release date.

I'm advocating for a Summer 2008 release, mostly because I'm a fan of this game, and I'd like to see more people discover it too. I'm not sure if this will be an acheivable date, but we'll certainly try.

Thread: Re: Valley Games Release Date?

Larry Levy — 2007-12-13T23:17:24+00:00

Tatsu wrote:
I can't believe you don't already have the original...
Are you kidding? Those games are rarer than hen's teeth. I've been trying to scare up a copy for several years, but no luck.

Given Valley's record to date, I'm in a wait-and-see attitude. But if they actually get this released, I'll certainly pick up a copy. It's a great game.

Thread: Re: Valley Games Release Date?

Bobby4th — 2007-12-13T23:16:34+00:00

Tatsu wrote:
I can't believe you don't already have the original...
I do, but it's easier to get a game played that people will be able to buy.

Thread: Re: Valley Games Release Date?

Tatsu — 2007-12-13T23:06:31+00:00

I can't believe you don't already have the original...

Thread: Valley Games Release Date?

Bobby4th — 2007-12-13T22:26:15+00:00

Has anyone heard anything beyond the original announcement back in August 2007 that it was going to be released by them? I just checked out their web site and saw no mention of the game on their 750 page.

Thread: Re: Valley Games is going to reprint this game!

Gilby — 2007-11-12T19:31:22+00:00

Very cool.

Thread: Re: Schnäppchen Jagd: How to Make Your Own Deck

Verkisto — 2007-09-25T12:32:08+00:00

Well, I got it several months before a reprint was announced. In fact, I bought it last year, now that I recall playing it at GeekWay '06.

Plus, I've not been blown away with VG's graphic arts so far. I'm glad to have Die Macher in my collection, but I think I would prefer Moskito Spiel's version. I don't know what changes they may make to SJ, so I'm pleased with what I have.

Thread: Re: Schnäppchen Jagd: How to Make Your Own Deck

Scott Firestone IV — 2007-09-24T15:41:01+00:00

Valley announced the reprint one week after I bought a copy. Luckily I only paid $13 for it.

Thread: Re: Schnäppchen Jagd: How to Make Your Own Deck

JeffyJeff — 2007-09-24T15:27:24+00:00

Verkisto wrote:
For the record, I broke down and bought a used copy of this game earlier this year. It came available, and while it was a bit more than I would have LIKE to have paid, Cranky's right; the real thing is just too purty to pass up.
Too bad you couldn't wait... VG is supposed to be doing a reprint, see http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/200114

Thread: Re: Schnäppchen Jagd: How to Make Your Own Deck

Verkisto — 2007-09-24T14:12:41+00:00

For the record, I broke down and bought a used copy of this game earlier this year. It came available, and while it was a bit more than I would have LIKE to have paid, Cranky's right; the real thing is just too purty to pass up.

Thread: Re: Can later color in trick be trump if earlier color decli

Edbryan — 2007-09-09T12:38:09+00:00

That is correct. Chris could not though play a red card and declare it trump as it has already been declared not trump.

Thread: Can later color in trick be trump if earlier color declines?

AppleJack — 2007-09-09T07:02:22+00:00

My reading of the trick-taking phase rules (in English, anyway) don't preclude this interpretation, but I wanted to get consensus. Let's use a slight variation on the third example from the rules:

Anke leads a blue 5. Bert has no blue, and would not like to win the trick, so he plays a red 3 and explains that red is not the trump color. Chris would like to have the trick and has no blue cards, so he plays a yellow 9 and explains that yellow is the trump color.

Legit?

Thread: Re: Review - based on original game, when published.

sumo — 2007-08-29T12:14:08+00:00

Mark, I am not entirely sure at the moment! When I occasionally pop a review into the "body" of the BGG page it seems to get a much better reaction than from the link, which is there in most cases.

The usual problem: time.

What I certainly need to do is get the remaining reviews onto the web, somewhere.

Thread: Re: Review - based on original game, when published.

sumo — 2007-08-29T12:12:24+00:00

ixnay66 wrote:
I've been wanting this for years. I'm quite happy to see Valley Games will be reprinting this. I'm also hoping since it's a card game they'll be able to get this one done quickly.

Me too, Chris.

Thread: Re: Super Special Offer Cards

ipgyst — 2007-08-29T03:01:22+00:00

What if a player's last card of a hand in the SuperTrump and he has to lead? (This is the only time I have seen this happen.)

Then every player will have only one card left and the player of the SuperSonderAngebote will get all of them.

Thread: Re: Super Special Offer Cards

rri1 — 2007-08-29T02:02:23+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
I would say that a color HAS to be lead.

What if a player's last card of a hand in the SuperTrump and he has to lead? (This is the only time I have seen this happen.

I don't see this as a problem--Players will quickly learn that playing it is bad strategy. (After all the last hand of the game always involves throwing junk on the leader's opening lead.) There are A LOT more damaging ways of throwing the game.

There are two obvious options borrowed from other traditional trump card games that have non-suited cards (like Jokers) in play:
- If the SuperTrump is led, the next card sets the suit led into the trick.
- If the SuperTrump is led, it forms its own suit requiring play of its mate (as there are two in the deck). Otherwise you simply fail to follow by playing any losing card.

Thread: Re: Review - based on original game, when published.

ixnay66 — 2007-08-28T17:05:44+00:00

I've been wanting this for years. I'm quite happy to see Valley Games will be reprinting this. I'm also hoping since it's a card game they'll be able to get this one done quickly.

Thread: Re: Review - based on original game, when published.

habermanm — 2007-08-28T11:57:12+00:00

Thanks for posting this. Are you going to be posting many of your old reviews? I think it's great to get them on the geek where more people will be able to find them.

Thread: Review - based on original game, when published.

sumo — 2007-08-28T08:50:56+00:00

Schnappen Jagd (Bargain Hunter) is the latest card game from Uwe Rosenberg, the designer of Bohnanza - a little game you may have heard of. The theme is plundering boot fairs and flea markets for bargain electrical goods - sometimes they are real gems and exactly what you want, but inevitably you will also acquire some junk. And in that ironic way life has, that is pretty much how the game pans out - in parts, outstanding, in others, rather less useful. The disappointment is amplified because the game is very nearly there, and because we see so many of these card games that when one comes along with clever ideas, a good theme and some ingenious systems, one hopes above hope that it will work. And because I am about to steer a tricky course through some unusual mechanisms and grumble about an already popular game, please remember that it is a game I still value. I just wanted it to work rather better, which I don't think is a crime yet.

To avoid accusations of being too harsh and of branding Schnappen Jagd as failing to be something it isn't, or perhaps over-analysing a simple system, I think I need to define 'working'. Schnappen Jagd does not function as a challenging card game (which is what it feels like, and might easily become) but it does work fairly well as a lightish game in which you play along, lay cards, don't think too hard and hopefully have fun. Those of you who have played Bohnanza will realise that it shares many traits. It too is essentially a fairly light exercise, with little real decision making and much reliance on drawing the right cards. It is also highly accessible, great fun, has some novel ideas, and simply flies along in play. The result is a game that is hugely popular but which punches well above its weight. Ultimately, and I stand to be corrected, I think both Schnappen Jagd and Bohnanza flatter to deceive.

There are sufficient complexities in the game to make it appear as a 'proper' card game, but the core mechanism is essentially no trump trick taking. However, like Was Sticht, Hattrick, Sticheln and Mu, it stands apart by virtue of its structure and clever tweaks. Indeed, were the game to function as I believe it can, I would be immediately placing Schnappen Jagd on a par with those games. Why? Because Schnappen Jagd has an interesting ancillary phase and secondary level of play, manages to cleverly incorporate aspects of Rummy into a Trumps/trick taking game and because it has some damn fine ideas on Trump/Rummy hybrid scoring.

Each player is dealt eight cards. The senior player (to the immediate left of the dealer) chooses one of his cards and lays it in front of him - this will be his 'bargain' number for that round. Each player does the same in turn - bargain numbers do not have to be unique. The senior player leads one of the six suits, numbered 1 to 9. The next player must follow suit if he can. If he can't he has an interesting choice. Playing a card of another suit, he either declares it as a trump or as a discard. If a trump, it sets the solitary trump colour for that hand. And since there are two identical packs in the game, an identical card following another can be designated as slightly higher, or slightly lower - so a red 3 on a red 3 can be 3.5 or 2.5 at the second player's whim. Clever. Note also that by definition the lead can never be a trump and that there are two Special Offer cards that win any trick, but permanently count as junk. Play proceeds for a round of eight hands, each player collecting all the cards he wins in each trick. Those matching his bargain number are placed immediately onto the bargain pile, scoring one point each come game end, anything else is placed into his junk pile, scoring minus one.

But scoring doesn't end there. In the second phase of play, 'clearing', you sort through your junk pile and see if you can make up sets of anything useful. You are allowed to convert a run of similarly numbered junk (say five 3's) into bargains - discard the first two back to the play deck, place the other three on the bargain pile. This has three effects. It reduces your junk pile (though usually leaving behind all sorts of rubbish), converts minus points into positives, and defines your new bargain number for the next round so you are no longer collecting the earlier bargain number. Note that you can only 'clear' a set once per round, except at the very end when you are allowed two clearances. In this way, from the second round onwards, your bargain points won in tricks are worth instant points, but you are also collecting a range of other numbered cards so that you can add to the junk, make sets, and eventually 'clear' for points. Play proceeds for four rounds, and at the end you simply add up your bargain pile and deduct your uncleared junk to determine the winner.

Because every card won therefore has a scoring implication, short or long term, good or bad, the knack is to try and win exactly what you need. More is usually okay, less isn't. While it may be appealing to win loads of cards to make huge sets of junk (which can easily be more valuable than the 'ouvert' bargains - especially if you collect, say, junk fours all game and dramatically clear them at the end), these literally become a liability if you run out of clearing rounds to convert them. And since there are just five opportunities for clearing, you need to be careful. Whatever, more often than not (with the help of other players and unwanted tricks), you will find yourself with odd cards. There is nothing worse than clearing seven 2's in the penultimate round, only to find that rivals happily let you win two more 2's in the last hand - no way of shifting them (you need three minimum) and you will almost certainly have bigger fish to clear.

So what scuppers this intriguing little game? The idea that you have a scoring stack of cards, and another pile of potential scorers, is original and I think works well in itself. The drawback is that a small amount of time can pass as each player checks his 'junk' pile before each lay - this means the game is not particularly quick. For the same reason there is a lot to keep an eye on - while Bob is overtly collecting fours, he may be piling up 'junk' sevens this hand and in previous tricks. This needs to be monitored otherwise some of your discards are going to be good news for him. This duplicity is another strength, but I will discuss below whether you can actually counter it.

The second issue is whether you have sufficient control, through the deal and trick play, to implement your strategy. This is also interlinked with your opponent's ability to prevent you achieving same. The crux though is the structure and size of the hands and their unsuitability for skilful trump play. Essentially, you don't get enough cards in each round to formulate a strategy, to know how to play a hand through, or to reliably secure the cards you want - if this were Oh Hell/Nomination Whist, you'd be hard put to make an informed bid. Eight cards and six suits means, likely as not, you'll start the hand with void suits. Playing cards to try and win is fraught with immediate trumping, or discards to opponents of cards you'd like to win. Indeed, despite trying very hard to gain bargain numbers, it is actually impractical much of the time - either you have the cards, in which case you need to lead (dangerous) or trump with them to win. If your opponents have them, unless they play pretty poorly, or are squeezed at the finish, they usually discard them on another's winning trick. And there is a real sense of not knowing which cards to lead, apart from the vague notion that voids are good. In fact, in some respects the game can take on a distinct misere quality - depending on your opponents it may actually be easier to try and win nothing at all (not too difficult) and try for a very low positive score which could be enough to win.

All this places the player to the right of the lead (ie the last to play to a trick) in a strong position, especially later in the round when many suits are void. He is often free to discard bargain cards to a neutral player, to trump with a bargain of his own and claim the stack knowing its contents (and exact value to him), or to simply discard safely. The resulting problem is that you can pick up so many negative cards through no fault of your own, yet you have no sure way of winning the cards you need or to get shot of most of the rubbish quickly enough. I agree that the tactics of the game can be to avoid too much junk as well as finding bargains, but I have yet to see anyone master the tactics required - if there are any - through the flak thrown up by the distinctly random nature of play.

The next angle is, rather like Extrablatt before it, that there is quite a bit to monitor, and certainly too many factors to reliably cover in play. You need to be working out which cards you want, how you are going to get them, what each trick is going to do for you, whether you are going to end up with too much junk, whether to go for trick wins early due to void suits (the small hand sizes indicate that if I am void it means little - someone else is just as likely to be able to trump). Another related aspect is the distinct possibility of card counting generally - both all cards moving through the game, and specifically the junk piles. I am okay at this, far from brilliant, and being a sad git I tried to do it in one game. It's hard, but you can do it. Just. But by the time you have tried to monitor Anne's, Biff's and Colin's junk piles it frequently hardly seems to matter what you throw off as discards - chances are you won't have enough cards in your hand to make it either harmless (giving them a card they are not collecting) or painful (giving them a card they have just cleared out) or they are collecting two or three numbers which you can't avoid handing over.

There seems little incentive, beyond going along with the game's ethos, to collect the bargain cards you need. Why pick up one scorer and three duds when it is an instant net loss of two points? Okay, long term you might get rid of the duds as scoring cards, but if you pick up too many the game is structured so that you cannot always get them 'cleared' before time runs out. In the first game I played I just collected anything I could, resulting in a large hand of junk. I had the scope to score a lot through 'clearing' but there weren't enough turns to get rid of them all. So, the next game I played on the basis that bargain cards were good, but junk was also useful (to a point) and that I needed to keep a selective eye on my junk hand. That is the policy I have pursued on and off since, but such is the random nature of play that you cannot always pick and choose numbers or volumes of cards won - especially when half of most hands is dumped on you by other players. I call this aspect the disincentive bug.

The cumulative effect of these issues means that there is an appreciable number of variables to take into account but insufficient control to achieve your aim. One tackles many hands with little hope of intelligent play and a lot of scope for others to hold back and deprive you of your bargain cards by intelligent discarding. Sometimes the cards run smoothly, and you pick up or avoid the cards you need to. At others, you really don't know whether to hold back or play or whether it will make any difference. It is also difficult to know which cards are out there, if you are collecting low value cards they are harder to get except by accident (eg someone leads or discards one, and you win), and because the play is very unpredictable (and the special offers are out there as well) you can never quite be sure of winning any trick. So collecting bargains is, frankly, a little hit and miss which like Go Wild! rather diverts one from the game's principle focus. Often you win bargains simply because other players find themselves stuck with them and having to discard, rather than you prising them out of your or their hands by skilful play.

The final quibble is almost irrelevant, but I just groaned out loud in the middle of our first game at the missed opportunity. This is so patently a system about collecting (logically something like multi-volume books but also stamps, records, porcelain, whatever) or even collecting games - finding those categories you want, collecting others that you can sell on or perhaps collect in the future - that I found it hard to believe it wasn't spotted by a game designer and publisher who presumably go to Essen every year. Oh well - the theme is largely inconsequential anyway. And I may as well mention here that the game is only designed for three or four players - this is limiting, but then I seem to recall a game called Settlers with the same restriction and that seems to have struggled into seven figure sales.

But so good are the underlying ideas, and so appealing the potential, that I have thought about the game a lot. My initial feeling was that although the whole package feels right the game is slightly 'off balance', thematically and mechanically, again in much the same way as Go Wild!. Trying to analyse exactly why, and there is a decent mix of inter-related mechanisms here when you dig deeper, I came up with a partial answer that at least satisfies my brain. I did it by substituting for Factor X. Let's say that instead of being worth one point, the bargain cards are worth three, or perhaps just two, or even one and a half - the fine tuning can come later (and this will also be different for 3 and 4 players). One may also need to value converted junk at a separate rate. This would fit the theme (you have found the item you wanted, it is therefore worth more than the junk) and it gives you a real reason to collect and a way of valuing your trick acquisitions. Is it worth collecting that extra five, three and six? Almost certainly yes if one of them is worth three points, probably if it is worth two, possibly not if only one - and there is the disincentive rub again. The reason it helps to think of it in this way is that when you come to the end, you feel very strange adding up your bargain cards and then taking off your junk at the same rate of exchange. If your bargain cards were doubled, the false parity would be removed and you'd feel better. As if you'd achieved something. Or is that just me?

Another tweak might be to have more cards per hand, drop a suit or two, lose the special offer cards, to reduce to 1 to 5 values instead of 1 to 9, to see your next hand before clearing, or allow two clear outs per round with three at the end, or perhaps even to have two bargain stacks, as in Hattrick. Fascinating stuff! I see the game as having a series of slider controls that you can move up and down to see what works and what throws the game out of kilter. The good news is that at whatever level Herr Rosenberg has decided to pitch Schnappen Jagd (the box age guide says 10+ which indicates that it isn't intended as frivolous, and it has the trappings of seriousness), we might be able to pull it up a notch with a little tweaking. And I suppose at that point we come full circle. If the game is aimed at hardened card players (I don't think it is), then it doesn't work. If it is pitched at your average gamer, then it may be a little cardy for them, it still has some hitches and a little too much randomness. And if it is pitched still lower, perhaps at Bohnanza level, and one is meant to play without much thought about how to do well, then it can probably be said to work.

So, to stress just once more, this is a game I really wanted to like. I think it shows potential, it has clearly been the subject of a lot of thought and design work, and it has some good ideas. It is also wrong to moan too much because even at the base level, at the very weakest it can be, Schnappen Jagd will still be a buy for many. For me it tries hard, and fails; and excites, but then disappoints. But so many card games don't get those first parts right either and from an analytical angle I have greatly enjoyed ten sessions, the post game discussions, and also tinkering with it 'off line' but the net result is a game I didn't enjoy playing - others will. So don't get me wrong. I think Schnappen Jagd will sell well and be popular, I think Rosenberg is a designer to watch, and I will be first in line for his next game. So Schnappen Jagd is a curiosity, but a desirable one - any game that makes me enthused, thoughtful, disappointed, analytical and keen to fix it all at the same time has to be worth a tenner of anyone's money. I love card games, I always want for more, and I'd dearly love to think that Schnappen Jagd was going to be a classic and get a lot of play. But it isn't as it stands, and overall I honestly have to come down to the view that it doesn't really work without tweaks - and that is how I must review it. As our American chums say; your mileage may vary.

Thread: Re: Valley Games is going to reprint this game!

kevinb9n — 2007-08-26T03:01:28+00:00

I LOVE the artwork of the original! Those appliances are adorable!

And I don't like the Bohnanza art, or even For Sale (new). But something about these toasters and washing machines... they're great. I even play Schotten Totten with them sometimes.

Thread: Re: Valley Games is going to reprint this game!

LurkingMeeple — 2007-08-26T01:31:49+00:00

(direct link)

Fantastic!

I hope Valley Games keeps the usability features:
+ suits signified by symbol plus color,
+ unambiguous colors (vs. Rage's red and orange)
+ four-corner indexes

I don't care for the original's art, but beggars can't be choosers. Still, here's to hoping the for wild clothes (Zubaz, Hawaiian shirts, gem sweaters, etc.) instead of appliances.

Thread: Re: Valley Games is going to reprint this game!

EvilTimmy — 2007-08-25T22:26:33+00:00

What?! It won't have a Dune theme? Ridiculous!

Thread: Re: Valley Games is going to reprint this game!

themore5@earthlink — 2007-08-25T18:03:25+00:00

Yes! I own this, but it absolutely needed to be reprinted. EXCELLENT three-player game, and quite good even with four.

Thread: Valley Games is going to reprint this game!

Starsunsky — 2007-08-25T17:38:57+00:00

Quoted from http://www.boardgamenews.com/

Big news for fans of trick-taking games—Valley Games will publish an English-language version of Uwe Rosenberg’s Schnäppchen Jagd, first published by Queen Games in German in 1998. “We’re proud to be the first to bring the game to a wider audience,” says Kevin Nesbitt. “As some gamers may know, this game is near-legendary for its strong three-player gameplay, a rarity in card games.”

For those who don’t know the game, here’s a summary of the game play: Schnäppchen Jagd is a trick-taking game that’s standard in some ways and unusual in many others. In each trick, each player plays one card to the table, following suit if possible, and the high card wins the trick and leads. That’s the end of the normal stuff.

As for the unusual, the deck has two cards of each suit/rank combination, and if you play an identical card in a trick, you can announce that it’s higher or lower than the card already played. More interestingly, trump is determined each trick. If the second player in a trick can’t follow suit, that player can name the suit that he does play trump for that trick; if he passes, the third player (if throwing off a third suit) can name that suit trump. Your goal is to collect cards of a particular rank, preferably in large groups, as you score one rank of cards after each round and two ranks after the final round.

The working title of the new edition is Bargain Hunter, and Valley Games plans to keep the original theme of shopping for bargains at flea markets and yard sales. Asks Nesbitt, “How could we change something that fun and original?”

Bargain Hunter—or whatever its final name turns out to be—will remain a game for three to four players with no changes to the rules. Expect to see this title soon on Valley Games’ 750 Special preorder page. This game has been added to Gone Cardboard.

Thread: Re: Super Special Offer Cards

Great Dane — 2007-04-09T14:16:31+00:00

Leading with a super card that cannot be beaten will surely lead to people dumping all sorts of rubbish on you.

Even if you lead a inferior card you at least stand a chance of taking some points when you eventually play your two super cards.

While it sucks having both super cards is doesn't really help to play them as the first card.

But the situation is interesting, so I will see if I can an official reply from Uwe.

Thread: Re: Super Special Offer Cards

Andy Parsons — 2007-04-09T13:04:40+00:00

Mik,

It was a very odd hand in which one player held both super special offer cards and had a big stack of junk that he was nervous of adding to. Nothing much came out to tempt him to use his second high trump and he got down to two cards. I forget why he didn't think that leading his normal card was the best option. It would have been a choice of a random selection of cards whichever trick he had played his trump to.

Thinking on it, forbidding a player from leading the super special is more closely in line with the rules. But then should the poor chump sit out a trick if that is all they are left with?

Thread: Re: Super Special Offer Cards

Great Dane — 2007-04-09T08:32:28+00:00

I would say that a color HAS to be lead.
If the player insist then I would abandond the game as it seems too ridiculous to be playing with a player who is deliberately trying to lose.

But otherwise your suggestion seem to be logic choice if the card should be allowed to be played as the first card.

Thread: Super Special Offer Cards

Andy Parsons — 2007-04-09T08:13:33+00:00

The two super special offer cards belong to no suit and are the highest trumps. The rules don't cover the possibility of one of these cards being led to a trick. That is not very sensible play as the other players will likely dump useless cards on it, nonetheless I have seen it done. The question that arose was how or whether the colour of the trick is set. We settled on a house rule that the second card played to the trick determined the colour to be followed. Any thoughts?

Thread: Re: Schnäppchen Jagd: How to Make Your Own Deck

MisterCranky — 2007-04-04T23:00:37+00:00

Tatsu wrote:

The real game looks nice and has good high quality cards. Its also 30 EURO (not $30) plus shipping from GERMANY. So lets say $45. $45 is an awful lot for a card game.

Apparently I needed a year to respond to your foolishness. If I say I paid 30 bucks for a game, you can be pretty damned sure I mean 30 bucks, not 30 euros. The transaction history is right there in BGGM. If you can figure out how to find it....

Thread: Re: Shuffling of cleared cards

Verkisto — 2007-03-18T20:50:25+00:00

I've updated the rules and submitted a correction to replace the incorrect rules. Thanks for catching this mistake.

Thread: Re: Shuffling of cleared cards

ssmooth — 2007-03-14T23:24:23+00:00

Yes, the correct rules call for the discarded cards to be shuffled separately from the rest of the deck and then to be put at the bottom of the (otherwise unshuffled) deck.

A particularly clever player might thus have a clue about what cards are going to appear in a particular part of the deck.

All players can rest assured that the whole deck will be dealt out before they start seeing discards again.

Thread: Re: Shuffling of cleared cards

Verkisto — 2007-03-14T22:31:26+00:00

If there are discrepancies between the rules, then by all means, use the older translation over my vanilla summary. I had only played the game once before attempting the summary, so I may have missed some critical subtleties of the rules.

Thread: Re: Shuffling of cleared cards

CortexBomb — 2007-03-14T22:12:17+00:00

We always keep the discarded cards separate until they are needed for the last round (generally), at which time they are shuffled to become the new draw pile.

If you shuffle as you go (i.e.: entire deck) it definitely would make the game play differently and make predicting the contents of the deck in the last round much more difficult.

Thread: Shuffling of cleared cards

seppo21 — 2007-03-14T21:49:49+00:00

I noticed that the English translations here give two different methods for shuffling the cleared cards prior to dealing the next round. In the "vanilla" summary (SJ.doc) the new dealer shuffles the discarded cards into the draw pile (by which I assume it actually means deck). In the older English rules (SCHNAPJG.DOC) the discarded cards are shuffled together and placed under the other cards. While I've not played this game before, I would expect that the latter method would make a difference in a four player game as observant players would have a reasonably good idea of the cards likely to appear in the last round. Is there any consensus (or opinion) on how this is generally done?

Thread: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Schnäppchen Jagd

CortexBomb — 2007-03-02T16:43:46+00:00

The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Schnäppchen Jagd

Schnäppchen Jagd is a trick-taking game featuring a 6 suited, double ranked deck with ranks from 1-9, and two "Super Sonder Angebot" cards which are super trumps. The game is intended for 3-4 players, and features "Every Man for Himself" play at either scale.

So what is play like? Pretty much standard trick-taking fare. Players have to lead a card, and then follow suit, if possible. The deck is large, and 6 suited, and only a portion of it is dealt out each hand. Players slowly work their way through the entire deck, and when the end of it is reached, then it is reshuffled to keep the game going. Why is this important to mention here? Because the large number of suits combined with partial use of the deck means that card play is somewhat chaotic. Players are almost always short-suited somewhere. This, thus, gives them regular opportunities to take advantage of Schnäppchen's bizarre trump procedure.

In short, there is no set trump suit for each trick. One player leads a card, say, an 8 of Squares. The second player has no cards in that suit, and tosses a 7 of X's. That second player now has to declare either "It Is" or "It Isn't", this declaration refers to whether the X's suit would be trump for this trick. There is only one trump suit allowed for each trick, and it is always created by such declarations. If the second player said "It Isn't" on their play, the next player who played an off-suit card would have a similar opportunity to declare "It Is/n't", and so forth. As with standard trick-taking games, the highest trump card takes the trick, barring trumps, the highest card played in the suit led. The only cards that are always trump and always beat everything are the Super Sonder Angebot cards, of which there are only two in the deck.

One other, minor nuance involved has to do with the double ranks. Each rank occurs twice in each suit, and Schnäppchen deals with this in an interesting way. If I play an identical card to a trick, say, a 9 of Circles on another 9 of Circles, I can then choose whether my card is "Higher" or "Lower" by making a declaration when I play that card, in effect, choosing whether I am trying to take the trick, or trying to pitch.

So the play is fairly easy to grasp, albeit a bit weird in spots. However, the scoring system takes a bit more work to explain. Prior to the start of the game, each player chooses a card, with an eye on its rank. Players simultaneously reveal their chosen card, and leave it sitting face up in front of them. During play, any cards that one takes that are of the same rank as the chosen card (called "The Bargain") go underneath the face up card, and constitute positive points. Everything else goes into the junk pile, which will be negative points at the end of the game. "But", you ask me, "How does anyone ever score positive points?". At the end of each round, players have a chance to "clear" a single rank of cards out of their junk pile. If they have enough of a single rank in that pile (the number varies based on player count) then they not only get to discard the junk, but also get to set a new "bargain" (a new rank they will be looking for in subsequent rounds of play) and can also score some positive points. For instance, in a 3 player game, the minimum number of cards to clear to set a new Bargain is 3. If I have 2 cards ranked 2, I can still clear them out at the end of a round, so they don't count against my score, but my Bargain pile will not be increased, and the cards that I'm hunting for will still be the same rank. However, if I have three 2's in my junk pile, I can discard two of them at the end of the round, and the third would go onto the top of my Bargain pile. It would then be worth a positive point at the end of the game, and would be the card I was looking for during the next round. If I have really been collecting 2's, and I have, say, six of them, I would have to discard 2 of them, and then the other FOUR would go into my Bargain pile, one face up on top, and so forth. Essentially, what this means is that players try to collect a lot of cards of a given rank, even if it isn't currently scoring them points, because it will allow them to make big clears later, and score a lot of points in the process.

Game Length
Short, usually about 30 minutes. The game play is a set number of rounds, 6 with 3 players, and 4 with 4 players.

Suitability for:
Casual Gamers: Moderate
Medium Weight Games Fans: High
Heavy Weight Game Fans: Moderate to Low

Essentially, this game is fairly easy to grasp, so more casual card gamers should not have any trouble with it. The game is light enough to be irksome to some heavier weight game fans, and tends to be somewhat chaotic.

Scales:
Plays only 3 or 4 players. Most people strongly prefer 3 players because of the increased number of rounds, increased number of clears, and general greater control of one's fate. I don't mind it with 4, but it certainly seems better with 3.

Replayability:
No real built-in playability. There is no strong variation in the game via powers, rules variants, or the like. There is also no bidding. Like all card games, this will depend largely on whether the game "clicks" with you though.

Aspects to keep in mind:

More filler than main event: There are a lot card games that I consider a major part of an evening of gaming. Tichu, Cosmic Eidex, Doppelkopf and their ilk take a significant amount of time to play, and seem to offer a decent bang for that time investment. Schnäppchen is more of a filler game, it is fairly light, fairly fast playing, and fairly chaotic. It is something that is nice to have on hand if you're waiting for someone to show up, but it is not big or depthy.

Chaotic card play: As I referenced above, the card play in this game seems to be out of hand much of the time. 6 suits, and relatively small hands means that players are almost all short suited, which means the game is largely about being short-suited at the right time, in the right place, with the right cards on the trick. There is no real ability to plan out your hand, or to control play in any significant way.

Expensive: This was published by Queen several years ago and never received a North American release. As a result, the game is quite expensive for what it is. Although I recommend having a real deck (mainly because of the charming art on the cards), the price of the game is prohibitive for what it offers.

My final slant: I find Schnäppchen charming, but not filling enough. I tend to like card games that have a bit more meat on their bones, while this is clearly aimed more squarely at the "Euro gamers killing a few minutes" crowd. That said, if you're looking for something to fill a half hour every once in a while, and you have a few people who like trick-taking games, this one might be worth looking into. The trumping procedure, while somewhat frustrating because of the inherent chaos that it adds to the game, is what makes this game stand out for me, and it does make the game feel original; and originality is a cardinal virtue for any card game in my book.

Thread: Re: Schnäppchen Jagd: How to Make Your Own Deck

Tatsu — 2006-08-15T20:51:32+00:00

MisterCranky wrote:
While both are lovely ideas, I found it even simpler to blow 31 bucks at BGGM on Jürgen Schick's new shrinkwrapped copy. It may be out of print, and it may be overpriced, but it's still out there hiding in Europe all over the damn place, and it feels GOOD to get the real game.

The real game looks nice and has good high quality cards. Its also 30 EURO (not $30) plus shipping from GERMANY. So lets say $45. $45 is an awful lot for a card game.

Thread: Re: Schnäppchen Jagd: How to Make Your Own Deck

themore5@earthlink — 2006-08-15T19:48:27+00:00

I have no problem with people creating their own deck of Schnaeppchen Jagd. This is a very good trick taking game that has long been out of print, and I have heard nothing about it being reprinted. $30 is a ridiculous price to pay for a card game. I am fortunate that I bought it years ago, and didn't have to pay a crazy price for it.

With that said, I wonder why it hasn't been reprinted. Perhaps trick taking games just aren't that popular... One example of such a game being reprinted was Where's Bob's Hat? Alan Moon did add the Hat cards, which made it a bit more interesting, but this is also an excellent game, and I am glad he was able to get reprinted. I play it regularly.

I wonder if Queen Games still retains the rights to this game. They seem to be a bit of an odd game company. Look what Rio Grande Games has gone through with them, in regards to Industria and getting English boards for the English edition. Ain't gonna happen.

If Queen still holds the rights, it may never get redone, which would be a shame. It may be Rosenberg's best game- definitely my favorite.

Image

helyanamanso — 2006-01-31T22:17:16+00:00

7, 8, 9

Image

helyanamanso — 2006-01-31T22:17:08+00:00

4, 5, 6

Image

helyanamanso — 2006-01-31T22:13:53+00:00

1, 2, 3

Image

helyanamanso — 2006-01-31T15:52:09+00:00

rules - cover

Image

helyanamanso — 2006-01-31T15:25:16+00:00

yellow kind of orange

Image

helyanamanso — 2006-01-31T15:22:45+00:00

red

Image

helyanamanso — 2006-01-31T15:22:34+00:00

purple

Image

helyanamanso — 2006-01-31T15:22:09+00:00

green

Image

helyanamanso — 2006-01-31T15:22:01+00:00

brown