Game: Attribute

Thread: Re: Wacky Scoring Rules?

fastspinecho — 2008-08-17T21:48:17+00:00

Henry Rhombus wrote:
Yes, it's more fair than the system used in the Z-Man edition of the game, but it can be confusing to people who don't play many games since picking a green sheep card correctly scores points for two people, so you have to take cards off the deck to add to your score.

To make it fair but not confusing, why not eliminate scoring points if your card is taken (green) or not taken (red), keeping only the penalty. In other words:

- Score -1 point if you have a green sheep and your card does not get taken.
- Score -1 point if you have a red sheep and your card gets taken.

as well as the standard:

- Score +1 point if you take a card from a player with a green sheep.
- Score -1 point if you take a card from a player with a red sheep.

No need to keep track of points with pen and paper (or take cards from the deck), but no special advantage to those drawing red sheep.

Thread: The Random Gamer at the Cottage Next Door: Game #8 Attribute

EndersGame — 2008-07-23T03:04:32+00:00

Mr. HomoLudens: Well, I just spent a week at a cottage north of Toronto and played some games. Oddly enough, BGG user Ender Wiggins (EndersGame) and his family were at the cottage next door, so we decided to let him and wife play too. Sometimes we even let one or two of his kids play. Yes, the man has kids, although they don't often appear in his many, many photos. We did not let him take any pictures of our games, because the man's made enough GG already.

Mr. Ender: There's nothing like being on vacation and discovering that the random person in the cottage next door is a fellow gamer. Attribute was Game #8 in the many game sessions (see the first here) that resulted from this amazing discovery.

Mr. HomoLudens: This game got played once or twice. The scoring system does not work, and in the future we may have to figure out some way of fixing that. Right now if you get more red sheep than green sheep you have a much better chance of winning. So at the moment we don't play competitively - it's interesting and fun just to see what kind of word associations people make.

Mr. Ender: Attribute is an extremely fun game, especially when played late at night. A bowl of chocolate M&Ms on the table also enhances game play, and might I also recommend the Strawberry Zinfandel, and gypsy music soundtrack.

Mr. HomoLudens is correct that the scoring system is broken, but we were just having so much fun with the social aspect of the game, that towards the end we didn't even really bother too much with the scoring, but were just having fun enjoying the game itself. Everyone is a winner, really, and this is no cooperative game by any stretch!

Mr. HomoLudens: Each time we chose a theme, although I only remember one: relationships. As we found out there are a lot of adjectives that fit the bill here, and some are perhaps a bit too risque. Nevertheless, it's always quite fascinating to discover how other people think.

Mr. Ender: I'd played Attribute a couple of times before, and each time it has been a blast. The cottage edition/session was no exception. With the "relationships" category that we picked, perhaps this session was even one of the highlights.

Attribute is a very social game, and the fun lies in the players coming up with clever and funny ideas for categories or nouns, to which the adjectives of the game are matched. Actually the categories themselves need not be funny, but when combined with the adjectives they often become funny! Especially when they're about people! Ahh...nothing like making a game personal, and bringing the players into the game! Perhaps it might even be a useful tool for marriage counsellors, if the things we learned about what Mrs. & Mrs. HomoLudens think about each other is anything to go by. Oh wait, maybe they learned even more about what Mr. & Mrs. Ender think about each other! At any rate, this was a real blast, and I only hope that Daughter #1 in the next room was really asleep, and couldn't overhear our gameplay.

I've never played Apples to Apples, but I suspect that Attribute is the superior game of the two, mainly because players get to pick their own categories/nouns, and this room for creativity gives it more potential - although one would need to play it with the right crowd. But at the cottage we had the right crowd. Mrs. HomoLudens and Mrs. Ender were particularly in fine form, but ettiquette forbids me from giving any more details about some of the categories and combinations that resulted from their creativity and humor.

Final thoughts: Despite the issues with scoring, I think this is a great social game, and definitely want to add it to my own collection in the near future! Thank you Mr. HomoLudens for introducing us to this gem!

Thread: A light review of Attribute

TMuscle — 2008-06-24T20:40:23+00:00

I think this is better than apples to apples because there is a better scoring machanism and the fact that you can make up any topic that you can think of. You don't have to stick with the topic on the card like apples to apples.

Components:
164 attribute cards
60 sheep cards
rule book

Set-up:
Shuffle the attribute cards and deal 4 to each player. Shuffle the sheep cards and deal 1 to each player. Youngest player goes first.

gameplay:
The starting player picks a topic that comes to mind. Than he says it and everyone plays an attribute card based on what their sheep card is. If it is a green sheep card, you want someone to take it, otherwise you lose a point. If it is a red card, you want to keep it because you get a point. you also want to collect green sheep from other people. To do this, you grab it as fast as you can before someone else does and than you hope that it is a green card. If you grab a red, than you lose a point. so it is possible to get 2 points or lose 2 points.

I really enjoy this game because you have more choice than in apples to apples and you also have bluffing and suspense and hilarious topics you can make. Highly recommended for people finding a better game than apples to apples.

Thread: Re: House rules for more intense (& logical) gameplay

KentuckyKid — 2008-06-22T15:49:48+00:00

I fully agree with 2 and 3. As far as 1 goes, I like the fact that the player whose turn it is can choose a topic that easily matches their own cards/sheep. It adds a bit of strategy, imo.

Thread: Re: House rules for more intense (& logical) gameplay

kevinb9n — 2008-06-21T19:16:41+00:00

Instead of #1, we simply make the topic chooser announce a topic before he sees his sheep card.

Thread: House rules for more intense (& logical) gameplay

passthedynamite — 2008-06-21T19:14:39+00:00

Having played the game just last night, I couldn't help but feel that a common strategy (if it is even applicable to a party game) is to focus all attention on the card played by the player who had just called out the topic. If it were a green sheep card, it all then boils down to who can slap/claim the card the fastest for a quick and easy point since the attribute played will most often be an obvious connection to the topic announced.

Also, I felt that being able to comment on one's own card detracts from the "play on words" experience as it is very possible to influence others into agreeing or disagreeing with one's card decision by some measure of pleading or threatening with the other players since it is in one's vested interest to get the right combination of sheep identity and card status (claimed or not claimed).

Here are a couple of house rules that I have come up with that might help make the game more intense.

1. Have the player whose turn it is to name a topic sit out for the round by not collecting a sheep card. He will announce a topic (noun) that will be totally random (or maybe inspired by one of his 4 attribute cards), followed by a 10 second countdown for everyone to select a card from his/her hand to place face down in front of themselves. He will then count to 3 for everyone to simultaneously flip their attribute cards over and participate in the dexterity phase as well to claim cards. The topic announcer might have a slight reaction advantage over the rest as he does not need to flip any cards over, but this is offset by the fact that the maximum points he can get for the round is +1 (as he has no cards to play for others to slap on or to ignore). Failure to place a card facedown in 10 secs will incur a penalty of not being able to participate in the dexterity phase.

2. No commenting on one's own attribute card once flipped over. Instead, encourage commenting on other player's card choices in a bid to influence another into making a wrong decision (most likely claiming an attribute that belongs to an owner with a black sheep identity), which brings us to the 3rd and final suggestion for an intense attribute experience...

3. No retraction of decision-to-slap once cards have been claimed during the dexterity phase. This is to prevent players from being influenced by negative reactions (even subtle ones like frowning, sighing) from the ones whose cards are not supposed to be slapped upon (i.e. the ones with the hidden black sheep identity).

I have yet to test out suggestion one but will post the result once I do so. The other 2 rules have been tested and certainly helped to increase the fun factor by a lot more than when played without.

Hope this will help to provide a more intense and logical experience the next time you whip out this fantastic game.

Btw, if you think its worthy, geekgold of any amount will be much appreciated (16 more to an avatar!)

Thanks for reading!

Thread: Re: VARIANT of ATTRIBUTE

glaurent — 2008-05-13T15:00:47+00:00

game--player wrote:
Sorry, I'm probably dense - but what is meant by "+1/-1"? (I don't see any a "-1" for scoring mentioned any earlier in the article.)

Nate

The minus values are penalties of slapping (or voting for) a red card or having your red card slapped / voted for.

Thread: Re: Is live version of the game broken?

Melsana — 2008-05-05T17:29:34+00:00

Psauberer wrote:

If someone is having a tough time picking an attribute card, that is a dead giveaway that he/she has a green sheep but no good matches to the topic and they have to stretch to figure one out.

I thought that too... last night the person sitting next to me took a long time to choose a card, so I looked at it and it was a good match, and slapped it... turned out to be a red sheep. All her attributes were good matches for 'Golf'.

So no I don't think it is broken.

Thread: Re: VARIANT of ATTRIBUTE

Melsana — 2008-05-05T17:15:58+00:00

This sounds like a very reasonable variant for when you want to avoid the slapping.

Image

swuyau — 2008-05-02T14:50:31+00:00

Side box

Thread: Re: Why Attribute rocks Apples to Apples' socks

cferejohn — 2008-01-07T21:26:08+00:00

Sitnaltax wrote:

2. I've played A2A with and without the speed attribute. I didn't think it added anything. The last person was probably going to have their card tossed out for no good reason anyway. There's not a lot of deep analysis that goes on, not like RoboRally or anything, so there doesn't seem to be a particular need to get picky about it.

If you say so. I find the game dramatically different. People get much more attached to putting down the "right" answer, and they get much more upset when someone picks "Tomatoes" or the equivalent. Also, we've got a couple players who will take quite some time thinking about each of their cards. Really really drags the game in my opinion.

Thread: Re: Why Attribute rocks Apples to Apples' socks

Sitnaltax — 2008-01-07T14:05:15+00:00

cferejohn wrote:
1. Apples to apples does have rules for when the game ends. If anyone decides to ignore them and play until they get tired of it, well, why would you want to set your end condition as "we aren't having any fun"? seems a little antithetical to the point of playing a game to me.

2. Removing the speed attribute from apples to apples makes it a pretty boring game.

These 2 complaints seem to be "when people don't play by the rules they give, this game sucks".

1. People want to do it because they (correctly) try to treat the game as a social activity rather than a competition. The side effect of not bringing the game to a natural end is an unintended consequence. Also, it's obviously not phrased as "until we stop having fun" but "as long as we feel like it" or whatever. I am not an A2A owner but of the 4 groups I have played with, all have independently decided to do this (and without my suggesting it).

2. I've played A2A with and without the speed attribute. I didn't think it added anything. The last person was probably going to have their card tossed out for no good reason anyway. There's not a lot of deep analysis that goes on, not like RoboRally or anything, so there doesn't seem to be a particular need to get picky about it.

Thread: Re: Why Attribute rocks Apples to Apples' socks

kittyangel — 2008-01-07T13:58:23+00:00

Speaking of Apples to Apples. I heard someone on the cell phone justifying for it. She went like, "oh should I bring Apples to Apples to the party? The other end probably said what is that. She said "oh it's a game where you match adj. to nouns. And after few min, she replied, "don't judge it, it's fun." I guess it's even hard to get people to play main stream games.

oh ya, Attribute rocks, and apples to apples sucks.

Thread: Re: Why Attribute rocks Apples to Apples' socks

cferejohn — 2008-01-07T09:22:57+00:00

1. Apples to apples does have rules for when the game ends. If anyone decides to ignore them and play until they get tired of it, well, why would you want to set your end condition as "we aren't having any fun"? seems a little antithetical to the point of playing a game to me.

2. Removing the speed attribute from apples to apples makes it a pretty boring game.

These 2 complaints seem to be "when people don't play by the rules they give, this game sucks".

As for the arbitraryness of the selection, well, I enjoy that part (and it gives you a chance to take advantage if you know the judge well or to learn something about them if you don't; bet you'll always remember that person hates tomatoes), but I can understand it being frustrating.

Thread: Re: Why Attribute rocks Apples to Apples' socks

Sitnaltax — 2008-01-07T05:44:07+00:00

ekted wrote:
I enjoy Attribute a lot on BSW. My one criticism is that it seems that almost every possible "noun" ends up being "good" or "bad". This drives the selection of cards. If someone chooses, say, some popular band that everyone likes, you will look at your cards and find the ones that are "good" if you have a green sheep and the ones that are "bad" if you have a red sheep. It doesn't matter if the words match or not in any practical way, as long as good matches good (eg shiny, hot) and bad matches bad (eg dull, cold).

I would have thought that players would choose "difficult" nouns to make this harder. For example, if you have "shiny" in your hand and you have a green sheep, say "aluminum foil" for a noun. Your life is now easy and everyone else gets to look for an appropriate adjective--and aluminum foil doesn't have a whole lot of positive or negative emotions around it.

Thread: Re: Why Attribute rocks Apples to Apples' socks

ekted — 2008-01-07T02:16:39+00:00

I enjoy Attribute a lot on BSW. My one criticism is that it seems that almost every possible "noun" ends up being "good" or "bad". This drives the selection of cards. If someone chooses, say, some popular band that everyone likes, you will look at your cards and find the ones that are "good" if you have a green sheep and the ones that are "bad" if you have a red sheep. It doesn't matter if the words match or not in any practical way, as long as good matches good (eg shiny, hot) and bad matches bad (eg dull, cold).

Thread: Why Attribute rocks Apples to Apples' socks

Sitnaltax — 2008-01-07T01:06:20+00:00

Attribute is naturally compared to the more mainstream party game Apples to Apples (below, A2A). I consider Attribute a much more fun game and have listed the ways the differences create a more enjoyable experience below.

A rules summary is available here. The "revised" scoring is easier and more intuitive, but penalizes players who happen to draw green sheep. The "original German" scoring is definitely more fair but a little harder to explain. If people want to compete in the score, they'll probably want to learn German scoring. Otherwise the standard scoring will average out over the long run and probably be just fine.

Fewer Bad Cards

In A2A, the adjectives are sometimes pretty specific and despite the fact that you have seven cards in your hand, sometimes nothing really seems to fit. Furthermore, there are some really terrible nouns (Dust? Creamed Corn?) that fit only a select couple of adjectives ("boring", "banal"); and some cards relating to specific people that not everyone will have heard of.

By contrast, the Attribute adjectives are broad, applying to many things, and the fact that you might have to come up either with a good match or a poor match makes things even better. Despite a hand of only four cards rather than seven, you will more often feel like you can make a good choice.

No Rejection

I get enough rejection in my personal life to have to deal with it in my party games too. Not that I am bitter. But in A2A, it's frustrating to have a good match you were proud of rejected for no good reason. (Adjective: Horrendous. I play The Black Plague. Judge picks Tomatoes because she doesn't like them on sandwiches.) In Attribute, other players stand to gain from trying to sincerely understand your play, so a good match is less likely to be rejected for no good reason.

New Friend-Friendly

With its highly subjective (at best) and telepathy-requiring (at worst) judging system, playing A2A with a group of people you don't know very well can seem like a frustrating maze of in-jokes and secret knowledge. How was I supposed to know Tom really really hates peaches? A2A rewards the player who knows everyone at the table. Although some knowledge of people's preferences is useful in Attribute, it's much less critical than in A2A. And there's still a period for banter in between rounds so the new person can learn about the group and figure out what's going on.

This is a double-edged sword, of course, and there are definitely folks out there who like reading their friends' minds. If this is you, well, go out and buy A2A if you don't own it already.

Natural End

"It's not about winning, it's about having fun, so we won't keep score, we'll just play until we're tired of it." A noble sentiment! Unfortunately this means A2A tends to overstay its welcome because people have to get really sick of it before they take the effort to stop. Attribute has suggested number of times around the board (rather than racing to a certain score--less like competition) and a small enough deck that you can play through once and then say the game is finished.

Twice As Many Decisions

Rather than just choosing or just judging, in Attribute you both choose and judge every round. As someone who enjoys the decision-making aspect of games, this is a strong appeal of Attribute over A2A for me. The fact that you have to be first in the judging round adds an extra layer of excitement and tension.

More Portable

There's no reason Attribute shouldn't fit in a cargo pocket; even the somewhat overproduced, overboxed Z-man edition is easy to carry around. A2A takes two hands with its big box and zillions of enormous cards. I normally wouldn't bring this up in a game review but as a party game, you might well also be trying to carry soda, cookies, chicken, whatever and arm space could well be at a premium.

So why is A2A so popular? Well, Attribute has a couple of qualities that might be seen as flaws. As you can probably tell from my prose, they are not the kind of things that mar my enjoyment!

Can't Play It Blind Staggering Drunk

Being falling-over incapacitated drunk should minimally impair your A2A playing ability, especially if the other players are in a similar state. Although I have not tried it, my estimation of Attribute is that enough judgment is required that it wouldn't work very well impaired.

Dexterity And Reflexes Required

This is the most sincere of the negatives. There is a snatching/speed element in Attribute that can't really be eliminated. It's nothing as potentially hand-bruising as Jungle Speed or Egyptian Ratscrew, but some players might not like it. Speed-wise, A2A has only the stipulation that the last player doesn't get to play a card, but this is easily waived (especially if a older/slower/whatever player asks) and in my experience often is.

No Power Trip

In the judging round, A2A gives a great power trip to the judge. They get to slowly cast aside the submissions they find unworthy, and some players seem to really get off on this. In Attribute, the judging has to be quick. If you really like slowly telling people their ideas aren't good enough for you, Attribute won't give you a forum for doing that.

Thread: Re: Basic Questions

scattered — 2008-01-01T02:00:47+00:00

My Z-Man Attribute set fits neatly into a plastic deck box. With the cards turned sideways two stacks fit in along with the folded rules for people who do not trust my explanations and rulings (hmmm, maybe I should "forget" to bring the rules).

Two good ideas for the blank cards:
1) use some for R-rated adjectives (or worse) that the publishers cannot include with a family game, (you know what your gaming group likes and needs) and
2) use some to personalize the set "Joey likes this" and "Joey hates this" for players usually in the game and reasonably well known to the group.

As the game gets played you will be better-and-better known to your gaming group, possibly.

Now, about my surplus green Z-man box, I am taking offers.

Image

sandysidamo — 2007-12-22T20:51:02+00:00

Sampling of the 1 Point Attribute Cards

Image

fehrmeister — 2007-12-13T02:14:42+00:00

Quite Possibly the Most Oversized Game Box Ever

Thread: Re: Wacky Scoring Rules?

fehrmeister — 2007-12-13T02:12:59+00:00

I think I'll play with the original German rules next time and keep score with a pencil and paper. My brother might even try playing it again with us this way - he wasn't too impressed with the fact that the person who gets the most red sheep has the best chance of winning.

I think this is a good game - actually more replayable than Apples to Apples with the chance to pick topics to describe out of the air instead of relying on cards.

Image

fehrmeister — 2007-12-05T05:56:35+00:00

Back of the Z-Man Edition Box

Image

Verkisto — 2007-12-02T19:48:38+00:00

The sheep cards.

Image

Verkisto — 2007-12-02T19:47:35+00:00

Samples of the noun cards.

Thread: Re: Basic Questions

Hanno — 2007-11-06T23:29:06+00:00

The Lookout version is in German. ;-)

You can get an empty green box directly from me. Pick-up appreciated.

Thread: Re: Basic Questions

dvader123 — 2007-11-01T20:41:51+00:00

Thanks for the replies, but now I'm wondering where I can get the newer version of the Lookout game.

Thread: Re: Basic Questions

unixrevolution — 2007-11-01T14:46:11+00:00

dvader123 wrote:
1. What are the blank cards for?

2. What's the difference between the Lookout version and the Zman version?

3. Is there a preference for one version over the other among the BBG Attribute fans community?

4. Which of the two is the actual Lookout version?
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/185329
http://www.boardsandbits.com/product_info.php?products_id=12...

They seem to have different box covers.

Thanks in advance. I read these rules and it seems like a fun party game.

1. The blanks are for you to make your own words.

2. The Z-man version, from what i can see, comes in a larger box. Far too large, in fact.

3. I like my Z-man version just fine. It's pretty much the same either way, I think.

4. They are both the Lookout version. One is the new edition (green box), the other is the old edition (sheep box.)

Thread: Basic Questions

dvader123 — 2007-11-01T03:51:12+00:00

1. What are the blank cards for?

2. What's the difference between the Lookout version and the Zman version?

3. Is there a preference for one version over the other among the BBG Attribute fans community?

4. Which of the two is the actual Lookout version?
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/185329
http://www.boardsandbits.com/product_info.php?products_id=12...

They seem to have different box covers.

Thanks in advance. I read these rules and it seems like a fun party game.

Image

cuazzel — 2007-09-20T20:07:19+00:00

Attribute sheep in hell (bottom of german edition box)

Image

cuazzel — 2007-09-20T20:05:37+00:00

German edition game info

Image

cuazzel — 2007-09-20T20:00:15+00:00

German edition box front

Image

boneroller — 2007-09-04T20:53:59+00:00

What I Think of this Game

Thread: Re: VARIANT of ATTRIBUTE

game--player — 2007-08-23T10:08:01+00:00

Sorry, I'm probably dense - but what is meant by "+1/-1"? (I don't see any a "-1" for scoring mentioned any earlier in the article.)

Nate

Thread: A very loud game tonight!

deborahjeanne — 2007-08-23T06:31:29+00:00

It was with some trepidation I brought out Attribut tonight, I have had mixed results the last two times I tried to teach it (to other groups). We are on vacation and the group consisted of myself, my husband (Jim), his sister (Joan), her 14 year old niece (Paige), and two friends Terri and Teresa (really).

I started by telling them that this was a somewhat difficult game to explain, and to bear with me. Then I had to turn to Terri and tell her she was not allowed to make any more animal noises while I was trying to explain it (we played pickomino last night, and man, can she cluck). Using Terri as an example of why I would choose the topic "Terri" and play the card "silly" with a green sheep more or less set the tone of the evening. At one point a friend mentioned to us that they could hear us from the road - our room is out by the beach.

We did remove a couple of cards as they came up for the 14 year old's benefit, and not one of the six of us knew what venal meant.

My husband, the only man playing, had the word "clueless", a green sheep and played them when Teresa chose the topic "women". What was more shocking was when Terri took his card!!

We were all very confused by Jim's topic, pronounced "miss is sip i" - but his word was "mispronounced". I thought that was cool.

I believe Terri and Paige were still not 100% sure about the scoring by the end of the game. Terri however won with 16 points, Joan had 15, Jim had 14 and I had 13. Don't remember Paige and Teresa's scores, but they were reasonable. We only played 4 rounds due to the time it was taking, though we did notice that the rounds started going quicker as people got the hang of the game.

Thread: Attribute - a review

Verseboy — 2007-08-23T02:32:15+00:00

(This review originally appeared at boardgamenews.com.)

Attribute

The Short Review
Attribute is a good game in the Apples to Apples vein. Essentially, you try to best match nouns to descriptors. In some ways I prefer Attribute; in some ways I prefer Apples to Apples. Such ambivalence sums up my feeling about this game: It’s good, but it’s not great, and I so hoped it would be great.

As an aside, Attribute bills itself as “the creative word game about associations.” Apples to Apples is “the frantic game of hilarious comparisons.” You can see for yourself why people might lump the two games together.

The Designer
Isn’t it funny how the mind can make certain associations based on minimal evidence? Marcel-Andre Casasola Merkle is the person who comes to mind when I think of game designers with a varied body of work. I’ve only played three of his games – Attika, Meuterer, and Attribute – but they are soooooooo different from each other. I’m sure other designers of note can point to a selection of games from their canon and claim structural and stylistic diversity, but that doesn’t stop me from viewing Merkle (Or is it more properly Casasola Merkle? I don’t know.) as the poster boy for game design diversity.

Background
Attribute is a game that has been on my radar for a long time. It was only recently, because of the new Z-Man Games release, that I was able to play it.

From what I can tell, Z-Man Games has purchased the cards from Lookout Games’ English-language version and repackaged them in their own box. My understanding is that Lookout’s version was released in Canada, but not in the United States. Assuming that is true, kudos to Z-Man for making it readily available to English speakers below the 54th parallel.

The Contents
The 6” x 8.5” x 2” box contains 164 Attribute cards, 60 sheep cards, 1 two-sided rule sheet, and 3832 sheep. Fortunately, the sheep are not molded plastic pastel sheep (as one might expect to find in a game of Through the New Zealand Desert)! The count comes from all the sheep pictured on the cards.

The first thing that must be commented on is the box size. There have been complaints about how large it is relative to the small-format cards. Indeed, the cards take up roughly 2/9th of the box, leaving 7/9th to be filled with a three-section cardboard insert.

At the risk of ending up with a fence post up my rump, I’m going to take a position squarely on the fence on the matter of box dimensions. Some people have said if you’re going to have a box that size, at least have normal-sized cards. I believe the small format cards are necessary for the frenetic nature of a a seven- or eight-player game, the details of which I’ll explain below. I don’t like wasting that much space in a box, particularly when my limited storage capacity affects my game-buying decisions. At the same time, I understand the nature of retail and the need to be noticed on a game store shelf. A simple tuck box is far easier to overlook when browsing a store. Plus this box will hold up to wear far better than a tuck box. So I understand what Z-Man was doing when they created the box, but I wish they would have made it a little smaller.

The cards are all good stock. They shuffle easily and should hold up well.

The Attribute cards serve a dual function. The front of the cards each have a different attribute or characteristic. Some examples are “overrated,” “spunky,” “striped,” “underestimated,” and “hazardous to health.” They are gold-colored on the back, complete with a drawing of a gold coin. You play using the front of the card. When you win a point, you turn the card over to the gold coin, which represents your winnings.

The Sheep cards are either positive or negative. The positive cards have a white sheep on a green background with lots of plus signs on it. The negative cards have a black sheep on a red background with lots of minus signs on it.

The rules are well laid out and graphically interesting. Examples are provided to make everything more clear.

Setup
Shuffle the Sheep cards and the Attribute cards separately. Deal four Attribute cards and one Sheep card face down to each player.

Game Play
The object of the game is to acquire as many gold coins (the backs of the Atrribute cards) as possible. Here’s how you do it.

The start player picks a topic, which can be anything at all. The topic can be one of the other players; it can be George Bush; it can be existentialism; it can be the color yellow; it can be mercy. The start player isn’t randomly grabbing a topic out of the ether. She is selecting a topic that will work with her Sheep card and one of her Attribute cards.

If she has a green sheep, she will choose a topic that is best described by one of her Attribute cards. If she has a red sheep, she will want a topic that doesn’t match the Attribute card she intends to play.

With the topic announced, all the players choose an Attribute card based on their own sheep, their cards, and the given topic. They put their Sheep card face down on the table and put the selected Attribute card face down on top of it. When everyone is ready, on the count of three all the Attribute cards are turned over.

Then the grabbing begins. If you see an Attribute card that you think describes the topic, you grab it and its corresponding face-down Sheep card and put the pair in front of you. You can only grab one set of cards, and you don’t have to grab any if you think none of the remaining cards match the topic.

Once everyone has grabbed an Attribute card (or chosen not to), the Sheep cards are revealed, and the scoring begins. There are four ways to score:

If you grabbed a set with a green sheep, you score a point.
If you grabbed a set with a red sheep, you lose a point.
If your set didn’t get grabbed and it had a red sheep, you score a point.
If your set didn’t get grabbed and it had a green sheep, you lose a point.

In a nutshell, you want to grab a set with green sheep, and you don’t want anyone to touch your set when it has a red sheep under it.

When you score points, you take the Attribute card and put it in a pile near you, turning it to the gold coin side. When you lose points, you discard from your winnings pile. If you lose points when you have no winnings, then you lose nothing. You can’t go in the hole.

All the players receive another Attribute card to fill out the hand to four cards. They also get a new Sheep card with each new turn. Play passes to the left as another player chooses the next topic. A round is played when everyone has chosen a topic. The number of rounds depends on the number of players, but the total number of hands played will be from 14 to 18.

Plusses
I like the fact that topics are chosen by the players. It adds a limitless variability to the game.

I also like those moments of total deflation when you see a hand reach out and grab the Attribute card you played with a red sheep. (If you’ll recall from above, you score a point if no one selects your red sheep.) I’ve had this happen with cards that I was certain no one would touch.

One instance will illustrate how differently minds can think, and this is one of the joys of the game. The topic was “a circle.” I had a red sheep, and I played it with the Attribute, “square.” To my total incredulity, my daughter grabbed it. Her reasoning was that a quilt can look like it has circles even if it’s made out of squares. My wife designs quilts. If you go to http://www.judymartin.com/Scraps-Poll-Results.cfm and go down to Week 3 and look at Monet’s Wedding Ring, you can see the quilt that is on our daughter’s bed. The circles, the wedding rings, are made out of squares. So my daughter’s perfectly reasonable logic cost me a point! Dang her!

Another plus for me is that you only have four Attribute cards in your hand at a time. It can lead to some painful decisions where none of the cards adequately matches the topic, and you’re left to choose the least bad card from the hand. If you held more cards, it would increase the chances of your having the perfect card and make the game less engaging.

Minuses
Attribute is what I call a “slapping” game. It rewards quickness. You have just a moment to read the newly exposed Attribute cards and slap your paw down on a set that you think possesses a green sheep. I’m sure for some folks that slapping makes the game more festive and party-like. For me it just underscores my poor reflexes.

I’ve also had some problems with people getting confused about the scoring. This might be an indictment of my rules explanations, but I don’t think so. It might also be an indictment of the kind of riff-raff I play with, but again I don’t think so. There are two kinds of scoring going on: You score (plus or minus) for what you grab, and you score for what you laid out that doesn’t get grabbed. On the surface that seems easy enough, but in the heat of the moment, I’ve seen people get confused, and in some cases get confused repeatedly. This may have to do with the heat of the moment, the fact that this is a slapping game.

Anyway, even though this is a party game, a number of people I’ve played with have had a learning curve to deal with. I don’t think it’s a game killer, but it does tamp my enthusiasm for the game.

Final Thoughts
Attribute is a good game that plays in 30 minutes, which is the right amount of time for what it is. If you like games that play to your creative side, and if you don’t mind having to think and act quickly, you’ll enjoy Attribute. We’ve had fun every time we’ve played it.

I give it a 7 out of 10.

Thread: Re: It’s got sheep

unixrevolution — 2007-08-21T19:44:57+00:00

Dingus wrote:
My worst Apples to Apples game was better than my one Attribute game. There are more laughs and the scoring is fair and straightforward.

My personal experience is that they are about the same. The only complaint I get for Attribute is the lack of "topic" cards. People have a hard time taking it off the top of their heads.

A2A is more straightforward, and the meaning of "fair" is debatable. if "Fair" means "the person who submitted the best answer", then I don't Apples to Apples is fair all the time.

Thread: Re: New Zman edition box is seriously oversized..

Dingus — 2007-08-21T18:23:09+00:00

Thanks, ThatMarkGuy, for reminding me of Perpetual Notion. Great combo with Attribute, which I'm not too happy with as it stands. And I'd forgotten about those cool trays.

Thread: Re: It’s got sheep

Dingus — 2007-08-21T17:35:33+00:00

My worst Apples to Apples game was better than my one Attribute game. There are more laughs and the scoring is fair and straightforward.

Thread: One Girl's Opinion: Attribute

Rusty567 — 2007-08-05T06:19:35+00:00

Overview
Attribute is a highly entertaining game that combines word-matching and dexterity (how fast can you recognize and grab a 'good' card). It's listed as suitable for 3 to 8 players, getting better as the number of players increases. I see no particular reason it couldn't also work with 9 or 10; however, all of the players have to be sitting close enough that they can reach everybody else's cards, so that may be the limiting factor.

Attribute benefits from having players that are willing to be a little silly, and in-jokes will likely arise if the group knows each other well. Mind you, I've played some great sessions with strangers on BSW, so it doesn't require that you already know each other. The game is very flexible in the different kinds of groups it can accomodate - it's kid-friendly (as long as the kids can read; let them trade in an attribute card if they don't understand the word) but it can be played in a decidedly non-kid-friendly way as well. In my opinion, one of Attribute's greatest selling points is that it can adapt to pretty much any group's sense of humour.

How to Play
Superficially, Attribute is like Apples to Apples in that you're trying to match an adjective to a noun. The main differences are that in Attribute:

1. You're not necessarily trying to make a 'good' match every round; sometimes, you want to make a 'bad' match.
2. There is no judge. All of the players participate in determining whether or not a match is considered 'good'.
3. More than one player can score in a round.
4. The players take turns selecting a topic - rather than having one provided on a card. (This increases the replayability significantly - unlike some party games which are pretty much 'dead' once you know all of the possible answers.)

At the beginning of a game, each player is dealt four attribute cards and one sheep card. The sheep card will feature either a white sheep with a green border or a black sheep with a red border. Each attribute card features one adjective (the 'attribute').

[INLINEIMG]http://images.boardgamegeek.com/images/pic232796_t.jpg[/INLINEIMG][INLINEIMG]http://images.boardgamegeek.com/images/pic232797_t.jpg[/INLINEIMG][INLINEIMG]http://images.boardgamegeek.com/images/pic232798_t.jpg[/INLINEIMG]

A player is selected to choose and announce the first topic. Everyone then chooses one of their attribute cards and places it face down in front of them. Players with a green sheep card attempt to play an attribute that matches the topic well; players with a red sheep card attempt to play an attribute that matches the topic poorly.

Once everyone has played an attribute, they are all flipped over simultaneously, and it's a free-for-all. Everyone is looking to claim a 'good' match (that isn't their own). Since it's unlikely that all players had a green sheep card, there won't be enough to go around. To claim an attribute card, slap your hand down on it - bottom hand gets the card (and the bruises). It's important to note that you're better off claiming no card than a 'bad' card. It's also important to note that *everyone* is looking for a good match at this stage - it no longer matters what colour your sheep card was.

Now that the round is over, the cards are scored. The scoring system that comes with the game is just weird:

+1 point if you had a red sheep and nobody claimed your attribute card
-1 point if you had a green sheep and nobody claimed your attribute card
+1 point if you claimed an attribute card from a player with a green sheep card
-1 point if you claimed an attribute card from a player with a red sheep card

It's simple, but there's no reward for playing a 'good' attribute if you had a green sheep card and no penalty for playing a 'bad' attribute that wasn't bad enough to avoid being claimed. We use the original German scoring rules (implemented at BSW) instead:

+1 point if you had a red sheep and nobody claimed your attribute card
-1 point if you had a green sheep and nobody claimed your attribute card
+1 point to both players if a player claims an attribute card from a player with a green sheep card
-1 point to both players if a player claims an attribute card from a player with a red sheep card

To clarify, here's a sample round:
It's Susan's turn to pick a topic and she chooses "curry". She has a green sheep card, so she plays "spicy" as her attribute. Linda also has a green sheep card and is well known to hate curry; she chooses "unmistakable". Andrew is well known to love curry; he chooses "awardworthy" to go with his green sheep card. Joan has a red sheep card and chooses "soothing". When all the cards are flipped, Susan's and Linda's cards are quickly claimed. Joan's is clearly a mismatch so is not claimed, but neither is Andrew's. Susan and Linda both get +1 point for their green sheep attribute being claimed, Joan gets +1 point for her red sheep attribute not being claimed; Andrew gets -1 point for his green sheep attribute not being claimed. The two players who claimed "spicy" and "unmistakeable" get an additional +1 point each.

Note that, in this example, it helps to know the players involved. Coming from Andrew, "awardworthy" is a 'good' match - from Linda, it would have been a 'bad' match. Then again, what if the four attributes in her hand had been "awardworthy", "delicious", "furry" and "sweet"? There will be times when your 'bad' match is claimed or your 'good' match isn't. That's where a lot of the game's fun comes from. "What do you mean bubblegum isn't real?" "My cat isn't wide! or dense!" "Gardens aren't monstrous!" "Well, hers is!" "Hey!" ...

At the end of the round, everyone who scored positive points flips over their attribute card and adds it to their points pile (taking a second attribute card from the discard pile or deck, if necessary). Everyone who scored negative points adds their attribute card to the discard pile.

]]>

Everyone also turns in their sheep card and is dealt a new sheep card and a new attribute card to bring their hand back up to four attributes. The next player looks at their cards, and chooses a topic to kick off round two. The game continues essentially until the sheep cards run out (making sure everyone gets an equal number of turns picking the topic):

3 players pick 6 topics each
4 players pick 4 topics each
5 or 6 players pick 3 topics each
7 or 8 players pick 2 topics each

Bits and Pieces
I have the 2003 Lookout Games edition; later editions have larger boxes but the same size of cards. The cards are tiny (4.4 x 6.7 cm = 1.75 x 2.62 inches) as is the box (9.5 x 7 x 3.5 cm = 3.75 x 2.75 x 1.38 inches). This makes it easy to pop the game into my purse, briefcase or pocket - which I consider to be a very good thing. In the image below, the small edition (with a sheep on the cover) is tucked inside the bigger Bohnanza-sized edition.

]]>

The artwork is adorable - if you like cutesy cartoon sheep - and the red/green sheep cards have three different ways of knowing which kind of card you have, so there's no problem for the colourblind. A "positive" sheep has + signs in every corner, a green border and a white sheep. A "negative" sheep has - signs in every corner, a red border and a black sheep. The attribute cards have the word printed across the top and bottom of the card so that there's no "upside down". The text is as big as it can be given the card size; however, the small size of the cards means that it's best to play in a well lit room unless all players are eagle-eyed. The attribute cards also double as points with a golden sheep-coin on the back. Whoever's sitting next to the main deck needs to make sure they keep their points separate from the deck!

General Impressions
Attribute is one of my favourite party games. I've played with family, friends and strangers and it's been a lot of fun in each environment. What I like best about the game is the silliness that arises. Topics get repeated because the topic chooser finally got a card that works well with one of the weirder topics from earlier in the game. Topics include players, pets and friends in addition to the more normal subjects. Players try to pick topics that work perfectly for their cards but makes no sense for anyone else's cards. (My mum picking "Dickens' house" because she had "bleak", for example.) This can make for some bizarre - often amusing - combinations. And you never know whether that bizarre match was the best a player could do or the worst.

I give Attribute an A (possibly lower with three players - I've not played with less than four). I strongly recommend it as a quick, light filler or party game for gamers and nongamers alike - particularly those who enjoy wordplay and bad puns and those who think they might enjoy making their opponents try to come up with attributes to go with "strip club", "tinkertoy" or "Fred". It doesn't take up much space in the games cupboard, is portable and relatively inexpensive compared to most of the popular party games.

]]>

Thread: Re: Wacky Scoring Rules?

Henry Rhombus — 2007-08-01T02:46:24+00:00

chaddyboy_2000 wrote:
Wouldn't the following scoring make more sense?

- Score -1 point if you have a green sheep and your card does not get taken.
- Score +1 point if you have a green sheep and your card gets taken.
- Score -1 point if you have a red sheep and your card gets taken.
- Score +1 point if you have a red sheep and your card does not get taken.

Chad, this scoring system is used in the original German edition of the game. Yes, it's more fair than the system used in the Z-Man edition of the game, but it can be confusing to people who don't play many games since picking a green sheep card correctly scores points for two people, so you have to take cards off the deck to add to your score. It's a minor hassle for gamers, but some folks can't handle it, which is probably why Z-Man made the change.

Eric
Editor, http://www.BoardgameNews.com

Thread: Re: It’s got sheep

unixrevolution — 2007-07-12T16:21:43+00:00

ixnay66 wrote:
emperorhand wrote:
I hate playing Apples to Apples anymore because our games always degenerate into randomness, where the judge picks a card seemingly without any thought behind it -- and random players win.

I once played this and the winner was going to win a shrink wrapped copy of Nexus Ops. And yet we had one guy that when faced with "Jurrasic" and a card like "T-Rex", he would say "I'm going oddball on this and picking the LEAST like the card so...Vacuum Cleaner."

Sigh...

Why not just flip a coin for the game? What a lame-ass.

Part of A2A is that the judge can choose on any criteria he chooses. However, I will say it's about the LAST game i'd play where a prize is involved.

A2A is best enjoyed with friends, where you all know each other and know how to pander to the judge properly.

Thread: Re: It’s got sheep

ixnay66 — 2007-07-11T14:48:26+00:00

emperorhand wrote:
I hate playing Apples to Apples anymore because our games always degenerate into randomness, where the judge picks a card seemingly without any thought behind it -- and random players win.

I once played this and the winner was going to win a shrink wrapped copy of Nexus Ops. And yet we had one guy that when faced with "Jurrasic" and a card like "T-Rex", he would say "I'm going oddball on this and picking the LEAST like the card so...Vacuum Cleaner."

Sigh...

Why not just flip a coin for the game? What a lame-ass.

Thread: Re: It’s got sheep

emperorhand — 2007-07-11T14:25:33+00:00

melissa wrote:
Everyone asked, "why would you play this when you could just play Apples to Apples?"

I think the biggest difference between this and Apples to Apples is that Attribut actually requires some thought and/or skill to successfully play. I hate playing Apples to Apples anymore because our games always degenerate into randomness, where the judge picks a card seemingly without any thought behind it -- and random players win. Attribut is much more enjoyable because of its red sheep/green sheep mechanic.

Thread: Re: It’s got sheep

melissa — 2007-07-11T14:18:11+00:00

ynnen wrote:
Finally, I like the real-time touch of trying to evaluate and select a good answer (if there is one) quickly - the added tension may force someone to jump the gun and grab a bad match.

There are lots of things to like about Attri, but it fell very flat the one time we broke it out in person.

Playing on bsw, I find that the regular ~~clean~~ topics can be pretty dull (and the stupid 'insane' wordset is just ... ovine inting).

I've wondered whether it was just a flat night the night we broke it out, but I don't think I'd ever get anyone to play it again!

Thread: Re: It’s got sheep

ynnen — 2007-07-11T13:59:56+00:00

melissa wrote:
Everyone asked, "why would you play this when you could just play Apples to Apples?"

I came away with the exact opposite feeling -- why bother playing Apples to Apples when I could play this?

What I liked about Attribute over AtA is that the "judge" player (in Attribute the one declaring the topic) is still actively involved. And since each person is individually judging/evaluating the responses, there's far less bias - unless you're the one exerting it over your own choice.

I also like the idea of making the best out of your limited hand w/o being to justify or explain them, putting less focus on extemporaneous BSing and more on rapid-fire play through the round.

Finally, I like the real-time touch of trying to evaluate and select a good answer (if there is one) quickly - the added tension may force someone to jump the gun and grab a bad match.

Thread: Re: It’s got sheep

melissa — 2007-07-11T12:35:28+00:00

Interested that you enjoyed this Paul - when we played it, we found it fell very flat. Everyone asked, "why would you play this when you could just play Apples to Apples?"

Of course, we weren't playing the "adult" variant which certainly seems to make the game more fun - and is probably the only way I'd get anyone to give Attri table time anymore.

Thread: It’s got sheep

Paul Mackie — 2007-07-11T07:33:00+00:00

Another recent release from Z-Man that I believe Neil F. picked up in Albury. Better than I expected it would be, and reminiscent of Apples to Apples.
Each turn you hold 5 adjective/adverb Attribute cards, and a fresh face-down green “+” sheep or a red “-” sheep (you get to see yours, but no-one else’s). The active player then announces a thing/person, etc., and then you play one of your Attribute cards on top of your sheep. Play an Attribute that matches the announced thing if you have a green sheep. Play an Attribute that doesn’t match (an antonym) if you have a red sheep. All players then reveal, and then you have to “snap” the card of any one other player that you think is holding a green sheep. If you’re right, you score the Attribute card as a point. If you’re wrong (ie., you picked a red sheep), you have to return a point card. If you had a red sheep that was not picked by another player, then you score the played Attribute card.
Sounds simple? We had to do a walk-through turn before we all got it, and even then it still took another turn for some of us to get it! But by the third turn, we all got it!

Funny, interesting, and a good filler. Scores another plus from Alex because “…it had sheep”.
9 minutes rules and demo turn; 30 minutes game time (3 or 4 rounds for 6 players).
Results: Pat: 18. Paul: 16. Neil F. and Alison: 12. Alex: 11. Brian 10.

(Originally posted in The Mine Shaft Gap.)

Thread: Re: Wacky Scoring Rules?

chaddyboy_2000 — 2007-07-10T21:24:32+00:00

Yeah, I realize it's just a party game, but that doesn't mean it has to have crappy imbalanced scoring rules!

I think I'll just play with the variant scoring and scrap the original scoring rules.

Thread: Re: Wacky Scoring Rules?

fnord23 — 2007-07-10T20:26:31+00:00

The rules are that way so you can score soley based on what is in front of you at the end of a round; you don't have to remember who played what or where it was grabbed from.

One of the problems with this is that you have to play at a small table (especially with higher numbers of players), so everyone can reach most or all of the cards.

When I play (often at larger tables), I usually use colored markers that you can place or toss on the set that you want to claim. And then we score as suggested earlier.

Thread: Re: Wacky Scoring Rules?

lstr — 2007-07-10T20:18:37+00:00

In the game I played we scored by keeping the scoring attribute cards which I think is the reasoning behind the original rules, since only one person can keep the scoring attribute from a taken green. (I think the card backs actually say +1 point or something) Your version and a score keeper with pen and paper makes more sense though.

Thread: Re: Wacky Scoring Rules?

habermanm — 2007-07-10T20:09:49+00:00

Good idea. I brought this up with Jay. I think I would play this way with other gamers in the future, but for family fun I suppose it gives the less quick a chance to win sometimes.

Thread: Re: Wacky Scoring Rules?

KentuckyKid — 2007-07-10T19:15:59+00:00

I think that the game as implemented on BSW uses the scoring system you suggest. I find that it works better to play that way (rather than by the system listed in the rules), and that is the way I've generally taught the game. I make a brief comment about the BSW scoring variant in my review.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/71600

-Darin

Thread: Re: Wacky Scoring Rules?

kevinb9n — 2007-07-10T19:13:21+00:00

you could "fix" this imbalance by giving everyone their own identical deck of sheep cards to shuffle and draw from. but.. it's just a party game anyway.

Thread: Re: Wacky Scoring Rules?

ynnen — 2007-07-10T18:59:38+00:00

This question came up a bit over the weekend. I totally dig Attribute, but after the first two plays, several folks felt the same way as you outlined above - that getting Red Sheep was simply better.

I think as a party game, this is fine, and will usually (more or less) balance out over the course of a game. Especially since you can't always make a very good match with your limited adjective cards, sometimes even a Bad Match will be selected simply because it looks like the best option on the board.

I found the rules and the scoring fairly intuitive after one round of play - but several of the other gamers I played with had a very hard time tracking the scoring based on what was left in front of you...

Thread: Wacky Scoring Rules?

chaddyboy_2000 — 2007-07-10T18:53:02+00:00

Does anyone else find the scoring for this game kind of odd?

The rules where you score positive for selecting a card from a person with a green sheep or negative for selecting a card from a person with a red sheep make sense, but the following doesn't make much sense to me.

The rules state that you:
- Score -1 point if you have a green sheep and your card does not get taken.
- Score +1 point if you have a red sheep and your card does not get taken.

Doesn't this just favor players who luck out and pick more red sheep throughout the game? Wouldn't the following scoring make more sense?

- Score -1 point if you have a green sheep and your card does not get taken.
- Score +1 point if you have a green sheep and your card gets taken.
- Score -1 point if you have a red sheep and your card gets taken.
- Score +1 point if you have a red sheep and your card does not get taken.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just trying to figure out why you would score per the rules.

Thread: Re: New Zman edition box is seriously oversized..

thatmarkguy — 2007-06-23T12:37:09+00:00

Another way to pack more Attribut into your Attribut box: dig up a copy of 'Perpetual Notion' at a thrift store. You'll find it contains 400ish full-size cards each bearing one adjective or descriptive phrase, plus four handy-dandy multi-tiered card holders.

Thread: Re: New Lookout edition box is seriously oversized, too?

Hanno — 2007-06-22T21:25:36+00:00

Lookout Games changed the size of the box for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the tuck boxes really showed some wear and tear if you carried them around for a while.
Second, with Attribute II, the EN version and the booster packs all out there, we decided that having a box where you could carry *all* your Attribute cards in is a good solution.

Well, I hear you say: Attribute II? Booster packs? They're just in a German language edition.
True and not true. While the DIY booster packs with 30 blank cards can be seen as International Edition (I don't care if you put German, English or Swahili attributes on them), there might be room needed in the box for upcoming expansions. You never know.

So before you play the "oversized" card, make sure that people really believe that you have a green sheep. :-)

Thread: Re: New Zman edition box is seriously oversized..

Karlsen — 2007-06-22T11:31:29+00:00

thatmarkguy wrote:
How many (attribute) cards does the set contain? The same as the original. The box is way oversized. The original "box" was fairly crappy, going to a standard Amigo size box would have been a good compromise.

Thread: Re: New Zman edition box is seriously oversized..

thatmarkguy — 2007-06-21T18:13:31+00:00

How many (attribute) cards does the set contain?

Thread: Re: New Zman edition box is seriously oversized..

steveoliverc — 2007-06-21T17:33:28+00:00

The original edition was in a nicely-sized tuckbox, so that's too bad the new edition isn't in the same size of box. Oversized boxes make me grumpy