I’ve now played Race about eight times, including the sessions before it was actually published. And that’s enough for me to conclude that, while I like and admire the game, I’ll never love it, certainly not nearly as much as so many of my peers. Given the game’s astonishing popularity (some fans report averaging three, four, five, or even six playings a day) and the fact that I’m a big fan of designer Tom Lehmann’s games, it’s natural to wonder why that should be so.

One reason may be my lack of enthusiasm for CCGs. Race obviously isn’t of that genre, but it originated from one and, to me, it bears a reasonable resemblance to a CCG. Out of the 114 cards in the game, only 19 are duplicates, so you’ve got a whole bunch of different cards to deal with. Having at least some familiarity with those different types is quite important. You also have to work out how they work together and what the good combos are. Moreover, the high-scoring "6" cards are all different and many of them are quite complex. Lots of different cards, combos, complex interactions — even without a deck building aspect, that sounds a lot like a CCG to me. I can see the average RftG player poring over the deck, working out these tactics, but that’s not the kind of thing I’d ever do. Consequently, I’ve found this to have a much higher learning curve than many others have.

When I mention that Race isn’t an 11 for me, the first question I’m usually asked is if I like San Juan. Actually, I love San Juan, but despite the fact that it’s one of the two parents of Race, I don’t think the two games feel much alike at all. SJ scores with its speed of play and its approachability. There’s only a couple of dozen different cards and most of them are very straightforward. It should only take a few games to get the hang of most of the strategies, which is very appropriate for the middleweight game it is. Many of these strategies revolve around the "6" cards and they’re all easily understood. Race, on the other hand, is very much a gamer’s game. There are multiple ways to play cards, multiple ways to add cards, and lots of different ways to score. There’s a large number of strategies and it probably takes quite a few games to even discover some of them. The "6" cards are just as important, but most of them feature numerous ways of assigning VPs and many of them are very difficult to easily summarize. They may be children born of the same mother, but they are anything but identical twins.

I’ve also found that the sheer variety of Race is something of an impediment to picking it up. Some have complained about the iconography on the cards, but I think Tom, Jay, and lead playtester Wei-Hwa Huang did a terrific job with them. But there’s just so many powers and abilities in the game that it’s almost impossible to make them all crystal clear without a verbal explanation. I’ve found this to be another mild barrier to getting into the game. In addition, this variety makes it very difficult to quickly perceive what your opponents have in front of them until you’ve pretty much memorized the deck. This lessens the interaction in a game that already can play like a solitaire game for the inexperienced.

The biggest issue for me is probably the way my group approaches games. Most Race fanatics report playing it multiple times in a session (sometimes five or six times in a row). It's very rare that my group plays a game even twice in a row. And that’s the way I like it, as I’m very big on variety. But without the reinforcement that this repetition provides, I’m not sure I’ll ever be totally comfortable with the play of this game.

So for me, a typical game of Race has me stumbling through my turns, constantly checking the player aids, and squinting at the card icons, my eyes never leaving my own hand and display. At least once a game, I encounter a card whose function I cannot understand from its icons and, more often than not, I’ll just use it as payment rather than ask for an explanation. My strategy shifts from turn to turn, with little coherence. Usually about two thirds of the way through the game, I’ll check what my opponents are doing and try to take that into account. But it isn’t that much of an issue, as I’m usually far behind by then.

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t dislike this game. I think it’s very clever and don’t mind the play at all. But it’s been eight games now and I still feel like I’m in the early stages of learning it. I don’t need to win a game in order to enjoy it, but there needs to be some minimum level of competence in order for me to really feel like this is a worthwhile use of my limited gaming time. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and I think that’s the prudent thing for me to do with Race. I’m happy the rest of the gaming world loves it and I’m particularly happy for Tom and for Jay. But when I think of Mr. Lehmann and 2007, it’s Phoenicia that I’ll be pining to play and not the more popular Race for the Galaxy.

Update: Okay, I was recently at a session with someone who wanted to learn Race, so, even though this isn't a favorite, I was happy to accomodate them. And then he wanted to play it again! Twice in a row! Yes, there was actual physical pain!

However, I have to admit, the game did flow a bit easier for me when played back to back. And even stranger, I won both games! Now I'm still not sure I'm any closer to grokking this. While both victories came relatively easily, it seemed as if I decided on a strategy early on and I kept picking cards that matched that strategy. So maybe more good fortune than any real understanding. It has made me a bit more receptive to playing Race in the future, but it's still not a game I think I'll ever request. But it was nice to play a couple of games where I didn't feel I was in a fog (and even nicer to win both of them!).