There are a LOT of filler games available nowadays, so many that some of them never make it to the table. The bar has been raised, and a filler has to be quick, fun, and exciting – and easy to teach. A filler game that does not meet all of these qualities will probably be played rarely, if at all. So, when my friend first introduced me to Coloretto (Abacus Spiele, 2003 – Michael Schact), it didn’t immediately strike me as a game that was any of the above. The cards were pretty enough, but the rules seemed TOO simple to be any fun.

Boy, was I wrong. Coloretto, after that one playing and many more – has shot up to be one of the top filler games I’ve played, and one of my favorite games from 2003. For a game that offers so few choices, it has great promise and is extremely fun! The only problem I had with the game was the horrible card backs, but the fronts were gorgeous and handled the color-blindness problem splendidly.

Coloretto is simply composed of a deck of cards. This deck is composed of seven sets of colored cards – nine of each color (blue, pink, orange, yellow, green, brown, and gray). There are also three wild cards and ten light blue cards that have “+2” on them. Each player takes a card of one color and places it in front of them, along with a point summary card. The remainder of the cards are shuffled, with a “last round” card inserted fifteen cards from the bottom. One “row” card for each player is placed in a row on the table, a player is chosen to go first, and the first round begins.

On a turn, a player can do one of two things. For one thing, they can draw the top card from the deck, and place it with any row card on the table (as long as that row card has less then three cards already with it.) Or, they can take all the cards from one row card on the table, placing them in front of them. The next player to the right then goes, etc., etc. Once a player takes a stack of cards, they are out of that round and must wait until all players have taken a stack of cards. If every row card has three cards associated with them, then the player has no choice but to take a set of cards. After all players have taken cards, the round ends; and another begins. When the “last round” card is revealed, players play until the end of that round, and scoring occurs.

Each player scores points for every color they have collected, depending on how many cards of that color they got. For example, one card of blue is worth one point, but 6 cards of blue (the max) are worth 21 points! The catch is that only three colors count for positive points. If a player has more than three colors (which is almost inevitable), they must pick which three they want to count towards their total in a positive way, and the rest to detract points from their total. The “+2” cards give two points to a player – and are added to the total after the other points are computed. The player with the most points wins the game!

Some comments on the game…

1.) Components: The cards are of fantastic quality, something I’ve grown accustomed to from Abacus Spiele. Each card has a picture of a chameleon on it, with a background of a different color, and different texture (for color blind). The row cards, “last round” card, and summary cards are all a bland tan, contrasting sharply with the very colorful cards. This means I love the cards, right? Well, the faces – yes. BUT, the backs of the cards are a generic back that simply says “Abacusspiele” that they use for other games, such as Mamma Mia. This is simply poor taste, bad design, and frankly quite disappointing. I don’t care if the company thinks it will save them money – they shouldn’t cut corners like this – I want nice backs of cards! Also, included with the game was a bunch of blank cards for a game called Knatsch. Well, that may be a nice touch, but a bad marketing move on their part – I don’t want to be forced to buy an expansion for a game I don’t own. Still, even with these annoyances – I do like the cards, as long as we keep them face-up on the table.

2.) Rules: The rules are extremely easy – and really don’t entail much more than I’ve written above. The format (mixed with two other languages), really isn’t that great, and I had to look a few times to figure out where the English rules were. However, since they were so simplistic, I only had to read them once. The game is a breeze to teach, and I have found NO one who hasn’t picked up on it after one round – child or adult.

3.) Strategy: This game gives the player, at maximum, 6 choices per round. He first decides whether to take a row of cards or place a card. If placing, he then decides which row to place the card in. All in all, this really doesn’t present much analysis paralysis, and the game moves at an incredibly quick pace – sometimes finishing in only ten minutes. However, the choice of taking cards or placing a card can sometimes be hair pulling. A row may only have one card – but you want that card! Should you take it, or stay in the round hoping for a better card to be placed on it? This isn’t a decision that takes more than ten seconds, but it can be an agonizing ten seconds.

4.) Valentines: Just a quick note here. People who cannot do harm to one another should stay away from this game. If one person puts cards down that HELP another person, instead of hindering them, they can really throw off the game for everyone else. It’s a kindly cutthroat game, but it’s still cutthroat; and if you can’t handle that – stay away – you’ll annoy the other players.

5.) Fun Factor: When I read the rules, I wasn’t that impressed. But upon playing, I found that not only I had fun, but everyone I taught the game to did also. I have yet to see anyone dislike this game. It’s not always asked for; but when I suggest it, it is heartily welcomed. Luck plays a decent factor in this game – but knowing when to take cards, and when to hold is probably the greatest source of fun in the game.

I highly recommend this game. Despite my problems with the card backs, I think the production is excellent. I love games that take 1 minute to explain, 1 minute to set up, and 1 minute for people to catch onto the strategy. Then, only taking an average of twenty minutes to play – how can you go wrong? This is one of my favorite fillers, and I think will see play at our table for many years to come.

Tom Vasel