The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Defenders of the Realm
Super Mario Bros. Card Game
Dominion
Attack of the Dead
Runewars
Dominion: Alchemy
All Things Zombie: The Boardgame
Duel in the Dark
Dungeon Lords
Agricola
War of the Ring Collector's Edition
Frontline D-Day
Thunderstone
Arkham Horror
Summoner Wars
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Taktika
Star Fleet Scramble
Twilight Struggle
Race for the Galaxy
Hansa Teutonica
Washington's War
1989: Dawn of Freedom
Small World
Battlestar Galactica
Prophecy
Fairy Tale (Fan Expansion to Dominion)
Puerto Rico
Glory to Rome
Battles of Westeros
Stronghold
Chaos in the Old World
Endeavor
The Republic of Rome
Race for the Galaxy: The Brink of War
Le Havre
Adventure of D
Wars of the Roses: Lancaster vs. York
Pandemic
Warhammer: Invasion
Descent: Journeys in the Dark
Warlords of Europe
Tobago
Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game
War of the Ring
Power Grid
Rezolution: A Dark Tomorrow
Space Hulk (3rd Edition)
Brass
Memoir '44
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
1
4 Posts
Subject: User Review rss
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mikko Saari
Finland

msg tools
Avatar
mb
Canal Grande » Forums » Reviews
User Review
I played my first games of Canal Grande last weekend and as I've heard very little about it, I thought I should share my thoughts. First of all, I'm not familiar with San Marco, so I'm not biased either way in that regard.

First of all, the cards are very ugly. The backs are hideous and the pictures are very fuzzy and unclear. Could've been much better! The rulebook is ok (at least when compared with, say, Vom Kap Bis Kairo), but the game seems awful lot more complicated than it is.

Basically it's "I divide, you choose" all the time. As I have a brother two years younger than I am, this mechanic is very familiar to me from my childhood. It causes some kind of learning curve, as it's quite hard to know what's good and what's not in the beginning, but after few games one should be able to do some tactical manoeuvring in the division.

After the cards are divided, the chooser takes the pile he or she wants and does what the cards say. District cards and gondolas are taken to hand, number cards are placed on table and other actions carried out. Traitors allow one to steal one card from one's opponent, spies give one extra cards from the deck and doges start votes.

These votes are what counts. When voting starts, the challenger (the player who played the doge) plays a district card, choosing where the vote takes place. Now the defender can play cards. The defender has to play at least one similar district card. Cards for other districts can be used with the gondolas. Players take turns playing cards until both sides are done. The winner takes the original district card and loses all other cards used. Loser discards the first card played and all gondolas used, but keeps the rest.

Then the divider takes his or her actions. After that, if neither player has acquired ten points, the roles are reversed and new turn starts. If ten points has been reached, then the player who has less points takes three extra cards from the deck. The player with more points is also the next divider. Number cards are then discarded and the decks shuffled anew.

The game is over when a player has either at least one card for each of the six districts or four cards from one district. Latter is a good goal, if you happen to have all five cards for one district...

I played few games and enjoyed the game, at least somewhat. Votes were usually won by single card, which opponent couldn't match, which is somewhat boring. But sometimes doges wouldn't appear for a turn or two, and the players were able to gather a larger pile of cards, leading to a bit more exciting votes. If that's desired more, perhaps removing one or two doges could be possible. I wouldn't remove any traitors, though - they are your only hope, if your opponent has all five cards from a district. If he or she doesn't lose any of them, the game is practically over as they can play them one by one and win for sure. Of course, that'll take some time as they can only have one vote over that district each turn.

I hadn't a chance to try out the four player partnership game. I assume it's a bit more interesting. Right now, my rating for Canal Grande is about seven. Nice and interesting at least for a while, but nothing spectacular. Pretty much what you'd expect from an Adlung game, I suppose?
Mikko Saari
Finland

msg tools
Avatar
mb
Later thoughts
I haven't tried the four-player version yet, but I have tried the variant (original rule by Moon & Weissblum, if I remember correctly) where players can participate in the votes without having the right district card. I've yet to say which way is better, but it's not a bad rule and I suggest you try it out if you're annoyed by the votes won with just a single card.

My rating is still about seven - mediocre, but on the good side of mediocre.
Peter R.
Italy
Bozen
Italy
msg tools
designer
Avatar
Re:Later thoughts
msaari (#7388),
I don't know this variant! Can you explain the rule please? I like the game very much, but can see that the little amount of district cards can hurt the game! Please enlighten me!
Mikko Saari
Finland

msg tools
Avatar
mb
I hope you have figured it out already, but here it is for other folks looking for it:

Add two cards for each district from a second deck. It's from Bruno Faidutti: http://www.faidutti.com/index.php?Module=ludotheque&id=202
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | DMCA | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.