Having played a few rounds of Twilight Struggle, I was prepared to approach this game, and it probably helped a lot in learning it and moving straight in to it. It definitely seems lighter, though it also moves a bit more quickly as a result. The key mechanism of the game is in the cards, since they do a number of different things, and there's a nice metagame aspect to it at the beginning of each round, as you try to determine how to play your hand, and which cards to save for the debates and the election. I didn't quite make it through my first game, but I look forward to the next one.

The second game saw some improvements, in that we think that we were playing the support draws from the bag incorrectly in our first game. The different ways that the cards work in different circumstances, and the timing of playing the cards, is what gives the game its tension. There are some key areas that deserve the most attention on the map, but it's important not to overlook the smaller states, also.

All told, it probably lacks some of the depth that players find in Twilight Struggle, but the fact that this game is usually over in about two hours, tops, whereas Twilight Struggle can last for up to five hours, makes it a nice game to have for when you have that itch, but don't want to devote that much time to a game.

2 plays: 2 players

There are some games that I hate because of the chaos, and then there are other games that I love because of the chaos. This game falls into the latter category. I don't think this game is meant to be played strategically, or seriously (though there are certainly tactics that will help you win), but even if you do play that way, I think you'll enjoy the game. If not for Geschenkt, this would probably hit the table a lot more.

1 play: 2 players
3 plays: 4 players
6 plays: 5 players
4 plays: 6 players

-----

Base game
Plus

GAME SYSTEM: This is, remains, and will always be a 10 for me. After about 6 plays, I realized that I loved this game for many reasons, and I simply can't imagine ever not wanting to play this game.

Age of Steam gets a bad rap for being a heavy game, but it's not really that bad. I think people see that the game is UNFORGIVING, and assume that it must be a heavy game, but the turn order makes sense, and flows logically from one point to the next. There are certainly some angsty moments as the game attempts to squeeze the life out of you, and there are some incredibly tense moments as you attempt to out-think other players in what special action they may choose, and then wait to see what they're going to do. Overall, though, this is probably better classed as a medium-weight game system, with the possibilities of certain expansion maps making the game that much harder.

Speaking of expansion maps, this is a large part of what made this game a 10 for me. The base map is fine, and is a great introduction to the system, but that the system is versatile enough to allow for different adjustments and tweaks for different maps makes the game that much more appealing to me. There are so many different maps, that provide so many different takes on the system, that it's hard to imagine the game ever getting old. Even if you wind up playing the game on the base map, if it's been several months and several games since you played on it, the experience will still be new.

Furthermore, playing different games on the same map will show you how the system really adapts for replayability, because a previous game may have given the impression that a particular map was easy, when in reality it was the goods distribution that made it so. Play the same map again, and you may find that the goods come out in such a way as to make it impossible to make a first turn delivery like you were hoping to do.

Versatile. Replayable. Challenging. Crushing. It's everything a game should be for me, and THAT is why it's a 10.

-----

RUST BELT: This is probably the best map to introduce new players to the game, just because it's the least quirky and the most accessible. France is gentler, but not as challenging, and the Rust Belt doesn't have all the wild rules to wrap your head around like some of the later maps. It also plays well with larger numbers, which is good, since many of the later maps work best at lower numbers. That being said, though, I tend to play the expansion maps more than I do this one.

1 play: 3 players
4 plays: 4 players
2 plays: 5 players
Rating: 7

-----

SAHARA (prototype): This is my own design, so I like it. As of 9-30-07, it still needs some tweaking.

2 plays: 3 players

-----

Base game
1830s Pennsylvania
1867 Georgia Reconstruction
20,000 Rails under the Sea
Alabama Railways
America
Antebellum Louisiana
Austria
Barbados
Bay Area
Beer & Pretzels
Berlin Wall
Brazil
CCCP
Central New England
Chicago
Chile
China
Disco Inferno
Eastern US & Canada
Egypt
England
Europe
Four Corners
France
Germany
Golden Spike
Holland
India
Ireland
Italy
Jamaica
Korea
London
Madagascar
Mars: Global Surveyor
Mexico
Mississippi Steamboats
Montreal Metro
Moon
Netherlands
New Hampshire
New York Subway
Northeastern USA
Northern California
Oklahoma Land Rush
Pittsburgh
Puerto Rico
Reunion Island
Scandinavia
Secret Blueprints of Steam #1
Secret Blueprints of Steam #2
Secret Blueprints of Steam #3
Soul Train
South Africa
South America
South Carolina
Southern US
Spain & Portugal
St. Lucia
Sun
Switzerland
Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico
Vermont
War in Iraq
Washington DC
Western US
Zombie Apocalypse: Michigan
Zombie Apocalypse: Pennsylvania

Alpha Centauri
Australia
Chesapeake & Ohio
Cheshire
Colony
Connecticut Corridor
Corsica
Frontline
Hong Kong
Iceland
India
Japan
Mongolia
New Zealand
Northern England
Portugal
Random Map Generator
Scotland
Siberia
Slovakia
Spain
Umbria

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: The difference here is the static goods that come out via the port in Santa Cruz, and the big-ass city of San Jose that make the total number of cities on the board much less than you would expect. The cities being farther apart make it a more challenging map, with Urbanization being a more powerful action than usual. I wouldn't recommend this one for beginners, but for experienced folks wanting something more challenging than the base map, they should enjoy it.

1 play
Rating: 8

-----

1830s PENNSYLVANIA: This is a much tougher map, and is much harder to get right out of the box. If you undervalue the use of the coal, while other players are taking advantage of those goods, then you're going to be left behind as they speed off into the sunset. This map has the unfortunate distinction of my first experience witnessing a player going bankrupt, on the second turn.

1 play: 5 players
Rating: 7

This is a neat idea, but it seems to add a lot of chaos to a system that rewards careful planning and manipulation of the board. Not knowing where or when the next tile would be placed, or when a city would no longer be able to accept a particular good, made things a little more difficult, but not necessarily in a good way. It removes some of the good tension of being squeezed by the game, and replaces it with the worry of what chaos would happen when the map creation is out of your control. Plus, the idea that this map can be played with more than 3 is frightening.

1 play: 3 players

EUROPE: The express track isn't quite as useful as one would expect it to be, and it's darned expensive to build, so you're going to be in debt paying that thing off for a while. The production rules need some clarification (which is here in a different thread), as the way they are written is slightly confusing. Otherwise, this is a decent map, but nothing outstanding.

1 play: 5 players
Rating: 7

AUSTRIA: If you're looking for a 2-player Age of Steam map that feels most like a standard game of Age of Steam, this really isn't your best choice. Scotland probably does the best job of keeping the game as close to the base game as possible, but it's not a very different experience; Austria, however, is DIFFERENT. It's kind of amazing how a few building restrictions -- mountains and solid black lines are impassable, you can only urbanize foreign markets, and you can't build incomplete track -- make such a big difference in the game. I wouldn't recommend the map to beginners, but for experienced players with not enough people and/or time to play a multiplayer game, it's a good choice.

1 play: 2 players
Rating: 7

-----

INDIA: In a game like Age of Steam, chaos and randomness should be avoided. The goods growth element is fine, and allows for some unpredictability in the game that is (I admit) necessary, but the monsoon rule really turned me off from this map. There are some good things about the tweaks (the production rule makes the action slightly more valuable, but not as valuable as on Mexico, and the cluster of blue cities in the middle of the board makes those cheap builds a little less useful), enough so to keep me from never playing it again, but I seriously dislike the random monsoon. I usually like the Steam Brothers' maps, partly because their tweaks are usually economical, whereas others tweak the build or action mechanisms, but this one is not a favorite among their designs.

1 play: 4 players
Rating: 7

BARBADOS: This was my first solitaire experience with Age of Steam, and I was mildly impressed with it. It retains the feel of the basic game through the use of blocking certain actions once you use them, and the scarcity of goods retains the feel of the game, as well. The only thing lacking in the map was any sense of competition, which creates the turn angst that I like so much about the base game. I could leave incomplete track without the threat of someone else taking it from me, and I didn't have to worry about leaving certain goods for someone else to take. There's a real sense of importance in how you plan your network, such as when to urbanize and when to produce, that retains a certain flavor, but it just can't compare with the real thing. Still, as soon as I was finished with the first play, I was ready to play it again, since I saw what I should have been doing.

2 plays: 1 player
Rating: 6

-----

ST. LUCIA: While we were playing this, my opponent commented that 2-player Age of Steam maps are more puzzle than game, and I can sort of see what he means, especially in this case. The lack of cities is interesting enough, which makes for some very critical choices in your track building. The standard game requires that players be efficient in their building, and that's even more true here. Twice, I built dead-end track just to get to a couple more goods to keep me going in the game. It's probably not the best 2-player map I've played, but it's definitely among the weirdest any-player Age of Steam maps I've played.

1 play: 2 players
Rating: 6

The factories are a unique addition, and adopting the "piggy-back" delivery rule is useful in the later game, but the goods are so plentiful that the real challenge is in managing your cash and maintaining your profit margin. The biggest issue would have to be with the way factories produce instantly and randomly, introducing a chaotic element to an otherwise strategic game, and since 5-player Age of Steam is already chaotic enough, I can't see myself playing this one too often.

1 play: 5 players

CHILE: This is a tight map, since the only cheap terrain is along the coastlines, and the costs of the high mountains are so horrendous. On the one hand, it makes you think that shares should be worth more money, but on the other, delivering gold knocks off one of your shares, in addition to giving you income. It's a nice balancing mechanism, but this is a map that should only be attempted with experienced players. In my one playing of this, two players went bankrupt, one on turn 2, and another on turn 3. It might be a little too harsh on newbies.

1 play: 6 players

Rating: 7

SOUTH AMERICA: In the tradition of other Steam Brothers' maps, this one tweaks the economics of the game more so than the traditional special action or build actions. The El Presidente action is a nice one, since any blue cubes delivered will trigger the payment, so if you can anticipate deliveries, it might be a decent choice to make.

1 play
Rating: 8

-----

CHINA: It reminded me some of South Africa, just in reverse, since now it costs MORE to build into cities, whereas in South Africa, the map paid YOU to build in to cities. It was harsh, and unexpected, but still a decent experience.

1 play: 5 players
Rating: 7

DISCO INFERNO: Wow. You lose cities when they're used up, you can lose goods through chain reactions, and you'll lose income if you start whistling disco songs if it isn't your turn. BRUTAL. And just as great as would be expected.

1 play: 3 players
1 play: 4 players
Rating: 8

-----

SOUL TRAIN: I think this has to be the weirdest map yet, and not because of the setting. The weird way that goods travel up the board force players to engineer their network from the very first turn, so there's a huge learning curve to this expansion, even more so, I think, than 1830's PA. I like the way the mechanisms come together, though, and I'm very interested in playing the map again, with a better understanding of how the map develops.

1 play: 4 players
Rating: 7

IRELAND: What a weird map. The colorless cities, paired with the de-urbanization rule, make for an odd assortment of goods cubes, with much of your track spent connecting to cities that you can only connect FROM, and not TO. It takes a turn or two to get your head around that, and the locomotive rule makes for some other considerations with your income. It's tight, agonizing, and everything I would expect an Age of Steam map to be.

1 play: 3 players
Rating: 8

FRANCE: The map of France is more forgiving, as are the rules for the game, but it loses a bit of the remarkable tension that comes with the base game. It's a good game for people just getting introduced to the game, but it won't really prepare them for playing the base game, as money ceases to be an issue about halfway through the game. I hear that it's better with more players, so I'll try to give the map a try with that number before dismissing it completely. Solvency aside, though, it's still a challenging map that takes some finesse to win.

2 plays: 3 players
Rating: 6

-----

ITALY: I expected this to be a harsher, more challenging Age of Steam experience, but with the share rules, the lack of income reduction, the major changes to the most powerful actions, and the ability to build as much track as possible, it was a little disappointing. It was almost too friendly, even though our one play of the map was made difficult with the goods distribution. Even the use of black goods giving players negative impact seemed to have less of an effect on the game as I would have expected, since it was rarely in a player's best interests to choose that over giving herself positive income. I hear it plays better with more players, but I'm not sure I would like the map much tighter than it already is.

1 play: 3 players
Rating: 6

PUERTO RICO: This was my second solitaire Age of Steam experience, and I didn't like it as much as Barbados. Jamaica has a weird feel to it, in that the first half of the game is spent building up your income, and the second half of the game is spent watching it spiral down to nothing as you work to deliver the weapons to San Juan. I went bankrupt in the first game, and then only scored points off of my track in the second game. I don't know if that's normal. It's an interesting iteration on the system, and I wouldn't mind trying it again.

2 plays: 1 player
Rating: 6

This was the first P&P Age of Steam map I played, and I was impressed with it. It made for a tight race to the end of the game, and with just 4 of us, we were all up in each others' kitchens for most of the game. With 3, it was still very tight, and complex track becomes very important from the midgame forward. The rules changes aren't major, but they do require you to rethink the way you traditionally play the game, due to the locomotive limitations.

1 play: 3 players
1 play: 4 players

This is an odd map, but I think I like it. That the player colors act as cities of those colors for one turn is interesting, and the spherical nature of the map (like the Moon) add to the challenge of the map. The rules are far too confusing, as is, so I'm not entirely sure that we played it correctly the first time we played. I like the weirdness of the map, but the way that new green discs generate makes it hard to control who delivers them, and when. I'll have to play the map again to see if my opinion changes at all.

1 play: 4 players

MEXICO: It takes a turn to really get how the Nationalization move can benefit you, but once you get it, and can plan for it, it's like having stations in Ticket to Ride: Europe to keep you from getting locked out of a town. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It's hard to say. I'm interested, though. If nothing else, the map makes production more valuable, and that's always a good thing.

1 play: 4 players
Rating: 7

GOLDEN SPIKE: Despite the rules mistakes we made (well, *I* made), this is an enjoyable map. I think it lends itself to an interesting sort of experience, since it requires some cooperation between players. The hidden track came as a surprise to me near the end of the game, considering the amount of points it gave players, but I think playing a second time would keep me from doing that again. Neat-o mosquito.

1 play: 4 players
Rating: 7

I like the way that the government track can be played offensively or defensively. I like the way that the competition remains fierce. I like the way that the contiguous track encourages competition between all three players. So far, I really like the map. I look forward to more plays, to see how the map develops with more plays.

1 play: 3 players

NOT for beginners. The map is very crowded, even with the minimum of three players, and since all players are forced to build out of the central city on the map, it means that the goods will remain in strong competition throughout the game. The way that track wraps around the board is brilliant, and creates opportunities for ingenious builds to get to a part of the board you thought was locked away from you. Add in the low gravity and night/day rules, and you have for an enjoyably tight, enjoyably competitive Age of Steam map that makes a lot of changes to the base game system.

1 play: 3 players
1 play: 4 players

Tight, tight, tight. There's not TOO too much new in the game that requires a new way of thinking, but the shares are going to rise up a lot less quickly than one wold expect. Plus, the -5 points per share at the end of the game is going to hit players HARD if they don't plan for them. My biggest complaint is that the hexes need to be larger, and there needs to be an easier way for the players to see and analyze the demand of the cities. Otherwise, this is a nice map, despite the inherent chaos of seven players involved in the same game.

1 play: 7 players

This is a nifty idea that was ruined by a rules ambiguity that forced us to stop halfway through the game. It was just starting to get interesting at that point, which is a shame. I'm hoping that getting clarification will be useful enough for us to attempt the map a second time, as it looks challenging and unique.

1 play: 5 players

NORTHEASTERN US: The weird city layout makes for some challenging track builds, and the fact that there are only two colored cities to urbanize (none of them yellow or blue) just makes it that harder to figure out. This is a map that probably requires more co-operation than usual, but it's still an enjoyable experience.

1 play
Rating: 8

-----

SOUTH AFRICA: This is an even tighter map than most of the other brain burners, if only because any new track placed has to trace back to a coastal city through your own track. The higher connection costs for the land-locked cities, paired with the weird restocking rates for the dark cities, makes for a tough challenge, balanced out slightly with the payment players receive for building in to the dark city. Part of me wonders if the game will likely go to the first person to build in toward the 5-6 dark cities and Rhodesia, but experienced players likely wouldn't let that happen too easily.

1 play: 5 players
Rating: 8

This was one of the first of the fan-made expansion maps, so there aren't a lot of weird and challenging changes to the rules like you see in Disco Inferno or the Moon. The fact that two cities receive goods on two different die rolls for production, and that the ports receive goods for die rolls that "miss" make production more valuable here than on the base map. This would bump the map up a bit over the standard map, in my estimation, but the fact that this map also plays 5 very well is what bumps it up to a 9.

2 plays: 5 players

The distribution of cities is interesting, as is the method for choosing special actions, but the one game of this I played was marred with a rules ambiguity that we couldn't resolve -- exactly HOW the volcano erupts. I would like to get clarification and try this a second time, as it looks like a unique challenge.

1 play: 2 players
Rating: N/A

SCANDINAVIA: This is probably a good "second step" map from the Rust Belt, since not too much is changed here. Ferry movement takes at least one turn with someone using it to grasp its importance, and the bottleneck at the bottom of the map can cause frustration, but the layout and rule tweaks aren't so severe that it would mess up someone just used to the base game. Plus, it introduces new elements that show up in future expansion maps.

1 play: 4 players
1 play: 5 players
Rating: 8

-----

KOREA: This is a brain-bending map, since the colors of the cities changes, depending on how they are restocked. Once you have that element set in your head, you have to pay attention to both ends of your planned route and ensure that no one else takes either side. It's a far less forgiving map, but still manages to maintain the fun of the base game. In addition, the way that the cities can effectively change colors means that the game becomes more tactical, and less strategic, so it takes a different style of play in order to do well on the map. It's interesting to note that there are 3-4 dead-end cities on the map, so that players can build in to regions and make some cities a permanent color, unless another player chooses to move a good out, at a gain of 1 to you in return. The map is not for beginners, but it's certainly an interesting challenge.

1 play
Rating: 8

With two players and all actions available to both players on every turn, this map is probably too powerful. We neglected to use Turn Order Pass at all during our one playing, and this may have made a difference near the beginning of the game if the losing player had chosen it, guaranteeing himself a chance at a sorely needed action, but even then, I think that there needs to be more restrictions on the action selection portion of the game to tighten up the map. We did build on every available hex on the board by the end of the game, though.

1 play: 2 players

SUN: There's a lot more hanging on your initial placement on this map than in others, but if nothing else, it gives the map some replay value. It's much more chaotic than the standard maps, and there's a lot of weird stuff going on. Still, it's a decent AoS experience.

1 play: 3 players
Rating: 8

-----

LONDON: Brutal, brutal, brutal. The Union Overtime rule takes a lot of getting used to to play the game well, because it's very easy to find yourself with FAR more shares issued than you're used to, and you run the risk of not being able to break out of the downward spiral of losing income each turn. This is definitely not a map for newbies, and even for experienced players, they'll have to adapt quickly to the new expense scale in order to stay competitive in the game.

1 play: 3 players
Rating: 6

VERMONT: What makes this map a little different is that for each special action that's not selected on a given round, $1 per player in the game is added to it, and the person who selects that action on a future turn gets the cash, along with the bonus action. This turns out to be very useful toward the end of the game, especially in a 3-player game, since actions like Turn Order Pass and Production had $21, and since the terrain -- mountains and rivers ONLY -- is so expensive. Additionally, on the odd-numbered rounds, you pay $1 extra for any track built, with a return on $1 extra in income for any deliveries you make on those rounds. The extra cash is almost necessary for this map.

1 play: 3 players

Rating: 7

NY SUBWAY: This map feels a bit looser, since the connections are virtual, but the face of the game is changed so much that it deserves special attention. How the designer even thought of this sort of backwards approach to the game is impressive. According to the others who played in my only play of this map, it works much better with 5 than it does with 3.

1 play: 5 players
Rating: 8

WESTERN US: Just as tough and challenging as the original, but far more unforgiving for players starting in the west, since the cost of building through the mountains can be extraordinary. It's important to pick the right initial placement on this map.

1 play: 5 players
Rating: 6

-----

GERMANY: The can't-leave-incomplete-track rule makes the game harder than I would have expected, based off of just that one rule alone, but it's a good challenge. It might take a round or two to best understand how to adapt your play to compensate for that change. Plus, the randomly determined permanently-colored cities add a little something extra to the map, even if the randomness of the cube draw can make for a nearly impossible-to-play map.

1 play: 4 players
Rating: 8

OK, so is this game all that, or is it just hype? The way folks are going on and on about it, you'd think this was Jesus in boardgame format, and that this was his second coming. Make it a little scarce, give it some exclusivity with some pre-release bonuses, etc., and you've created the perfect storm for a bunch of boardgaming geeks. But how is it, REALLY?

Truth be told, it's not bad. It has an interesting system, which reminds me a bit of Puerto Rico with its role selection, a bit of Pillars of the Earth with its placement system, and a bit of Age of Steam with the angst that comes about from timing when to pick the best role, based on the timing of the game and what others can do before it gets back to your turn. It's tight and squeezy, which are two things that I like in my games. If the game is punishing you and you're still struggling to stay afloat, then it's a good game.

Another good thing going for this game is its replayability. At most, you're only ever going to see 70 cards per game, and there are 372 cards between the decks. That the selections change slightly with different numbers of players gives the game that much more of a lifetime, and I can see this game being fresh and enjoyable for many, many plays.

I'm not keen on it as a 2-player game, just because the choices are so limited. You have to understand how weird it is for me to say that; usually, I don't like games as they creep up toward the upper end of the player limit, because the added players tend to add a lot of chaos. With Agricola, though, the added choices for the additional players make a big difference in what you can plan to do. With only one space to collect wood, clay, and reed, respectively, it makes your choices only that much more critical, and it sometimes leaves you with some very suboptimal choices to make. That being said, the game is balanced well with 2 players, so it's hard to criticize that version of the game, since clearly a lot of thought was put into its development. It's just not much to my tastes.

I have a minor gripe with the primary strategy of the game changing each game, due to the random card draw. It's easy to see one player get the cards needed to get some tremendous engine going, while someone else in the game gets a handful of random cards that don't meld together as easily. It might throw the balance of the game off, but time will tell.

It ain't Jesus, but it's at least the Pope.

6 plays: 1 player
1 play: 2 players
3 plays: 4 players
2 plays: 5 players

-----

Base game
Through the Seasons
L-Deck
Ö-Deck
X-Deck
Z-Deck

It's nice that the deck is a collection of cards that are actually useful, and not goofy, but a lot of the cards seem to be focused on wood. Does Austria have a strong history involving wood? Regardless, the cards are a decent addition to the game without detracting from the overall feel of the base game, while giving some new and different things to do in the game. For me, that's the perfect kind of expansion.

1 play: 2 players
1 play: 4 players

I like the options it adds to the game, both via the extra actions, the bonuses available to everyone during the turn (or, at least whoever gets to ANOTHER action first), and the way that it affects the way that the goods come out in the rounds. It doesn't detract too much from the overall flow of the game, and the options it adds aren't so different that it bogs down the game with bloat. This is a nice, inoffensive addition to the game.

2 plays

I'm not really sure what to say about the expansion deck, since I've only seen three cards during actual game play, but to me, it seems like drawing the card is a crap shoot, akin to drawing an encounter card in Starfarers of Catan. You can either get something that helps you or hurts you, and since the cards aren't something that you can plan for or avoid, it seems harsh to take that chance in a game that already relies so heavily on planning and long-term strategy. I can't see why someone wouldn't take stone from the second quarry once it became available, unless there were just so much stone on the first one as to make it irresistible, or at least worth the risk. So far, though, I'm not sure what all it adds to the game.

1 play: 5 players

For people who like dice games, but are tiring of the roll-three-times-and-pray style of the Yahtzee derivatives, Airships should fill that niche. This is more like a civ game, where you're developing a machine over the course of several turns, making it more powerful and more efficient as the game progresses. The dice are essentially tools, and since you only get to roll them once, you'd better make sure that your machine is polished before you decide to go after a particular card. After the disaster that was Queen's previous dice game (Lucky Loop), Airships is a breath of fresh air to show they're able to redeem themselves.

1 play: 2 players

I've only played the solitaire version, which is kind of fun for passing a half-hour. I rarely have two players, though, and if we're hankering for Bohnanza, why not just play Bohnanza?

3 plays: 1 player

Interesting variation on a stock game. The balance between the currency, the walls, the majorities, and the "second turn" mechanics make for a fun, challenging game, but luck CAN play a large factor into the game. It's best to play the game with three (four at the most) to eliminate the chaos that can go into how much changes between your turns. The 2-player variant is OK, but in our games with those rules, we never saw a need to give a tile to Dirk.

2 plays: 2 players
4 plays: 3 players
2 plays: 4 players
1 play: 5 players
1 play: 6 players

-----

Base game
Die 1. Erweiterung: Die Gunst des Wesirs
Die 2. Erweiterung: Die Tore der Stadt
Die 3. Erweiterung: Die Stunde der Diebe
Die 4. Erweiterung: Die Schatzkammer des Kalifen
Die 5. Erweiterung: Die Macht des Sultans

VIZIER'S FAVOR: This takes away some of the random chaos that comes with playing the base game with more than 4 players, which is a very good thing. I like that players can use the Vizier offensively or defensively (a player further around in the turn order can play theirs to prevent another player from getting a needed tile). I expect that with 2 or 3 players, though, this expansion would prove unnecessary.

2 plays: 4 players
1 play: 5 players
1 play: 6 players

Rating: 8

-----

CURRENCY EXCHANGE: This module is a good idea, but it doesn't translate well to the actual game. There are too few cards to prove to be very useful in the overall game, and given that they're distributed randomly into the deck, it only adds more chaos to the base game. I would prefer it if players received a card randomly at the beginning of the game, and could plan around using that card at a particular point in the game.

1 play: 4 players
1 play: 5 players
1 play: 6 players

Rating: 6

BAZAARS: Bazaars. How bizarre. They're extra tiles that don't significantly add to the length of the game, and the scoring of them is not very intuitive. On the one hand, you can score a lot of potential points for them; on the other hand, you can self-limit yourself in the process and find it harder to get the tiles that you want for your Alhambra.

1 play: 5 players
1 play: 6 players

Rating: 6

-----

TREASURE CHAMBER: This one is probably too weird for me to want to play with again. It's good in that it gives you another "building" to compete for in majorities, but first you have to have the right buildings in your Alhambra, and then you have to spend your money on a group of chests that may not benefit you. I feel like this module adds a bit more to the game than it can handle.

1 play: 5 players
1 play: 6 players

Rating: 5

CHANGE: And now it's time for another "Good Idea, Bad Idea"! Good idea: Allowing players to receive change (to some degree) when overpaying for a building. Bad idea: Eliminating some of the tension of deciding to overpay for something instead of waiting to see if it's going to be available when your turn next rolls around.

1 play: 6 players

Rating: 6

-----

WALLS: One of the more frustrating things about this game is developing your own Alhambra, and never seeing the right tiles come up to help you build your wall. These cards allow people to custom-build their walls to some degree, allowing players more options than just the tiles for building their exterior wall. This is definitely a good thing.

1 play: 6 players

Rating: 7

-----

TRAVELING MERCHANT: On the one hand, the merchants allow players to get back into the game once one player has cornered the market on one or two different building types. On the other hand, it's just one more thing to track, and it gets a little distracting to try to keep up with that, along with everything else. The module also seems to limit the development of your Alhambra to some degree, which is more distracting. I don't know what to think of it after just one play.

1 play: 5 players

Rating: 6

DIAMONDS: It's an additional currency, which can be played in lieu of any other currency, just as you would spend any of the other currencies in the game. It doesn't take away from the game, and it allows the players a few more options during the game. Not bad.

1 play: 5 players
1 play: 6 players

Rating: 6

-----

ENCAMPMENTS: These additional tiles are good in theory, but don't seem to really add much to the overall game. It doesn't seem to be in a player's advantage to gain these tiles unless it's near the end of the game, and he could place it against the longest continuous row of buildings in his Alhambra. Other than taking a tile early in the game and holding it until that time, it's pretty much up to when the tile is drawn to determine how beneficial it is to use it at the time.

1 play: 5 players
1 play: 6 players

Rating: 6

It's an auction game blended with an area control game, and it comes together into a nice mesh of both. There are several different sorts of auctions in the game, but it never feels strictly like an auction game; instead, it feels unique and interesting. There are some issues with the randomness of the power cards granting a player a large number of points at the right time, but you also have to plan for some of those situations. Best with 5 players, I think.

1 play: 4 players
7 plays: 5 players

I like the card-cycling mechanism (it reminded me faintly of the one in R-Eco), but it seemed like the game's mid- and endgame points were a little dull. The middle of the game slows down as everyone is drawing a card to keep, working up toward trading in for a larger card, only to get stymied by a sandstorm before they can do anything significant. My biggest points came from digging in the pyramid, where I could get a ton of cards all at one time, and from getting lucky draws off the deck. As such, I was playing whatever sets I could from those cards, and that's where all my points came from. I realized it was pointless to try to make sets from the marketplace, since the number of sandstorms and thieves in the deck meant I couldn't hold onto cards long enough to do anything with them. It was more frustrating than anything else, but it's short enough that I want to give it a few more plays to see how it works out in the end.

1 play: 4 players

Neat ideas, interesting mechanics, and a great theme. The game takes about 2 hours too long for what I get out of it, and the mid-game seems to get terribly drawn out as people wander around, waiting for something interesting to do, but dammit, it's a whole heck of a lot of fun. I like the way that the game handles die rolls (instead of modifying the die result with different bonuses, you modify the NUMBER of dice you roll, with the winning results never changing), but it means that there's still no guarantee that you're going to get what you need at the right time. Still, a game with a Cthulhu theme should contain no minimum of chaos, so it works. If I could play it within about 2 hours, I'd probably like it even more.

1 play: 6 players

-----

Base game
Black Goat of the Woods
Curse of the Dark Pharaoh
Dunwich Horror
Innsmouth Horror
King in Yellow
Kingsport Horror

I like the idea of being barred from certain regions of the town, and the alternate rules (surprise!) added to the game. Shoot, anything that makes the game harder to beat is going to make it more entertaining, right?

1 play: 6 players

Ooh, I like the new board, and the different places to go and things to do up there. Thank the Elder Ones that the creatures on the top half don't count toward the terror limit on the main board; if it did, you'd probably be increasing the terror level every turn.

1 play: 6 players

I played one game with all but one of the expansions, so I don't know what sets this one apart from the others. For now, it gets the same rating as the base game.

1 play: 6 players

Hm. There are some interesting things going on in this game that fit quite well with the theme. There's a +1 to its staying power right off the bat. The turn order and cards can become a little frustrating, though, so that's a -1 to its skill check. It plays quickly, though (+1), and there are some nice tensions as you try to plan through a move or two. The time element adds a little something as well, especially since the person who's behind has a chance to sit tight and plan for a nice move, so long as he isn't left stranded at a location. It's not a hardcore game by any means, but it allows for some nice choices, and is easily played with family.

2 plays: 3 players
1 play: 5 players

I want to be generous with my rating, since I was impressed with the mechanisms, and how they interacted. Unfortunately, though, I think too much was dictated in the card draw, both in the order in which the selection cards came out, and the cards that players received through the standard draw. If there's only one good selection card in the initial draw, and you don't have any good red cards (or worse, any red cards at all), then you don't stand a chance of getting it. The way that cards are dealt out and paid for is nice, but I think cards would need to rotate through the deck more quickly (as in San Juan) to really make up for the randomness of the draw deck. Still, the VP cap levels, and the prices of the cards on the back of the cards, was interesting. I'd play it again, just to see how it holds up over multiple plays, but it doesn't really impress me all that much.

1 play: 5 players

So, I'm breaking my own rule of "never rate a new game above a 7," because I honestly think I will like to play this game A LOT. After one play (hell, after one ROUND), I saw something incredible in the design, and after it was over, I wanted to talk about it, play it again, and try something different to see if I could do any better. This is a tight, agonizing little game, played over 4 turns, for a total of 12 actions, and trying to decide when to do what is what gives the game its tension. At first, I thought that the game might have a scripted start once players got to be familiar with the game, but I think the demand tiles, and the corollary loss cubes, will prevent that from being the case from turn two forward. The economic engine is easy to see in this game, so it's easy to tell if you're making a profit, and in all honestly, it's likely that everyone will; the question is whether or not YOU can be more profitable than anyone else. It's definitely a game that gives players lots of options, with a limited time to do them all, meaning that you will NEVER get to do everything you really want to do on a turn. It's tight, agonizing, and interesting. What can I say? It's Wallace at his best.

1 play: 3 players

I remember playing this when I was much younger (say, 9 or 10), and just loving the heck out of the game. Now I've had the chance to play it again as an adult, and while I still like it (it's a "classic" that I wouldn't mind playing again), it's very, very different from how I remember it being. Still, the use of dice as giving you choices is an interestingly "Euro" element that was unexpected.

1 play: 2 players

I like this game a lot. It doesn't JUST reward people with good vocabularies; in fact, it probably rewards people who can bluff more than anything else. This is always a hoot to play with family and friends.

4 plays: 6 players

The simultaneous reveal mechanism is interesting, but it makes it so that the game reaches its potential with EXACTLY four players; otherwise, it's possible that everyone takes an individual action. The game is finely balanced in the way that you reduce the number of gems you have once you claim majority. My only complaint is that the dice can dictate a significant number of points in a given game.

2 plays: 4 players

I've never played the game with the action cards, but they seem too chaotic and random to add to such an elegant, tense game. I've heard that some people will play that each person gets one "Replace a card with another card" action per game, which would help alleviate some of the initial layout that's done without a clear idea of how the sets will develop, and I like the idea. I've never played this way, though, so my rating for Battle Line is lower than that for Schotten Totten.

5 plays: 2 players

It's luck-driven and chaotic, but it still rewards planning and strategy. There can be some big swings based off of the roll of the dice, but it's such a quick game that it's easy to chalk it up to bad luck and play again. It's always fun to watch the players move up and down the field, getting crushed under Bruno's feet!

2 plays: 2 players

Base Game
Gatling Gun/Twin Crossbow
Tower Attack

Very impressive! Other than BaHotH and Werewolf, this is the first "traitor" game I've played, and I really enjoyed it. The mechanisms mesh well, and even though they reminded me a bit of Arkham Horror (the Crisis cards were a lot like the Mythos cards), it wasn't a bad comparison, since I really enjoyed AH. The cooperative aspect of a game still intrigues me, but having to play the role of a traitor was new, and very fun. The time aspect is a bit of a turn-off, but I'm very interested in trying this game again. I wonder if it's as much fun, or just frustrating, to play as a human.

2 plays: 5 players

I like the way that people press their luck for useful cards, and I also like that it retains the card competition mechanisms from Taj Mahal, but there's something about the game that doesn't seem right. We had a strange feeling that we were playing the game incorrectly the first time around, since everyone was pushing their luck for cards on every turn, but it turns out that we were doing what we were supposed to be doing. Very strange. It has an odd appeal, but it's hard to get the game to the table since others were underwhelmed with it.

1 play: 5 players

First impressions of this game were that it was dry, and far too dependent on luck. Second impressions improved, as I started to see some the elegance in the design, and it stuck with me a couple of days after playing it. After the third play, I realized that the randomness was only a small factor of the game. Though the neighborhoods come out in a semi-random fashion (the fact that players place sections in turn may be chaotic, but I don't consider that aspect of it random), and though the cards are random, as well, knowing when to pick from which stack of cards, based on what's in play, where you've played, and where other people have played, is the key to the game.

4 plays: 4 players

Base game
Imperial Mexican Railway

For an abstract game, this one's a lot of fun. It leaves you with the "Just one more game!" feeling, and an almost immediate "Argh!" feeling after each move, as you suddenly see the better piece to play. Nice tension, nice challenge, and light enough to get non-gamers interested. I prefer it as a 2-player game than as a 4-player game.

1 play: 4 players
6 plays: 2 players

This seems to be a tighter version of vanilla Blokus, but at the same time, it seems to be harder to block someone completely in. Unfortunately, it's not as intuitive or accessible as the main game, since calculating the proper way to align the pieces takes a bit more time. It's different enough to warrant owning it, but for now, it gets the same rating as its pappy and its brother.

3 plays: 2 players
2 plays: 3 players

Very interesting, and addictive. The base decks seem to develop with particular strategies in mind, so I can see the appeal of wanting to build decks in the advanced game. It's reminiscent of MtG in that way, and it's nice to have that feel to the game, without the collectability attached to it. I will likely be looking into purchasing the expansions at some point.

5 plays: 2 players

-----

Base game
Aqua
Buka Invasion
Emissaries & Inquisitors: Allies
Emissaries & Inquisitors: Blessings
Flit
Khind
Mimix
Pillar
Terrah

I like the negotiation aspect of the game, and how it ties in with the way that you may never reorder your hand. There's a certain tactical strategy in knowing when to trade to reorder the cards in your hand, and when to hang on to what you have, but it's a unique mechanism that draws in a lot of non-gamers. It's certainly a revolutionary design.

3 plays: 4 players
2 plays: 5 players
1 play: 5 players (Fan Edition)
2 plays: 6 players
1 play: 7 players

-----

Base game
High Bohn Plus
Spider Beans
Order Cards

HIGH BOHN: It adds some interesting variation to the game, but the whole "claim a card whenever the heck you want to" rule makes things a bit more chaotic than I would like. I do like that there's no risk in buying the buildings, since they're worth the number of talers that it cost to buy them.

1 play: 5 players
1 play: 6 players

Rating: 6

I'd recommend playing this one at the end of a long game day, just to see if you can still keep up. The brain begins to enter a Zen state by then, and it might just be the best time to play the game! The way that players lose points for misidentifying a set, while necessary, makes the game draw out as one player's in the lead, then another player's in the lead, and then he drops back, etc. It gets a bit annoying.

1 play: 3 players
1 play: 4 players
1 play: 6 players

This is a simplified version of the system (one card can do three different things, as opposed to having three different cards that each do something specific), and it loosens up the game a bit, but at the same time allows for more strategy. The timing of moving the car from place to place is a little tricky to get the first time around, but there's a neat mechanism in there to manipulate once you get it. All told, I think I prefer the other iterations in the series over this one, but my wife likes it, so I anticipate it will get a lot of play.

4 plays: 2 players

It's a step up from Uno, so it sometimes hits the table when family is about. Since it's a card game with basic draw mechanics, though, it's easy to get hosed out of a game due to some bad luck.

20 plays: 2 players

This is a cool way of turning a carnie game into a real one, though there's little (if any) strategy you can add to the game. Like any dexterity game, it's best played if you can put a little English on the game, and learning how to do that is part of the fun. Plus, it's good for if you have some young'uns around.

2 plays: 4 players

OK, for 1.5 plays, I think I can give this a decent rating. There's an interesting economic engine in this game that drives a VP engine, but it's going to take a game to at least understand how it works. There are a lot of rules to remember here, and they don't work quite as intuitively as, say, Age of Steam, but I think the game would grow to be more intuitive the more people played it. Knowing how everything interacts is critical to winning the game, and it's not something that will become apparent with the first play. This could be the next big Wallace game, though it won't come close to usurping Age of Steam.

2 plays: 4 players

The allocation of the speed points, and the careful manipulation of the bicycles to allow them a string of lengthier sprints, makes for an interesting race game. It's definitely better to be a part of the pack, and it's not always in your best advantage to be in first place, but can you best manage your racers to know when it's the right time to make a break for the finish line?

1 play: 3 players

In our first (and only) game, we played aggressively, and forced the creation of lots of villages with very few masters. Halfway through the game, we discovered the need to build up more masters before travelling, but it seemed to be too late to make much of a difference. It's primarily a boxing game, where you're trying to keep everything in balance, but there's so much on the board that it's difficult to figure out where to play, and when. Not my thing, but I can see other people enjoying it.

1 play: 3 players

I don't usually like Take That! games, but this one intrigues me. I like the bucket building mechanism, but your initial build is based off of the strengths and weaknesses based on your starting hand, so by the time you get halfway through the game, your entire hand has changed, and you're more or less left to the mercy of the draw. I feel strangely attracted to the game, though. It's weird, and fun to play.

3 plays: 6 players

I've only played the game twice, and each was a learning game. In the first game, I attempted to learn from the rules while playing against some experienced players, and watched the game spiral out of my control. In the second game, I had a better idea of how the mechanisms worked together, and I enjoyed planning my route and moving my passengers, even if I still didn't have a great grasp of the game.

I think people who like Age of Steam would like this game, since you're competing for limited actions, building a network, and delivering "goods" from one place to another. There MAY be a significant start-player advantage, but with experienced players, I think it might be avoided. I want to play MANY, MANY more times to find out.

1 play: 4 players
1 play: 5 players

Fun, addictive filler. Like Bluff, it's a dice game with only a smidgen of luck thrown into the mix. Since you're wanting to play the odds, it's usually easy to guess when to stop pressing your luck. While the computer game is shorter, it lacks the taunting and trash talk that makes the game fun as a social event.

100-plus games: computer
3 plays: 3 players

From the way this game plays, it appears to be best as a 4-player partnership game, but it's a nice Rummy variant, and since my wife likes Rummy games, that's a nice bonus. The Stop cards become fairly useless in a 2-player game, and serve pretty much as a useful discard, but otherwise the game has some nice mechanisms in play. I'm eager to play it as a partnership game to see how it plays there.

1 play: 2 players (without Caliente cards)

Wizard plus a board equals Canyon. I like that the penalties for making an incorrect bid increase as players near the end of the game (the rapids), but without the Grand Canyon expansion, it gets a little repetitive. Still, I'd play this over Spades any day.

1 play: 3 players
6 plays: 6 players

-----

Base game
Grand Canyon

I find it odd that the expansion has a lower rating than Canyon, since Grand Canyon gives the base game much more interesting decisions to make, and adds a wilder level of chaos to the game while also allowing people to make good decisions.

3 plays: 5 players
4 plays: 6 players

At first examination, the game seems overly complicated, but after a round or two, you can really see why the rules are the way they are. This game is a weird combination of an area control game and chicken, and the way that you build your buildings before placing them to the board adds an element of out-guessing your opponents. Not bad.

1 play: 4 players

Using the animals instead of the cities DOES improve on the confusing farmer rule, and the use of the bonus tiles is clever. The fish and the huts seem to create possible huge swings, since one player could monopolize the points during and after the game, but that disappears somewhat with multiplayer games. Still, I could easily play this or standard Carcassonne.

1 play: 2 players
1 play: 3 players
3 plays: 4 players

-----

Base game
Die Steinmauer
Scout

To be a Carcassonne game, this plays much differently than I would have expected. The defined playing space, the bonus tiles, the "largest house" rule, and the fact that only the roads have to line up, make this game something unique. At first, I thought the bonus tiles could throw an advantage too much in one direction, but I didn't see that happen in my second game. In fact, in my third game, I saw the bonus tiles give a tremendous gain to a player who seemed out of contention, enough to give him the win. This may have been an anomaly, but I'm going to keep watching this sort of thing. As of right now, I prefer this to standard Carcassonne; I just wish it supported more players!

3 plays: 2 players

This is an area majority game turned up on its side and shaken around a bit to make something similar, yet also different. The way that the islands collect during the course of the game means that each game will be a little different, which is perfect, since this game is essentially an abstract design. The dice add a much-needed random element to the game, since otherwise it would be a perfect information game, which would in turn lead to a scripted sort of play each game.

2 plays: 3 players

What makes this game stand out, I think, is the way that you have to essentially hurt your position to draw cards. The game isn't taxing, or even strategic (it's strictly a tactical game), but it is unique.

JAMAICA: I haven't played the game with the Tortuga variant, but I'm not sure that I would want to, since this is a light game that can be played to pass the time during social gatherings. Having face-up cards would lead to analysis paralysis, making the game longer and too "gamer" for the kinds of people who would typically play this game. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to playing the Tortuga variant with more hardcore gamers, just to see how much of a difference it makes.

6 plays: 2 players
1 play: 3 players
1 play: 4 players

Monopoly with only one change -- the "Free Parking" rule error is official here. Roll-and-move mechanic takes over at the beginning, middle, and end of the game. Bleah.

1 play: 4 players

Hm. Catan Yahtzee? Well, yeah. Roll the dice, set aside what you want to keep, and re-roll the rest. Repeat twice per turn. I like the way that the playmat allows you to take one of a couple of different strategies, either through settlements or cities, and the way that you have to get the roads built to build out toward your goal. The wilds (both using the gold and the knights) add an extra "out" on your turn to allow you some options. Still, it seems that you have FEWER choices to make here than in Yahtzee, since you don't have the leeway to put failed rolls in a different row. You either roll what you want, or don't, and if you don't, then you lose two points. It's an interesting idea, but probably better suited to solitaire play than multiplayer play. I'm interested in seeing what the PLUS rules bring to the game (which is actually why I bought the game).

11 plays: 1 player

-----

Base game
Plus

I used to love this game, but then I discovered Balderdash. CatchPhrase is still a lot of fun, but it's too dependent on having the right partner to play the game. On the other hand, every game you'll ever play of Catch Phrase will elicit a new story to tell at parties.

9 plays: 4 players
1 play: 8 players
1 play: 16 players

Honestly, this is rather boring. If I'm killing time at Cracker Barrel, waiting to be seated, or find myself trying to keep a niece or nephew interested, then I'd probably play it. But it's not very interesting.

25-plus plays: 2 players

It's abstract, and it rewards people who devote their entire lives to playing it. Pass.

10-plus plays: 2 players

Eh. Negotiation games aren't my thing, because it's hard for me to determine the value of something quickly enough to make a deal before someone else beats me to it. I would probably play this again, though.

1 play: 4 players
1 play: 5 players

Imagine Bluff crossed with Can't Stop, and you might have an idea of how this game plays. I like the dynamics here, especially in that if you successfully bluff the other players, you don't have to reveal whether or not you did so. It suffers a bit from the "I have to keep pushing my luck or someone else will win" aspect of these kinds of games, but I'm starting to realize that that is an inherent characteristic to all of them.

1 play: 2 players
2 plays: 3 players

This game is all about knowing your opponents, and guessing how they think. If you're not into bluffing and out-thinking, or if you're playing with some new people, this game might not be for you. The game seems to be better with fewer players (though with three, the mechanisms get ... weird), but 5 players seems to be the sweet spot here. It's important to play with the right people in two different ways -- those who don't get their feelings easily hurt, and those who can keep the game moving. If you take too long to pick a card, the downtime can be excruciating.

1 play: 3 players
3 plays: 4 players
7 plays: 5 players
1 play: 5 players (variant role selection rule)
2 plays: 6 players
1 play: 8 players

-----

Base game
Dark City Expansion

Some of the new buildings can be a bit overpowering (and most of them are reminscent of San Juan), but you don't have to use them all. I like the new districts, and what they can do, and since you're all supposed to agree on which buildings to use, it helps alleviate some of the possibly unbalanced cards. I've played this twice using every card in the expansion.

1 play: 3 players
3 plays: 4 players
7 plays: 5 players

I won't speak on this being a cross between Take It Easy! and Carcassonne, because eleventy-billion people have already made that comparison. What I will say is that this game is addictive and challenging, plays in a short amount of time, and has a high, high "One more time!" factor. Of course, I'll bet that the same eleventy-billion people who made the TIE + Carc comparison said the same things, so I suppose I'm being redundant, regardless. Just play the dang game. It's a lot of fun.

5 plays: 4 players

This is the basic mechanism from Capitol (buildings have to be one story taller than the previously-built one), translated into a card game. The scoring based off of cats and mice make the game different, but the basic premise is the same.

3 plays: 4 players

I'm not good at deduction games, because while I can deduce based off of a direct connection on a single clue, it's more difficult for me to narrow down my choices based on indirect, multiple clues. Plus, it seems to take much longer than I have patience for these sorts of games. It has an interesting design, though.

1 play: 5 players

This is a nice set-collection filler game with a few more decisions to make than the average filler game. It creates a nice tension from a simple rule: Draw and add a card to an exisiting row, or take a row. Are you going to add a bad card to a row to keep someone else from taking it, possibly hurting yourself if it comes back to you? Or will you add something good for you to it and hope that it makes it back around to you? Or will you take that row with only one card on it, since you're not ready to risk taking cards that will hurt you? I can see it growing repetitious over many playings, but it offers a nice alternative to the more mindless games that hit the table often.

20-plus games: computer
2 plays: 3 players
1 play: 4 players
1 play: 5 players

-----

Base game
Extrakarten
For 2 Players
Limitkarten
Zwei Neue Uebersichtskarten

It's a little difficult to grasp the first time around, but playing one round will make everything fall into place. It's composed of an interesting betting mechanism that reminded me somewhat of Modern Art's payout system. It's more reliant on the luck of the draw, but I like the way the game develops.

1 play: 5 players

Base Game
Mediterranean
Paratroopers
Stalingrad

Base Game
Greece & Eastern Kingdoms
Roman Civil Wars
Rome and the Barbarians

Base game
The Swamp

Decent. Not great, but decent. It just suffers from the same sort of offensive/defensive play as Tic-Tac-Toe, so two smart players will never let their opponent set up for a winning move.

6 plays: 2 players

Unless you're good at games like Bridge or Mu, it will likely take a hand played before you really get what this game is about; the rules seem convoluted, and aren't very intuitive from reading them. Once it clicks, though, you're likely to have an "Ah ha!" moment when you see how the bidding and the control cards interact. I'm very much looking forward to future plays.

1 play: 4 players

This is a twisty little Rummy game, which has some interesting elements to it. There's no small amount of chaos, based on the Tavern and the way players can manipulate it, but some amount of planning ahead can alleviate some of it. I imagine it might get more chaotic with more than 2 players, but I can also see that it would become a little more balanced.

10 plays: 2 players

This three-handed trick-taking came can be confusing, even with the rules right in front of you (though that may be more due to a bad translation than anything else). There's an interesting core design there, based off of Skat, and though it takes a while to get the flow of the game, once you get going, it's a bit easier, if only because Cosmic Eidex removes the bidding-with-cards-from-your-hand mechanism.

3 plays: 3 players

This seems like a fun game, but it really lacks something with me and my family. Maybe it's because we're too competitive. Regardless, if you're into craftsy, zany sort of party games, this would probably be your thing.

1 play: 4 players

-----

Base game
Booster Box 1

I feel safe in rating the booster box the same as I would for the base game, if only because the cards are just there to keep the game fresh. I wouldn't even have the booster box if it hadn't been on sale when my wife saw it.

Lost Cities, look out! I'm sure that if this game were more available, and more well-known, that people would be claiming this to be the new "spouse game." It's simple, has some interesting choices to make along the way, and is the kind of game that reveals a hidden layer of depth the more you play it. The two draw piles and discard piles, along with the ability to replace someone else's score pile, add a bit of a challenge to the usual Rummy variant. The game is also balanced well, since the primary strategy of laying down as many groups of cards as possible is tempered with the need to secure certain groups with enough cards so that they're not replaced by your opponent. The game can drag out if you wind up ending rounds by depleting a draw deck, but it happens rarely enough that I can't see it being a consistent problem.

24 plays: 2 players

Chaotic gameplay blended with MTG mechanics (without the deck building) and one of the loopiest themes makes for a fun game! Without the theme, the game would be just passable -- there's too much chaos with not enough options for strategy, and it doesn't hurt you at all to be completely distracted when it's not your turn. It's wildly chaotic, but it's hard to complain about chaos when it's a Lovecraftian game.

2 plays: 6 players

OK, this game is the sort of party game that I can get in to. Any dexterity game that states in the rules that whoever drops the die is responsible for picking it up gets my approval. Sure, it's for kids, but this is also the sort of game you could combine with alcohol to have a rollicking good time ... or at least a fraternity game.

1 play: 3 players

I like the way everything comes together in this game, from the bidding for the cars (even if you don't want a particular color, you should make who does pay for it), to the different colors on the cards (you have to look deeper than the first color when picking cars), to the curve rules (block!). This is definitely deeper than the MB logo would suggest, but it probably plays better with more than 2. I'd be interested in trying some of the other games in this series, or at least make my own boards to keep the game interesting.

1 play: 2 players

This is just a placeholder to indicate that I own the deck.

Deduction games make my head hurt, and when my head hurts I get angry, and YOU WOULDN'T LIKE ME WHEN I'M ANGRY!! Actually, it gets better when you play with the correct rules. The game lasts a bit longer than I would like, and I don't like that the cards can limit the usefulness of your questions, but the design is sound, and interesting. I prefer it over games like Code 777, because the logic vectors are easier for me to wrap my mind around, and you're not as restricted in your questions as you are with Code 777.

1 play: 4 players (basic rules)
1 play: 5 players (advanced rules)

Like Schnappchen Jagd, this game is an odd blend of a set collection game and a trick-taking game. It has some wonky characteristics that are hard to grasp at first glance, and if you're playing against experienced players, it's going to hurt you. It has a hidden elegance, and encourages further plays to better your strategies. Very impressive.

1 play: 4 players

Can't Stop with cards? Not really. You're not really playing the odds as much with this game as you are with its pappy. Still, this is a push-your-luck game with a neat theme, and some of the coolest bits EVAR. It requires a lot of shuffling, though, and tends to play longer than one would expect for such a light game. In addition, this is a sort of game that improves with more players, since the extra chaos adds a higher entertainment level to the experience.

6 plays: 3 players
2 plays: 6 players

This game surprised me. At first, I was annoyed with the initial placement to the board being completely random, with the potential for a lot of chaos, but once the game began developing, I saw a fast game of bluffing and area control. One player ran away with the game by playing into all 7 regions within about 30 minutes, but the length of the game, paired with its challenge, impresses me. I definitely want to play this again.

1 play: 4 players

Wow, this is one crazy-addictive game. Remember that first time you played Fairy Tale, and you got that itch to play it again and again because of the drafting mechanism? You know, where you wanted to play it again right away? Well, say goodbye to Fairy Tale and hello to Dominion, because you may never come back to the former once you've played the latter.

Aside from being cardboard cocaine, the game also shows the multiple playtests and the amount of development put into it, so it's going to be a finely tuned machine. There's something very satisfying about building your own deck and timing when to make the shift from money and action cards to VPs. This game is challenging, versatile, and requires a different approach depending on what cards are in play. It's also nicely balanced to be "just" a card game, and the number of cards and the method for choosing the cards in each game will guarantee that the game will have a long shelf life. That being said, though, I won't play the game with attack cards if there isn't some sort of defense card in there to counteract it.

3 plays: 2 players
5 plays: 3 players
22 plays: 4 players
1 play: 5 players

-----

Base game
Black Market
Envoy

On the one hand, it's really neat to be able to get a card that only you will be able to use; on the other hand, when you're trying to develop a consistent strategy, having one copy of a particular card won't help you very much. The few times it might make a difference are when (a) you get the only Chapel when the Witch is in play, (b) you have the only Moat when playing the Interaction deck, or (c) other similar situations. Like most Dominion cards, there is a good and a bad side to taking the card, and that's what makes it such an interesting game.

1 play: 4 players

It's just a "Draw 4" card with a little risk involved, since it's likely that you're going to have a lot of beneficial cards in that lot you draw, there's not much of a risk in playing the Envoy any chance you get. Since the card doesn't allow you to take an additional action, if you draw a bunch of useful ones, you've essentially burned through them for that time through the deck, and since another player can take your most valuable card out of your draw, you might get 2-4 money out of it each time. MAYBE. I don't see that this is a particularly useful card, unless you're going for a big money deck. I can take it or leave it.

1 play: 3 players
3 plays: 4 players

If you liked the original game, it's probably safe to say that you'll like the expansion. It adds cards that do new things, change some things, and make you rethink the best strategy toward playing a given game. The great thing about Dominion is that the approach you take to playing any given game differs depending on how the different cards work together. If you like that aspect of the game, and are looking for newer, more interesting ways to apply that principle to the game, get it. Most of the cards, though, add a lot of direct interaction, and also makes the game far more chaotic than I like. I know that a lot of complaints about the original game was that it wasn't interactive enough, but the Intrigue cards take it far beyond what I enjoy about the game. So much of it is ridiculously out of your control, and as such, I refuse to play the game with attack cards if there isn't some defense card in play, also.

4 plays: 4 players
1 play: 6 players

Seaside and Intrigue could easily be compared to Seafarers and Cities and Knight, in the way that each expansion relates to their respective base games. For people who like Settlers of Catan and want more mechanisms that are similar to it, they would be best served by adding the Seafarers expansion; for people who want Settlers of Catan done in a different way, then Cities and Knights would be the better expansion. The same is true with Seaside and Intrigue, only here Seaside is comparable to Seafarers, and Intrigue is comparable to Cities and Knights. Intrigue adds a lot of confrontation and interaction with the cards in that set, and they're not my preferred cards in the game; Seaside, however, adds in a lot of cards that aren't as confrontational, and the addition of the duration cards give players some other, interesting options. I have yet to play with the extra pieces in the game, but plan to ASAP. For people who prefer the base game, though, Seaside might be the better expansion to buy.

1 play: 4 players

I love this game. That it starts off easy, but gets more and more challenging as it becomes more and more limiting shows how some very simple rules can create a very interesting game narrative. It also leads to some tasty ARGH! moments where you realize that your carefully laid plans went south by taking the wrong card. Avoid playing it with 3 or 6 players (the bids develop in such a way as to continually force the same player to drop out each turn), but with 4 or 5, it's a great, brain-burning little filler.

1 play: 3 players
1 play: 4 players
1 play: 5 players
2 plays: 6 players

The game has a lot of luck, but it plays quickly, and it's the sort of game where you hose each other anyway, so what difference does a little bit of bad luck make? Plus, the fewer players you have in the game, the less chaos there's going to be. It's reminiscent of Survive!, but it seems bit clunky right out of the box to understand. It definitely takes a play to understand the flow of the game; by the second playing, we mostly had the flow of the game understood. My biggest issue with the game is the convoluted way that you set up the deck of cards....

I should add that the first playing of this game left me wondering what I was missing, but by the second game, it made sense, and was a lot of fun. If your first play was underwhelming, give it another try.

1 play: 3 players
2 plays: 4 players

This was among the first Euros I ever played, and I really enjoy it. I've actually played it two different ways, using a simultaneous reveal selection process, and also playing cards in turn, like playing a trick. I think I prefer it the latter way, since otherwise it's a bit too similar to Land Unter, but the former way gives the game a bit more chaos, resulting in more laughs. The management of high-low cards is interesting to me, as is the scoring mechanism using the sticks. Highly enjoyable.

1 play: 4 players
3 plays: 5 players

-----

The worst thing that happened to this game was being re-issued with the sexist theme. I proudly own Drahtseilakt, instead.

Not a bad little tile-laying game! It has a little strategy, a little luck, and a lot of screwage going on in such a short, compact little game. Definitely worth the price for me, which was the cost of printing and assembling my copy (I have the old Dschunke game, not Rat Hot).

-----

1 play: 2 players

There's a nice push-and-pull element to the game, which is perfect for the theme. The game is all about hand management, and the deck is so small -- and the rounds so short -- that any bad luck you get will only be suffered for a short time. Pretty good, for such a simple design.

2 plays: 2 players (without action cards)

There's something very challenging and addictive about this game. Certainly, the pastel camels are appealing, but that's not enough to keep me interested in a game, just to get me to notice it. The territorial aspect of the game initially didn't appeal to me, nor did the glacial pace of the progress (two camels at a time, usually placed on different trains, makes for a long development time, even though the turns are short), but the challenge of walling off certain areas of the board while also going for the oases makes the game very interesting. It's very easy to play one game after another.

3 plays: 3 players

First things first: If you're not a fan of simultaneous-selection games, and trying to out-think your opponents, a la Citadels or Basari, then this isn't your game. If you do like that sort of thing, though, then this is a really good implementation of such a game. Since it's based directly on Basari, you'll see similarities if you're familiar with both games, but ES&R adds a fifth player, and removes the die-rolling as an action. Instead, players work for gems, money, and action cards, some of which can be a little chaotic, but are much less so than the roll of a die. Additionally, the player who wins the action card can either take the face-up card or draw the top card from the deck, meaning that sometimes players will play offensively, so that another player doesn't wind up with a card that would give him a huge benefit. It's a subtle form of interaction, but one that I really enjoy.

1 play: 4 players

There's less of an issue with the luck of the draw than I first realized, thanks to the "dump your tiles for all new ones if you don't have a tile with your lowest-scoring color" rule. The real issue of the game is that it's too easy to get blocked out of a color you need, but that's a principle part of how the game develops, so I don't see it as a problem. Like most abstract strategy games, it's better with 2 players, but I haven't tried the game with the partnership rule. The only thing keeping this from an 8 is that it's just a tad too dry for my tastes.

25 plays: computer
11 plays: 2 players
1 play: 4 players

Amigo ed.

Filler board games are hard to come by, but this is one of the few. It's a very light game, suggesting that it might be a good game to play with children, but the way the dragon moves and the way that you move based on the cluster of pawns on your particular space require a little more cognitive ability than the game itself suggests. It's not a bad game, but it's probably a little too simple for adults, and a little too complicated for kids. I'd like to play it again, though.

1 play: 5 players

In the same way that Shark adds something to Acquire, Exxtra adds something to Can't Stop. This is a push-your-luck dice game with some typical Knizia mechanics to give you more decisions to make. Aside from pushing your luck with the dice, you're also pushing your luck with your position on the ladder. Is someone else going to take what they can get, or try to be mean and knock you off the ladder? Fun, rousing, and always a good diversion.

1 play: 4 players
2 plays: 5 players
2 plays: 6 players

The drafting element of the game, combined with the 2-discard rule and the way that the cards interact, makes this a GREAT game. Highly addictive. It will definitely take new players a game or two to get the inter-relatedness of all the cards, and the tension of the game comes from paying attention to the cards of the other players, and not passing them what they need while you keep what YOU need. The box says it plays 2 or 3, but really, it's best with 4 or 5.

1 play: 2 players
4 plays: 4 players (basic rules)
7 plays: 4 players (advanced rules)
8 plays: 5 players

This is a neat little bidding game, though it's a little difficult to get that first turn or two. Overbidding on the first auction can cost you the game, and not having an idea of when to stop and when to push forward may contribute to making that decision. But it's not a bad design, since it's an auction/bluffing/push-your-luck sort of game, and I can see it improving with future plays.

1 play: 4 players

At first, there seems to be a lot of luck playing into the game, since the card draw determines when you place your pieces, but at the same time, it's a lot like Tetris, in that you need to plan ahead for the pieces that you know are coming (and all the pieces WILL come into play). You can even choose not to play a piece if it doesn't work toward your plan, so you're not stuck with something that you can't use. At first, it seems like the game doesn't have much replayability, since you only get the four play mats, but with Ted Alspach creating expansions, I can see this having a better shelflife than as it comes from the publisher. Plus, each player begins with a different start piece, so there's not as much chance that everyone will be playing the same game, as with Take It Easy. Nice, and addictive.

3 plays: 2 players
3 plays: 3 players
1 play: 4 players

-----

Base game
BOTS
LOTS
MOTS

This is a VERY clever trick-taking game, with the trump characteristics changing almost with each hand, since trump is determined by card NUMBER, and not card COLOR. It's a lot of fun, with mechanics included to help against the luck of the draw, but it takes a hand or twenty to best get how to play your cards. It's very difficult to understand the subtleties of how to play your cards, so it's not the most intuitive game. As far as three-player trick-taking games go, though, this is one of the best.

10 plays: 3 players
2 plays: 4 players

It's a tile-laying game, so a lot of what you're trying to do is limited by the draw, but I think that your placement of tiles dictates your choices, as well. It's an abstract game, too, but it's not bad. The communal area in the middle of the board makes the game more interesting, and there are surprisingly interesting ways to mess with your opponent.

There's a neat balancing mechanism with the values of the gardens based on size, in that you can go for a 6-garden and a 4-garden for 3 points, or hope that your opponent won't plant a weed on you so you can get 4 points off a 10-garden instead. If they cut you off at nine, though, you lose what could have been a 1 point 3-garden. But if your opponent keeps drawing tiles they want to use for themselves, they might not want to waste it on planting a weed. How far do you want to push your luck?

The game IS dry, and it tends to draw out past its 30-minute time frame, but it's worth having. It has some of the same challenge as Rosenkoenig, and also the same sort of feel to it. They're both worthy 2-player games.

7 plays: 2 players

There's a really neat game in Foppen, if you like trick-taking games. The game is a standard enough trick-taking game, with the twist being that whomever loses a trick is required to sit out of the next trick. It suffers a bit because that one mechanism requires that the maximum number of people play the game (it's extraordinarily weird with just three players), but the extra players mean you have smaller hands, leading to less control over the game. It's in a weird "damned if you do, damned if you don't" limbo, meaning that I don't think to bring it out to game nights to play. It probably deserves a bit more attention.

1 play: 3 players
1 play: 4 players
2 plays: 5 players
1 play: 6 players

If For Sale were only the first half of the game, then it would just be one more game in a long line of bidding games. If it were only the second half of the game, then it would just be one more game in a long line of Raj games. Put them together, though, and you have a neat game where the choices you make in the first half of the game determine how you play in the second half. I think it's that transition that makes this game so enjoyable for me.

Count me among the folks who prefer the Ravensburger edition of the game over the uberplay/FRED edition. For one, the ability to call a bid instead of raising it means that players can stay in the bid for a longer time, thus helping them stay in the game. For another, the game should max out with 5 players instead of 6, because with 6, you don't have as many cards in hand for the second half of the game to stay as competitive, and pairing the 6 players with the inability to call a bid means that the player who starts a bid will likely be out of it by the time the bid has made it all the way around the table. Lastly, the distribution of the checks in the Ravensburger edition makes more sense to me.

2 plays: 4 players (Ravensburger edition)
2 plays: 5 players (Ravensburger edition)
1 play: 3 players (uberplay edition)
1 play: 4 players (uberplay edition)
1 play: 5 players (uberplay edition)
2 plays: 6 players (uberplay edition)

---

Ravensburger ed.

Base game
Chicago/Sebring

The push-your-luck element of the game IS the game, and it makes for a lot of fun as you take your chances and see what happens. It's not deep, by any means, but it's a lot of fun. I'm interested in playing with the advanced rules, and running more than one lap.

1 play: 2 players (basic rules)
1 play: 5 players (basic rules)

The rules ambiguities create a lot of problems, and there's a LOT of housekeeping, but if you're familiar with the mechanisms of Twilight Struggle and 1960, then you're halfway to understanding the game. The game adds some unique touches to the system used in those games, but maintains the challenge and the historical value of the game. It has a LOT of housekeeping, which can be daunting, but this is definitely one to play more than once, and worth printing out. I look forward to playing a full game of this now.

1 play: 2 players

This is the sort of game that would usually get my "I like it" 6 right off the bat. It's a neat little premise, it plays quickly, and the randomness of the game totally fits the theme. It DOES have randomness, though, which lowers that edge just a little bit. So why, you might ask, did I raise it to a 7? Because as soon as we were done, I wanted to play it again. That's a good sign that this is a game with a good fun factor, and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt in that case.

It probably goes without saying that once you play with the correct rules, it gets better. The timer really adds a lot of fun tension, and watching everyone try to make it to the end of their galactic run is always great for a laugh. This is a crazy-addictive kind of game, and one that I can see working well with gamers of all types.

4 plays: 4 players

-----

Base game
Big Expansion
Business Cards
Safe Haven
Special Upgrades

Like most Randolph games, this is one of pure bluff and double-bluff, stripped down to its barest of essences. Whether or not this is the best of his designs will take some more plays, but my first impressions are good.

1 play: 2 players

Was this game designed, or did it just evolve itself during a game of 6 Nimmt!? Either way, its simplistic design means that anyone will be able to pick it up and play it with a minimal amount of fuss, and probably ask to play again as soon as it's done. This is an excellent start-of- or end-of-night game.

3 plays: 3 players
9 plays: 4 players
13 plays: 5 players

I know this is a sort of Union Pacific: The Card Game, but I don't recall exactly what makes the game similar to the board game. I liked it the two times I played it, but both of those times were well over 4 years ago, now. I should make an effort to play it again and see if it's as good as I recall.

1 play: 4 players
1 play: 5 players

This game is much, much tighter than other cooperative games I've played, but it makes it more challenging to me, because I'm determined to beat it. Just be aware that this is much less of a forgiving game than Pandemic or Red November. The theme here is very appealing, and the mechanisms actually work with the theme, and the bits are wonderful. It's just such a great experience seeing the game wind down into disaster, as you struggle to stay afloat long enough to finally defeat the ghosts.

2 plays: 1 player
2 plays: 4 players

-----

Base game
Guardhouse

The rating for the expansion depends on how you include the Guardhouse in your games. If you choose one of the existing tiles to remove from the game and replace it with the Guardhouse, you can make sure that the tile you replace isn't more valuable; if you shuffle and deal them randomly, though, you might wind up with a fairly useless tile, comparatively.

The tile itself, though, can be very useful in the right sense, since one player can examine cards for the next round of play and put them together in the best way for the players to defeat them. The plans may not always work, but at least they can attempt to manage the ghosts most efficiently.

The ghost cards are an interesting addition, in that a tile can effectively be haunted, without threatening the end of the game too soon. I can't speak to the Wu-Feng card, since I still haven't progressed far enough in the standard game to see ANY of those cards.

2 plays: 4 players

Neat! I can see the "Brum" in this design after playing Yinsh, in the way that he creates the board to prevent anyone turtling along one edge to collect a lot of discs. I also like the push mechanism, though the static setup for each game might lead to some scripted moves with repeated games. It's not Yinsh, but I do like it. I might be able to get my wife interested in it, too!

1 game: 2 players

Let me start with the bad -- learning the game from the rulebook is a pain. I had read through the rules before sitting down to play our first game, but what I really should have done was play a solo game before inflicting this on my opponent. No joke, I heard YAWNING. He swears it wasn't me, but hell, I was getting impatient with myself. As a result, the learning curve on this game is a little steep. If you're not playing this with some patient players, there's a good chance you'll ruin the game for them. There's also the packaging, which I don't like at all. There should be a more convenient way to package this game so that the cards aren't in three separate deck boxes in a plastic container. I will be working on a method to condense this game ASAP....

Luckily, that's the worst I can say about the game. The rest is an appealing little ditty along the lines of San Juan and Race for the Galaxy, two games I've taken a shine to over the past couple of years. Glory to Rome takes that basic principle of the game and gives it more choices and more turn angst.

BASIC GAME: The basic game is challenging enough in its own right, and is a great way to learn how the game flows. I think if we had tried playing with the special powers of the buildings for our first game, we would have been overwhelmed and may have given up on it. But learning how to manage your hand, and develop a plan over a number of turns, is a nice challenge in and of itself. I look forward to the advanced game, which I think will definitely improve upon a solid design.

1 play: 2 players

The endgame gets a bit drawn out and lengthy, but seasoned players can work through the end of their turn while the next player starts on his. The various ways to get VPs make for a nice game, and the "multiplayer solitaire" issue means that this is a gentler sort of competition for crowds who prefer that sort of thing. Like Amun-Re, though, there's definitely an issue with the random action cards giving a player a large advantage near the end of the game, but it's difficult to balance that against all the other options you have on your turn.

5 plays: 4 players

To be brief: I like the game. It retains a little bit of the feel of Web of Power, in the way that you use cards to build into regions of the board, and you're maintaining connections between all your placements on the board. The bidding for cards is interesting, though the randomness of how they come up can mean that there's very little interaction between the players, since the different choices could be individually good for each player. In addition, the scoring cards lend a lot of potential replays to the game, since the game will never develop the same way twice, and the bonus cards can keep things interesting near the end of the game, when the major placements have all been taken. It's definitely one I will play again.

1 play: 3 players
1 play: 4 players

Someone else compared it to Magna Grecia and Through the Desert, and I can see what he means. It takes the good elements of both games and combines them into something fun. The fan-made maps give the game a lot of staying power (I'm sort of surprised that the designer/publisher didn't think to release produced expansion maps), and the cards prevent the game from having a static start, even if players play the same board each time. It's neat to see the board get crowded, which forces players to make significant decisions near the start of the game. It's nicely balanced, though, to give all players a chance to stay competitive up to the end of the game.

2 plays: 3 players
8 plays: 4 players
2 plays: 5 players

A filler board game! A FILLER BOARD GAME!! Wow. It's been a while since I've come across one of these. Granted, this didn't need to BE a boardgame, and it's possibly the most overproduced card game that I've ever seen, but it's certainly fun and engaging. I can see this being a big hit with non-gamers, especially families, but it tops out at four players. The simultaneous selection mechanism is one I like, so that definitely adds to the appeal. If you don't like that sort of thing, then pass; that's the central core to the game.

2 plays: 3 players (basic rules)

My first impressions of the game were low. I guess Herr Schacht spoiled me with Web of Power. Then, I played a few games online, and started to see the shine through the game. There are some tough choices, and a distinct way to read the board to play your best. It gives me that "One more time!" feeling that's always good for a game. There's plenty of turn angst in this game, and while it won't knock Web of Power off its pedestal, it's still fun and satisfying.

1 play: 2 players
3 plays: 4 players

-----

Base game
Extrakarte
Changing Winds

I don't actually "own" the game, but my copy of Sticheln came with enough rules (and enough cards) to play this game.

I can do fairly well at Taj Mahal, but this one takes a couple of games to really get the strategy involved. It's important to start planning for the last two battles from the beginning of the game, and knowing when to get involved with battles and when to avoid them. Very elegant.

1 play: 5 players
2 plays: 6 players

The comparisons to Agricola are just, and unjust at the same time. On the one hand, there's a farming/building aspect to the game, and there's a worker placement aspect to the game; on the other, the tactics are a little less obvious, and the game requires a stronger focus on strategy than its predecessor. There's an additional screwage factor in the game, too, since a player token on a building means that no one else can get there if you own it, so you can squat on a good building to prevent other players from using it. Still, doing so will hurt you more in the long run, since you're not taking advantage of your own turns by using other buildings. The economic engine is wound more tightly, and isn't as easy to grasp, but I think that, with more experience, I would find myself liking it more. That being said, I would never play this INSTEAD of Agricola, since the two games feel very different.

1 play: 3 players

The game is very simple, but also just challenging enough for its time length. It also can be played quickly, as a light filler, or more intensely, as you make an effort to plan your moves and trap other players. It plays out differently based on the number of players in the game (with 2 players, you can save penguins to block certain areas; with 4 players, you don't have enough penguins to try that tactic), but that's not a bad thing. I can see this being a big hit with families.

5 plays: 2 players
2 plays: 4 players

I'm a big fan of simultaneous-reveal games, since it requires that players try to out-think their opponents. That sort of decision-making adds a lot of angst to a game, which in turn make the decisions more meaningful. That it's light enough to played with families, can accommodate more players, and still gives you some choices to make during the course of the game, make it a good game for my collection. There is some luck in the way that you replenish the barnyards, and in drawing cards, but the game doesn't take long to play, and it's good for 20 minutes or so of good laughs. It's definitely better with more players; with 2, it's too tactical and deterministic.

5 plays: 2 players
1 play: 6 players

With 3 players, the game seems to be missing its potential, especially with the "lowest money automatically loses" rule; I don't think the bidding dynamics work well, since the prices don't get pushed up quickly enough. With 5, though, the game really starts to take shape and develop into something interesting. It has a unique element to quick bidding games in that there are cards you want and cards you don't want, but there are different auction methods for each. I'm definitely interested in playing this one more.

1 play: 3 players
1 play: 5 players

I'm not a big fan of abstract strategy games, and this is another of those kinds of games. The rules are very straightforward and easy to learn, but I seem to lack the ability to "see" ahead into the game. Still, it's a short game, and it elicits that "Just one more time!" response. I'm convinced that if I can just play it some more, I will figure out the best way to play it, so it's very likely that I will play this one many more times.

8 plays: 2 players

-----

Base game
Mosquito

I own all 12 stashes of pyramids, and the necessary components to play most of the Icehouse games.

Deceptively light race game, which is (for the most part) dice-driven. Not bad, but nothing outstanding, either.

1 play: 4 players

It reminds me somewhat of Lucca Citta, in that the cards serve multiple purposes in the game, but the main difference is that in Il Principe, you have to commit your cards to a singular purpose early each turn and hope that things will turn out your way by the end of the round. This isn't a bad thing, since it creates some nice tension and turn angst, but the area control aspect of the game comes into play twice, through the card play and through the maneuverings on the board. The game has a nice flavor, and I would be interested in playing again.

1 play: 5 players

This is a nice surprise of a game! The bidding mechanics force players to make decisions on what to put up for bid using a kind of backwards logic, and estimating what's worth what to other people can make for a kind of tension that I like in my games. It's easy to get hosed due to the tile draw, but I see that as a minor aspect to the game, since it's usually just one turn out of many.

2 plays: 3 players

The game has a neat flow, and the mechanisms all work in relation to each other. I like the way the cards, the dice, and the day/night rules coincide, but the randomness of the cards mixed with the randomness of the dice can create some frustrating moments, especially when you have no cargo in your hulls. Still, the production of the game gives it a lot of OOMPH, and the game is short enough that it doesn't overstay its welcome. If you're looking for a real pirate-y game, though, you might want to look elsewhere, since the theme is pretty much just for show.

-----

Base game
Extra Treasures

It's kind of hard to give a rating for three cards that, when mixed in with the other treasure cards, are hard to tell the difference between the ones that came with the base game. But I'll give it the same rating I give the base game. Why not?

1 play: 5 players

The card combinations make it a game that's hard to judge off of one play, but I can see some potential here. I like that the losing player has one last chance to win the game before it ends. The Take That! elements of the game annoy me, but the heart of the game seems to be about manipulating your markets to make the most profit, and the Take That! elements only come into play if you rely too heavily on the special cards. Manipulation of the markets is key, and a little tough to get the brain around the first few games. I'm still not sure I know how best to do it....

4 plays: 2 players

-----

Base game
Expansion