Game: Il Principe

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-17T16:41:19+00:00

scan of first player marker

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-06T17:13:44+00:00

building cards - Univerity (green), cathedral (white), town hall (red), castle (blue), market place (yellow)

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-06T17:10:51+00:00

city cards, front and back

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-06T17:09:27+00:00

family cards

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-06T17:07:15+00:00

shield tiles

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-06T17:06:40+00:00

the coinage

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-06T17:04:38+00:00

card section of the board

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-06T17:01:48+00:00

map section of the board

Thread: Re: Il Principe - too short? or overpaid building cards?

manolito84 — 2008-02-20T11:25:46+00:00

jjacjackson wrote:
Only two cities? Of course, we now realize that we should have had 5 rounds, but as hinted earlier, there wouldn't have been much of a difference because the rules state that when there aren't enough building cards to go around, Phase 1 is skipped, which means that no gold is received. No gold = no building.

I think you misunderstood the rules there:

If at the beginning of Phase 1 there are less than 20 (5 Players) / 16 (4 Players) / 12 (3 Players) Building Cards, then no Building Cards will be handed out BUT still you get your money

Played the game yesterday for the first time (4 Players) and I quite liked it although I lost

Image

kilroy_locke — 2008-01-30T06:04:33+00:00

MY KINGDOM FOR A BLUE CARD!!!

Image

brainst0rm — 2008-01-23T00:42:46+00:00

4 Player Game. Il Finalle.

Thread: Re: Proofreading needed for Il Principe players aid

UniversalHead — 2008-01-03T21:53:55+00:00

Thanks for the kind words David. I'll make that rules correction you suggest, but unfortunately that's all I'm planning to do for this game for now - there's so many other games to do sheets for, and after playing this once I wasn't blown away so there's little incentive to do more work on it really - and these things really do take time.

Glad you find my sheets helpful!

Thread: Re: Proofreading needed for Il Principe players aid

3ripmav — 2008-01-03T20:33:38+00:00

Just really getting into this game! It is great!

I noticed a minor discrepancy in your rules reference sheet...

Under Game Turn, Phase 1 you wrote:

"-chooses any 2 building cards from their hand and places them face down on the table."

This is only true on the first turn. After the first turn, you can only choose 2 cards from the FOUR dealt out this turn to lay down for the auction, not from your entire hand.

email: (goldenstatescience-at-yahoo-dot-com)

Ema- please correct me if I mis-interpreted this rule.

UniversalHead- First let me thank you for your player aids and reference sheets! They, and you by comparison are AWESOME! For this game, I see the benefit to having player sheets/mats to organize their materials.

They would require a space for each color of card stored (a space large enough to hold ~8 cards overlapping, but showing the top 15-20% of each card for the purpose of showing how many of each face up and face down for each color), a space for each color of Role (the size of the major role card would cover both), a space for cities developed, and a place to store gold and shields. it would be nice to also include the turn sequence as shown on the little cards that come with the game. With the rich art already included, these could be made beautifully to enhance the Family Crests and accent the beautiful game board design.

Knowing that you have not played this game, this is probably not a priority. On top of that, I have no idea the time and effort it takes to create these things... I could sketch out what I am referring to if you are interested and have the time for another free donation to the geek! I am new here, but when I have gg to spare you will be on the short list of those the thank with payment, until then, I hope you are happy with all the thumbs I can give!

Thank you both for enriching my gaming life in your own ways!

Thread: Il Principe - too short? or overpaid building cards?

jjacjackson — 2007-12-31T04:36:50+00:00

Five of us sat down for this beaut. Four were complete newbies to the game, while I, the experienced veteran, had ONE entire play under my belt.

So here we go. Money and cards are dealt, auctions held, and no first round cities built. I recall this from my first game as well. I expect this is pretty regular for most plays. We all played down various colors to get a primary or secondary role-card and moved into the second round.

Armed with more building cards, a few players were able build cities in this round. Quickly the newbies realize the triple advantage to building cities:
1) The cards are placed in your area for role-card consideration later
2) Immediate VP generation
3) Shield accumulation for end-game VP generation
After round 2, a few hints indicated that the blue role-card (place a shiled on the territory map) seemed VERY nice.

Round three yielded similar results - a couple cities built, and the same player able to keep the blue role-card. Now, he had many more shields than the rest of us, even doubling two of his fellow opponents.

Here is where we made a small mistake in assuming Round 4 was the final round because there were only 17 building cards left after dealing out the 20 (Rules say that the last round is when Phase 1 begins without enough cards to give 4 to each player). Realistically, this wouldn't have changed the dynamic too much. So we continue and more of the same - auctions finalized, a couple cities built, and the final role-cards handed out.

In the end, all but one of us were able to build two cities, the last player could only put one on the table. With this, we each had anywhere from 2 to 4 shields on the board, of course, except for the player who was able to keep the blue role card for ALL four rounds! This ability EASILY won him the game.

While I'm certainly not willing to give up on this game, it seemed to end prematurely. 4 rounds? Only two cities? Of course, we now realize that we should have had 5 rounds, but as hinted earlier, there wouldn't have been much of a difference because the rules state that when there aren't enough building cards to go around, Phase 1 is skipped, which means that no gold is received. No gold = no building.

We also discussed that we were perhaps overpaying for the building cards during the auctions. Our typical price was 1 gold per card. Of course, there were some fluctuations, but it was certainly the norm.

While the game is very engaging and the subtle strategies are elegant, the short-finish left each of us kinda dissatisfied. Perhaps five players is too many and 3 or 4 players is this game's sweet spot. I'm sure we'll give it a few more tries to determine that. And of course, we all know to try to SHARE the blue role-cards!

Thread: The Universal Head IL PRINCIPE Rules Reference v1 (Nov'07)

UniversalHead — 2007-11-28T03:29:48+00:00

Version 1 of my Il Principe rules summary/player reference sheet has been uploaded.

Firstly, it consists of a single-sided Rules Summary of the game; then a single-sided Player Reference Sheet - print out one for each player.

As usual, print out in colour on card, laminate and trim for best results! Enjoy!

Other player aids at www.headlesshollow.com/freebies_games.html.

Thread: Re: Proofreading needed for Il Principe players aid

emaorny — 2007-11-07T11:58:02+00:00

You can send it to me, no problem!
emanuele.ornella AT mindthemove.com

Cheers,
ema

Thread: Proofreading needed for Il Principe players aid

UniversalHead — 2007-11-07T02:54:33+00:00

I haven't yet had a chance to play this but I have created a rules summary and reference sheet. Would an experienced player of the game care to have a look through my work and proofread it before I make it available? PM me with your email if you're interested.
Thanks!

Thread: Differences in Il Principe Printings

ssheasby — 2007-10-21T18:32:28+00:00

I have an opportunity to acquire this game via trade and/or purchase. I have been offered each of the three different printings (Mind the Move, AMIGO Spiele, and Z-Man) in my various trades/purchases.

I played the MtM printing of Il Principe at BGG.con two years ago. I also reviewed the prior posting in this forum regarding some of the differences between the MtM and AMIGO printings.

What are the differences amongst the three printings of the game? Large or small differences, doesn't matter.

Thanks.

Thread: Re: Il Principe - First Impressions

wkusau — 2007-10-18T21:41:42+00:00

MerricB wrote:
These are in four colours: Green, White, Red, Blue and Yellow.

That would be five colours, of course. Nice report.

Thread: Il Principe - First Impressions

MerricB — 2007-10-15T06:48:30+00:00

The other new boardgame I got to play on the weekend was Il Principe, another Eurogame. This one's ranked #468 on boardgamegeek.com with a rating of 6.8 out of 10.

Il Principe was designed by Emanuaele Ornella, is for 2-5 players, ages 10+, and according to the box should take 60-90 minutes. The rulebook is short (two pages of text), and unclear in a few areas. As a result, I was very glad I could go to the 'geek to understand what was going on prior to my first game of the game on Saturday.

Greg Schloesser had praised the game highly, which is what had prompted me to pick it up. (I'd downloaded a copy of the Mind Games catalogue, and Il Principe was one of the better reviewed games that was in stock). So, along with Randy, Rich and Mike, we had our first game of it on Saturday night to close out proceedings. (Well, except for Rich and I and a quick game of Lost Cities, of which more later).

The theme of the game is that you're the leader of an influential Italian family in the Renaissance Age. You're trying to build the most magnificent buildings of the city, and from them exert your influence over the country. In a nice touch, the markers for your score and influence aren't the regular monochrome colours, but instead are the family crests of five important families of the era: the Medici, Carraresi, Visconti, D'Este and Gonzaga.

In the four player game we played, I took the D'Esta, Randy the Gonzaga, Rich the Carraresi, and Mike the Visconti. This had no effect on the actual game, but it did cause Randy to refer to his crest as "the Bee shield" - it was horizontal stripes of yellow and black!

Once you've explained the theme, the actual mechanics of the game don't really simulate anything of it. What the theme does is give meaning to the mechanics. This is not a simulation, this is a game. I think it's one that I can like quite a bit, but the first game really just got us used to how it works. Like In the Shadow of the Emperor, there's more going on than initially apparent, but you do start to get the hang of it just before the first game ends.

The game revolves around the "building" cards. These are in four colours: Green, White, Red, Blue and Yellow. Each turn, you draw 2 cards, and then have the chance of winning an auction or two for more cards. In actual fact, each player draws 4 cards and then places 2 cards up for auction - so what cards are up for auction each turn can vary quite a bit.

So, the first part of every turn is getting building cards into hand.

The next step is to get cities. Now, if you win an auction, you immediately can claim a city. There are four city cards available at any time. To claim a city you need to pay from 3 to 5 gold, and play cards that match the buildings depicted on the card. So, Perugia requires you to pay 3 gold and play green, white and red building cards. When you do so, you claim the city card and score victory points, and you can place one to three influence token in regions adjacent to the city; the number depends on the size of the city.

Otherwise, each player has one final action after the auctions, where they can either claim a city, or play some of their building cards from hand to the table in front of them (to join the ones they may have played by building).

The third part of the turn allows you to claim the role cards. This is why you've been playing all those cards in front of you: whoever has the most cards of a colour takes the "major" role, whoever has the second most cards takes the "minor" roles. Ties are broken by auctions.

When you claim the role card, you get two benefits. The first is this: whenever another player builds a city of the colour of your card, you gain victory points! (2 for the major role, 1 for the minor role). These points are extremely significant in the game, and you can gain a lot of points from them - something that we didn't really realise until later in the game.

The secondary benefit is immediate upon claiming the card, and depends on the role. The yellow (Banker) role gives you 2 money chips immediately - whether you've taken the minor or major role. The red (Notary) role allows you to draw a building card. These effects are minor when compared to the victory points that they can grant you.

What makes this really unusual is that if you get the major role, you have to turn half of the cards of its colour face down! So, if you have the major role, you're unlikely to have it again next round. The cards remain in front of you, however, and the green role (Master) allows you to flip one of them face-up again, and they may be worth Victory Points in the final scoring.

Victory points are gained for the following:
* Claiming a city (4-8 points)
* Matching roles with a city just claimed (1 or 2 points per role)
* Most influence counters in a region at end of game (5 points)
* Most
* Secondmost influence counters in a region at end of game (2 points)
* Card colour you have played the least of by end of game (2 points per card of that colour)
* Most money at end of game (2 points)
* Most unused building cards at end of game (2 points)

Roles were the most confusing part for us. We could see how influence counters worked: you put them on the board adjacent to the city you've built, and that region would score points for you at the end of game.

Cities were easy: you built them, you gained points.

Roles? Oh, dear. The thing is, you concentrate on their minor ability first. The Banker gives you 2 gold? Cool. That's really nice in this game, because you only get 5 gold a turn... given you need 3-5 gold to play a city, and then extra for auctions... money is tight!

Randy and I leapt out of the gates with claiming roles and building cities. I don't think I'd shuffled the building cards enough at the beginning, for there were lots of blue (Castle) cards about. It was about the third turn that everyone was claiming cities and taking roles. At that point, victory points really began to stack up from the role cards, and the disadvantage of being first in a role - having to "lose" half your cards of that colour - didn't seem so much of a disadvantage after all, compared to the points we were scoring. Well, mostly Randy and Mike, it turned out. Mike hadn't done much for the first two or three turns, but after that he caught up with a vengeance.

Rich wasn't doing so well. We weren't building in the colour of his roles, and he overbid for a lot of cards - that's a big killer in this game, because money really is that tight.

The game ends when either the city deck or the building card deck runs out. In our case, it was the city deck. Randy and I scored a lot of points for regions, and we all scored between 2 and 6 points for our weakest colour - I'd played only two white cards, compared to 3 or more for every other colour, so that gave me 4 points.

Rich knew he'd lost by this point. Randy had managed to lap him on the scorechart.

Final scores: Randy 76, Merric 67, Mike 51, Rich 36

I haven't got a breakdown of how the points were scored, but I'd say about 30 points of my score came from cities, 14 from regions, 4 from played cards, and 19 from roles. Randy and Mike got a lot more from roles; Mike lost out in the regions.

For a game that really has only three steps and a very small number of decisions, there's a lot of things happening. I actually find it a fascinating game, but it's really one you need to play more than just the once to understand how the relationships work between the mechanics. At one point, Rich claimed a small city and gained 6 points from it - but Mike gained 4 points from that city, and Randy 3, due to the distribution of role cards.

The game pieces themselves are unprepossessing. They're more attractive than those of Puerto Rico, although possibly not by much. At least the colours are bold and vibrant on the cards. The board is surprisingly small - it doesn't fold, so it's the size of the box (perhaps the size of half a Monopoly board?)

It's a game I'd like to play again, and that's what counts.

Thread: Re: Scoring regions

MerricB — 2007-10-15T05:48:33+00:00

Heh. Yeah, I'm pretty sure you get 5 VPs if you're the only one in a region - unlikely as that may be.

Cheers,
Merric

Thread: Scoring regions

ekted — 2007-09-13T03:42:07+00:00

The rules say exactly, and no more than:

"- if there are 2 or more players with the majority of the Shield counters, all them gains 5 VPs. No other players gains VPs;

- if there is only one player with the majority of the Shield Counters and one or more players with the second majority, the first player gains 5 VPs, all the others with the second majority gains 2 VPs"

If these are taken literally, then you would not get any VPs if you were alone in a region. I assume this was an oversight?

Thread: Re: Comparison between MtM and AS versions

ekted — 2007-09-13T03:35:05+00:00

Is the Z-Man version any different from either of these?

Thread: Re: a few questions

ekted — 2007-09-13T03:27:46+00:00

I'd like to see an offical answer to this last question too.

Thread: Re: [Review] Il Principe

luckyme2 — 2007-07-29T11:00:46+00:00

The Amigo version is better in 2 ways :
- Smaller box
- Bigger board (x2)
The last one makes the scoring track longer (up to 50).

The game itself is mainly auction.
As the game is abstract, the theme is not important.

Thread: Re: cards used to pay for cities

humeral — 2007-07-27T12:43:54+00:00

Yes, they go onto the table face-up.

Thread: Re: building phase(s); cards in hand

humeral — 2007-07-27T12:42:39+00:00

lorna wrote:
you can build twice, after you buy a building in phase two and in phase three when you can play cards
You can even build more than twice. You can build once for every card auction you win, and once in phase 3.

Thread: cards used to pay for cities

dcjackso — 2007-07-27T02:39:20+00:00

Okay, this is getting ridiculous--but I hope this will be my last question.

When cards are used to purchase a city, these cards then go to the table to join the player's other cards. Do they start face-up (so they can be used to "buy" role cards?

Thread: Re: building phase(s); cards in hand

dcjackso — 2007-07-27T01:51:50+00:00

Thanks for the quick post!

We really misplayed this game last night. Let me phrase that differently: the rules really led us to misplay this game last night!

Thread: Re: building phase(s); cards in hand

lorna — 2007-07-27T01:45:10+00:00

dcjackso wrote:
1) The designer's posted errata explains clearly how to award VP's for full sets of cards at game's end (e.g., 3 of each color x 2 = 6 VP.) My question: do you count cards in hand? Or just face-up and face-down cards on the table?

it's been a while since I played but I think it is only face up and face down cards

2) Both the published rules and the various player aids are a bit confusing about *when* a player can buy a building. They seem to imply that you can purchase a building as your last action in Phase Two (the language even makes it sound as if each player can do so immediately after winning a card auction). Then, in Phase Three, each player may choose to build a building or lay down face-up cards of one color. We played that you do NOT build in Phase Two; buildings can only be purchased in Phase Three. Did we play correctly?

you can build twice, after you buy a building in phase two and in phase three when you can play cards

3) Finally, it seems pretty clear that you become "Il Principe" each time you win a card auction, and that bidding always starts with the player to the left of Il Principe. Would the winner of an tie-breaker auction for a role card cause Il Principe to change? Also, in Phase 3, (building or laying down cards), who goes first: Il Principe, or the player to Il Principe's left? This is particularly important at the end of the game since the cities are "first come, first served."

whoever wins the auction tie break or not I think becomes Il principe and in the other phases Il principe goes first I recall

Thread: building phase(s); cards in hand

dcjackso — 2007-07-27T01:15:19+00:00

I'm slowly learning the "correct" rules to this game via successive approximation. I have a few more questions, though:

1) The designer's posted errata explains clearly how to award VP's for full sets of cards at game's end (e.g., 3 of each color x 2 = 6 VP.) My question: do you count cards in hand? Or just face-up and face-down cards on the table?

2) Both the published rules and the various player aids are a bit confusing about *when* a player can buy a building. They seem to imply that you can purchase a building as your last action in Phase Two (the language even makes it sound as if each player can do so immediately after winning a card auction). Then, in Phase Three, each player may choose to build a building or lay down face-up cards of one color. We played that you do NOT build in Phase Two; buildings can only be purchased in Phase Three. Did we play correctly?

3) Finally, it seems pretty clear that you become "Il Principe" each time you win a card auction, and that bidding always starts with the player to the left of Il Principe. Would the winner of an tie-breaker auction for a role card cause Il Principe to change? Also, in Phase 3, (building or laying down cards), who goes first: Il Principe, or the player to Il Principe's left? This is particularly important at the end of the game since the cities are "first come, first served."

Apologies if any of these are addresed in the published rules--I just don't have a lot of faith in this ruleset. Great game, though!

thanks,
-daren

Thread: Re: skipping phase one at game's end; "used" building cards

lorna — 2007-07-26T15:55:16+00:00

Read the errata under the files section. You do not skip phase one in the last turn. LOL the rules were not very clear in this game and it took us about 5 plays to get them all correct but it's a very nice game.

Thread: skipping phase one at game's end; "used" building cards

dcjackso — 2007-07-26T12:38:02+00:00

We enjoyed our first (3P) game of IP tonight, although I realize now that we played some rules wrong. First, we made a general discard pile with building cards used to build cities. (I'm less chagrined because I know at least one other poster's group made the same mistake.)
First Question: Do these "used" building cards go in the same place as cards that you have played to the table on previous turns, in lieu of building a city? Or do you keep them in a different pile? And do they count at game end, when doing the "Knizia" scoring for "least most, face-up and face-down?"

Our game ended because there were fewer than 12 cards (3P game, recall) in the building deck immediately prior to Phase One. The rules state that we were to skip Phase One and auction off 6 cards (or however many cards were remaining).
Second Question: Are these cards auctioned off by color? In other words, if there were one red, one white, and one yellow card remaining, would there be 3 separate auctions? Or are they all auctioned as one lot?
Third Question: Skipping Phase One means no $5 for each player for the last auction of building cards. Correct? If so, we wouldn't have had much of an auction, because all the players had just spent all their money in the preceding turn on cities and getting the cards they wanted. Money can be pretty tight in this game, and the end of the game really snuck up on us--hence my concern about missing that last cash influx.

thanks,
-daren

Thread: Re: Review: Overlooked gem w/ massive replay potential (9 /

chinalotus — 2007-07-01T16:31:42+00:00

topherr wrote:
Starting with the biggest row, players go around once bidding on cards, with the last bid going to the player who won the previous auction.

Another small correction based on the official rules:

Each group of cards is auctioned beginning with the color with the fewest cards.

The writing is small, isn't it!

Thread: Re: a few questions

punkzter — 2007-05-30T22:37:02+00:00

That is a good question. My gaming group has played so that the major role is assigned followed by the minor role. Then the controller of the major role goes followed by the controller of the minor role. But hopefully Emanuele Ornella will chime in here and validate some of my answers.

Thread: Re: a few questions

jerkules — 2007-05-30T20:50:14+00:00

Thanks, it did help. I still have a question about the order of Roles and such. The forum you linked brought up a special situation.

If there is 1 Major role winner but 2 are tied for Minor, does the Major role winner take the card and activate his power, or wait until after the Minor role auction is complete, then go (followed by the Minor role winner)?

It wasn't clear which way was correct.

Thread: Re: a few questions

punkzter — 2007-05-30T19:13:58+00:00

I have played this game a couple of times and I think that:

jerkules wrote:
After reading through the rules I just wanted to clarify a few things.

1) In Phase 2, the Il Principe marker will probably end up moving around a few times, right? And each time he moves, the next auction begins to the left of the player that won the auction, correct?

You are correct.

jerkules wrote:
2) Do Roles (major and minor) offer VPs when building a City in Phase 2, or ONLY building a City in Phase 3?

The rules in Phase 2 refer you to Phase 3 when you build a city, so I believe that the roles do indeed offer VPs during both phases.

jerkules wrote:
3) In Phase 4, both major and minor Roles are given out for a color, THEN their special ability is used (first by major, then by minor), then the next color is resolved? Or do you award the major Role, use its ability, then give out the minor Role and use its ability? My impression was the former.

You can find this answer in another forum:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/84078
Basically, you go color by color, handing out/activating first the major role and then the minor role. For example, you start with green and determine who get the major role and who get the minor role. The major role is activated first, followed by the minor role. This may alter the distribution of the remaining roles. Then you proceed to the white roles, etc.

Did this help?

Thread: a few questions

jerkules — 2007-05-30T13:25:06+00:00

After reading through the rules I just wanted to clarify a few things.

1) In Phase 2, the Il Principe marker will probably end up moving around a few times, right? And each time he moves, the next auction begins to the left of the player that won the auction, correct?

2) Do Roles (major and minor) offer VPs when building a City in Phase 2, or ONLY building a City in Phase 3?

3) In Phase 4, both major and minor Roles are given out for a color, THEN their special ability is used (first by major, then by minor), then the next color is resolved? Or do you award the major Role, use its ability, then give out the minor Role and use its ability? My impression was the former.

Thanks. Looking forward to playing.

Thread: Re: Review: Overlooked gem w/ massive replay potential (9 /

topherr — 2007-05-08T14:25:16+00:00

humeral wrote:
topherr wrote:
The major role always gets 2 VPs and the minor role 1 VP - [...]

I don't believe this to be the case. Those points are only awarded when other people build cities using your color, or at the end of the game.
Doggone, I think you're right! Like I said, the rules are not all perfectly clear
Sorry about that. I'll edit the original review to reflect this error.
Thanks for the correction.

Thread: Re: Small improvements = much better play

humeral — 2007-05-07T18:00:37+00:00

I would also suggest placing a marker on each city on the map after it is built. This makes deciding where to place your shields easier.

Thread: Re: Review: Overlooked gem w/ massive replay potential (9 / 10)

humeral — 2007-05-07T17:56:16+00:00

topherr wrote:
The major role always gets 2 VPs and the minor role 1 VP - [...]

I don't believe this to be the case. Those points are only awarded when other people build cities using your color, or at the end of the game.

Thread: Re: Review: Overlooked gem w/ massive replay potential (9 /

verandi — 2007-05-07T14:47:36+00:00

Thanks for the good review. My interest has been slightly piqued by this game before, but the mediocre presentation and lack of hype has always kept it out of sight for me... I will now actively look to try this if I ever see it at a gaming get together or convention.

Thread: Review: Overlooked gem w/ massive replay potential (9 / 10)

topherr — 2007-05-07T02:00:29+00:00

This overlooked gem from 2005 is rated substantially lower on BGG than Emanuele Ornella's 2004 Oltremare - Merchants of Venice and his latest game Hermagor, but to my mind is the best of the three. Why has it been ignored so much if it's so good? Mediocre theme, a difficult-to-use game board and confusing rules of tiny font are all culprits. But if you can get past these flaws, you'll find a game with startling ingenuity and a devilish learning curve that rivals Caylus and other recent classics.

RULES
Players 1) choose and bid for building cards in four colors, then
2) lay down building cards and build cities with building cards,
3) take roles based on which player has the most building cards in each color, and
4) place their tokens to assert area control both when building cities and when getting the Blue role. Got all that?

Each turn players gets 5 gold income, and are dealt 4 random cards (in green, white, red, blue or gold). Each player secretly chooses 2 cards, then puts the other two face down. All the face down cards are then turned over and put into matching rows according to color. This means that there is usually a somewhat skewed distribution, with as many as 4 or 5 of one color and none of another (similar to the way cards are distributed in King's Breakfast).

Starting with the biggest row, players go around once bidding on cards, with the last bid going to the player who won the previous auction. After the winning player pays the bank and takes his cards, he may then choose to build one of the 4 available cities (see below).

After all rows of cards are auctioned off, each player, starting with the Principe (player who won the most recent auction) may decide to either 1)lay down 1 or more cards of any one color or build a city (but not both).

Finally, the players determine who gets the major and minor roles in each color. The major role is given to the player with the most cards in that color, the minor to the player with the second most. If 2 or more players are tied for first place, however, another auction ensues, starting to the left of the current Principe, going once around - and there is no minor role for the next round. If 2 or more players are tied for 2nd place, there is a similar auction, but both roles are handed out. If no player bids on a particular auction (almost always b/c no tying player has even 1 gold), then that role is not handed-out that round.

Each role also has an identical ability depending on color (but the major role gets 2 VPs and the minor role 1 VP when another player builds a city using buildings of that color - see below). In order of determination:
1) Green - Turn over one face down non-green card. The order is important because both the major and minor role-holders may turn over a card in one of the other colors, changing the outcome of another role).
2) White - Gain 1 VP.
3) Red - Draw one random building card into your hand.
4) Blue - Place one of your tokens in any territory on the board.
5) Gold - Take 2 extra gold.

The player who wins the major role then must turn half his face-up cards face down, rounded up (but does not discard them). This encourages players to play even numbers of cards face up, to avoid turning over 2 out of 3 cards. The minor role-holder keeps all his cards face up.

Building a city: Cities each cost several building cards and 3, 4 or 5 gold, and generate 4, 6 or 8 VPs. The building player may also put 1 (3 gold city) or 2 tokens (4 or 5 gold cities) in one of the areas surrounding that city (to control territory for end game scoring). The spent gold is given to the bank, but the spent cards are placed in front of that player. Of note, other players who have won roles in each of the five colors the previous turn also get VPs if that color was used in building the city (2 VPs for major, 1 VP for minor). The building player, however, gets no extra VPs even if he has relevant roles.

Once players get their newly-acquired roles, the round is over. There is no hand limit.

The game ends when there are either not enough building cards left or not enough city cards left. Bonus points are then counted:
- 2 VPs for each major role, and 1 VP for each minor role.
- 2 VPs for the player(s) with the most building cards still in hand.
- 2 VPs for the player(s) with the most remaining money.
- 2 VPs for the number of cards played in each player's smallest suit (face up and face down) - similar to Tigris & Euphrates scoring.
- 5 VPs for the most counters in each territory for 1st place, 2 VPs for 2nd place. In case of a tie for 1st place, all tied players get 5 VPs, and there are no second place points.

GAME REVIEW CHECKLIST

1. DEPTH/COMPLEXITY 10 / 10
"How many and how compelling are the decisions you make per minute?"
Simply put, there are almost no easy decisions to make. How much to bid, what cards to play and what to keep in hand, when to build cities, these are all very tough choices. After playing Caylus 10 or so times, I realized that the game was so deep that I would win (or lose) a game and have very little idea exactly what I'd done right (or wrong) (I got a better idea after about another 10 plays). So it is with Principe.

Why is it so tough? To start, there's a penalty for coming in first for a role, and no penalty for coming in 2nd, so in early rounds it's usually better to come in second.
Second, building cities is critical not just b/c of VPs, but b/c they allow you to play cards in 3 or 4 suits onto the board. This is hugely important in both winning roles and in getting end game VPs for your smallest suit.
Third, the deciding factor of the game is often getting points when other players build a city (you often see a player getting 4 or 5 points when the building player only gets 4, 6 or 8). So timing when you control a lot of roles to correspond with when more cities are built is crucial (much like deciding what round to build in the castle in Caylus).

After maybe a dozen plays (3, 4, and 5-player), I still feel like I'm just getting the hang of the strategy.

And though the rules are not great, once you've played once or twice, everything rule-wise falls into place. Plus you can often get a game in an hour or so.

- Analysis Paralysis/Downtime?
So-so. Not a problem particularly.

2. MECHANICS 9 / 10
"How intuitive, elegant and flowing are the moves that bring your tactics to life?"

So here's the thing: Many of the mechanics are just not intuitive. Not at all. Usually this is a big negative for me, but in rare cases (Bohnanza is another obvious case, what with the whole "don't you dare change the order of cards in your hand" rule and all) it's actually a big plus. For example, the auction mechanics which dictate that a tie means no player gets second actually add a lot to tactics, by encouraging a player to shoot for second.

The game is also difficult to learn the first game or two, not just b/c of small-font rules, or b/c of non-intuitive mechanics, but simply b/c there are so many rules that interact with so many other rules. It's frightening hard to explain the rules in any kind of chronological order b/c the city-building relates to the roles, and the roles relate to the city-building. But just this inter-connectedness - which makes you not even want to try the game after reading the rules - is exactly what makes it so delicious to unravel while playing. The many subtleties - such as winning an auction not so much to get the cards, but to be able to play cards/build twice on a turn - keep me going back again and again.

3. INTERACTION 7 / 10
"To what degree does it facilitate a rich social experience?"
This is actually better than many euros, b/c of the clever auction mechanics, both in the card-taking and the role-deciding phases of the game.

4. ORIGINALITY 8 / 10
"How fresh and unique are the strategy, mechanics and theme?"
There's nothing quite as unique as the rondel from Antike, but the very inter-connectedness of the game is unamatched in my opinion. Everything just flows in a very satisfying way.

- What's the freshest part of the game?
This is a tie b/w having the 1st place player on a role turn over half his cards, and having the cards spent on cities play face up in front of you.

5. AMBIENCE 6 / 10
"How much do the theme, aesthetics and bits add the overall experience?"
The board, frankly, is awful. The territories for a territorial control game are too small, and the spaces given for each role are simply unnecessary (they could be placed right on the table). The wrap-around scoring chart is fiddly and easy to jar. Finally, as Tom Vasel rightly points out, the theme is well, not exactly a revelation.

On the other hand, giving each player a family crest is a nice touch. And in the end, the superior imagination of Ornella more than makes up for the challenges he had making a pretty product on a small budget with a small game company.

6. AUDIENCE
"Who would love this game?"
Although there is nothing exactly like Caylus in this game, I love both for similar reasons. I think players who enjoy steep learning curves and interesting auction mechanics will love Il Principe.

On the other hand, if the aesthetics and theme of the game are paramount, and if it's just not worth wading through a mediocre ruleset to discover a great game, then it's probably not for you. Too bad, though, b/c you'll be missing one of the best games of the last couple of years.

- Does it hit a sweet spot? Which one?
Absolutely, deep strategy in a time commitment less than Caylus.

- Luck (&Chaos) : Player Control
Luck is not dominant, but far larger than Caylus, for example. The main random element is which cards you will be dealt, and what will be available for auction. This is critical b/c there is just no substitute for having a missing building when you want to build a particular city. Moreover, as only four cities are available to build at any one time, it's likely that all four will share a common color - which means you're in a bad way if you have no way to get that color. Once a couple of those buildings are built, however, it shouldn't be a big problem.

In sum, I'd say that this is more a risk management issue than a luck problem - b/c there are plenty of ways to prepare so that you're not stuck later. Primarily, you can keep the cards you know you may need in your hand rather than playing them on the board.

OVERALL 9 / 10

Edits - First to correct a typo, second to correct a rules error(!) kindly brought to my attention by humeral (see below), third to add this summary:

Another reviewer has commented that the money in Il Principe is too tight. Indeed, the only bidding game I can immediately recall with tighter money is Industria. But for me, this is a strength not a weakness because it makes the bidding choices that much harder. It also means, however, that the game is not terribly forgiving, so it takes a few plays to get the hang of how much to bid.

In honesty, I'm not sure I've adequately conveyed exactly why the game is so compelling. It's the relatively short game time, the difficult choices of whether to play cards of a particular color now, or keep them in the hope of build a city next turn, and how such choices create the fascinating ebb and flow of when people choose to build cities. Timing is everything in Il Principe, as it is with many of the finer things in life.

Thread: Re: A review after 2 games

dwgteach — 2007-05-02T15:02:36+00:00

I just want to suggest that the player aid/individual board that I made up some time ago and that's here at the Geek helps quite a bit in terms of organizing your cards as you play and providing a rules summary.

Love this game!

Doug
www.garrettsgames.com

Thread: Re: A review after 2 games

MerricB — 2007-05-01T22:41:20+00:00

Thanks - the colours were just appearing too dark on my computer.

Thread: Re: A review after 2 games

hederj — 2007-05-01T18:43:47+00:00

MerricB wrote:
could you please remove the background colour behind the phase and scoring descriptions? I'm finding them very difficult to read.

Done. I was just experimenting with stuff available. Thought I'd give it a try.

Thread: Re: A review after 2 games

MerricB — 2007-05-01T02:20:32+00:00

Very nice review - but could you please remove the background colour behind the phase and scoring descriptions? I'm finding them very difficult to read.

Cheers,
Merric

Thread: A review after 2 games

hederj — 2007-05-01T01:33:09+00:00

I've played the game twice now and have enjoyed it both times, so I thought I would give a review a try.

Il Principe - a game where the players represent influetial families in Italy trying to pretty it up the best and become the most influential to become... I guess...Il Prinipe.

The game consists of a handful of phases.

b]1. Each player gains new building cards and money then places two of their building cards face down.

2. These face down building cards are collected, seperated by color (of which there are 5) and auctioned off.

3. When players win an auction for these building cards, they may then build one of the available cities (of which there are always 4 unless you run out) which costs a certain amount and mixture of building cards and a specific amount of money - 3, 4, or 5 gold. Building cards used to build cities are placed face up in front of the player that used them, seperated by color. Auction winners also become Il Prinipe which determines turn order. When a player builds a city they may place 1 or 2 of their shields with their family crests on it on the board next to the city they just built. Players get victory points based on the size of the building they build when they build it - 4, 6, or 8.

4. After all building cards are auctioned off, in turn order players may either build again - if they are able - or they may lay any amount of cards of one color face up in front of them - joining any that are already there.

5. Then Roles (major and minor) representing each of the five different building card colors - which each represent something specific like religion, merchants, builders, etc, are assigned based on how many face up cards a player has in front of them of the specific colors. Upon recieving a major role that player must turn half their face up cards of that color over so they are then face down so the number of cards a player has face up of any particular color changes by the round. Majority gets the major and second gets the minor. Any ties are aucioned off with the same rules as the building card auction. Recieving one of these roles (either major or minor) give their receivers an immediate benefit such as an extra point or being able to place an extra shield on any region, or getting a couple of gold from the bank. These roles also will give a player points in the next round when someone else builds a city that requires building cards of the same color as that role - major roles give 2 points and minor roles give 1

Building building and having the roles when others build are two major ways of gaining points in the game.

When these things are done then the whole process is repeated until game end.

Game end is triggered in two different ways - 1. When before phase 1 in a round there are less than 4 city cards available to be built the game ends immediately and bonus points are added up. And 2. When the building cards can't be evenly distributed to all players at the beginning of a round of play, an assigned number of the remaining cards are aucioned off and a last round is played.

Bonus points are the third major way points are gained. And there are a lot of them. So many in fact that in the first game I played, we forgot one of them.

Players get 2 points for each card of the smallest group of building cards they have played down in front of them - face up and down both.

-Players get 2 points for each major role they controll.

-Players get 1 point for each minor role they controll.

-The player with the most cards in their hand gets 2 points.

-The player with the most money get 2 points.

-Then each region on the board is scored. The player with the most shields in an area gets 5 points and the player in second gets 2 points. Any ties for first, all get the 5 points while nobody gets the second place points. Any ties for second place, they all get the 2 points.

There are a couple of special rules for a 2 player game - players get more cards and money and put more cards out to be auctioned, a few building and city cards are removed and you do not play with the minor roles.

So that's the game. On the whole I enjoyed the game both times I have played though I believe I found it more enjoyable with 3 players.

I don't think I would enjoy it with 5 players, in fact I dread the thought of it - but then I have come to not enjoy most games with 5 players recently.

I find the board to be poorly designed. The map of the cities and regions is too small and is enclosed by a score track that is too close and not big enough only 40 points on the track - in the three player game I lapped it twice, ending with over 80 points, and in the second player game I ended with 71 points. The board also provides for a spot for the major and minor roles to sit which I find to be somewhat unnecessary. Their order is somewhat important, but they could either be much smaller or an indication of the order could have been given some other way.

For the sise of the box, the game is sort of component light. There isn't a lot to it. The board as it is could have been designed to fold, reducing the size of the box by half and there would still be room to spare. Even a redesigned board could be much smaller and more efficient.

The English rules are laden with mistakes and are on the microscopic side making them difficult to read.

But still on the whole, I think its a pretty good game and would like to play it again.

Some tips for any interested parties based on my 2 games.

Don't bid on stuff just because you can - you will run out of gold. Only when you can't otherwise build something because the cards needed aren't in your hand or up for auction should cyou consider bidding for cards you don't immediatley need.

NEVER underestimate the power of the Dark Side... I mean the Blue roles - major or minor it doesn't matter, that sheild on any region is nice, just don't overload any one region with your shields. It makes you lose influence in other regions. Tying for first in several regions with only one or two shields is much better than getting first with a 4 or 5 in one region and second or nothing in others.

The Green and Gold roles are nice (not as nice as Blue, but Gold is good for money and Green can be sneaky-sneaky in getting other roles) but don't forget to load up your white and red cards too. A lot of each of the cards at the end of the game is important.

Thread: Re: How does this scale?

hederj — 2007-04-30T18:14:20+00:00

RecklessJester wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:
I'd like to try it with three.

I thought your first game on Saturday was with three: you, Sean, and John.

Our first game on Saturday was with three. Sedjtroll must be drunk.

Two was ok, but I liked it with three better. I didn't play with 4 or 5 but I'm sure I would absolutely hate it with 5 players.

Thread: Re: How does this scale?

RecklessJester — 2007-04-30T17:44:13+00:00

sedjtroll wrote:
I'd like to try it with three.

I thought your first game on Saturday was with three: you, Sean, and John.

Thread: Re: Cheap components

sedjtroll — 2007-04-30T07:13:40+00:00

markhu wrote:
Oddly, the board is not just "too small" but it [also] uses the space unwisely. I mean to say that the map and scoring track are definitely too small, while the role-staging area is too large. In fact the role-stage could be done away with entirely, leaving more room for the useful part.
I agree with this sentiment, the important part of the board is way too small, the score track is too small, I just know one of these days a scoring marker will be confused with a control marker and someone's score will be lost. The board could have been made to fold, or just be 1/2 the size, and the box could be 1/2 the size. That would have been nice.

Thread: Re: How does this scale?

sedjtroll — 2007-04-30T06:54:22+00:00

My first game was with 2 and it was pretty neat. My friend and I both thought it would be better with more players. I've played twice with 4 now, and I'm not sure I liked it much. I'd like to try it with three.

Thread: Re: 1st time playing and someone broke their foot

sedjtroll — 2007-04-29T10:58:12+00:00

hederj wrote:
I was able to tie him region points on the board with shields except for one region in which I had one extra, and this moved me up to beat him by one point. By our count he had 70 and I had 71 - very close game.
We played again today (twice, well, I played twice, John was in one of those games). While explaining the rules John noticed something we'd forgotten to count in yesterday's game... a 2 point bonus for most cards left in hand!

So in fact, I beat him by 1!

John thrashed the rest of us in today's game though

Thread: 1st time playing and someone broke their foot

hederj — 2007-04-28T08:03:34+00:00

We started setting up a game this afternoon - Friday. There were three of us but because of a broken foot or something, one of us had to be driven to a hospital by another one of us - the foot had been broken earlier that day. I offered to throw the guy in the back of my truck but he didn't like that idea so Sedjtroll took him and told me to finish reading the rules so we could play later.

Actually the foot wasn't broken - a stress fracture or something.

Anyway. After that there were two of us. The foot and its owner stayed at the hostipal to have things taken care of and sent Sedjtroll home.

So we played a 2 player game. Sedjtroll and myself. I went first as I had had a chicken parmesian Hot Pocket for lunch. (the rules suggest one way of determining start player is to choose the last one to eat Italian food).

The first round was rather quick as we couldn't build buildings. I got the white role and Sedjtroll got the gold role.

In the second round we both built our first buildings and placed our first shields on the board. Again Sedjtroll got the gold role and I got the white. I also got the green role and Sedjtroll got the blue - he may have got the red role as well.

Throughout the rest of the game (which actually went by very quickly) I was somehow able to stay in the lead or be tied for the lead, by building at the right times, and collecting points for having the role of the colors Sedjtroll built with. Sedjtroll got very few points when I built but that was mostly by accident - one time I totally forgot I needed to keep some money to build the city I was planning then didn't have the right building cards to build any of the others.

We traded off on having the majority of the roles, however in my mind I thought that Sedjtroll was doing much better than I was as he almost always had more money than I did which led to him having more cards and playing more cards - he got the gold role several times more than I did. That allowed him to build more cities than I was able to though this was only one more.

We both got the Blue role a few times - I got it 3 times (once was the last turn of the game) and I believe Sedjtroll got it at least twice. However all three of my cities allowed me to place 2 shields, and that allowed me to have one more shield on the board at the end of the game.

Sedjtroll had more cards in front of him and his least amount was 5 or 6. My least amount was 4, so he got a few more points there. He also got the bonus for most money - he got the gold role to collect two gold in the last round. We had both spent all our money building.

I was able to tie him region points on the board with shields except for one region in which I had one extra, and this moved me up to beat him by one point. By our count he had 70 and I had 71 - very close game.

I found the green role to be very useful, and we both used it to our advantage in choosing roles, but I believe the next time I play I will try and focus on the blue role as it allowed for placing a shield without building. However I do need to keep in mind that I can't ignore the other colors as they can provide points at the end of the game.

In the two player game we each got more cards and money than in a game with more players, but we both experienced shortages of money at times that was a bit disabling - sometimes because we would spend it on stuff we didn't really need. After it happened to me once I tried to plan better. Sedjtroll made one of these mistakes buying a green card in the last round when he probably should have saved the 1 gold for something else.

Though we both enjoyed the game we both felt that it would be much better with more than 2 players.

Thread: Re: How does this scale?

Walsfeo — 2007-03-23T06:28:46+00:00

Not good with five, I won't ever play it with five again.

Thread: Re: Comparison between MtM and AS versions

emaorny — 2007-02-23T08:13:51+00:00

The AM has a complete re-drawn map, bigger because there is no space for the Role Tiles (that are placed close to the board).
The cards are the same except for the summary card that is in English on one side and German on the other side (instead of both languages on the same size as on the MTM version).

Cheers,
ema

Thread: One of the best games of its year

Carver — 2007-02-10T13:24:47+00:00

Having just about had my fill of trading stone for timber, buying pigs and sheep, etc. etc. it came as a great relief to find a game that is totally original in a number of its ideas, giving the impression that Emanuele Ornella had never gone anywhere near a copy of Settlers of Catan or its numerous clones. Certainly IL PRINCIPE is one of the outstanding games in my collection.

Not that I am without criticism - or maybe it would be more correct to say that I still think that it could be made even better.

For one thing I thought that the money was just a little too tight. It is good that one is kept short but just a bit more cash would help I feel. (I refer to the original version and, who knows, this could have been changed in the new versions.) Also we always play with 5 players. We enjoy the game so much that we feel that with this number it needs just one more turn. This can be achieved by returning to the discard the city cards after they have been purchased and recycling them.

Also it is very tactical to get one's markers into strategic areas on the map. This is something that is mostly achieved by buying the appropriate city card. But it is very rare that one has much choice in this. Normally there is only one card that is within one's purchasing ability - and often there isn't even one (a disaster if this happens right at the end of the game). So I see no reason why the number of cards on offer should be limited to just 4. I prefer to double that. At least this gives players a bit more chance of tactical choice and cn help to avoid being totally shut out from 'buying' in the crucial end game.

Thread: Re: Comparison between MtM and AS versions

gashlycrumb — 2007-02-10T03:14:40+00:00

I would certainly be curious to know as well!

Thread: Re: [Review] Il Principe

eknauer — 2007-02-09T21:21:35+00:00

Agree with Greg except for "outstanding components". The map is ugly and the scoring track is way too short for the amount of points scored during the game. There's a new board that appears to be a slight improvement-

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/160135

Thread: Il Principe - Review

gschloesser — 2007-02-09T20:15:52+00:00

Designed by: Emanuele Ornella
Released by: Mind the Move Games
3 – 5 Players, 1 – 1 ½ hours
Review by: Greg J. Schloesser

Editor's Note: This review first appeared in Counter magazine.

Designer Emanuele Ornella and his company Mind the Move Games caused quite a sensation at the Spiel in 2004 with Oltre Mare. The trading and collecting game was one of the show's hits, prompting a second printing and a big box edition released by Amigo at this year's event. I'm sure I wasn't the only person eagerly awaiting their new release, and I was most curious to see if it would be as good as Oltre Mare.

I need not have worried; Il Principe is actually better. Set in the familiar age of Renaissance Italy, players represent leaders of prominent families who are attempting to become THE most influential family in the country. They accomplish this feat by acquiring titles in the areas of culture, religion, politics, nobility and business, as well as developing their influence in the various provinces and cities of northern Italy.

The game contains a variety of mechanisms, most of which are not new and very familiar. There is the tried and true – and some would say tired – majority control aspect, as players attempt to gain the most influence in the various regions. There are auctions. There are titles which convey special powers. However, these traditional mechanisms are intertwined with some seemingly fresh ideas to create a game that is tight and tense.

The building card deck contains five different suits, which are basically just colors. These are associated with five different roles, or titles, representing the five areas mentioned above. The cards are also required to construct cities, an accomplishment which grants the building player and certain title-holders influence points. The cards also are used to obtain the various titles. The operative phrase regarding the cards is "multi-tasking".

The second deck is the city deck, which contains only 15 cards. Each card depicts one of the cities on the accompanying map, as well as a variety of data. This data includes the combination of building cards and money required to construct it, the victory points it awards (4, 6 or 8), and the number of influence tokens a player can place into the regions adjacent to the city. Constructing cities is critical, as it not only grants influence, but allows the player to add the cards required for its construction to his personal card collection, which is used to award titles.

While certainly a step-up in quality from Oltre Mare, the board, while functional, is still a bit small for some tastes. I personally find it perfectly suitable, but several folks with whom I've played have commented on its diminutive size. The non-folding board depicts five regions of northern Italy, along with fifteen cities located on the borders of the regions. The influence track rings the map, and there is space for the five major and five minor titles below.

Each turn, players are dealt four cards, keeping two and placing the other two into the auction pile. The cards to be auctioned are sorted by suit (color), and auctioned in groupings. Personally, I've grown a bit weary of the overused auction mechanism, especially when it is the primary mechanism used in a game. Here, however, it is only a part of the overall picture. Further, money is very tight, with players usually only having a handful of florins with which to bid. Thus, the auctions are usually very quick, as due to the limited funds, there is no likelihood that the proceedings will drag on and on.

When a player wins an auction, he takes the cards into his hand and may immediately construct one of the four cities which are face-up. To do this, however, he must have the correct combination of cards, as well as the necessary funds. As mentioned above, constructing a city allows the player to place influence markers onto the map, as well as earn the influence points indicated on the card. Further, the cards played are placed in front of the player, grouped by suit. At the end of each round, the players with the most and second-most cards in each suit earn the title plaques, which are very important sources of influence points. You see, when cards are played to construct cities, the players holding titles matching the suit of the cards played earn influence points: 2 for the major title, and 1 for the minor title. These points add-up quickly, so grab as many titles as you possibly can.

After all groupings are auctioned, each player, beginning with the Il Principi (the winner of the final auction) has a chance to either construct a city (as described above) or play cards into his personal collection. When playing cards into a display without constructing a city, a player may only play cards of one suit. The idea here is to play enough cards to capture a majority or secondary position in a suit so a title can be acquired. Since play begins with the Il Principi, the player who is last in this round does have a significant advantage. However, the Il Principi has an advantage if he opts to construct a city, as he has first shot at the available cities.

Finally, roles are distributed according to majority and secondary status in each suit. Ties are resolved by auctions, which can further deplete severely limited funds. The roles grant special powers, such as the awarding of influence points, building cards, or gold, or the placing of influence shields onto the map. Whenever a player captures a major title, he must invert half of the cards in the corresponding suit. This helps serve as an equalizer, and prevents one player from monopolizing a title for the entire game.

The game continues until there are less than four cities to construct, or until there are not enough cards to distribute four to each player at the beginning of a round. In this latter instance, an abbreviated turn is played, which allows players to construct cities or play cards into their display. Final influence points are then tallied, with points being awarded for major and minor roles, most money, most building cards in hand, and even points for building cards in player's personal display … but only in the suit in which the player has the least number of cards. Very Knizia-esque. And don't forget those influence shields on the map; this is where the majority control aspect surfaces. Each region is tallied, with points being awarded for majority and secondary control. These points can be quite significant and should not be overlooked.

While it can be somewhat confusing and perhaps even a bit overwhelming, I like how the various mechanisms are intertwined, and how one aspect of play directly affects other facets of the game. Cards used to construct cities go into personal displays, which will help earn titles, which can earn influence points when opponents construct cities. Players are competing for titles, to construct cities, and for influence in the five regions. There is constant competition and frequent tense moments. Sometimes it can be difficult to ascertain how well you are performing and discern who is in the best position, but the system does seem to keep most players in contention throughout the proceedings. That is a very good thing.

Money management is also critical, as funds are used in auctions to acquire building cards, construct cities, and in auctions to break ties for titles. As in real life, there just doesn't seem to be enough money to pay all of one's expenses. Often, a player will bid a bit too much to acquire needed cards, only to find himself short on cash and unable to construct the desired city. That hurts.

My complaints are minor: the player tokens use coats of arms, which creates difficulty when tallying points. While the coats of arms are visually appealing, colors would have been more functional. The font size in the rules is miniscule … but that may just be a function of my aging eyes. Further, if the board were foldable, the game could have fit inside a box half its current size. With my shelf space at a premium, this would have been preferable.

These, however, are just minor quibbles. The game itself is very engaging. I've played numerous times, winning only once, but always being in close proximity to victory. I have been engaged throughout, and am always left with the desire to play it again soon. These are all marks of a very good game … and Il Principe certainly earns these high marks.