This review originally written in October 2006

I've played this a few times today.

My initial feeling? Not bad; clearly influenced by Caylus. [In Caylus you use colored cubes to build a City. Here you use colored cubes to build a Cathedral.] Similar mechanisms — take turns placing workers, then "walk a path" activating each in order.

Pillars of the Earth has a few catches. First, each player places exactly three overseers (workers from Caylus). But turns are ordered randomly (drawn from a bag). The first overseer costs seven dollars, the next six, etc. If you don't want to pay, you pass. (Prices still drop). After all paid placements, the passed overseers are put on the board.

Before the 'worker placement,' players draft cards. Some convert meeples into resources. Each player starts with 12 laborers, and any not used to get resources earn $1. You can also buy craftsman. Craftsman convert resources to VPs. [For example, masons convert stones to VPs. A poor one may need two stones to make a VP, a great one may make 2 VPs from a single stone].

So you take turns drafting resources or craftsman (which cost meeple or money), then everyone places three overseers, then you "walk the path," resolving the overseers. A random event, one space that protects from the event or earns a wild resource, some special bonus cards, earn resources, bonus VPs, and the like. The ordering of the path isn't as constraining as Caylus; its not really an issue.

Play for six turns and done.

There's a fair amount of luck. The same four craftsman come out on the first turn, second turn, etc, getting better. Two are drafted (costing money) and two are claimed via an overseer (which may cost money for the overseer, but you don't pay the drafting cost). There are 8-10 random events, some good, some bad. There are "advantage" cards that can be claimed (again, for an overseer).

The real question — will the luck help or hurt the game's audience? Pillars feels like backgammon to Caylus' chess. I suspect there's enough luck to allow OK players to defeat good players sometimes, but not enough to really let things get out of hand.

For example, the start player can reject an overseer draw and redraw, once per turn. The events affect everyone equally (unless a player went to the Bishop, he'll protect you from a bad event ... or give you a resource). The advantage cards are random, but you see them before claiming (unlike magic cards in Aladdin's Dragons). Taxation affects all players (who don't spend an overseer at court).

Like Caylus, the game revolves around interconnected scarcity. You have 12 laborers, who can be spent on resources or money. You have three overseers, and you have to deal with paying money (to get them out early) or scarcity of good places (if you save money). You have five craftsman slots, but they are constantly improving, so they wind up acting like Power Grid's plants. Craftsman cost money or one of your overseer actions.

It's tough to judge after a few games, but money seems tight (and useful) all game. In the last turn, players may need to spend a large chunk of cash getting a key overseer spot, or to buy a prime craftsman. Money doesn't convert to VP, but there some craftsman who can.

So, same basic premise, but the luck may help it reach a wider audience. Of course, hardcore Caylus players may turn up their noses. Who knows?

After a total of 8 plays online, I feel confident that Saulen doesn't have near the staying power of Caylus. I don't find myself thinking about this much, and I'm not sure how often I'll play. I'll probably get in another 5-10, just because it's online.

Updated December 2007 2006

The luck drove me away. As a poster to my blog noted, the luck is "poorly allocated." There are a few big swinging random events. Luck is fine when you toss lots of dice, it has time to balance, but here you may just get shut out by the 50/50 shot of where a craftsman goes (buy or overseer), and which event shows up when. You have to plan for the luck, but with four players if two of them play a feast or famine strategy (and take the opposite bets) then one will win. But the conservative player probably won't. I'm not going to purchase, and don't have any particular urge to play again.

Brian, I have to agree with you. I was really looking forward to playing this one at BGG.con. But after one play, I thought this is okay, but not even close to Caylus, which it had been compared to. The luck factor is much higher and there is not the scarcity that makes Caylus so intense. This is one that I'll probably pass on.

I think the comparisons with Caylus are superficial at best, since (clearly) these are very different games. The themes and resource collection/payoff concepts are similar but almost all critical mechanics are not. Why compare these in the first place, then? Pillars has luck, which will appeal to certain audiences, and is also is also card/text-driven. Frankly, I think Pillars is a great game on it's own, without comparison to Caylus. I own and enjoy both very much. A direct comparison is unrealistic.

Could you expand upon this?
Just played this for the first time today (3 player)
If you are worried about getting hosed on where a craftman shows up, shouldn't you fight for the first player space?
If you are worried about getting hosed by events, shouldn't you go to the Bishop?

You're right. Comparing these two games is useless. Yes, there are some similarities in the theme and mechanics but these games are different. I played DSdE yesterday and it was really fun.