2 plays. Very nice game. Who can complain about a game that can take 3-7 players that always takes about 30 mins where there is so little downtime because of the simultaneous play. And, it feels like a proper Euro too. Given the play time, there is plenty of interaction for me, even if I can't directly interact with anyone except my neighbours.
It takes a long time to play, but the time flies by. Want to play it more, but don't know if I will get the time to very much. I'm starting to like long games (~2h) mark less as it's getting harder and harder to play them due to mainly playing weeknights. May have to juggle some older ratings of other longer games.
Played once. It's gonna take a few plays to get my head around what to do. It seems like a decent gamers game, but doesn't have anything special for me that makes me really keen to play again soon. I do want to play it again, just so I can form a proper opinion of it.
This is a great game and I play this with kids, non-gamers and gamers. It only takes about 10 minutes a game so it's a perfect filler. Can even be played on the side simultaneously with a heavy game during periods of down time.
Played once. More suited to gamers than Zooloretto, but I'm not fussed with playing either of them. It feels as though I don't have enough control in the game. Either that or I just don't get it. I've never won a game of Aqua/Zooloretto after perhaps a half dozen plays.
I enjoyed playing the game and like the mechanics. However, the value of the sets seems unbalanced which leads me to think that the game is broken. Eg, the 3 cost cards give 40VP if you have a set of 5. ie, cost 15 for 40VP. There is a 1 cost card that gives 15 VP for a set of 5. ie, cost 5 for 15VP. The cheaper cards seemed about the same value, but you didn't have to worry so much about the effects of the thieves and the sandstorm as you generally had less cards and lower value cards in your hand.
I played this game a lot a while back, and played it again fairly recently. Back then I liked it, but didn't love it. Looking back I can't see what's not to love about it. After the recent play, I can see why I didn't love it. It just seemed abstract and for me that's a negative even though the theme is fine. Despite that, it's fairly quick and offers plenty of meaningful decisions. Perhaps it was a little abstract. I've upped my rating to remove this prejudice.
Played twice in one sitting. When I read the rules, it seemed complicated. When I played it I was taught the game and it's straight forward. Played each game well under the suggested time on the box - a first. This is a solid 2p game. Right now I want to play it more.
Mindless fun party game played many times in one night. Played it again at a gamer's bucks party and I didn't like it. It's just too slow to be a party game. Plus, anybody getting knocked out of the game early blows. Putting this one up for trade.
Reminiscent of For Sale. Different enough that it is worth having. I think Biblios has more meaningful decisions. It plays quickly and makes an ideal filler. For Sale has the advantage of taking up to 6 players whereas Biblios only takes up to 4.
I like the expansion tiles. It almost feels as though they were left off so as to be made available as promotional offerings. They should have been in the original game, or at least made readily available.
Too few real decisions in this game given the playing time for my liking. It seems to take over an hour to play and for that time, there are plenty of much better games to choose from. If it took 30 minutes to play it'd be a different story.
Interesting. Seems a bit like Princes of Florence and Colosseum. Both decent games with nice mechanisms that fall a bit short of very good games in my opinion. Does Cargo Noir fit the bill of ideal game in this genre? Or, as is likely, am I way off the mark on this?
Played twice. Liked it very much. At first I felt it was gonna be a harsh game, but it worked very well. It's a worker placement game with a twist. Once you've used a worker it goes to the general stock so you can't automatically use it next round. Also, you can have multiple workers placed on the same square and they have to duel to determine who gets to take the action. Talk about interaction. My only complaint is that the game is long, especially with AP players, and I don't get a lot of opportunity to play long games these days.
Played once. All good, except it's hard to get your head around the building requirements. Believe it or not, it feels quite a bit like Puerto Rico. The main difference being that you don't build up an engine.
I love that I can now play the game with 3-6 players but it is a shame that an expansion is required for 5-6 players. The rule changes to suit 5-6 players work very well and the games don't take that much longer.
I prefer the randomness of the dice to the non-randomness of the event cards. The special effect each turn doesn't really add anything to the game IMO. However, if some anti-dice player insists on using this, I'm up for it.
Picked this up at the 2012 Australian Toy & Game Expo specifically to play with my 5 yo son and a couple of his kindergarten friends. Played twice, 2p then 3p. He's played a number of other young kids games so I knew he'd understand the rules well, despite this being the most complicated of the lot (others are for 4+, Catan: Junior is 6+). Although he was busy making up stories and playing with the cool pieces when I was explaining the rules, we got there and he became very excited when the game started. He loved the whole building his engine and getting more resources so he could build faster part of the game. It is Catan at heart, but light enough for young kids. After the first game with me he was so excited that he wanted to play again with his mum too and started explaining the rules to her (wish I'd videoed it). So, far this is a real hit. It definitely has luck, but there's much analysis and thinking (for a young kid) to do in order to work out a good play. For me this sets it apart from most other good kids games that are primarily dexterity or memory games. It's a simple game for seasoned gamers, but even I had to think hard a couple of times.
After two plays, I can say that I'm disappointed in this game. I was expecting Caylus lite, but it's nearly as heavy and takes nearly as long (at least that is the case with the people I play with). Aside from portability, I prefer Caylus to this. However, don't get me wrong, it's still a good game.
Played once. Believe it or not, all four players in the game tied with exactly the same score. Seems fairly quick for an area majority game. However, I've had enough of area majority games and the inevitable analysis paralysis that accompanies them.
I enjoy playing this game, but don't know yet how much control I really have sometimes. If the right tiles don't come up and players just aren't willing to trade them cos' you don't have what they need, I'm not sure if there's a lot you can do about it.
Really liked it all times I've played it. It's one of the few 5 player games that doesn't drag on too long and still has plenty of meaty decisions. The box is too big. Needs some setup sheets to speed up setting up the tea chest tiles.
Played once with 4p. Took about an hour, but game was abandonded after 3 of 4 rounds. I like the game and the twist with the suits, but as people did too much thinking it played too slow for my liking. I'd like it a lot if there wasn't so much counting and calculating involved. Keen to play it again.
Was interested in this game until another user's comments alerted me to the fact that two ratings of 10 were by 2 new users both registered 2012-08-21, both of who Want to Buy, Want to Play and have only rated or commented on this game. Seems very fishy to me. Will not buy this, unless some genuinely good reviews come along.
Played many times now. I still find it addictive. A shame that it doesn't take 30 mins to play yet as my game group thinks too much. However, the quickest way to play this game is just with the Dominion base game and no expansions.
Over a dozen plays. Great addition to the base game. With so many more combos of Kingdom cards, I don't feel like I'll be getting tired of it any time soon. Each game takes a little longer in general when playing with Intrigue.
Several plays. I like Prosperity a lot as it made the game feel fresh. It changes the game a fair bit when played with the Platinum and Colony cards. Have only played Prosperity with a smattering of base cards so far.
Played about 10 times with between 2 and 4 players, and once solo. At this point I rate it an 8. Definitely more fun with 3 or more players. My 7 year old loves this game and the fact that you can setup, and play a game within 15 minutes is a bonus when he wants to play a game and it's nearly bedtime. His grandparents have played once and refuse to play it again. We always play with more gems than the setup rules indicate or else it is too easy. Not sure what the longevity of the game will be. It's probably a game that really needs expansions to keep it interesting. Just as long as they are good expansions.
I think this game is underrated. Sure, it's not particularly new or innovative, but it plays great. My only criticism is that the poinst scored at the first scoring round are effectively doubled. So, for example, if you are 4 points behind after the first scoring round you have to get 8 points just to catch up.
The first few turns are essential to get right to prepare for the challenges ahead. If you make a mistake here it can ruin your changes of being competitive in the game (it is a problem for new players when playing with experienced players). It seems hard to find time to earn more VP than the other guys, let alone make sure you don't lose too many persons and fall behind.
Played two or three times. This game is good fun. Inevitably takes longer to play than it should. Most downtime when a player is deciding whether to purchase a second card with one of the valuable gold coins.
I don't get this game. 2 player solitaire is an apt description. First play is just learning the cards and later plays are better, but not much. I feel that it needs more interaction. Disappointing, as I have really liked all of Rüdiger Dorn's other games that I have played.
This game requires more skill than most of the 2 player games I've been playing. I love the way you can really swing the game when you take down other players bridges to an island when you gain a majority on that island.
I prefer to play using intuition instead of detailed analysis and calculation. If my opponent plays intuitively I reckon it's a great game. If my opponent becomes the human calculator the game bogs down, plays slow and does not entertain me.
Played once as a character in a 4p game. I felt it had too much downtime for the 3 players and as the game went over 4 hours (from memory) this meant this game wasn't the winner I'd hoped for. Some players' turns were over in a minute and when a round takes in the order of 20-30 mins that sux. I'm sure the Sauron player had a good time given he had a lot more to do. Not sure when I'd get the time to play this again, let alone get a chance to be the Sauron player, which I'd like to do before I rate this game.
See my comments for Scarab Lords. Minotaur Lords and Scarab Lords together gives you 4 pre-constructed decks to choose from, giving the game heaps more replayability. It would be great to see the planned, but never published, 3rd "Lords" game in the series to give it even greater depth and replayability.
It's a bit like a gamers version of Citadels from a gameplay point of view. Love the theme and artwork. Terrible component quality. Being primarily area majority/influence it takes longer to play than I like - 90+ mins in our group
I think this game can suffer from analysis paralysis. But if you don't think through your turn properly a simple mistake can cost you the game. So, it plays longer than I expected and wanted it to. Aside from that, it is an excellent 2 player game.
I've rated this as a game for kids. This is a proper strategy game for kids. ie, it's not dexterity, memory or mostly luck based game as many kids' games are. Sure there is luck, but strategy is there.
This game is really good if people play quickly. Much of it can be done simultaneously and the game can really shove along when people play simultaneously. It's only the car movement that causes turn order issues. If played purely in turn order the game moves to slowly for my liking.
Played once with 5p. A very nice expansion. I liked everything about it, except that the last 1 or 2 (of 15) master builders to get placed often had nowhere useful to go. Perhaps that's just part of the design. Whoever places the first master builder also plays the very last one.
Many plays. Heaps of fun. Party nd kid friendly too. It'd get a 10 if the track joins didn't cause cars to launch into the air and if the rails didn't fall out. These problems could be fixed, but shouldn't have to be.
Multiple plays. Least favourite and least necessary expansion. The ramps are quite tricky to get up and some players can fail to get up the ramps to the top level. Having another level is actually a bit gimmicky and doesn't add much to the experience. Using the ramps simply to make a mega jump is pretty cool.
I think it's better than San Juan, has longer playability, but still has limited playability. It feels like there is a best strategy for each world and if you get the right cards you will win. Sounds bad, but I haven't played it enough to get to that point and still want to play it more.
Played a few times. This is a bit like Tier auf Tier, but not nearly as good. The main problem is that you get to the point where it is (or at least appears to be) impossible to place another egg (magnet) without causing the eggs to collide or roll off the board.
Picked this up directly from the Z-man at the Australian Games Expo 2007. Initially the saboteurs struggled to thwart the golddiggers. Nowadays the saboteurs are regulary succeeding. Much more fun playing a saboteur than a golddigger.
Played about 5 rounds of Saboteur 2 with between 5 and 7 people. The rules are woeful - confusing and really skint on describing who wins with all the different possibilities and exceptions. The game is not as simple as the original. Not happy with Zman on that. We'd all played original Saboteur before and even with the player aid the rules regarding who wins were so confusing that the game was unsatisfactory to play. Don't get me wrong, the player aids were clear on the rules, but the players weren't.
There wasn't the same bluffing and guessing that there was in the original. The original was simple and it mostly worked. Actually, in Saboteur 2 I found it straightforward to work out what roles people were. There were some issues with the original and I was hoping that Saboteur 2 would address those. Instead, it changes the game so much that it feels mostly like a different game.
Now the game seems weighted heavily towards the Saboteurs whereas the original seemed weighted towards the Golddiggers, especially when the unused role card was a Saboteur. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation. The Saboteurs' job remains unchanged - stop the Golddiggers reaching the treasure. The Golddiggers now have a two way battle as there is an opposing team of gold diggers that you are competing against and often you are working to stop the other team reaching the gold. With the low number of players we had there were often 2 blue and 1 green Golddigger (or vice versa). The team of 1 Golddigger never won and I think it would be an amazing feat for them to do so.
I reckon the following variant regarding who is considered a winner at the end of the round would play better and be easier to understand. Firstly, forget who makes the connection. If the treasure is reached all Golddiggers win unless blocked by an opposing team's door. Boss is considered a golddigger who always wins if the treasure is reached, regardless of doors. At end of a round, Profiteer simply chooses whether to be a Saboteur, a Blue Golddigger or a Green Golddigger. A Geologist never considered a winner (and simply gets gold based on number of crystals showing). Definitely need to try it out.
I think this covers unusual circumstances like when there is a blue and a green door on the path to the treasure and there is a boss and a profiteer. In this case the Boss is the only winner and earns (5-1=) 4 gold.
Played handful of times. Short play time, plenty of meaningful decisions, yet simple rules. Can be hard to judge who's winning which keeps it interesting until the end. What's not to like about this game? Why isn't this game rated higher? It's a bit heavier than Ticket to Ride and you have more to do than simply draw cards most of the time. It's a good game to satisfy players who want more of a game than T2R whilst still being accessible to non-gamers. Why didn't this game get SDJ the year it was released? Who's responsible?
Fantastic quick filler game with enough depth to keep me coming back for more. Update: with more plays playing time increases and the game becomes more analytical. That's not my style so I avoid playing this with sloths.
Played once. I reckon that if you took out the Popular Places and Righteous Relics, I think the game is a little simpler and cleaner than the original. I found the board a bit easier to grasp. I like the mechanics of the river. With the PP and RR in the game is a bit more complicated, but no more so than Ticket to Ride Europe is than the original T2R.
Played twice. A surprisingly good game. Works surprisingly well, in my opinion, with 2 players. Games with more than 2p are lengthier than I'd like and I reckon the base game could have come with more than 8 factions - which are all used in a 4p game, to give it more variety. Sure there are expansions, but these are relatively expensive. Even more so than the base game. Quite pricey as far as non collectible card games go.
Played twice. Once with 6 at the AGE, once with 4. I liked it enough to buy it at the Expo. Games that play 6p and don't take an age are hard to come by, and this one fits the bill perfectly. Worked fine with 4 too.
This game has some great mechanics. I love the turn order mechanism. However, the games I've played so far have been around the 2 hour mark. I didn't mind the random factor, but not for games that take that long. There's more calculation in this game than it appears at first glance. If people don't think during other player's turns then the game is too slow.