Reviews written by Gary Sax

I've played this in person and on the app and it is a tight design but one that is a bit too abstract to really light my fire. In fact, I'd probably argue that it's abstract enough to make a much better app than in person game. That said, I have only used the base factions in my games.

Battlestar remains, especially in its base box with 5 players, probably the best one of these types of traitor games. It rides that line between too much game and too much pure player bickering and suspicion perfectly. What holds it back is that it lasts one jump too long. The game, properly calibrated to say 5-6 distance, would be a perfect experience.

A great game that illustrates everything that is good about Vlaada Chavatil's outside the box design sensibilities. A classic for veterans and also an easy teach to new or inexperienced players.

Of the Rosenberg games, this one is not to my taste (and I quite like several of his games). It has several things I particularly dislike about worker placement. First, the all important family growth action is the alpha and omega of the game. I prefer my worker placement without the machinations required to get into place for what is clearly the best space and options. Second, Agricola is not about specialization but about balance in scoring. It is the classic Rosenberg game that demands you do what he wants you to do rather than what you want to do. Opinions differ, but this is not why I play these sorts of games. If I wanted to play a tight, competitive version of worker placement I'd go ahead and play the far superior Argent: the Consortium.

When I think of the few times I've played War of the Ring, I think about how thematic it is and how it realizes a few fanservice dreams in a comprehensive way. The way that the hunt for the ring and the war on the board intertwine is the real design genius of the game. Beyond that, the weird thing is that, strategically, the game it most reminds me of is Twilight Struggle. This is a game that must be played many times because card knowledge is not just important but absolutely essential. Depending on your perspective, it can be to the detriment of the game when you're surprised with unknown events or power moves.

I love this game. It is a wargame, yes, but really it's a multiplayer negotiation and diplomacy game at its core. For me, it is the perfect mix of an actual game and theme. In fact, both of the elements actually make the game far stronger. By making all the cards and flavor into events that you can generally play for other players, the negotiation part of the game is that much more enriched. Players negotiate with each other to play each others events, send them mercenaries, help them with attacks, alliances, etc.

I've played this game a lot for such a long game, and at this point I'd probably suggest something else because the game does have some fairly straightforward best directions for each power. I only learned these best directions after several PBEM plays with top expert players, and I'm told that the new 500th anniversary edition may throw some twists into the mix.

I despise Talisman, and I gave it an honest try several times. I've even played it on the app, thinking that the speed of play and overhead might have been the problem. Talisman is really a pure push your luck game, not an adventure game, about when to enter the closer concentric rings and take the crown. The problem is that your ability to make those decisions is constrained by time consuming roll movement and combat tests to get resources that fall flat. The one part of Talisman that really works for me is the generic weird fantasy trappings that surround it.

I honestly believe that the working part of Talisman could be easily condensed into a 30 minute push your luck card game.

Settlers of Catan is a game that continues to work after all this time. It is simple, the dice resource production produces drama, and a lot of the game is above the table, which helps it with staying power.

My mild critiques of the game primarily lie with the way that the game does not produce enough materials to make granular trading possible. I feel that the game could be designed a little better to encourage trading. As it is, a lot of otherwise attractive trades aren't possible because the difference between one and two cards is simply too great from a resource perspective. I think later trading games have gone to some effort to grease the gears of trading.

Still the adventure game king in my house and a landmark game. In fact, I played it recently again and, despite its absolute monster of a setup, it caused me to finally trade away its supposed replacement, Eldritch Horror. The way the random events and cards come together *always* produces at least 3-4 absolute killer narrative moments amongst the silly duds. I find that this game goes down very smooth mechanically once someone knows what they're doing to run the game system's gears.

Other people tell me that their games come out like completely random agglomerations of actions and I suppose if I felt that happened to me, I would feel the same way about it. But that is simply not my experience.

Ticket to ride is, yes, rummy with a board. It has a solid engine, but whenever I do play I tend to think there are more creative ways to play a light game with others, even people who game less frequently. Other wildly popular, accessible games like Dominion, tend to yield a lot more "aha!" fun moments in my experience.