The quality of this game can vary widely depending on the base ruleset. The basic premise of Mao - you can't tell anyone the rules and new rules are created during the game - is just plain fun, and most people I've introduced it to have loved it (though it just doesn't work well with some people).

I suggest avoiding any rules against idle conversation (talk that isn't called for by the rules); this tends to make the game quiet and frustrating rather than open and fun like it should be.

After tons of plays in different forms, I've come to the conclusion this is best without roles and without plot cards. While the game IS significantly imbalanced in favor of the spies without plot cards, it is also a much faster, much more elegant game experience.

Unless you completely hate cooperation or deduction, try this game. After 100 plays, this has still remained fantastic.

Card holders strongly recommended.

A relatively simple auction game with several valid paths you can take. Has enough options and is well balanced enough to always have interesting gameplay.

Who knew it could be so much fun watching your ship get smashed to bits? Always a blast every time I play.

The perfect dexterity game. Simple, plays fast, pure skill, and always a ton of fun. Each board is unique and has it's own flavor. It's even a good spectator sport - nothing stops other people from starting their own games like an active game of Crokinole does!

A relatively easy-to-implement way to make the game more difficult for experienced players with several clever ideas.

Surprisingly high level of skill for a short, dice-based game. I wouldn't have expected a game entirely composed of probability and bluffing/reading people to be as fun as this is.

Simple, chaotic, and fun - just don't play it while other people are trying to play something else!

An excellent negotiation game that only takes about an hour. Always a fun game; best with 4 or 5. (I still enjoy it with any number of players, but it's not as good.)

A game that always leaves me thinking about other things I could've done differently after each game. Nonstop tough decisions that keep things interesting.

Shows its age a bit - its definitely a bit too long, paying $1 with every worker placement is fiddley, the resource favor track is mostly garbage - but still a favorite.

Fairly unique player interaction and overall gameplay. A good heavy strategy game that always has a lot of interesting options and decisions to make.

Nifty little game with reasonable depth and options that only runs about an hour.

I didn't care for this too much on my first play, but it's definitely grown on me with repeated play. Basically a series of puzzles, it's a lot of thinking packed into half an hour that nicely fits any number of players.

Fantastic game of pure negotiation. My only complaint would be that it seems to run just a hair long (though to be fair, we've never randomly rolled the market in the games I've played).

I'm not a boxing fan, but I'm still impressed by how well integrated the theme is. A very fast-paced game with just the right amount of stuff to worry about (enough that you can't do and keep track of everything, but not so much you're completely overwhelmed).

Very elegantly designed pure negotiation game, and plays quick to boot. Clearly best with 5 players exactly.

I hesitated to dub this straight-up better than Agricola, but I think that's just the case. I've been having a hard time finding anything I really like better about Agricola and they're very similar overall.

Seems like a really good, solid game here. The one thing that I'm kind of afraid of is the buildings and a) how things change with 3 players instead of 4, and b) how much the competition for them is reduced when there's suddenly 80% extra buildings available. The competition level for the buildings felt about right with 4-players and only the base buildings available, but we'll see how I feel about that after more plays.

A bit silly and almost more of an activity than a game, but fun. Neat tension between trying to make it clear you're not the spy while also not revealing too much information to the spy.

Feels like a very standard, bland Euro at first blush but everything clicks together satisfyingly. Lots of interesting tension and tradeoffs between choices and timing.

Dice luck might be a little high for the weight of the game, though that's really difficult to quantify.

The 2nd spy is a nice touch to make it workable with larger groups. Locations are probably slightly weaker but not by a lot. Otherwise basically the same fun formula.

I'd always rather play Time's Up, but Charades on its own is still a lot of fun.

How could someone not like this? Very simple and a lot of fun.

This is a solid map. It makes for a much better 2/3 player game than Switzerland does.

I think this has some balance issues, but I really love the unique take on worker placement.

Fairly clever worker placement mechanic that is enjoyable and works well. Plays quite quickly as well with plenty of tough choices.

Super simple, super fast matching game that's a lot of fun. Rivals No Thanks in terms of ultra-fast fillers that are still good games.

Rather dull with small groups, but a blast with more - great convention game. Would recommend at least 14 people - With 12 the ability to change leadership is entirely too restricted.


With tons of plays my enthusiasm has waned a bit (more like a 7.5 now), but it's provided a lot of enjoyment and is still fun to play a few rounds here and there.

Essentially charades using a board to convey information, but always just a ton of fun. Gives you enough tools you can generally get to whatever you're trying to get to... eventually.

I've only played VERY early prototype versions, but even then it was one of the best co-op games I've ever played. Tense gameplay with a lot of tough choices mixed with a handful of unique mechanics makes for a great experience. As far as I can tell it's only gotten better since.

Possible downsides include the game length and potential AP issues (choosing a few cards out of a wide selection can be very difficult), so I'll be curious to see how things are implemented in current versions next time I get a chance to.

Changes from Himalaya appear to be a mild but relevant improvement across the board. Basic gameplay has the same nice programming tension and gives a solid bunch of decisions in an appropriate timeframe.

Solid mid-weight euro. The basic, always-available mild worker placement options are fairly bland but functional. The rest is quite neat, from the turn order switching to the strong player powers. Lots of interesting decisions.

Probably designed around the premise of 'how do we make a 2-player trick-taking game work?' -- and I'd say they managed to pull it off.

Solid tension between figuring out if you want to try for very few tricks or the more 'normal' route of getting more tricks than your opponent. Some powerful effects you can also plan around to some extent that allow for clever play and counterplay. Just enough cards removed from play that you don't know exactly what your opponent is capable of.

Very clean iconography makes most effects easy and quick to understand, helping the playability of this a lot.

Game involves a lot of interesting trade-offs with lots of satisfying decisions throughout. You're simultaneously balancing lots of factors (e.g. higher dice pick sooner but are more expensive, and the color of dice matters too) - yet it's still straightforward enough not to bog down much.

Purple's probably a bit too strong in general, tho there's some amount of inherent self-balancing there. Avoiding too many travel or end-goal effects that are especially powerful alongside purple is probably a good idea to encourage an interesting variety.

Concordia's pretty great, so why not make it a team game?

That's the entire game - Concordia but with teams. But that's enough - it works well and remains a lot of fun.

Well executed real-time co-op. Probably doesn't scale difficulty quite as well as it should for more players (5-player seems too easy), but I enjoyed this quite a bit.

Some interesting different tensions depending on the character abilities available - e.g. if played with no support abilities, you have to be very careful about who is playing what cards when (all while under a timer).

I think the larger decks are worse compared to Ligretto/Dutch Blitz - there's better pacing (and less overwhelmingly negative scores) with 10-card Blitz/Nerts Stacks. Still fundamentally the same fun game tho.

(For plays see Ligretto.)

Little reason to play this when you can plays the improved Lords of Xidit instead.

All non-solo games of this I've played have been online. I may make a set for in-person play sometime; it's a fun little game.

Definitely has a lot of chaos, but it's always a blast to play. A good combination of strategy, negotiation, and luck blended into one very fun package.

Though I haven't felt the urge to buy new cards in 10 years, it's still a solid game and I'll play it on occasion. I certainly don't like it as much as I used to, but it's stood the test of time (meaning, it remains fun years later) for me.

Solid, fairly light game with a heavy strategy punch for the length.

It doesn't get much better for a game that plays in under 15 minutes.

Coming from someone that generally does not like 2-player board games, this is a very good game. Play is fast, the math is tight, and the decisions and options are solidly good and interesting.

Not sure if I like this or Basari better yet. I'll probably have to play both a few times to really say for sure. Some elements of this are more interesting and better, but there also seems like there may be a few event cards that are just too swingy (and provide maybe too much of a catchup mechanic). Some swing (or weaker/stronger cards) is certainly fine and even good considering the game system, but a few seem to go overboard.

Rules are simple enough that nearly anyone can play, but it retains enough depth of strategy that good play will inevitably win. Always fun, and my default #1 recommendation for people newly interesting in playing modern board games. It is unfortunately not as well balanced as other TTR games (with the exception of Switzerland).

I prefer Mao's flavor of deduction, but this is quite nice too.

(Note: I'm one of the designers.)

I've played this many times and it continues to be fun every time I play. Has a good amount of double-think trying to out-guess what the opponent is going to play and a high fun factor because of the possible (often unexpected) outcomes.

The luck-heavy design of this game seems to only hurt it, but I still manage to like it a lot in spite of this.

Can run too long. Some games are clearly just determined by luck with skill not really factoring in. Despite these flaws, I still tend to enjoy it. Always having a bunch of tough decisions on how to best use your cards, when to play what, etc. keep this game interesting.

Similar to Loot, but with more going on making things more interesting overall.

The little order tiles that you can fulfill definitely seem to add an addition element to the game that gives you more options and makes the game better overall.

Lives up to its namesake. I'm now perfectly happy to play Eon, Mayfair, OR FFG Cosmic =)

Very similar to Liar's Dice, but different enough to be worth playing on occasion. Lacks the elegance but adds a little hand management and predicting teams people will choose.

Really solid 2-player game with difficult choices in a short timespan.

The rules are some of the worst-written I've seen, but once you figure it out it is surprisingly intuitive and clever. Handling adjustments, shifting briefcases for sales, etc. is also a lot less annoying and fiddly in practice than expected.

The flowchart in the files section is a great references for learning the game - much better than the actual rules.

Upon initial play, the art is even more beautiful than previous editions - but possibly worse for gameplay.

Hey, a Feld game where there isn't some niggling aspect I dislike! It's still perhaps overly complicated, and I'm still not a big fan of the point salad design, but the overall game is engaging and the dice placement mechanic is unique and clever.

Some good additional roles to add variety. Not a must-have, but worthwhile if you enjoy the game and want more variety.

Abstract but interesting puzzle. Like Trajan, this ends up not triggering AP *too* badly because there's so many options that it doesn't even feel like I can consider them all.

Bids are very tense and probably the biggest part of the game. General decisions and play are pretty point-salady and calculational, but in a satisfying way that can feel like a plan coming together.

After first case: A fun story with some interesting deductions and generally good attention to detail. A few things were not really explained satisfactorily, but they *mostly* did. Could see this going up or down with other cases.

2nd case: Similar. Generally good with a few minor frustrations. Overall a fun deductive, story-driven experience.

Not quite The Resistance, but still a solid social deduction experience. Tends to play a bit more quickly as well which can be nice.

Pretty bland/generic turn cubs -> other cubs -> points game, but relatively short with enough decisions to be fun enough. Grew on me more with repeated play.

An enjoyable mess.

Core negotiation & engine building was a lot of fun. The complexity ramps up to a nearly overwhelming level by the end; it's very hard to tell what you're remotely capable of.

Notably, our game had a pretty poor endgame; it felt very anti-climatic, and seemed like the game would work much better if it were designed around 5 rounds instead of 6. I'm told this is probably atypical, though, so we'll see if I feel the same if I get a 2nd chance to play.

An awkward mash-up that doesn't necessarily mesh too well, but plays very quick and is always fun.

Another in the handful of games coming out likely inspired by Codenames, this is another fun take on a word game focused on describing words in a round-about way. A handful of different bosses and curses add some variety to keep things from feeling too samey over multiple plays.

Worker placement that's reasonably simple, plays pretty quickly, and offers just enough unique with its increasing returns for more workers mechanic to make it stand out.

Neat enough combination of Ra and Lost Cities concepts. Lots of tense bids that are difficult to value.

Has a weird but interesting dynamic in 2-player since it's zero sum.

Some things better and some things worse than original Caylus. Doesn't have the nostalgia bias I have towards the original and is somehow meaner, but nicely streamlines some things. Feels like it's about a round too long.

Pennsylvania: Interesting enough mix-up with the stocks; gives incentive to do something other than gobble tickets at the end.

Relevantly prefer the Time's Up style to this meme style, but at its core it's the same game and I love that game so it still gets a high rating.

One of the longest games I thoroughly enjoy. Essentially a so-so negotiation game at its core, but the potential for wild accusations, the theme, and other elements combine to form a game that's just fun.


I'll note that I played this back in 2008 - I imagine the bad aspects of this game would wear on me a lot more nowadays. It's overly long, combat is drawn out and doesn't have interesting decisions, etc. Still, I remember the core negotiation driven by the theme fondly.

Fairly chaotic with a decent helping of luck, but just a lot of fun to play, and features some pretty clever little Knizia mechanics.

After a recent replay, this is a cool game. Very meaty - lots of downtime and AP prone, but it remains engaging as there's always interesting things to think about. The way empires rise and fall is interesting and makes the game dynamic in a cool way.

Lowered my rating a bit with recent plays - still a good and enjoyable social deduction experience, but there's a lot of overhead and length for the problems involved.

You're looking at a game that tends to last longer than it needs to compared to e.g. The Resistance. There's also a balance that either leans a bit high on complexity (tons of special weird roles to keep track of) or low on actual information - with neither side quite being ideal.

Definitely clunky in a lot of ways and tends to have an awkward early game, but still a neat mathy puzzle that's fun to play.

An excellent dexterity game; the only bad part is that it can sometimes take a few minutes to balance the board for the next round.

First played this almost 5 years ago - didn't really like it then. On a recent replay, though, it was a lot more enjoyable - tense choices, painful give & take of what you want to do and what you can do, etc. I think it helped that this play was with 4 players, which is clearly the best number to play with.

Overall concept is very awkward and initial strategy is pretty confusing to figure out, but the game works fairly well and has some interesting options.

Something about the way bidding works in this game rubs me the wrong way, but I rather like the game overall.

Was really tickled by the tension throughout the end-game the 2nd time I tried this. Quick-playing with some good decisions.

I like the predictable power plants and restricted resources on the China map; I think it's a small improvement over the normal game.

(Any plays of this I have are listed with the main Werewolf entry.)

Several of the roles available in this version tend to negatively impact the game overall; generally, the more "basic" the game (Wolves, Seer, Villagers), the more depth of strategy it actually has.

I like the game a lot, but it's also incredibly unmemorable; after 3 plays I still can't remember any of the rules or gameplay looking back on it.

Medeci: Refined.

Always has a tough tension balancing the immediate benefits of ship speed and the longer-term benefits of tiles and wares. A really simple way to handle an auction while still allowing for interesting decisions throughout.

It's not Crokinole or PitchCar, but it's a solid dexterity game. Very fun and some neat planning with team play.

There's little reason for this game to exist: most of the mechanics are the same as what you'd find in the original Ra, and I feel the original does things better.

On the plus side, the scoring setup for people is well done: you simultaneously want different types and a lot of the same type and you're potentially competing with other players for these too. Combine this with the ability of priests to flip tiles and it's an interesting, satisfying mechanic.

Unfortunately, the other aspects are generally worse. Most tiles are double-sided and you get to choose which side is face-up when you draw it from the bag; this can offer some interesting decisions, but the choice is usually obvious but still takes time to determine, significantly increasing the length of the game. The buildings are also implemented poorly - there's no visual or logical reason for 2 buildings of a color to create a "complete" building.

Overall it's still basically Ra so it's still a good game, but there's no situation I would recommend this over Ra.

Different enough from Modern Art to justify its existence. Some interesting hand management plus 'work with your neighbor but try to get the better deal' aspects.

This is a game that feels like a chaotic mess with a lot of the flow of the game being pretty random based on what cards you happen to have available. Theoretically this goes down if you truly know the game and cards available well, but that is a level of play almost nobody will reach.

However, it's still a fun process. The interactions can be crazy, and there's simply a lot of fun, powerful things you can do - and every game plays out differently.

Combat-heavy buys are superior to money-focused and the overall design and length don't end up allowing for much in the way of combos to actually happen. In other words, I don't feel this is actually a very good game, but I've still enjoyed most of the games I've played.

Some interesting balance between points now and setting up for points later. A rare case where I actually like the endgame bonus scoring cards, because a) you get to choose the card you want, and b) you can sacrifice better positioning to go for better bonus cards earlier.

Can feel a little chaotic with 4 players, with players before you taking your moves, though you can plan around this a bit by watching the cards they take. Also has a bit of a knowledge-or-luck aspect where you're really going to want to know what scoring cards are coming up.

Makes a game full of complexity and madness even more full of complexity and madness. For some reason it supposedly can now be played with 5 even though it is still terrible with more than 3.

Really complicated with tons of AP, too much luck, and plenty of downtime - yet everything connects to make a fun game despite all these flaws.

Doing the turn order in a snake pattern seems to make the most sense, especially with 4 or 5 players.

My interest level on this has dropped over time, but I feel like I have to give it some bonus credit for how awesome it was when I played the 1st edition Origins.

Simple improvement: Have players draw their 4th track card at the end of their turns instead of the beginning. Gives extra time to plan with no downside.

Different; not necessarily better or worse. I specifically dislike France; there seem to be too few removal effects for how cheap it is to occupy. I somewhat dislike having 2 leftover action cards (though I suppose my ideal would be exactly 1 left over). The goods are fine. The ship is surprisingly neat, and the inquisitor is an interesting change as well.

I'm not the biggest fan of abstracts, but this is a solid one. Takes some of the feel of Othello while improving on it and adding a light catch-up mechanic.

Finally had a chance to play the published version after playing the prototype many years ago!

In short: this game has a focus on heavy interaction and heavy complexity, two things I tend to dislike in boardgames, but it executes on them well and delivers a solid experience.

The listed game time is actually high if anything - a 5-player, first-time game going at a fairly slow pace only took 2 hours.

With 4, turn order is *ridiculously* important - 3 players is solidly recommended (and 5 sounds like madness). Game is complex - there's a ton of mechanics present which are very difficult to keep in mind and value your decisions around. They feel well thought out and balanced so they're not bad, just a bit out of synch.

I'd generally prefer a more streamlined or faster-playing experience, but overall an enjoyable game with tons of tough decisions and a good balance of tactical and strategic play.

Light, lasts too long for the amount of randomness involved, but still manages to be good fun regardless.

A war game that's not all about randomness and various player-targeting problems.

Lots of powerful card effects make the draft full of tense choices. Combat is generally focused on your rewards and goals rather than the player(s) you're fighting for them.

Interestingly *very* different than Midgard - pulls some of the same core mechanics, but changes almost everything.

Enjoyable take on deckbuilding. A little afraid focusing heavily on anti-spoilage cards is overly strong, but remains to be seen.

Certainly very similar to Witch's Brew, with some good tweaks (4 cards instead of 5 seems better for example) and some more questionable ones (I'm not enthusiastic about the board in general).

Very simplistic game, but just enough depth there to be interesting and enjoyable consistently.

Still a lot of fun, but a worse design than Loopin' Louie in a couple ways.

A kitchen sink of goals and mechanics that's likely more complicated than it should be (as seems to be the general trend these days), so it's kind of a mess of doing a bunch of random stuff for points.

But it's an enjoyable mess with good decisions, and most of the rules themselves at least fit together well-enough to be remembered without too much difficulty.

2-player works well with each person controller 2 meeples. An interestingly different dynamic with deckbuilding in that certain weak cards could be okay early, bad in the middle, and again desirable late.

Fairly interesting take on cooperative deduction.

Decent light game that plays fast and still offers some interesting decisions throughout.

Potential for neat cooperative connections, but zero room for clever and creative play. A mildly interesting gimmick that doesn't have much longevity.

Update: Played some more with a good group and liked it a fair bit more. I still mostly think of it as a worse Hanabi, but carefully dancing with the timing of things can be fun and satisfying.

Solid, enjoyable euro. Rondel system is quite solid and offers a lot of interesting decisions and satisfying power plays.

I'd probably call the symbol-matching construction flat bad, simply because it's a relevant chunk of time and analysis for ultimately very little decision value. The game is also quite fidley, with tons of things that can be easily missed on a given turn like pipping up your dice.

Played Case 2. Seemed slightly worse than my experience with the original SHCD, but still solid and enjoyable.

Simple game with one smart twist that makes it work well. Not something I'm keen on playing for long stretches, but quite enjoyable in short bursts.

Some interesting 2vs2 play - powers offer some variety with potentially neat interactions between teammates.

Good 1vs1 as well. Abstract with just enough extra juice to keep things fresh and interesting each time.

I prefer standard Charades, but this is a cromulent flip that's still plenty of fun.

(I also think the words used in this packaged version could be selected better, as a few too many of them are going to be everyone simply charading the same, easy thing.)

I'd still rather play normal Codenames, but this is actually kind of interesting because you're really encouraged to give *non*-suggestive code words, because suggestive ones would hit too many things in most cases.

2/3rds RftG, 1/3rd Puerto Rico. So not much new here, but well-executed and lands in a pretty good spot that's enjoyable and has some small twists to keep it fresh.

I think the experience is a little worse using this expansion, but appropriate for people that've played a lot of Caverna and want a mix up. Likely often going to be some relevant advantages to some players based on the races others take.

Some definite room for clever play within the simple concept, would be keen to try it again.

Solidly fun little party game. Seemed like there might be too few cards long-term, but I had a good time with it. Definitely a different way of thinking than other games in this neighborhood, as those generally limit words rather than syllables.

Nice area control game with fairly simple rules. Overall I do like the game and there are tough choices between what's best now, what's good soon, and what might be good later. It just has a few too many small flaws for me to consider it more highly:

The way the fort cards come out can potentially be quite swingy (though there is a lot of control in taking the scoring action). The goods mechanic feels pretty weak and not terribly polished. Can also bog down a bit as you generally need to re-asses your move based on everything your opponents do so you can't plan ahead too much.

A decent game, though the heavy end-game math is very heavy on the Analysis Paralysis. This can make the last turn or two drag pretty badly.

My enjoyment of this game has been inconsistent - sometimes I have a lot of fun with it, other times I don't really enjoy it.

A very quick area control game that still has some interesting plays available. Feels a little lacking in depth and nothing about the mechanics truly shine brightly for me, but it's enjoyable enough.

Certainly not terribly deep and there's tons of chaos, but always a fun time and plays very quickly.

Solid, but I always found the base game just a bit lacking. The first expansion with the addition of goals does a lot to make me like this game more. (The later expansions aren't nearly as important or impactful IMO.)

Pretty interesting with some tough decisions. Played with 3 - I don't intend to even try it with 2 or 4 as I suspect it'd be far worse.

Neat game, plays out interestingly. Probably a bit too chaotic when played on a smooth table, as it makes it really hard to place your cards where you want them without accidentally spinning them around.

Skillful play beat Fast play in the only 4-player I've tried so far.

2nd expansion - makes the good base game a little bit better by adding a simple but interesting additional option to the mix.

Very awkward rules make it rather confusing at first, but a quite interesting game once you figure out how to play.

Surprisingly fun for a game of constant, repetitive blind bidding. Runs long with 6 players.

Terrible with 3, poor with 5, good with 4.

Interesting mechanic in hurting a color's position to have a chance at scoring in that color.

Not the biggest fan of two-player board games, but this one definitely has some interesting decisions throughout.

Rating for Austria.

Absolutely better than Zooloretto - the same amount of depth streamlined into a much faster and better game.

One of my favorite traditional co-ops. Creates a very tense atmosphere and the choices seem to be more interesting and less obvious than in most co-ops I've played.

A solidly fun game. While it doesn't compare to many of the great dexterity games such as Crokinole or PitchCar, the price doesn't compare either. Probably one of the best dexterity games available that doesn't break the bank.

Also good (perhaps better) in teams.

Solid push your luck game that plays many players well and offers a fun experience in a fairly short play time.

Not noticeably better or worse than the base game - just different.

(Lowered rating based on playing Birmingham a decade after I played the original Brass; assuming it should no longer be a 7.5 by my current tastes.)

Liking this less each time I play it. The sheer level of swingyness is just so extreme for a game that lasts as long as it does.

Definitely play with a deck marked so that the cards' points are clear. Using chips to publicly keep track of the points everyone has also seems to make for a better game.

The one game I played felt a little bland, but I also saw a lot of potential depth and interesting interactions with the mechanics so I'm interested in trying it again.