San Juan

Welcome to Replayable, where we go into depth on our favorite tabletop games that keep us coming back again and again. I'm the start player Todd, and today I'm joined by Megan and Dave. For our eleventh episode, we are doing one for ourselves by talking about San Juan. It was designed by Andrea Safarth and was originally released in 2004 by Alea Ravensberger, with artwork by Franz Vohlwinkel. A second edition was released in 2014 with artwork by Harald Aliska and Mia Steingreber.

How are you two doing today? Are you ready to select your roles? Yes, I'm ready to be the governor. Nice. I'm ready. This is a cozy favorite of mine, so I'm happy to talk about it. I'm as well. San Juan is a card game based on Puerto Rico. Each round, players take turns selecting a role. Builder, counselor, producer, prospector, or trader. The player making the selection gets an additional bonus for that role, and then the other players get to perform the basic action.

The game is notable for using the same cards as buildings, commodities, and currency. Victory points are earned exclusively by building. The game ends at the end of the role selection turn in which any player has constructed her 12th building after all players have had a chance to follow the builder role. Tell me about your history with this game.

For me, this was the first instance that I strongly remember of a game that had multi-use cards, the fact that the same cards are used for all those different things. Yeah, there are some additional tiles for role selection and for the market values of the goods. I remember just being in love with the idea of the cards being used for all these different purposes. What are your thoughts? From what I understand, that was the genesis of the game, this use of multi-use cards.

I can't think of a game before this one that has something like that. For me, that's the core of this. I've played games since then that have that mechanism. I really enjoy it because it's a great decision point on do I build this card or do I use it as currency to build another card? That's what makes it such an interestingly tough game.

A through line of my experience on this podcast is that the games I come and talk about, I've played a lot more in a digital or online version than I have in person. We just recently played this in person and according to BG stats, it was only my second time doing so. I had completely forgotten that you use the cards as your goods, as what you're producing. In my mind, it was little cubes. I was thinking Indigo had little blue cubes and I don't know why I thought that.

It was a little bit of a revelation, a game that I've played a million times online. I still had this little revelatory moment where I was like, oh yeah, this is how it keeps churning through the cards because you're using them as your producible goods, which is such an interesting way of handling that.

Also the currency, you get to those agonizing decision points where you've got a bunch of buildings you want to be able to construct because you know they're going to synergize well, and yet you got to give some of them up in order to pay for them. You have to give most of them up. Right? That point is always just, it's like, can I hang on to this or okay, I'm going to have to get up and hope that I see another one of those later. Megan, you mentioned that you played a lot of this online.

Where do you remember learning to play? Where do you play today? I remember learning to play on BSW and spending a lot of time playing there. Nowadays, I play just against AI players on my iPad, but back in the day, I was all about that BSW experience. I also played a ton on BSW, Bret Spielveld. It's great that that's the three of us because in our current game group, the three of us originally met online at BSW playing games. Well, wait, you're making a face, Megan.

I knew you all from Werewolf before I knew you through BSW. You guys were already playing Werewolf when I found you through BSW, so I was later to the Werewolf game. Fascinating. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I also played a ton on BSW and I also had an old Android version of it. I feel like it was mainly text-based. There weren't a ton of graphics and I played on my old Motorola Razr or something like that. It was very, very old school.

As far as available versions, the iOS version or the iPadOS version to which Megan is referring, that's like a dead link. You can't find it on the Apple Store anymore. But if you still have the installation package, it still runs. So I still play it as well, but that version is no longer available. The first edition is still available on BSW. Then the second edition can be played on Yucatan as Puerto Rico Cards, which I think is a pretty interesting title for it.

I don't know if they're trying to get around any trademarks with that description. Yeah. I also started playing it on BSW and it's where I got introduced to one of the underlying mechanisms or foundational strategic elements of the game and that is it's a race. I had found an early combo that I loved and I felt was unbeatable and that was an early prefecture and then you go for all violet buildings.

Because you're getting those extra cards from selecting the counselor action, you're able to get that engine going. You're seeing a lot of cards. You're likely to find a city hall. And so when it works, it's really great. But I went up against this guy and he just schooled me and he schooled me like four times in a row, we get in again. Then I finally get my magic combo. I win the fifth game and I'm feeling like, okay, I'm back.

And he was just like, you know, scoreboard, you won 20% of the time. And it was because he was racing. I was trying to find a perfect combo and he was just turning cards out. And that was a revelatory moment for me that you can't wait to build the perfect synergy. Sometimes you have to build a less than perfect building just to keep up so that you are at least scoring points with those building slots before the game ends.

I have so much to unpack with what you just said, because you hit on like 10 points that I wanted to make throughout this entire podcast. Well, do you want it? Why would we just erase it and start over? We can't know. No, no, no. I'm not saying that you're stepping on it. I'm saying let's let's get into it. I mean, those are all fantastic points and that's what we want to talk about. Let's start with the concept of a race, not for the galaxy, but for San Juan.

But as a race, I do totally agree with you there. But I think racing is one of the strategies because I think building a slow engine is a possible powerhouse strategy, but it often gets undermined by somebody just putting their foot on the gas and making the game end before that person can really get everything going. And I think racing is probably the most dominant strategy, but I don't think the game always has to be a race. All right.

Yeah, I think there's such an interesting tension because you're always weighing the tradeoffs because of what we talked about previously with the cards being used for everything. You know, not only are you having to give up, oh, I want to build this. Oh no, now I have to spend other cards I want in order to build this. Not only are you spending the cards so they're not available to you, but you're putting them back into the deck so that they're maybe available to the other players.

And it's like, oh, you know, I want to keep this card just so that Dave can't have it, you know? But then I'm hurting myself and am I just helping Todd by submarineing Dave? And that tension, you know, having to make those little decisions is what keeps this fun years after we all originally learned to play it.

And I do think there is that tension of, do I just want to get something built all the time versus do I want to build something that is moving towards a goal and is getting my engine going?

And can I delay knowing that hopefully later this person who's been spending, spending and maybe building all of these low point value buildings that aren't really going to help them that later I'll be able to build and I'll be able to build what I want during turns where they won't be able to build because they don't have the budget for it. That's a good point. Yeah, that touches on I think one of the key aspects of the game, I think is tempo.

And then like Megan saying, when to just drop a one point building or a one cost building or when to hold off for a three or four cost building. And sometimes you could just get too far behind in the tableau. You know, I think a rookie mistake is you get dealt one of those nice juicy six point or six cost end game cards in the beginning of the game and you hold on to it because you really want to play it and build a strategy around it.

But I think after you play a few times, you realize just cut those darlings right away, spend that card on something else and get your engine going. There are two versions of this game and played the second edition last week. And that game was decided by a single point. So I definitely agree with what you're saying, Dave, about you got to keep up with the tableau because even skipping over a single one point building could have been the difference between first and second. Right.

So sometimes you just got to throw something down because if it ends before you're able to get your 11th or 12th building out there, then it doesn't matter how good they are. You may fall behind. But the second point I wanted to make there was getting the engine building. A lot of times you're building with anticipation of what your capstone will be.

Am I building a bunch of what were violet buildings in the first edition, which are now 10 buildings in the second edition because I'm hoping to get a city hall. But then what happens if I never see one because Megan's holding on to it or stuffing it in her chapel? Exactly. Exactly. There's that delicious nature, which is, OK, I need to build something in anticipation, but I don't know if I'm going to see that six card again. If I get rid of it, it may not come back around.

Yeah. The deck management, the shared deck management is also an interesting point where I might be holding on to a bunch of cards of value to you until we shuffle. And then once we're once we shuffle, then I'll discard those so they don't show up in the next shuffle. 100 percent. I think Megan was saying this already. I can't play them, but I'm sure as heck going to make sure you don't get to play them either. I know that is solid.

And then because you kept picking prospector in that last game, we had to shuffle a lot. So there was actually a good deal of deck churn, which is another important component. So there's a hand limit. Right. At the end of each round of roll selections, when the governor placard shifts to the next player, you discard down to seven cards unless you have a tower. And then you can hang on to 12.

In the second edition, if somebody has a guard room, then if you don't have a guard room, you have to discard down to six. Well that leads to a question I have for the two of you. Maybe this would be a good point for it. And we usually don't get this granular in the podcast here. But what do you think about the tower? The tower to me, it's one of those cards that I mean, I'll play it if I just need to get some points on the board. I don't want to skip this build. I happen to be holding it.

Great. But with power, I feel like if I'm using the tower or depending on it, I'm playing an inefficient game. That it's not really helping me. I think of it as the same way as that card in St. Petersburg that lets you have four cards in your hand. Which again, that means I'm playing it. Maybe trying to be overly ambitious. The warehouse? The warehouse. So I'm trying to be overly ambitious in a game that should be a little more efficient and quick. Do you guys see any value in the tower?

I would say I agree with you completely, which I realize is a boring answer for our podcast audience. But yeah, to me, I feel like if I'm depending on the tower, then I'm not playing at my best. So it is. I'll play it if I have no better options, but I'm always hoping for a better option. Yeah, I think that's a perfect description of it. I'll play it if I have no better options. And if my engine is generating that many cards that I have room for it.

And I guess that's where I was headed with this card churn. So sometimes you will usually sell goods that will take your hand in excess of seven just to churn the deck. Just to see more cards. Even though you're going to discard some of them at the end of the round for no benefit, it still makes sense to churn that deck so that you can wrap around and get a second shot at cards that you may still want, but had to use to build.

Well, and that seven card hand limit is pretty nice to another juicy part of the game where we may be just traded. You picked up 10 cards and then now maybe I don't want to build. So we'll move into the next round and I'll force you to discard some of those. So knowing how many cards somebody else is holding and then manipulating the role selection because of that, that's just one of the fantastic parts of the game. Right, because if I trade up and I'm holding on to 10 or 11, we build great.

I build, I'm at the card limit in the next round. I get to build again, another meaty building and maybe you can't hang the second time around. I know that that happened a couple of times in our last play. All right. So what are some of your favorite combos? What were the ones that you discovered that you decided were really good and maybe you've moved away from since then? Like the chapel in the poor house? Yeah, talk about that one.

It's such a good idea and I swear I've seen it work, but Megan, you have some input, right? Because you just did it. In my mind, the poor house feeds the chapel. If you run a poor strategy, you're constantly picking up a card and then you're constantly sticking in the chapel and the two of them just hold hands and go off into the sunset fueling a little tiny engine for you and then the rest of your game can continue. Is that your experience with it? I mean, it was working well for me.

There was never a time that I was building and not getting to take advantage of everything and so that was great because the worst is when you have a card that gives you some sort of power and then things get messed up and you don't get to take advantage of it and so you're ending up with too many cards after you build or you're not getting to produce more than one good or whatever. So I was glad I was always able to take advantage of it. The problem was comparison is the thief of joy, right?

And I was looking over at someone else who as we were playing second edition had played the harbor. That was Dave. And so that harbor was played after I played my chapel and I got eight points for my chapel and you got eight points from that harbor and the nice thing with the chapel is that I was able to deliberately choose to bury cards that I didn't want the rest of you getting under my chapel. Whereas what was going under your harbor was random.

You didn't know what it was and so I suppose that was a difference but it felt like man, that harbor just delivered for you without the drawbacks of the chapel. So I was pretty frustrated with that. Having us sit next to each other, you with the poor house and the chapel, you got your poor house and religion and then me with the harbor being the 1% making money. It was just a metaphor for America driving through Beverly Hills to get to South Central.

That I was just very easily making more money with my money and you were just scrapping to like get what you can and in the end they both netted us the exact same amount of points but yours was just so much work. Yes, yes. And I'll also say that in many other games, Megan's final score would have been enough to win but we had some heavy hitting combinations that paid out their maximum amounts and so that was why her normally effective strategy came up short.

I'm not looking at the moment, maybe I should but I don't think I came in last when we played. I think I was in the middle. So I just- You want me to answer that? I think so. Am I wrong? Did I come in last? You came in last. Really? But you had 32 points and 32 points is a respectable score. Wow. In my mind, I forgot and thought I did better than that. So wow. 32 points I think is a winning score in first edition.

I think that's one of the key difference I noticed with the second edition is that it's just much more high octane. I think the winner, Todd, you were at 53. I was at 42 and you were at 41. Still with first edition, I think that if I recall, that's an amazing score and second edition that felt like a pretty good score. A couple more plays, you probably could have been in high 40s.

It's just because it's so much more of a point salad is that if I have to compromise these cards to play this card, that's fine. This card has a ton of value too and there's a lot more cards with a ton of value whereas first edition, I don't need the crane, I don't need the archive, I don't need the tower. There's a bunch of these like fly over territory cards where I'm looking for really, we're all looking for the same 10 cards to build our tableau with. Right.

I don't know why we had to disparage the Midwest in talking about this game. Good point. I do retract. I will say that I think for me, this was my first time playing second edition and I'm not sure about the rest of you but it seemed like overall the group was not super experienced with second edition. In a way, it was like a modified learning game. We know the game but we also didn't know the game.

I think that made it a little interesting and we would probably play differently the next time we play. Perhaps. Definitely the harbor looks a lot better than we thought, right? Yeah. I mean, I think I'd be chasing after some of those newer cards and not settling for some of those first edition combos because I think they're just not as powerful. Okay. Any other combos that you like? Well, guild hall with indigo, just a guild hall and a ton of indigo to end the game quickly.

In first edition, that's an unbeatable strategy if you can pull it off. If you're drawing a ton of indigo and sugar and you're able to play the guild hall, from my experience, that's unbeatable. Right. So one of the interesting things I think you would want to look at then are the number of cards of each type that are in there. In the first edition game, there are 10 indigo and then there are eight of the other four, right? Sugar, tobacco, coffee and silver.

In a four player game, everybody starts with an indigo. That means there are only six indigo left in the deck to fuel that strategy you just talked about. There's actually less indigo than any of the other factories, which I think is interesting. Right. It's almost, I don't want to say it's a unicorn build, but it's definitely one where you're going to hang on to those indigos when you run across them because Nexon line would be tobacco, right? Tobacco is the next best factory. Sugar.

No. I mean, sugar is an excellent cost, but if you're paying two cards to get one victory point or you can build three cards to get two, which tobacco is a two point building, then you're going to start, or at least I do, I start hanging on to tobacco over sugar. I see what you're saying. When I'm thinking of a guild hall strategy though, that's when I do value the sugar a bit higher because I'm trying to build as quickly as I can and it's cheap to build that sugar.

Okay. I think is clearly the best bang for your buck production building you can build. All right. What about the balance between factories and buildings? You're looking at what's in your hand and what you're able to build those first few turns and that kind of determines where you're going from there. And so once all you've been able to build are like a few indigo, well, then that steers your ship a bit.

And if all you've been able to build are those low level violet buildings, then that is setting your course a little bit and it's hard to try to reroute. That's what you've been able to do those first few turns. Maybe you have thought on choices you can make at the beginning, but I feel like those first couple of turns, it's just a matter of when someone picks builder, what's in your hand and you have to go from there.

I think it's a wonderful problem to have if you have multiple things you can build and you get to choose, but I don't know that that is necessarily the circumstance most people find themselves those first few turns. Yeah, I totally agree with that is in the beginning, you're usually just scrapping together what you can and your strategy starts to emerge from there on your first few buildings.

And we were just talking about combos, and then there's the tempting, but usually ultimately damning market combos. When you're getting an extra card because you're producing two things and an extra card because you're shipping two things and an extra card for shipping. So like the market stall, the market stand or whatever they all are, you think this is going to be such a great engine and it's so expensive to get it up.

And then at the end, you finally get it running and then the game's over and everybody else has more points than you. So usually like what Megan was saying, you're just trying to scrap together a little bit of those and a little bit of what the kind of the cards have been dealing you and seeing how you can make those work together.

Right. So I was pointing out the balance aspect though, because early on, and I mentioned one of my favorite things to do was the early prefecture, especially in first edition where that card only cost three to build, they updated it. Second edition made it four. I found I needed to put down at least one factory, preferably coffee or silver, because somebody else is going to be going the route of production and trade. And I need to get something more than just the one card value for Indigo.

Indigo is only ever going to produce one card when you sell it. So you need to have something else there to keep your engine going. And I found by putting down at least one factory, I was able to keep up even with the violet build so that when I got to my city hall, I had enough of an engine going that I could afford to build it and maybe even a palace behind it. If you go the guild hall route, same thing. You might need like a smithy.

If you want to discount the production buildings, you're going to be playing to support the guild hall. You might want a prefecture. So if someone does council, you pick up that second card or you have more opportunities to find and keep those Indigos. You can definitely get the ideal game where all you do is build the support buildings, find the six building and cap it off and get a ton of points. But statistically, that's rare.

So I think that there's a nice balance between deciding how much of the other style building you need to keep the engine going. And then of course, we have the stepchild of all this, which is the triumphal arch. I almost never start out a game thinking I'm going to build the triumphal arch. I usually end up with it because I couldn't find one of the other ones. So what do you think about that?

I think this whole topic was just for you to talk about how you beat us with the triumphal arch last time. I mean, I'm getting to it. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. And that's an interesting combo because the monuments you build to get there, they don't generate anything. They're not engine cards. They're just points. So it's so hard to build that. Hero's nice. You pay five, it gives you five points. That's so nice, but it doesn't give you anything else as the game goes.

So to plan on that and then play the arch at the end, of course, it's a ton of points when you pull it off, but you have to have an engine going before that point to fuel building those cards. And you did it well. That engine was I had two additional factories, right? I had a coffee and a silver. So while other people at the table, and I don't want to step on the player count discussion, but somebody that round was probably going to be producing or trading.

And so by having those factories in place, it enabled me to have that engine to go that route. So there's more factories than I would have built for City Hall, not as many factories as I would have built for Guildhall. So I definitely agree with what you're saying is you have to get a second production building out, maybe a third. I'm not as enamored with silver as you are. I think that five cost, especially early in the game, is just way too heavy. And I don't think the payoff is there.

That's why I said I'm always looking for tobacco. If that can be your second or third building, I think you're in pretty good shape. So what that gets to the silver buildings and getting that second and third production building gets to one of my favorite part of the game. And I don't really know what to call it other than in my notes, I call it phase leeching, where I'm leeching off of each of the phases. The prefecture is a perfect example.

So if I can play the prefecture, that special power is that every time somebody picks counselor, I get to keep two cards. So what that does is I'm leeching a little bit of extra power out of that phase, which makes that phase worse for you to choose because it helps me. And any time you have a card that benefits for a phase out of turn, so a phase where I'm not choosing, but you're choosing and taking that power out of your hands, it starts to shift the whole game into my direction.

And that battle is, I think, one of the most satisfying things about the game is if I've got the aqueduct, that means I can produce twice when I produce. So when you choose production, I get the exact same power that you get. So thank you for doing my work for me. That's one of the greatest things is wrestling the power into your direction. Or your favorite card in our last game was the gold mine, which was a gold mine for you. Well, but we misplayed it.

It's been redone in second edition and we're so familiar with first edition, we didn't even bother to read the text. So the gold mine is when somebody picks the prospector, you turn over four cards. If they all have a different cost, you get to keep one of them in first edition. In second edition, you get to keep the lowest cost. What? Right. You can't. So if you turn them all over and one of them's the guild hall, you can't take the guild hall. You have to take the lowest cost one in there.

Wow. Okay. Yeah. So that's why I didn't win. So we didn't have to put an asterisk on the game. What you were just talking about there, Dave, I think is why we still enjoy this game so many years on because again, you know, we were talking about earlier with the cards, there's that tension of keeping them versus having them go back in the deck and other people using them.

It's the same thing with choosing roles is that, okay, what might be most beneficial for me right now is to produce, but I know someone else is going to be benefited by producing as well. And I'd rather them not get that benefit. So maybe I pick something else, but then someone else gets a benefit from that. And that tension there is just so enjoyable, even though it is the cost of playing the game. There's always going to be that somehow. It's just very enjoyable to me. I totally agree.

So moving on to the prompts, weight and complexity on board game geek scale of one to five, no decimals. This category also aligns with board game arena where it is called complexity there. How would you rate the weight of San Juan, Megan? So I said two, the perfect weight.

And thinking through this question for this game, I like went in depth on this one because when I think about the weight of a game or how easy or difficult it is, on one part, there is the ease of learning the rules of the game and then there is the ease of learning how to win the game. And those are two different things. And I actually went looking on BGG because I was like, I wonder what the weight is of Go. And Go is like a four point something, which learning the rules of Go, very easy.

Learning to win and be really good at Go, really hard, which makes sense. And I think San Juan is a very easy game to learn to play. I could play, I played and the way I played in person, you wouldn't have heard any of the BSW for making an ineligible play. I learned to play the rules and I think this would be an easy game to teach someone how to play. But I think learning how to win is a little bit tougher because I wrestled between one and two because I do think the game is really accessible.

But I think it deserves that too because I think it is a little harder to learn how to win. How about you, Dave? Perfectly said, Megan. That's exactly what I think about it. And that disparity between or relationship between the rules overhead and playing well, that's something I deal with a lot playing with my kids. I can play Ress Arcana with my 10 year old. He knows the rules. He can play it. He'll never beat me. Well, not never. In a couple of years, I'll never be able to beat him.

I'll say someday he will. Yeah. But the playing of it is very simple. I have it also rated as a two. The rules overhead is, I can teach you in a few minutes. And then as you're drawing the cards, the text on the cards, if you bother to read it, unlike we did with the gold mine. But if you bother to read the text, it's very straightforward and easy to follow. So even if you don't know all the cards that are coming, you can still muddle your way for the first few games fairly easily.

And that's why I said in the beginning, it's a cozy favorite of mine. That's why I give it a two. It's just that great. I'm not going to be overburdened, but I'm still going to get a nice, meaty, enjoyable game to play. Right. And perhaps unsurprising, I also have it as a two. And I feel a little bit embarrassed by that because this is one of my favorite games of all time. I love this game. The mechanics are straightforward. I love still love the fact that cards are used for almost everything.

And yet it's only a two. Right. I feel like as an experienced gamer, I should like heavier games. That's not true, though, as a card carrying OG member yourself, like you shouldn't be ashamed of a two. You know, you're looking for those games, minutes to learn, a lifetime to master. You want those four page rules, although the rules are longer in this one, but a four page rule book that I'm going to play for 20 years and still be enjoying.

And pretty much have been playing this for at least 19 years. So it's a two for me, but I still think that's a great weight for the game that it is. So moving on to strategy, do we want to talk about how much opportunity there is for strategy here? Same scale, one to five. Dave, why don't you leave us off? I think strategy is a little tougher on this one. I'm thinking that it's a two and that it's just very tactical.

Like what Megan was saying earlier is you're just you're going with the best of what you can do based on what you're holding right now. There are times when you are very specifically building towards a strategy like the guild hall or I'm sure there's more strategies in the second edition that we haven't found yet. But overall, you're just kind of winging it as you go to try to put it together. And certainly there's strategy on the role that you're going to select as we were talking about too.

And you know, how does this affect the other players versus how does it affect me right now? But overall, I think the strategy is fairly low, which is another funny one. Low complexity, low strategy, favorite game that doesn't give us any game or cred. But I don't mind. Yeah, I also said a two, but my next comment in my notes was, does learning the cards count as strategy because I have no memory for like which cards I should be looking for. I just don't remember.

I'm like that goldfish and I see the guild hall and I'm like, oh, right. This card's in here. I could be working towards this. So I forget about those things and I'm certainly not thinking about, okay, there's so many of these cards in the deck and I see the, you know, however many out on the table. So can I go for this method or not? And I think that when we were at the table last week, there were people selecting the counselor role, looking for specific cards.

And I never did that because I never had specific cards in mind that I was going for. And I think, you know, clearly since we've already covered the fact that I came in last place, other people did better than I did because they had that familiarity with the deck and knew what the possibilities were. So I think having that familiarity helps and that's why I wouldn't give this a one. But other than that, I don't know that there's much opportunity for strategy.

Yeah. I also have it as two and on strategy, I think it starts to lean, you know, on the heavier side, but it's still a two. The game is fast enough that it really doesn't lend itself to morphing your strategy. Like I said, you might start out thinking you're going to build a city hall or a guild hall and end up with the triumphal arch. In the second edition, there's another six building that's been added to it, the residence.

And then there's also the cathedral, which is a seven building that's on the table. You really just kind of look at the cards and figure out the way to go. And I think where strategy starts coming into it is knowing at this phase of the game, if someone is producing a lot, maybe I need that aqueduct, right? So that I can get to, like Dave said, I can do that phase leaching. I love that term.

And if I get an aqueduct, maybe I'm looking for the well that gives me a card if I produce two goods in the same turn. That's not a combo that I set out to start the game with looking to build. It's a two. And I think it's again for how long the game lasts. And we'll talk about playing time in just a little bit. I think that's the right rating for it. On to luck. How much do you think luck plays a factor in this game? And I'm expecting some higher numbers this time around.

You're leading the witness. I totally am. Luck, it's a three for me. I mean, it does. It's a card game. Card games inherently are going to have luck. It depends on what you draw. I have definitely really had nothing else going and built a bunch of production plants. And then the end of the game happened to have some money and drew that guild hall and went from 12 points to 32 points by the play of my last card. So I've definitely lucked into that.

But on the other hand, there's enough luck to where if you are like we were just talking about, if somebody's fishing with the counselor, usually if you're fishing, I think you're in an upset condition in the game. If you're looking for a specific card, I think you're going down a rabbit hole that you may not pull out of. So yeah, it's kind of that you play the hand that you're dealt. And because of that luck is I'm not putting it at a four or five and maybe I should.

But I'm just because I think in the end, the better players tend to win. But I'm going to put it at three. I think three is a solid luck rating. And that's what I gave it as well. I think that overall long term, the better players are going to win. However, I do think you can have these one offs where the cards just decide. So I think there's opportunities for anyone because of that. Yeah, I should say a four. I want to say a four.

And I think for a starting player, they might think luck was a four on this because of the cards and the luck of the draw. And if you get the right thing at the right time, then great. But there are so many ways to churn the deck and to get vision on a bunch of different cards. So you can get the counselor role selection or the gold mine or other cards or combos like prospector with library.

There's another option for you to get two cards just doing the role selection and no one else gets a chance to phase leech unless they have a gold mine. So once you understand how you can see a bunch of different cards, that brings luck down. So yeah, I think ultimately for at least experienced players, it's a three. If you're learning the game, you might feel it's worse. And also because of the phase selection. So there's two major components of the game.

One is your card play and the other one is your phase selection, which we haven't talked about that much. But there's no luck in that. Right. I mean, the governor rotates and you when when it's your turn, wherever your turn order is, you get to choose what we're going to do next. And that's all open information, no luck. And so I think that's what helps balance it because you could be getting poor card draw.

But if you master that phase selection as you go, you could probably turn it into a good game. That's true. Yep. I think that's exactly right. Yeah, Megan, I remember you had a great sequence where I think we chose builder the last time around and you were like, oh, I can't build the thing I really want to build, but I don't want to build something and lose the cards. And then you realized you were able to pass on that because you were getting governor.

And so we had all just spent our money on a build and you led the next round. You picked a builder. You were able to build the thing you needed for your engine. And the rest of us were like, pass, pass, pass, because we couldn't do anything without the cards that we had just spent. So I agree, Dave. Role selection is really important to pay attention to. All right, theme. How much do we think the theme has been integrated versus pasted on here? Same scale, one to five.

Do we want to talk about theme? Yeah, let's go ahead and do it. I mean, this is like colonialism was really big for the world a few hundred years ago. Well, actually more recent than that, colonialism is really big for board gaming 10 to 20 years ago. There's a ton of games about colonialism and this is in the heart of it. And you know, it comes from Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico. I mean, this tries to take the elements out of a little bit.

So you have an Indigo factory doing air quotes that you can't see in a podcast. Really it's an Indigo plantation and we know who was picking the coffee. We know where the sugar was coming from. And that's all. You just can't escape it. It's baked into the game. It's baked into the theme. Right. Yeah, I agree entirely. I think the game, because it doesn't have workers, it's got those defenders out there. But I think it's so clear. And I will say, I said for this, how integrated is the theme?

How important is the theme to this game? I think it's like a one, honestly. Like I would play this game, I would play these mechanics with a different theme and be perfectly happy with it. I don't need this. And so it's a bummer to me that this is the theme and there is that awkward feeling of in researching for this podcast, I was looking and I saw an image that was the BSW interface for this and it like warms my heart.

And I hate to think that what I feel that affection for, there's people that are like, oh, all that does is make me feel hurt or like people are viewing me as less than or whatever. That is absolutely not what I want. So I would love it if there was another theme, another option for this because yeah, you can't explain away the theme here. Right. Well, how about putting it in space? What a great idea.

The only bummer is I don't love space theme, which I'm not sure if we've ever discussed that, but it's not my fave. Well, there's also there's the new version of Puerto Rico where it looks like they're trying to distill out some of this. I mean, I just don't know how you take colonialism out of 1800s Puerto Rico. You know, I don't know if it's even possible, but I haven't played the new version to see if all they're doing is just changing the colors of the bits or if there's more to it.

Yeah, I haven't either. I do know that there were some production issues with the first run of that game and so they were already facing an uphill battle and they didn't do themselves any favors with that one. I was going to say, I just think about when we talked about wingspan, how the theme there fits so perfectly with those mechanics and the synergy between the two makes the game more fun. You don't feel that way about the theme here.

I think even if we set aside the problematic nature of it, which I don't really think you can, but even if you could, I don't think you're saying like, oh, producing and shipping these really sings. It really speaks to me. Like I just don't think that's what's going on here. And so I think there are opportunities for a theme that works with these mechanics that is just as fun as what this is.

I don't totally agree with that though, because I mean, well, just to the point that like logistics is fun for me. Like I like playing container and that's about filling up warehouses and shipping them and the game's just about logistics and I enjoy it. But it's the, you know, if somebody says I want to play San Juan because I'm super into this theme, I think there's a problem. Whereas it's something like wingspan, like you said, or dune or something like that where the theme's fantastic.

The game is very well integrated into the theme. That's great. But this one, like you said, it, this does not have to be set in colonial Puerto Rico. Yeah. I had the theme down as a two here and that was largely because I play on my iPad and the music that's behind it. And we'll get to that here at the end of the prompts. You know, it's a great experience. I associate the music with playing the game. It's totally meta for me, but it did bump it from a one to a two. All right.

Moving on to favorite player count. So what's your favorite player count on this game? I want to hear what you guys have to say because I feel like I might be wrong in my answer. I feel like I can be swayed. So I want to hear what you guys have to say. I'll lead us off. So for me, it's three. I've played it many, many times. All player accounts to three and four. I like them all, but I think it's a great two player game.

The way that the governor gets to take a second selection is a good way to balance it out for that game. And three, no one is getting that double selection benefit, you know, or at least two role selections during the same round. So I think three is where it truly shines and it only means three out of the five possible action selections are going to be selected. So I feel like three is the Goldilocks number. What do you think, Megan? I said four.

Just for me, it's enjoyable seeing all of those roles get picked. I like that experience of getting to do so much each turn or each round. Yeah. For me, four is what I like, it might not be the most balanced, but it's the most fun to me. All right, Dave. Well, it's because I'm so firmly on the fence between two and three. Let's balance it all out. And I'm going to say my favorite is two player.

Okay. It's because it is a very good head to head game where I can watch what you're doing and then step on the gas or slow the game down or kind of try to adjust tempo. And it becomes more of a duel in that way when it's just us against each other. And then even having the governor getting a double selection, every other round, it gives you a little more control about what we're going to do this round. So it gives you more control over the game.

But I love it at three as well, but I'm going to pick two just to be different. Nice. So then what's your least favorite player count? And now you can't say two, Dave. Well, I want to say zero. My least favorite is not playing this game, but it's four. Four is my least favorite because too many of the roles are being selected every time.

And it is very difficult to affect the tempo of the game because like last time we played when Megan was doing poor house and chapel, that really works if you're able to force builds when people don't want to build. And in a four player game, productions being picked, traders being picked, like every time we build, everybody can build and it's a little more high octane. And it takes some of those small ball strategies out of the game a little bit. Yep. It's a big thing.

And for the same reason, so four out of the five actions are going to be selected. It's easier to ride along for production and trader when at least one of those will be selected every round. I still love the game at four, but there's not as much tension, I should say, as there is for me at three players. What do you have, Megan? So I said two because I don't like that tempo, that pace isn't guaranteed. I don't like that it's so variable.

I mean, I almost always want us to play fast and the game to be played out quickly. And the two is just not my fave. Got it. In two player, it has that thing that like if you want to produce, you're going to have to pick produce. Like you get to these nice standoffs that you don't get in four player games that as soon as you build better production buildings than I have, then you better pick production because I'm never going to pick production. Right.

And same with the prefixer because it's head to head. If I build my prefixer, you're never going to pick counselor. In a four player game, if somebody has a prefixer, I still might pick counselor. It benefits them, but there's still two other people that doesn't benefit. Two player has some dynamics that I really enjoy that they pop up in the game. Actual playing time. So Megan, you said you like to play quickly and a two player game. What are your thoughts about the actual playing time?

Now this is supposed to be a 45 to 60 minute game. I have never tracked playing time, but I will say I have no memory or recollection of ever sitting somewhere feeling like, man, can someone just get this thing going? So whatever the playing time is for me with this game, it feels right. I think it's 10 to 15 minutes per player. Okay. So which puts us at about 45 to 60. Right. So we're spot on with the box. We've played some games and we get down to like 30, 35 minutes when we're moving.

And we even have some three player games at that time. Last Monday we came in at an hour. So somewhere between that, I think that we can play faster than the 45 minutes listed on the box, which is one of the reasons why I love the game, right? Is what it brings to the table in the playing time that it has. Which edition is the best? This is a fun one.

I'll lead off and say that for me, this one was a tough decision because I think the artwork on the new version looks amazing, but I don't like the new buildings and especially the increase in cost of the prefecture. I prefer the first edition. Obviously I have a copy of it. So that's not a problem trying to find it or play it. But if all I knew was the second edition, then it would still be a great game. But I slightly prefer the first. What do you have?

I feel like for me, I still at this moment would prefer to play first edition just because I feel that familiarity and a little more control because I know more of what the potential combos are and what could be good. When we played last week, Dave's Harbor came out of nowhere that he got just as many points as I did with the chapel, especially because I played the chapel so early.

So I do feel like I could... I enjoyed the second edition play we did and I can imagine over time coming to appreciate aspects of second edition that I just don't know enough right now. I'm a tentative first edition is best right now just because I don't know second edition. I could be swayed over and in a few months coming back to comment on this podcast episode saying like, second edition rules, first edition drools right now. I'm good with what he... How about you, Dave?

Well, we are kind of a bunch of old timers here. So saying that like the first edition, because we have familiarity and we have warm fuzzy feelings about it, it's like saying the best music ever made was the music that came out in my formative years of liking music. So that's true. I can see a bunch of effort went into balancing the four cost prefecture. I mean, prefecture at three is kind of OP.

So it does make sense to put that at four cost or adding the cathedral and things like that that balance out these kind of runaway guild halls and things like that. So I think the point of the cathedral is that building is always there. So if you aren't drawing any sixes, at least you get the opportunity to be the first to buy that cathedral. So they're addressing some of the shortcomings of first edition. So I'm here for that.

What I didn't like about second edition is that it feels a little more sallity. Is that if I can't make what I want to work, I'll just play something else. And turns out that'll probably work just as good. And that's what I don't like about a point salad is that my decisions aren't as meaningful because all decisions are relatively equal. And it kind of had a little bit of that feel.

I'm going to go with my old fogey and say, if we're going to sit down and play right now, the three of us, we're definitely bringing out first edition unless we're doing it for science. But if we're just, we feel like playing a game together, it's going to be first edition. All right. On the expansion front, there actually were expansions, but the big one, which was the new buildings has been incorporated into the second edition of the game.

So you can play the original first edition version, albeit with the changes to the prefecture, to the gold mine, to the guild hall with a second edition copy. But then you also have the 32 cards that represent the new buildings. And those are the ones that we were talking about, right Megan, that the harbor is a new building. I kind of feel like the discussion of which edition is the best covers the expansions. So we take it or leave it.

The good news is that with a second edition copy, you can choose to leave it if you want. Yeah, I almost wonder if this doesn't also tie into the question we discuss each episode about house rules. If it might come to a point where there are new buildings that we would pick and choose to play with. And so it might be like building your own little dominion set of we build our own little San Juan set where we pick certain cards and others to leave in and out. So let's jump over to it.

I actually think that's a great idea, because I do fear with the second edition, and I haven't done the card counts, but with the expansion, the second edition, how much is the deck being diluted? And, you know, if I'm trying to play a specific strategy, is it harder for me to see those cards that I need to pull this together?

And I would love the idea of a modular expansion like Dominion, where you're building a, I don't know, 70 card deck or 80 card deck or whatever it is that we're going to use from and we're using these seven factions or whatever it is to build that deck. I would totally be here for that. Did I just come up with a house rule that Dave likes? Right? Yeah, yeah. I mean, it would be tough to house rule it that way.

I guess you could every time divide it out like you do Dominion and decide which of the decks we're going to use, but yeah, I'm here for that because I fear the second edition is so diluted and so sally. I think that might take that out, but still give some variety and balance that second edition was looking to do. Interesting. I will point out that in the new buildings, they also include some additional factories.

So it's not just all new buildings, but they also do add factories to try to maintain the balance between an agricultural approach versus a construction approach. The other house rules you'd consider? No, I like the tension of this game as is, so I'm good with it. The two house rules, one of them used to be a house rule that got codified as a variant in the second edition and that was the way cards were dealt at the beginning of the game.

So in the second edition, there's a variant that the start player gets five, second player gets six, third, seven, fourth, eight cards, and then everybody discards down to four before the game begins. Megan, you mentioned early on one of the things is you kind of build the cards that you're dealt without a lot of direction to that.

And so to offset the privilege of being the start player and choosing that first role, they came up with this variant that started out as a house rule of dealing more cards out to later players and then everyone gets a subset. That's another example of everything that they've done, I think, is addressing a specific complaint about first edition because in that first edition, there is the chance being the first player pulling the rug out from everybody.

If I have, say, in my four cards, one of them is a coffee house, I can just pick build and build that coffee house and maybe the other players don't have a good build. And so this gives you a chance to be ready for that unexpected build. Yes. And then the other one I thought, and I've not seen this anywhere, but the trader tiles. So the way they're supposed to be used is you reveal the top one and then you put it on the bottom deck. So the order of the tiles never changes.

And I thought it might be interesting to do something like Niagara, right? Where you go through the pile once and then you shuffle it and then restack it. So that way you get to see every tile each pass through, but the order isn't guaranteed. But I kind of like the way it is now, where if you're keeping track, you like, okay, we've had our linear, we know that the one where everything pays plus one is coming up next. Yeah, that's a tough one.

Putting that like the expensive silver maybe on the front end and the back end. So it's so long in between really takes some punch out of that silver. And that could happen. Now, I don't know why in the game I feel compelled to follow turn order when trading, but it has something to do with the way we're using cards from the draw pile as our goods. And then when we trade them, we're putting them into the discard pile.

So we don't really have control of how we're manipulating the deck that way, because we don't know what that card is until, which is something I always think is interesting about this game. We discard face up, which is pretty interesting. You would think it would be discard into a messy pile, but in this one, we can see those cards that people are using to pay, that people are using as their trade goods, things like that. But I feel like there should be a house.

Well, I might house rule discard into a messy pile. Okay. So I'm going to just take all of that out of the game, trying to count the cards. I've seen you discard City Hall or something like that. Just obfuscate all of that. Yeah, I would be along for that. That sounds like a good one. Most recognizable comparison, the highest ranking game that is most like this one with a caveat, you can't choose race for the galaxy or roll for the galaxy. Well, can you do like the one paragraph?

Why do we have race for the galaxy and San Juan? Why do I have both of these games on my shelf? They're so close. Thomas Lehman was contracted by Alea to come up with a design and he actually worked along with Richard Borg that the idea that cards could serve multiple purposes as a Puerto Rico card game prototype. The idea was merged by Alea with Andrea Safarth's own card game prototype based on his own game, Puerto Rico.

What ends up happening is from the same progenitor, we get basically two very similar and yet distinct games, San Juan and race for the galaxy. And I'm saying you can't choose the obvious sibling here. Well, my closest comparison is Marvel champions. And that is because of the multi-use cards and Marvel champions. You pay for one card by spending your other cards.

So you have that exact same decision point is to which of the five cards or whatever it is that I'm holding, which of these can I play and which of them am I using to spend? And when you spend them, they're pretty much gone forever. There might be a reshuffle in there. And just like in San Juan, there might be a reshuffle. You might see it again. But for the most part, you're giving up on seeing that card unless you get lucky.

And so that decision point feels very similar in Marvel champions that it does in San Juan. Okay, that makes sense. Mayn, what did you have? I had seven wonders. And again, because you're playing cards, but also because what you are playing can impact the people around you. And so there's that tension point of am I helping? I mean, this is good for me, but it's also good for them. And so is it actually as good for me as I'm thinking if it's helping them too?

And so because of that, I think they share that tension and that's the common point. I like it. I went with an easy selection. So I disallowed the obvious one, but I left an easy one on the table and that is Glory to Rome. It's a similar feeling in terms of picking the ability when to play on your turn, multi use cards. It's an even crazier set of possible combinations. Unfortunately, the game is really hard to find, right? It's been out of print for a long time.

And there's even a grail version that was kickstarted out there. It's been re-implemented by Eukronia and then Motini. But Glory to Rome is still my sentimental favorite, even with its cartoonish artwork out of that family. Maybe especially for I love that cartoonish artwork. Right? It's stuff. Yeah. Less recognizable comparison. What's another game a little more off the beaten path that reminds you of San Juan? I'm going to say a fine little game that we for some reason never play.

It's on my shelf. It's staring at us every Monday night when we play, but Mission Red Planet. Okay. It's a role selection game. It's kind of the heir apparent to Citadels. It solves, I think, some of the problems with Citadels and that role selection. It has a little bit of a similar feel to the San Juan role selection, but it's basically Citadels meets El Grande. And we are launching rockets to Mars and playing area control up on Mars and using our role selection to make that happen.

Okay. This game needs to be played. I'll refresh on it and let's play it. It's been taunting me for a few months now. Why are we not playing this game? All right. Maya, what'd you have? I will say I had a really hard time coming up with anything obscure as a comparison. Everything I was like, I was like, maybe this is outside of the BGG top 750 or whatever. And it was always like 300. And I was like, no, everything I can think of is too well known, too accessible.

I was thinking about Citadels, but I don't really care for Citadels. And so I'm going to say St. Petersburg. I feel like St. Pete's, it feels like a very similar vibe came out. I think the same time period, or at least feels like it sure did. I have BSW memories and I think there is that same, how is what I'm doing impacting the other players? And so yeah, another comparison. But frankly, I could have also said that for most recognizable comparison, but there you go.

I think that's a fantastic choice. So it was actually the same year, 2004. And I will say both of these games, San Juan and St. Pete's, I'm like, playing with Todd and Dave, okay, I'm going to lose. So for me, there's a comparison of these are games that the two of you, I have a sense of that you have the deep knowledge for these games. So just as a personal note, they're comparable for that reason.

Both of those games, they definitely feel like when we sit down at the table, it's Clash of the Titans. And I really, it's everybody knows the game well, everybody plays well. And when we start, it's anybody's game. But I would throw you into that. I would certainly throw Paul and Greg into that too. I think everybody's competent on both of those games where it could go either way. Absolutely.

So for my less recognizable comparison, I went with a game called Oh My Goods by Alexander Pfister, multi-use cards, engine building, and the game ends when you build your eighth building. Just be sure if you're playing that one to use the updated rule set that then plays one more round. So you get a chance to fully run that engine. In the first edition of the game, it ended after the eighth building.

And there was a bunch of feedback that said, I finally built this engine, but I didn't get to see it do what it was supposed to do. So then they updated it and you run one round through everything and then most points wins. Good choice. So if this game is being played at game night, what do you want to play afterwards or beforehand? Because I realized San Juan is a little bit of a lighter game. What game would you want to have a double feature with either before or after San Juan?

Is Puerto Rico too obvious? I'll allow it if you want. Actually, I'll go a little more general and let's just stay in the Aaliyah series because that 2004 vibe when Aaliyah was king of the hill and just pulling any one of those out, you know, Princess of Florence, Taj Mahal, any one of those I think goes well in that OG Aaliyah vibe. Good call. For me, I'm thinking let's do like a BSW theme night.

So games that I used to play on BSW like play some fearsome floors, which I love, which is a totally different vibe. But in my mind is just connected by being played on BSW. So yeah, or Cartagena. Oh, yeah. Or any of those would be fun for me. Well, the three of us have done that exact thing, right? I remember we've had two theme nights. We played a night of tens where everybody we played a game that each of us had rated a 10. And then we've done BSW nights, right? I think we played Paris Paris.

And shrill steel. The segregation game Cafe International Cafe International. That was the one game even more than Puerto Rico. We're like, this is inappropriate, you guys. Yeah, I will say that is also a game I play on my iPad regularly. And I just make sure I don't play it in public. Right. That needs a re theme. That could be easily rethemed. You can't put the cats and dogs at the same table rather than you can't put the French and the Dutch at the same table. Let's just stop there.

I'm going to go with a game that I would like to play before San Juan. And then I'm going to pivot off of Glory to Rome. And I'll say Innovation, which is another game by Carl Chudik. There's more multi use cards and engine building. It's a little heavier. I love the dogma actions in there and the way that you splay the cards in different directions based on the powers and the age of the game so that you see more of the icons and build your engine that way. Very nice.

So if you like fill in the blank, then you're going to like San Juan. What do you think? I think if you like the Cosmos two player series, if you like that weight style, that kind of game, you're going to love San Juan. Though it plays three and four players, it fits right in there with Lost Cities, with Jambo, with Hera and Zeus and that whole Cosmos two player line. If that's your speed, then this game's definitely for you.

I mean, I said if you like games you used to play on BSW, you'll like this game. I think there is that old fashioned, like I don't know that someone being introduced to this game right now is going to be like, yeah, this is a hit. It's really clicking with me. I love it. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think there is a nostalgia factor that really makes this game something I have affection for.

And so I think if you like games from this time period, but somehow you haven't played this yet, you're going to like this. I agree. That's a good one. My saying multi-use cards would make me a broken record at this point. And it's a pretty ubiquitous mechanic, right? If you think about games today like Dune Imperium or Terraforming Mars, Arc Nova, they all have multi-use cards in them.

So I'll say if you like the idea of a smaller universe of combinations, because in the base game there are only 110 cards here and there are multiple copies of each type. So unlike those other three I just mentioned that have a lot of unique cards in them. And so you're always looking for, oh, this is the one card and this pairs off that way. And it's like a combinatorial explosion in modern games.

If you like that idea with a smaller universe of combinations, then we might want to give San Juan a try. So if you don't like fill in the blank, you're not going to like San Juan. Did you have a different answer for this? Yeah, if you don't like colonialism, you might not like this game. Straight up fair. Like we talked about, it is hard to separate the theme from the game. It only takes one extra moment of thinking about it to say I'm running slaves. That's baked into the game.

So if being aware of that theme or playing a game that's even flirting with that theme, I would say if you'd probably stay away, you could find go play Race for the Galaxy. Right. Megan?

Well, while I certainly agree with Dave there, I would also say that this could be a tough game to enjoy if you are someone that when you are learning, if you are playing with experienced players, there's that tension of if they know the deck and you don't, they just have an advantage and you are going to be at that disadvantage. You're not coming at it at equal levels. And I think there's people for whom that sort of thing is just a deal breaker.

They don't want to play unless they feel like they're on the same level as the other players. And so they don't want to play if someone knows the deck and they don't. So I think if you know that about yourself, I think this might not be the game for you until you also learn the deck. Fair. By the way, I feel that same way about like Terraforming Mars, because I don't fully know that entire deck. And when I'm playing with Paul or Al, they do. And I definitely feel like I'm at a disadvantage.

And the scores would reflect that. And that's true of just about any game with a deck of cards involved. Twilight Struggle is the same way. And Paul, one of our game members, he's very good at playing a game once and now he remembers every card that's in that deck. And I played Twilight Struggle a number of times and I still don't have a feel for, oh, the Suez Canal is coming up or this one's coming up and it's part of that game is no you.

If you don't know the cards, you're not going to do well. This one, I think you can do OK as you're learning the cards. But knowing the cards definitely helps. Yep. I've talked before about how I never remember which Twilight game is which. And you saying Suez Canal helped me remember it had nothing to do with space. So I appreciate that context. Agreed on the theme point. I'll also add role selection where sometimes the best choice is the one that helps everyone else the least.

We talked about that being a source of tension in this game. And there are going to be times where you don't have an obvious choice for what you want to do. And so it ends up being the least helpful of what's left. If you would rather focus on your actions on things that you can do for yourself and not pay as much attention to what other folks are doing, then this may not be the game for you. Did this replace a previous game for you?

And I'll just start out by saying it pretty much replaced Puerto Rico for me because I was playing on B.S.W. and I didn't like the scripted feel of B.S.W. Everyone was very experienced with it. The random players that I would jump into games with and I was making all of the rookie mistakes and they were almost shaming me out of the game.

And one of the things that I really liked about San Juan is that particularly because of the playing time being shorter, it was easier for me to jump into games and learn how to play it. And there was more room for personal expression within the game. So for me, it basically took Puerto Rico off my radar. Yeah, that's my answer, too. I have not played Puerto Rico in years. And because of those flaws, it does have a pretty much scripted opening. It has what's left of the new player problem.

And Puerto Rico in particularly, no fault of the game, really. But it did have a kind of a toxic fanship on B.S.W. And it is a difficult game. Even after you're experienced with it, it's a game where you can make a selection that benefits somebody much more than it benefits you. And you don't necessarily see that right away. And people would tell you about it. And so that made it tough to learn the game and get into it. But that's more about the community that was playing it.

It's not necessarily a fault of the game, other than the fact that it is easy to make decisions that really benefit other people more than you can see up front until you're very experienced at the game. So I agree. I would rather play San Juan over Puerto Rico. And Megan? Sure. Yep. Yep. Yep. What? Everything that was just said.

I will say I do think it is interesting to me in the board gaming world, how many situations there are where there's a game and then someone makes like a more card focused version of that game or a more dice version, you know, focused version of the game. And the two exist and have like different fan bases. So someone's able to say, hey, there's a fun mechanic or theme or there's some sort of hook here. And so let's make variants based off of that.

And that they can both exist without there hopefully being tension between the creators, I think is really great. That brings up a great question is, are the do we have other examples where Das Kartenspiel or Das Werfelspiel, you know, the dice game or the card game we like better than the core game that it comes from? I can't think of any other examples. They might be out there. Off the top of my head, I can think of one that I like the dice version almost equally to the original game.

And that's Bonanza. Get out of here with that. Bonanza Werfelspiel. It's fun. But Bonanza is part of your DNA. I don't even believe that. I don't even think you believe what you're saying. I think it's because in the Werfelspiel version, you have something to do on every turn, right? And in Bonanza, you do have the opportunity when it's someone else's turn to make a trade with them. But there's no guarantee that that even happens.

Whereas at least in the Werfelspiel, you can look at it and say, OK, they rolled something here and that is something I can use. Yeah, I do agree. That dice game is a great addition to the Bonanza line. I'm just giving you a hard time. Oh no, it's totally warranted. I'm going to pipe up here and say that our friend, Han Clinto, made a dice version. He made Pirate Dice, which was the dice version of I have no idea what. Robo Rally, is that right? Oh, you might be right with that.

Yeah. Yeah, I don't remember what the game was that that was based off of, but I'm happy to shout out our friend. Nice. Well, yeah, if you've got a successful board game, then you turn that into the card game version comes out, the dice version comes out, and the duel version comes out. And I'll take Seven Wonders Duel over Seven Wonders any day. Good call. So where is our Puerto Rico duel? I guess that's just San Juan. Right. It's interesting.

And this particular one has come full circle, right? So we have Puerto Rico as a progenitor. And then if you look at Race for the Galaxy line, so you have Race for the Galaxy, which is the card game version. And then they released New Frontiers, which was the board game version of the card game version of the board game version. We were so baffled with New Frontiers. We're like, don't we already have this game because it's because of that exact progress he talked about?

I thought you were going to bring up basically Puerto Rico, the dice game, which is Roll for the Galaxy. Right. I didn't even see that connection until just now. So it has it all in there. It does. I look forward to listening to you talk about Roll for the Galaxy. I will not be on that episode. Oh, come on. I'm going to drag you along for it just for the dissenting voice. So has this game since been replaced? And if so, by what? Not for me. No, not for me. I mean, almost Race for the Galaxy.

I mean, that's the one that really went for that title. But Race for the Galaxy is a bigger game. It's great in its own way. I spent a lot of time in that game fishing for the cards that I need. Whereas in this game, like we talked about, it's about making compromises as you go. Whereas Race, I feel like it's about fishing for those cards and using them. It's a very different vibe. I still really like it, but it does not fire San Juan. And I agree.

I mean, I've tried a lot of other games with multi-use cards right from Bonanza to Frost Haven and I keep coming back to San Juan. So I love the mechanism and I love how it's been implemented in this game. So soundtrack, what music would you like to listen to while playing this game? Well, at the risk of being as culturally insensitive as the board game Puerto Rico is.

And I really don't know this might be because I have a Cuban artist in mind and maybe that might be super offensive to listen to Cuban music while playing a game set in Puerto Rico. But I'm going to go with Desi Arnaz. You may think of him as just Lucy's husband in I Love Lucy or the TV producer afterwards. But as a Cuban band leader, Desi Arnaz is fantastic. And I still will just spin some Desi Arnaz records on a Sunday afternoon and he is really, really great.

So I would love to listen to some Desi while playing this. If that is culturally insensitive and I shouldn't, then I'll just pick some bomba playlist off of Spotify traditional Puerto Rican bomba music. All right. So this game brings back memories of a very specific time in my life. And so I'm thinking that more than anything having to do with the game itself. So I'm like, give me the Garden State soundtrack, which I am like back in the day.

But yeah, let's get some of that playing and remember a mid to late 20s version of me. Nice. The shins go with anything. Yes. Absolutely. I was thinking some some feist. I think she's in that soundtrack. Yeah. Yeah. I was also potentially also going to say Bony Bear who's not on that soundtrack, but also a similar similar feel on the playlist. Mm hmm. Look, and you can you even use that famous line from Garden State with San Juan like play this game. It'll change your life.

I have an easy cop out here, right? The original game soundtrack, the San Juan original game soundtrack is actually available on Spotify, the soundtrack that was in the iOS version by Filippo Beck Pecos. And it's a great starting point. And from there, I would probably go into some Spanish classic guitarists, right? Acoustic guitar, choose something like a Recuerdos de la Alhambra by Andres Segovia or Entre Dos Agües by Paco de Lucia.

You could build a playlist out of that stuff and just listen to it without the game. But it would be great to have in the background while playing the game. Nice rating on BGG scale of one to ten. How do you rate this game? So this is tough because I love this game and so it's an eight. But man, do I wish the theme was anything else. Yep. Dave? This one is a nine for me because I've played it so much. I still play it regularly.

There's no way I could in good conscious rate at any lower than that. Just the fact that I've played a game so many times gets a bump. So but it doesn't quite make a ten. And I think because of those theme reasons that Megan's talking about, I can't fully get behind it. But it's just that cozy game. Yeah. So I will go ahead and do the unconscionable. I do have an issue with the theme, but the game itself is still a ten. I've played this game with my family. I've played it with friends.

I played it online. Still do all of the above to this day. Played it hundreds of times. And any game that gets that much play, I mean, it's going to be a ten. It has to be. So then is it replayable and how soon would I want to revisit the game? I'll jump in and say, obviously for me, it is replayable. I could play this game multiple times per week. And I have thanks to the iPad app, you know, especially solo play. You can play that in under 20 minutes.

Yeah, for me, this is absolutely replayable. And you know, if I walked into Dave's for game night and this was already set up, I'd never be upset about it. I'd always be like, great, we're starting with some San Juan and we'll see where the night takes us from there. So yeah, I wish we played this more. Yeah, I agree. It came out almost 20 years ago. We're still playing it. That's by definition replayable. You know, on an off year, it comes out once that year.

But you know, we usually bring it out more frequently than that. And we're always just pleased as punch when we do. So by definition, a replayable. All right. I'm afraid to provide a clue to the game for our next episode as we take on one of the few titles to hold the top spot on BGG. And it has a very avid followership. But I want to thank you both for being available today. This was a lot of fun talking about this game and looking forward to getting it to the table with you. Yeah, great.

Loved it. Thanks for having me, Todd. I'm going to put that one in just the way it is. Perfect. With like a long awkward pause. Yeah. All of it. Thank you for listening to Replayable. Support for our podcast comes from listeners like you. You can support us at patreon.com slash replayable. Thank you for your support. You can find us online at replayable.fm, on Twitter as Replayable FM and on Instagram as Replayable FM.

We welcome your feedback, which is the only way that we're going to get better. You can get in touch with us via email at Todd at replayable.fm. And if you're interested in sponsoring us, then please contact us at sponsors at replayable.fm.