The most underated Euro card game is....

Grudunza wrote:

A card game filler I like is Saboteur , which has hidden roles and some nice bluffing and misdirection elements. I'm not sure it's "underrated", but I don't think it's as well known as it might be.

Saboteur is decent light filler, but best with more than three. With three, the bluffing is kind of hard to pull off, with more the saboteur(s) have more room to subtley screw.

Grudunza wrote:
"A card game filler I like is Saboteur , which has hidden roles and some nice bluffing and misdirection elements. I'm not sure it's "underrated", but I don't think it's as well known as it might be."
It couldn't possibly be underrated, it's awful. The rules explanation took longer than the first game (not the designers fault obviously but very off-putting for a quick game), by which time I was bored out of my mind and didn't even bother looking at my role card. I decided that my whole 'strategy' would be to retaliate if someone played a nasty card on me. We played two seven player games. I did better than average both times...

Notahandle wrote:
It couldn't possibly be underrated, it's awful. The rules explanation took longer than the first game (not the designers fault obviously but very off-putting for a quick game), by which time I was bored out of my mind and didn't even bother looking at my role card. I decided that my whole 'strategy' would be to retaliate if someone played a nasty card on me. We played two seven player games. I did better than average both times...

I just taught Saboteur last night to two newbies (who don't play hobby games) in about two minutes... Anyway, I think it's great for what it is, but you can't take it too seriously. I like playing with the variant in the rules where the dwarves who have any broken items don't get any gold, even if they're not saboteurs... makes it nastier and more competetive among the non-saboteurs.

I like Saboteur a lot, but it needs three rules mods to really shine:

1. The one Grudunza mentioned (loyal dwarves with broken tools get no gold).
2. The middle goal card should be one additional card-length away from the mine entrance. Makes it harder for the dwarves.
3. Before the round starts, everyone closes their eyes and then the Saboteurs open theirs. Allows for more collusion and misdirection.

Another vote for Saboteur, it's like Battlestar Galactica for non-gamers that is explained in 2 minutes and played in 30 min.

I don't know if Die Kutchfahrt zur Tuefelsburg is considered a Euro. I'd say it's AT but anyway, it rocks!

Others:
Jericho (Tom Lehmann's other card game)
Nottingham (Uwe Rosenberg's other card game)
Code 777
the Decktet (Print and Play Game system with some fun stuff)

Grudunza wrote:
"I just taught Saboteur last night to two newbies (who don't play hobby games) in about two minutes..."
That's about how long I figured it ought to take! Unfortunately our rules explainers were a couple who: (a) kept interrupting each other, (b) were apparently telling us a rule at random, and (c) kept taking the rules off each other in order to look something up (usually while the one who had them was in the middle of reading something). As a part-time Ameritrasher am I still allowed to kill someone who wants to explain rules without having read them beforehand? Yes, I'm bitter, those two games wasted about two hours of my life.

vialiy wrote:

Lost Cities is underrated?!?
I'd vote for 6 Nimmt! but that too is not underrated.

I almost always travel with 6 Nimmt. It's an excellent timekiller, for delayed flights, etc.

dysjunct wrote:

I like Saboteur a lot, but it needs three rules mods to really shine:

1. The one Grudunza mentioned (loyal dwarves with broken tools get no gold).
2. The middle goal card should be one additional card-length away from the mine entrance. Makes it harder for the dwarves.
3. Before the round starts, everyone closes their eyes and then the Saboteurs open theirs. Allows for more collusion and misdirection.

Agreed. Those are all ideal.

Notahandle wrote:

Grudunza wrote:
"I just taught Saboteur last night to two newbies (who don't play hobby games) in about two minutes..."
That's about how long I figured it ought to take! Unfortunately our rules explainers were a couple who: (a) kept interrupting each other, (b) were apparently telling us a rule at random, and (c) kept taking the rules off each other in order to look something up (usually while the one who had them was in the middle of reading something). As a part-time Ameritrasher am I still allowed to kill someone who wants to explain rules without having read them beforehand? Yes, I'm bitter, those two games wasted about two hours of my life.

Ha yeah, no doubt. I can appreciate your frustration... Each full game (meaning an entire three rounds) should take about 30-40 minutes, tops, including teaching to new players. Well, I'd suggest giving it a shot again sometime, especially with the added rules suggestions mentioned above (which might add another minute to the rules explanation).

Grudunza wrote:
"Well, I'd suggest giving it a shot again sometime, especially with the added rules suggestions mentioned above (which might add another minute to the rules explanation)."
It's not the game I want to take a shot at! And the idea of trying to explain the concept of house rules to the two 'Euro-explainers' makes me shudder. I'd never realised that Analysis Paralysis could also apply to people who are teaching the rules.