The one with the brighter blue trim looks identical to the version I bought. All of the land squares and surrounding water are completely removable which makes for more variability in board arrangements. I do not recognize the dark blue bordered board. I have also played the newer version where some of the land pieces are connected. There is less variability among games if you play it a lot, but it is still a ton of fun and not a deal breaker by any means.
Ann, I assume you found your answer, but if not, there is downloadable rules: http://catan.wikia.com/wiki/2-player_variant
These rules are the same that are given on the T&B expansion, you just need to print out that jpg to cut out chits. My wife doesn't enjoy this version as well so we never play two player, but seams as many do like it.
I love Catan and play it alot! So you have your basic Settlers of Catan, you have to have this to play some of the expansion . . . then the main expansions for that are seafarers, barbarians/traders, and cities/knights. The other boards are stand-alone games that have spun off the original. Seafarers is my favorite of the full expansion allowing you to incorporate the water tiles and bring in pirates. . . Barbarians/traders is actually a group of mini expansions, within it you have the mini expansion Fisherman of Catan, I love playing with the fish and tend to do it almost at all times, and you can morph the fish to adapt it playing with seafarers as well . . . have yet had the money to try out cities and knights. Catan: the First Settlers isn't bad to play either, but all in all I prefer going to the main game
And to all the others who have not yet repplied, here is my final plea:
Because the discussion has died down, I am responding to those who felt compelled to inform me that the type of deal I am looking into is simply not allowed under the rules of Catan, or that the rules of Catan dictate one outcome or another for this deal. For the following reasons, this is simply not the case. I am explaining this in the hope that some who have not answered my two yes/no questions with yes/no answers will, after reading this, decide to answer them.
You only have to go to the rules on official German Catan website, athttp://www.catan.de/spielregeln.html, and click on the links named "Siedler von Catan - Basisspiel - 3/4 Spieler" and "Siedler von Catan - Almanach," to see that the official rules themselves have nothing to say on the topic. They neither prohibit this type of deal, nor do they explain what happens in the situations that are described in the problems I posed to you.
Next, the same official German Catan website offers a link to the Encyclopedia Catanica, at http://www.catan.de/literatur/encyclopaedia-catanica.html, which, given the "Beratende Mitarbeit" from Klaus Teuber, the game's creator, has some weight of authority. If you click on EnCata_Vol_1.pdf to download the first volume, you will find the following on pages 12 and 13 (translation follows):
"Andered Absprachen unter den Spielern sind nicht Teil der Handelsregeln. Beispiele:
. . .
Ein Angebot "Ich tausche dir 2 Erz gegen eine beliebige Karte, wenn der Raeuber nicht zu mir gestellt wird," liegt im Ermessen der betroffenen Spieler, bzw. Der Spielrunde. Eine solche Abmachung ist nicht verboten, da Abmachingen zwischen Spielern generell nicht durch die Spielregel reglementiert sind und dies auch nicht sein sollen.
Auf jeden Fall kann der Tausch nicht sofort vollzogen werden (in der Phase "Rohstoffe auswuerfeln" findet ja kein Handel stat), sondern erst in der Handels- und Bauphase. Ob die Vereinbarung dann noch Gueltigkeit hat, bleibt wiederum den Spielern ueberlassen."
Other agreements between are not part of the trade-rules. Examples:
. . .
An offer "I will give you two rock for a card of your choice, if the robber is not put on one of my fields," is within the discretion of the players involved, or rather of all players who are playing. Such an agreement is not prohibited, because agreements between players are not and generally should be regulated by the rules of the games.
In any event, this exchange cannot be executed immediately (no exchange takes place during the phase "rolling the dice"), but instead only in the trading- and building phase. Whether the Agreement is then still in effect is left to the discretion of the players.
Two things. First, this means that "future trades" (or "executory contracts," as they are called in the law) are perfectly permissible. The trade that is the subject of the problems I posed to you is exactly like the one quoted above: "[T]his exchange cannot be executed immediately." If the trade quoted above "ist nicht verboten," neither is the one that is the subject of my problems. Second, that the issue whether the agreement is still in effect ""den Spielern [pl.] ueberlassen bleibt," rather than "dem Spieler [sg.]" who does or does not owe player C two cards, shows that this is not left to the sole discretion of the latter, but rather is subject to reasonable rules developed and agreed-to by the players jointly. Which is exactly what I am asking you to do: To register your vote as to what the rule should be.
Finally, at the end of the entry for such "other agreements," the Encyclopedia Catanica" points the reader to the website "Handeln Total," at http://www.catanien.de/siedler/szenarien.php?ID=76, for "a few proposals how to liberalize the rules of trading, of course always assuming the agreement of all players involved," one of the authors of which is also an author of the Encyclopedia. At said website, it states:
"Eigentlich sind das keine Zusatzregeln, sondern nur eine etwas großzügigere Deutung der Regeln. Man kann sie mit dem normalen oder dem erweiterten Spiel spielen.
Wenn es erlaubt ist, jemanden etwas zu schenken (ein etwas einseitiger Handel...), sind doch eigentlich auch alle folgenden Züge erlaubt:
o jetzt / zukünftige"
These are not really additional rules, but rather just a somewhat generous intepretation of the [official] rules. You can play them either with the basis game or with the extended game. If it is allowed to give gifts (a somewhat one-sided deal . . .), then the following moves are really also allowed: Trading for resources: now/future.
As an example of "[t]rading for future resources," "Handeln Total" gives the following:
"Ich hab 12 Karten. Ich gebe Dir ein Erz dafuer, dass ich 5 Karten bei dir parken kann, bei meinem Zug musst Du sie mir zurueckgeben." "Falls eine Deiner Karten geraubt wird oder ich ueber 7 Karten bekommen habe und eine 7 gewuerfelt wird, geht es zu Deinen Lasten."
I have twelve cards. I'll give you a rock if you let me park five cards with you, which you'll have to return to me when it's my turn." "If one of your cards is stolen or I get more than seven cards and a seven is rolled, it's to your detriment."
Again two things. First, except for using the word "parking" instead of the word "holding," that is precisely the kind of deal that is the basis of my problems. Second, here, the second player solves our problems in one direction. My question to you is in which direction you would solve the problem, as a neutral party (i.e., judge), if it was presented to you absent such an advance resolution.
Now that it should be beyond question that this type of deal is allowed, perhaps as few more of you could greatly help me out b y casting their vote. I greatly appreciate it.