Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Look Park Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports
Customer Review

104 of 106 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Trading Game for Two Players, March 29, 2011
This review is from: Jaipur (Toy)
I had heard buzz around the Internet about Jaipur being a great trading game, but I wasn't sure about it, mostly because the pricetag was $25, the box was small, and the components, as far as I could gather, were a deck of cards (granted, beautifully illustrated cards) and a few stacks of pogs. But I decided it was worth a try, and I haven't been disappointed.

Jaipur is a game of trading for two players that is played over three rounds. The winner of each round receives a "seal of excellence," and the player who secures two seals of excellence becomes the Maharaja's personal trader, thus winning the game.

The game starts with three camels being placed in the center of the table in a row, a hand of five cards dealt to each player, and two random cards turned face up to complete the five-card center row (the market). The cards depict either goods or camels. The pogs, which correspond to the goods cards and are divided into expensive goods (diamonds, gold, and silver) and regular goods (cloth, spice, and leather) are organized in descending order by value off to the side. There are also bonus tiles for three-, four-, or five-card trades, which are shuffled and placed off to the side. Players remove any camels from their hands and place these cards in front of them.

On a turn, players may do only one of two actions: "buy" cards (take cards from the market) or "sell" cards (discard cards for pogs). This is such a simple concept, but the way this is done is clever. Here are options for buying cards. A player may:

take one face-up good
take all the camels
take two or more goods, replacing them with cards from his hand and/or camels

Players may also sell goods, one type per turn, discarding cards from their hand and taking an equal number of pogs from that good's pile. If three, four, or five goods are discarded in this way, players also take a corresponding bonus pog. (For example, if five cloth are discarded, a player would take the top five cloth pogs and the top bonus pog on the five pile.) Each pog has a point value on it, and the combined point value of all the pogs players acquire in a round will determine who receives the seal of excellence for that round.

That's the basic concept, but here's where it gets tricky (and deceptively clever). Your hand size can never exceed seven cards, but camels don't count against your hand size. Taking one card from the market is the slowest way to build up your hand, but it also limits the new cards your opponent will get to choose from (as only one card from the deck will replace it). Taking all the camels is a good move sometimes, as it gives you more to work with (camels don't count against your hand size, but they can be exchanged when you want to take more than one card from the market), but taking all the camels also opens up the market for your opponent (taking three camels, for example, gives your opponent three new goods to choose from on his turn). Exchanging goods is a great way to get what's best in the market, but you have to get rid of cards in your hand or camels, which your opponent can then take. Each buying option is a trade-off.

Each selling option also has its set of challenging decisions. I mentioned before that pogs are organized in descending order by value. This means that the most valuable pogs of each good go to the player who sells first. But players get a hefty bonus if they sell three, four, or especially five goods at a time. Should a player wait to trade in more goods, or should he sell early to get the top pogs? The expensive goods (diamonds, gold, and silver) are worth the most points per good, but they also must be sold in sets of at least two (all other goods can be sold one at a time). And the pogs are shorted: there aren't as many pogs representing goods as there are cards of that good in the deck. So if you wait too long to sell, you could be out of luck.

The round is over whenever three piles of pogs are emptied. Whoever has the most camels receives a five-point bonus and points are calculated to determine who receives the seal of excellence.

Jaipur is a fantastic game. A trading game for two players seems like a lame idea, but it is surprisingly excellent in Jaipur. Players don't trade among themselves (a la Settlers of Catan), but the interaction with the market really does make it seem like you're trading with the other player. I like that every decision made in this game has consequences for both players, so it's highly interactive. And it's not a game where one player can really run away with it (at least if the other player is careful) because it is so well balanced.

I also like it because it is so variable. At the beginning of a round, I might start with a hand of three leather, making me think I should collect leather. But when gold or diamonds show up, I have to rethink my strategy on the fly. I could exchange those leather in my hand for gold (which are worth more), but in doing so I would give my opponent the chance to take my leather. I like this constant reevaluation. It keeps the game interesting.

Overall, Jaipur is a blast to play. And it's so simple (that doesn't mean "easy"). I read and understood the rules after one pass through the rulebook (about seven minutes), taught it to my wife in about five minutes, and it takes about twenty minutes to play a full, three-round game (though sometimes a game ends after two rounds, like when my wife smokes me). It is fast-paced, and because there is only one decision per turn (buy or sell?), I don't anticipate "analysis paralysis" setting in for even the most overconscious players. And the game gets deeper the more we play. At first we played conservatively, trying to collect sets. Now we play much more aggressively, which makes the game fun and also more interactive.

The downside of Jaipur? You're paying $25 for cards and pogs. Still, I think the $25 pricetag is worth the amount of fun contained in the game, especially for people who have trouble finding two-player games. Another downside is that Jaipur is a two-player game exclusively. This is great because many two-player games are variants of larger games, few are specifically built for it, but it also limits the chances you'll get to play it in larger settings.

I can't recommend this game more highly. The artwork, components, and theme are great, but the gameplay is phenomenal. Seriously, check this game out.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Aug 31, 2012 9:35:12 AM PDT
Liquidavalon says:
What an excellent review...AWESOME!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 25, 2012 12:27:47 PM PDT
Thanks!

Posted on Sep 1, 2013 9:51:40 AM PDT
loika says:
excellent explanation of the game, thank you.

Posted on Apr 14, 2014 2:51:07 PM PDT
george says:
What a thorough review! As for the player count, it turns out the game works reasonably well with 3, with minimal change in rules (something like, starting hand of 4 instead of 5). There are a few variants on BoardGameGeek.com, if you want to see what other people have come up with. With 4, it seems there aren't enough cards to go around, unfortunately.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details