Taj Mahal
May 13th, 2004We finally got to play Taj Mahal yesterday. We played with four players and it went down fairly well. I was expecting the Second Coming, so I am not surprised that I was a little disappointed.
Bruno Faidutti wrote this about it in his review of Ivanhoe:
When my gaming group tries Taj Mahal, one of the big monster board games by Reiner Knizia, we were unanimous in finding it really bad. An artificial and badly pasted theme, a scoring system so convoluted that it became absolutely obscure and uncontrollable, and, above all, an overlong, tedious and repetitive gameplay.
It was basically this paragraph that made me hesitant to try it. Now I have, I think it’s overly harsh. The theme is artificial, but this didn’t bother me as the components are quality. I agree that the scoring system is convoluted, but that’s the whole point. You have to master it to win. I cannot think of an example of a big game like this where the scoring system is so intertwined with the play. Despite that, I agree that it is a bit slow and tame. This is not as good as Knizia’s masterpieces, but it’s still pretty reasonable – 7/10. Bruno prefers Ivanhoe, a much more dramatic, exciting game, and so do I.
May 13th, 2004 at 13:30
Bruno’s comments about Taj Mahal are legendary and way off the mark. The scoring system is neither convoluted, nor is the game tedious or boring. We play it in 60-70 minutes and consider it one of the best out there in terms of playability and tension. Stick with it, this is a gem. Ivanhoe? The remake of Attacke? The two games aren’t in the same class (and neither should they be, as Attacke is an entree, while Taj is the main course
May 13th, 2004 at 13:40
Yes, I agree – Taj Mahal is a brilliant game. In no way the scoring system is obscure or uncontrollable. I find it rather simple, actually. I don’t bother to whine about the theme, or else I would have little to play as it seems most games have thin themes. Sure, it’s slightly repetitive, but I don’t think it’s a problem, not at all.
May 13th, 2004 at 13:50
I agree that if you are prepared to play it a lot then you will probably find it more rewarding. There is so much competition for my limited gaming time however that there is nothing in it that really wants me to go through this learning curve when I could spend the time playing something I find more fun. I will play Taj Mahal if asked but it will be very rare that I chose it. I find this is true with a lot of Knizia’s games – Occasionally they just get a bit toooo clever for my liking. (and if you think the scoring in this is convoluted, have you played Samurai?). Most ‘German’ type games are dressed up abstract games but some dresses fit better than others – for my tastes this is not one of them.
May 13th, 2004 at 14:30
Maybe I emphasised the negatives too much? We like Taj Mahal, just not like Knizia’s best. He is my favourite designer, bar none.
My point with Ivanhoe is that it is less similar to Taj Mahal than Bruno suggests. I prefer Ivanhoe to Taj Mahal, but they are very different and Ivanhoe is one of my favourite card games.
My only real complaint about Taj Mahal its sluggishness. That would improve with more playing, but, as Michael says, I’ve got a lot of other games competing for my attention.
May 14th, 2004 at 06:29
Funny, I’ve always felt the Samurai scoring to be quite intuitive. Just aim for the majorities! I can’t see what’s so tricky about it.