Pirates of Maracaibo: Bermuda Triangle – Justin Bell
I stand by my 2024 review of the Pirates of Maracaibo base game: I think it is designer Alexander Pfister’s best work, a co-design with Ralph Bienert and Ryan Hendrickson based on Pfister’s 2019 release Maracaibo that completely eliminated the older original from my collection. It’s a race that shears off all the loose ends of Maracaibo, with better card play (the entire map is actually a series of cards), simpler combat, a more comprehensive use of the Exploration board, and a shorter playtime. It was one of the top 10 games I played that year, and I’ve played it more than 15 times in person and more than 100 times on Board Game Arena.
Pirates of Maracaibo: Commanders has a “raison d’etre”: Euro players like to have their asymmetric powers, so Commanders very much as a reason to exist. Pirates of Maracaibo: Bermuda Triangle is the latest expansion, but it is very much a mini expansion. There is a small deck of cards that can be integrated into the decks of the base game, there’s a single solo card, and there’s a single location card (the Kraken) that may or may not add a little flair to the base game. But Bermuda Triangle’s main feature is also its main issue: it turns the base game into a round-free race to achieve four goals across a grid that pretends to give the players choices…but these goals are no different than the goals represented by quests and residence cards in the base game.
In that way, our first multiplayer game of Bermuda Triangle was pretty dry: I took a “Treasure Hunt” path that first required my explorer to cross a single river, then possess three Improvement cards with red banners (ongoing powers), then cross three rivers on the Exploration board (in other words, continue to just lean into the game I was already playing), then race to have 30 points on the main score track, 22 points’ worth of quest cards, and 20 points of cards with gray, end-game scoring banners. If that sounds like the things you would already do in the base game, you’d be right…which means there’s not much of a reason to play Bermuda Triangle. Unfortunately for Pfister and his team, the Pirates of Maracaibo base game is already perfect!
Ease of entry?
★★★★★ – No sweat (for anyone who has played the base game)
Would I play it again?
★★☆☆☆ – Would play again but would rather play something else
Read more articles from Justin Bell.
Kittens in Space – Tom Franklin
Kittens in Space is a family card game where you’re trying to be the first to shed all the cards in your hand. After dealing out the appropriate number of kitten cards based on the number of players, the first player sets out four cards from the deck in front of all players. Place the Rescue/Adopt card on top of one of the piles, sideways. This indicates which cards you’ll be playing a card with a number one or two higher than the card facing up (Rescue) and cards which you must play a card one or two numbers lower (Adopt). If you play a card with a cat bell underneath its number, you turn the Rescue/Adopt card over. This reverses which side requires higher/lower cards played on.
The standout in Kittens in Space is the artwork. Artist Zachary Leo has created a cute set of illustrations of cats at home and playing on the surface of the moon. The addition of the rainbow reflective coating on the space suit helmets and random items helps, too. Also, kudos for the magnetically closed box.
This is an easy game to pack away for a vacation or an evening of quick filler games. There’s no real strategy here, just an easygoing time placing kitten cards in different piles.
Ease of entry?
★★★★★ – No sweat
Would I play it again?
★★★☆☆ – Wouldn’t suggest it, but would happily play it
Read more articles from Tom Franklin.
Haunted Mouse – Justin Bell
I’m a big fan of tabletop productions that accurately use the word “deluxe.” Haunted Mouse: Deluxe Edition (2026, Bezier Games) is a climbing/shedding card game for 2-5 players. While the card stock didn’t give me deluxe vibes, one other element did: Haunted Mouse comes with cute, plastic cheese tokens that track a player’s score, and as a players collected these cheese tokens, they are placed within a circular slot in the right-hand corner of the player’s mat that clearly show from across the table how close a player is to winning.
When a player gets seven cheese tokens (“cheeses” doesn’t quite feel right here), they win. How does one win at Haunted Mouse? During a round, players are dealt an initial hand of eight cards that cannot be rearranged, from a five-suit deck with cards ranging from 1-9. There’s a Public Bait card or two at the center of the table that can be combined with other Bait cards players place from their initial hand into their play area, then the lead player lays out a set (1+ cards of a single number) or a run (2+ cards, ascending or descending) to get the round rolling. Standard climbing game rules apply, but players get to use those bait cards from around the table to play adjacent cards in their hand to the table.
If a player cannot or chooses not to play, they can draw a card. First player to go out gets a lot of cheese, then successive players who go out get less cheese. Because rounds only end when a single player has cards left in their hand, this led to a couple of longer-than-expected rounds, all in an effort to take a single cheese token, which is a knock. Another knock: there’s not as much strategy to Haunted Mouse as desired, since our winner had to admit that games are easier when you are dealt an eight-card hand with four or five cards that can be played all at once. Haunted Mouse has a couple other tricks up its sleeve—our man Andrew Lynch is working on a full review—but at Casa de Bell, shedding games like Jungo, Scout or even Bezier’s own title, Seers Catalog, turn me on a little more than Haunted Mouse.
Ease of entry?
★★★★★ – No sweat
Would I play it again?
★★★☆☆ – Wouldn’t suggest it, but would happily play it
Read more articles from Justin Bell.
Trans-Siberian Railroad – Thomas Wells
I am a big fan of cube rails, which I think are often unfairly described as “train games.” I’ve played 2.5 billion of these things, I’d more describe them as entanglement simulations. Usually, a cube rail game features some kind of auction for control of various entities within the game, and then those entities compete (with various levels of player control over this competition) and generate points. In Trans-Siberian Railroad, you capitalize four companies at the start via an auction, and then players who tie/have the most shares can control those companies. The goal is for companies to expand, increase their income, which means larger share payouts. A turn is just buying more shares, passing, or building track with a company.
But, like most Amabel Holland stuff, it’s got like 20 timing puzzles going at once. Player actions will often tick down a dividend payout track, which injects money into the game regularly and unbalances player positions, and there can be 1-3 “nationalization” events where companies that aren’t making enough money are removed from play (though their cubes remain on the board). There’s also leapfrogging builds, which ramp up the goofiness.
This is a fun one, though like most cube rails, you have to understand that most of these games feature few meaningful decisions. There are lots of decisions, but many of them are forced (unless you want to lose), and part of veterancy in this style of game is understanding what is a decision worth thinking about and what isn’t. This one isn’t quite the standout that Chicago Express, German Railways, Northern Pacific, and South African Railroads are for me, but it’s a quality time at five players.
Ease of entry?
★★★☆☆ – There were a few questions
Would I play it again?
★★★☆☆ – Wouldn’t suggest it, but would happily play it
Read more articles from Thomas Wells
Dirt & Dust – Kevin Brantley
This was one of the games I was most excited to try at Gen Con last year. As a racing fan, mostly Formula 1, I’m always curious to see how the concept translates to the tabletop, especially with big titles like Heat and Rallyman: Dirt consistently making waves. Here, though, it’s less of an actual racing game and more of a rally team management game. You’re managing the car in front of you rather than competing in a race. Well, I suppose the point tracker technically represents the race.
The game plays out over a series of rounds, or stages, where players plan ahead and purchase cards through a deck-building system. Players roll dice, and the pip values activate cards arranged in a line. Those cards gradually shift downward before eventually being discarded. There are some combo opportunities here, such as timing discards to clear out unwanted actions or earning single-use bonus dice. At the same time, you’re trying to mitigate the hazard die, which deals damage that can eventually compound into permanent negative effects.
Each player also has a cute car meeple that moves across a grid on their personal board. Depending on where it ends up, the car can score points at the end of the round, provided you planned its movement (and the stage) carefully.
Across my plays, I realized there is almost no player interaction. Since everything happens simultaneously, everyone is just rolling dice, playing cards, and doing their own thing without any real tension between players. Sure, there’s a limited supply of cards in the market, but there are usually enough options for everyone to get a fair share.
The deckbuilding also never becomes much more interesting because most of the card actions are simply rearranged versions of the same effects. The barrier to entry is also higher than it initially appears, since scoring points can be brutally difficult when the dice don’t roll in your favor. There is some mitigation, but for a game built almost entirely around strategic planning, there’s too much randomness to make that planning feel consistent.
There are still some fun turns to be had when you manage to pull off one of the game’s rare wombo-combos, but those moments are few and far between. It may find an audience with hardcore racing fans, but this one isn’t a podium winner.
Ease of entry?
★★★☆☆ – There were a few questions
Would I play it again?
★★☆☆☆ – Would play again but would rather play something else
Read more articles from Kevin Brantley.
