For Sale Autorama Review - Messing with Perfection

[@JonoNZBoardGamer]

I bought Autorama because it was easier to buy than the original game and I liked the car artwork. I never play with the advisors and just play classic rules. I wish the rulebook taught the classic rules and made advisors an optional add on, which it definitely is!

[@Boosyboh]

My question is: can I play 'vanilla' For Sale with this box, if I just don't use all of the components?

[@Boosyboh]

Whoops - never mind. Answered below!

[@peacefuldragon742]

I agree

[@ionutsandu2830]

Oh but the advisors are soooo good!

[@scotthenderson1762]

I agree that the Classic Rules should have been included with the new phase added as an Advanced variant for those wanting to change things up.

[@JustinNichols66]

"Hardcore Fillers". . . . sounds like a good top ten. Have they done a top ten "heavier filler" games?

[@nshaw1299]

I know Tom thinks differently than me here (I agree with this review BTW), but to me this did to 'For Sale', what Queendomino did to Kingdomino. Queendomino just added stuff to a clean game (which is why 'Kingdomino: Origins' means I will never recommend queendomino to anyone because it allows a gradient of play complexity, yet the super clean kingdomino still has a place despite 'origins')

[@shanegordon9406]

I have to say I love For Sale and find this the best version. You can play it like the original with just buying cars instead of houses which I like. The powers allows a nice mix up and strategy if you want a little heavier.

[@BABYPOP028]

16:47 : “I’m Tom Vassel” said in a tone of disgust sums up his review with a cherry on top

[@aloharay]

10:15 I prefer the wrenches. Yes it adds complexity over original For Sale, but I like that with an experienced game group.

[@olanmills64]

I think this isn't much harder to teach than the original game. I would simply teach the original game first (leave out the advisors deck, and don't explain the second half of the game until the first half is already over). Then for the second game, introduce the advisors. "In this advanced version of the game, we first bid on advisors exactly the same way we bid on property/cars before. Then we use advisors to buy property/houses instead of money. The advisors have special powers. Finally, we trade property/cars for checks, just as before."

[@rentless666]

I think I'm gonna get this, because I don't have the original and I really like the car theme and art more. And then I'm gonna print the old rules and not use the advisors. Plus, I can always add the advisors if I feel the game is too easy for the people on the table.

[@olanmills64]

It is weird that they didn't include the classic rules in the new version. I guess they didn't want to add another sheet to the rules

[@voldosmith]

The OG has like 200% more charm

[@Poiuytrew.Q]

And the travel edition is 100% cuter :)

[@Legitster]

Well, it sounds better than what I thought it would be - For Sale with a bunch of Take That cards. All I wanted was For Sale an updated version with nicer art/components. This not even coming with Classic rules is a huge "whiff" for me. I ended up picking up importing the Iello version of the game.

[@salmonblox]

I just imported the Iello version myself- it’s so pretty!

[@ThomasPancoast]

I was arguing with you in my head during most of the review. I have For Sale and I really like the Advisors expansion. I stopped arguing when I heard that the Advisors is the base way to play in For Sale Autorama. You are right that it should be an advanced option.

[@JefferyHunt]

You could just deal the special powers and adjust the starting money to compensate for who got better or worse cards. A money value could be assigned to each of the advisor cards, then a number of advisor cards equal to the number of players could be dealt to each player and the sum of their value would tell the player his starting money. Commence with the normal two phases with the new special powers.

[@SoLove]

I picked up the expansion to the original set last year. Played it twice and nobody in my groups wants to use it again. Happy to play the standard game though.

[@PuertoGeekan]

When they released this game they also released the advisors only as an expansion for the original game. This is how I would approach this version. It's a retheme of the original For Sale with the optional advisors expansion

[@AHolmesDk]

It’s funny.. I feel like the advisor expansion takes the game from a 6.5 to a solid 8.!! 😮 And its soo easy to just let out the advisor Deck if you want to Cut 10 minutes of playtime (no it doesn’t add more than 10 minutes to the playtime). Really sounds like the nostalgia factor is overshadowing the fact that this expansion makes the original game more interesting.

[@Poiuytrew.Q]

If the game separated out the advisors as an expansion and everything was the same except the artwork it would probably get a higher review.

[@olanmills64]

I got the expansion for the original For Sale, but I still have yet to play it. It looks fun though. The different cars in Autorama are amusing, but I didn't think it made sense to replace my existing game (plus the houses in the original game are also amusing)

[@Poiuytrew.Q]

Cardboard box anyone?

[@snbsmith]

Am I missing something about the Sales Associate? In the original, if you win a bid, you don't pay half; you pay the whole amount. So why does the card say, "I you take a Sales Associate, you get back all...instead of half?" Seems like "...instead of half" is extraneous unless I'm not understanding or there is a new rule when you win a bid.

[@miunone09]

Since they’re the lowest valued cards in the game, I’m guessing they’re never doled out to the winner of the bid, but are always given to someone who passes.

[@richhutnik2477]

I need to go order Furnace now.

[@StereoMonkey0]

Totally agree with their thoughts. We purchased the advisors expansion to add a bit more to for sale but after playing over five games we realised it changed the feel of the original game too much and took away from what for sale is, a nice quick enjoyable session with friends or family..

[@timometsanoja9666]

An expansion into a simple and straight forward games can be a mixed bag. If you mix it up too much, you can lose the fans of the original/base game. You can leave out the first phase and just play the original game. The starting money doesn't really matter as long as everyone has the same amount... It is odd that the original rules were not included. It could be a quicker variant for this game...

[@JhoffDJ.]

With this kind of praise how is For Sale not on Tom’s top 100?

[@steelman774]

I wonder when they’re going to come out with For Sale: Cthulhu or For Sale: Star Wars (these ARE the droids you were lookin for)? 🤔

[@XanYT]

Idk how Nidavellir was never mentioned. It is a very similar experience imo.

[@LuisMontes]

Well for sale is 25. years older than nidavellir. I think it would make more sense to point out similarities to for sale in the nidavellir review, which they might have.

[@5eimaru]

I've not played For Sale with the expansion, but it sure looks like it complicates what is an already awesome game. Thanks for helping me tick the expansion off my want list. Also, I find that the original game is better looking that the new version.

[@Poiuytrew.Q]

Exactly. Where is the manhole?!

[@tombeullens4914]

I call the new phase a "Libertalia" phase 🙂

[@kevinshoemaker2393]

Wow. It's been a while since I've disagreed with a review this much. The original For Sale was always a fine game. But Autorama is barely a fraction more difficult to teach than the original, and adds a perfect amount of extra depth to make it more interesting than the original ever was. I'm blown away by how low the scores are. I would give it at least an 8, maybe even a 9. This review seems like a case of being too precious of the original. Which is a shame because I think the Advisors are a welcome improvement.

[@arcanevision1]

Disagree, makes the game a ton less intuitive. Original is a classic.

[@Outrun37]

Played the original once, was enough for me (ok game); have played this version multiple times and enjoy it considerably more due to the advisors - they make the game for me.

[@fuzzmaster4157]

For sale is pretty hard to find at a decent price. Game costs too much for what it it. With that said you'll get a ton of plays out of it

[@torelaursen4139]

It seems like a big miss. For sale is almost board game art. If you want a game like For sale but with a little more complexity go for a whole other game called High Society❤

[@kevinwallace1374]

Can this be played with original rules or no?

[@olanmills64]

Yes, you can easily play this with the original rules. Simply leave the advisors deck in the box and use the original rules

[@davidgood1205]

Yes it can! The advisors are listed as an expansion so you can play this game with the original For Sale rules, to my understanding

[@unlimitedrabbit]

Could you review Nile Deluxor? It's absolutely maddening to play and difficult to stay ahead at higher player counts but there's something fun about the experience since the players understand being shoved out of the way because they have to shove people out of their way to get ahead.

[@Poiuytrew.Q]

Tom’s review of For Sale 1 year ago: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gIeae4OYZrWWirs

[@ninjabiscuit1095]

Just bolting on extra bits doesn't make a better game, the original For Sale is perfect in its simplicity, didn't need to be messed with at all

[@insanegammer109]

How about someone just let lello sell their version of For Sale in the US... the new art is so much better (just don't bring over the stupid paper money with the new art).

[@warmachineuk]

It's a pity the reviewers didn't state what score they'd give if the original rules were an option.

[@mattr8853]

I kinda want this version for the art and components and just skip the Advisor Phase and play the classic version. Seems simple enough.

[@blakebush7661]

Wow. What an "Old man yelling at the kids in his lawn" review. They vastly vastly overestimate how difficult this is. I guess compared to For Sale it is cause the original could float away if you aren't careful.

[@DTChrisYi]

Your last sentence nails my point precisely. Some games can just be simple and incredibly fun!

[@blakebush7661]

@@DTChrisYi and some games can be more complex and fun. What's the point? It's just really weird that you guys are judging the game so harshly because it's more complex than the original. I have to imagine this review would be very different if you hadn't played the original. I think your take was more measured than Tom's tbf. Wanting to give the game a 1 is wild, even if he was likely being hyperbolic. Edit: I also am not sure you guys would be calling this game complex if it wasnt being compared to the original. I'm not saying y'all would like the game anymore, it's just some of these criticisms are weird to me. Tom seem legitimately annoyed that this existed. People who want something as light as For Sale still have that option and people who might want a step up now have an option as well. I think the concern that the name may dupe some people is legitimate, but a lot of the other stuff just seems 'don't mess with my stuff' to me.

[@DTChrisYi]

@blakebush7661 You raise an interesting question: in a world where I haven't played For Sale before, how would I rate this? I likely wouldn't be as harsh on it. But that isn't my experience, so I honestly can't say. I do also have other games I could make comparisons to. For example, I think the three different phases of Autorama doesn't feel as tight as having 2 phases of play, like the trick-taking game Claim, based on the older German Whist, where the first round sets you up with the cards you will play for the second half. That's a great balance. Three phases doesn't feel as innately tight as 2, so I might still feel like the game is longer than it should be, or that the first phase feels disjointed from that nice balanced 2-phase gameplay you see elsewhere. That's a long-winded way of saying that we never review games in a vacuum. Hope that helps clarify a bit why we both chose to approach the review this way. Also, it's worth noting we didn't discuss our scores or our exact approach going into the review, so I think Tom and I actually both came in with a higher score than we expected each other to have.

[@blakebush7661]

@@DTChrisYi you certainly can't rewind time or delete any biases you may have due to past experiences, so I understand. I think where the review fell flat to me was that it seemed me that neither of you felt like this game should exist or fills any role. I don't think I agree. I think there are people who might want a more in depth game. I also think that the criticism of the three phases is a good one and while I know you mentioned it in the review it unfortunately was buried underneath all the talk about how this wasn't For Sale. I'm also surprised you both thought each would give it a lower rating as the ratings were fairly low already. I don't know your scale as well as Tom's but a 5 is not a good rating for him. That's usually what many of his games in the "I played this so you don't have to" series get.

[@rollingwiththebeard]

Lol Ziggy!

[@matthewharris-levesque5809]

Putting the endgame scoring goals in the first round forces this game out of casual, and into a game where you need to memorize and plan around which advisors everyone else at table gathered. -- tl:dr - too many chefs in the kitchen.

[@andymcguire237]

Right when I noticed the advisors had abilities, I was out.

[@josephbridges7470]

This feels like a grumpy old man take. Its not like they took the original game away from you and its pretty obvious that this is a sequel. I play mostly with gamers who have all played for decades, so this is an easy upgrade to a filler with very little effort.

[@DeltaDemon1]

The reason why I never got For Sale was because it would be great the first time, good the second time and boring after that. It's a nothing game that's way too simple. This game is way way way better. I could see myself playing 5 or even 6 games before I would get bored of it. Plus, you can play the boring original game by downloading the original rules so you get one more play out of it. Win, Win.

[@nimblegoat]

You might as well call all the games with a huge social element boring - like poker - On the other hand people who like huge engine building euros with little interaction, then it's much cheaper to play a diverse puzzle/efficiency games on the PC as a solo player -ie don't have to find a group of people who understand the meta and have a reasonable ability- that's my opinion - but for those people when the play it might be really great experiences . I will give you the reason - as from your observations and reading can not comprehend - It's Fun - with a capital F - great for gamers and not gamers - skill will win out - but even the worst player will get a few wins - A real nice blend between luck and skill - games are short - everyone is involved 100% . As for luck element - you judge the win - if you have a bad deal - just finishing not to far behind is a win - Ie it's fun . I play games to socialise - if I wanted an individualistic reward - then designing a game would be so much more rewarding to me than playing one - as much more creative. Anyway rant over - you need to not be such a negative nelly - The game is not for you - it's too simple and boring - that does mean the game is simple or boring - there is some very good subtle strategies that many players never learn . I'm happy you find games you like - but your comment adds negativity - a simple For Sale is too simple for me , this variation will improve - but probably not for me - great you can download original rules - hope some of yous enjoy it

[@JamesD2957]

Chris said "car card" a lot

[@kq76]

Wow. I couldn't disagree more with this review. I don't remember if mine mentioned the original rules or not, but that's how we learned. I may have had to look them up, I don't remember, but it plays fine. Honestly, I think Tom is being a baby in this review, "I want to give it a 1". I like this version. The theme is better, the art is better, the components are good, there's more to it (if you want that more), and we really liked the 2-player rules.

[@helenojr]

Bad review. It's a great game and still easy to play.

[@malicoire3564]

I disagree wholeheartedly with this review, and that's fine. I have never played For Sale before Autorama. Took it to a family gathering, everyone grokked it and, for the first time since Bohnanza, they asked to play it multiple times in a row. Great game. I can't imagine a benefit to playing without the advisors.

[@Poiuytrew.Q]

Too much text decreases accessibility

[@malicoire3564]

@@Poiuytrew.Q That I can completely understand.

[@LuisMontes]

Couldn't they have given their review scores for For Sale, then said something like + 0.5 points for this optional expansion included in the box? DT missed the mark with this review, even if the expansion isn't great.

[@DTChrisYi]

Tom did state his score for the original in the review. Also, we both did state we consider it pretty much perfect game, so you could guess it would be rather high. The way this particular box is sold, it's not a base game with a new expansion; it is a new base game so it got scored as one.

[@LuisMontes]

@@DTChrisYi I get that especially without the rules distinction in the box, but it still contains the base game with a new theme.

[@warmachineuk]

@@LuisMontes Alas, it doesn't contain the rules for the original game, so an owner cannot recreate the original game with new theme. An owner can download the original rules but if reviewers judged based on unofficial variants, it'd descend into arguments about selection of unofficial variants and publishers complaining their products are being judged on something that's nothing to do with them.

[@LuisMontes]

@@warmachineuk generally speaking, sure. This one is kind of a unique case. For Sale is 25 years old and extremely popular. Just not using the new phase isn't exactly a variant, it's just the original rules. The publisher obviously botched not explaining that in the printed rules, but does that oversight actually merit a 5 & 6 rating?

[@thedicetower]

Yes it does.

[@DeltaDemon1]

This is stupid. A 5 means you hate the original game since this IS the original game with an OPTION to play with advisors.

[@iobuppu]

Autorama doesnt give you this option. THIS is stupid. Cant play the original one if you dont know it.

[@DTChrisYi]

The way this product is sold, this is a new base game not an optional expansion. I specifically call out that the classic rules weren't included. That means we review it as a new base game. I stand by giving this one a 6 and the original a 9.