A Handful of Stars

A Handful of Stars felt much more abstract than the other two games in the trilogy, and noticeably more thematically “dry.” Even so, it is also a much better game. Apparently, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. What really annoyed me, though, is the manual: it is among the worst I remember being written in 2017, and that is embarrassing for a designer of this calibre.

The heart of the game, as it emerged from our plays, is the cards and the gradual familiarity with what they can do. In the first encounters, you do not yet have a clear picture of the landscape, while in repeat plays you begin to recognise what is in circulation and plan with greater intent.

I have no reason to pretend that the game is easy to explain from its booklet—the opposite is true. But once players get past that obstacle, interaction comes through pursuing particular strategies and through how each person makes use of what they know, or expect, from the cards. It is not a game that wins you over with its theme; it wins you over because its system starts to open up the more you play it.

In the end, A Handful of Stars rewards you. Despite its thematic dryness, and despite a manual that should have been rewritten from scratch, I consider it easily the best in Uncle’s series and a very strong piece of work.

Updated session

In the repeat plays, my opinion not only did not change, but became stronger. Now that we more or less know the cards, we can pursue specific strategies instead of feeling around in the dark, and the game shows even more clearly why it is the best in the series.