Everyone's take on a game is going to be subjective, but just to counter some of this feedback... For me, these aren't gameplay weaknesses - they're a summary

Everyone's take on a game is going to be subjective, but just to counter some of this feedback... For me, these aren't gameplay weaknesses - they're a summary of what makes eking out a win satisfying. > it feels like you have to win (or lose) quickly, else the middle board gets cramped and it bogs down to a long slog. Why is that a bad thing? If games always resulted in a quick win for whoever gets the lucky start/letter draw, where would be the fun? Restricted territory in the middle of the board is what the players have to overcome. > Sometimes I dropped junk in protected areas of the game just to wait for my opponent to be forced to touch my “front line”. That sounds like a sound strategy. It forces you to spend a resource (protected space; potentially useful tiles) in order to take advantage of the defensive advantage, with the potential payoff that it can turn the tide of the game. It also helps build up a reservoir of usable swappable tiles... but using swaps well is also tricky, so it's not pure advantage. Playing these waiting game phases effectively, for me, added to the sense of satisfaction in pulling off a win. > I also desperately wanted to be able to exchange tiles. Getting a rack full of vowels is frustrating, you just have to waste turns playing them out knowing they will weaken your board and get destroyed. You're not wasting turns, you're getting rid of vowels in order to get to draw new letters. Finding ways to make the sacrifices without weakening your position requires smart play. Again, getting past these obstacles makes for a fun challenge.