As you know (or if you don't know, you should), I'm a big fan of the board game Settlers of Catan. Back in my swinging single days, my roommates and I would leave the game out on the dinner table 24/7, all set up, so we'd be ready to start a new game at a moment's notice. These days, Shelly and I preach the gospel of Catan to all our friends and have already made quite a few converts.

So when, during our recent family reunion in Arizona, Shelly's uncle's family said that they'd brought along the variant game Settlers of Zarahemla, we had to try it.

Zarahemla is the Mormon version of Settlers.* For no apparent reason, it's set in Book of Mormon lands instead of on the fictitious island of Catan. I'm not sure why it really exists. I guess some guy out there thought he could make a buck if he marketed a really good game to a small percentage of the population.

I'm not sure why the Zarahemla guys haven't been sued yet. I was excited to get a variation on my favorite game, but I was a little disappointed at how similar they were. Here is the complete list (to my memory) of the things that are different about Zarahemla as opposed to Settlers:

1) There's a little track around the perimeter of the board that you move a marker along as you accumulate victory points, so everyone always knows how many points everyone else has (thus eliminating the stealth strategy that so often wins me the game).

2) You play to 12 points, not 10 (which in our game won me the game; Shelly was the first to make it to 10, but I was the first to make it to 12).

3) There's a development card called the Liahona which, when you play it, allows you to declare the number that shall be rolled on the dice. (I like that idea, but sadly, it never came up in our game. Maybe I'll add that when I play Settlers next.)

4) At the beginning of the game, you get to choose which of your two initial settlements determines your initial supply of resources, rather than being stuck to the second settlement (not a big deal).

5) Some nomenclature differences: The Robber (who we always call Osama bin Laden anyway) is called Gadianton, the Soldiers are called Stripling Warriors, Year of Plenty is called Bountiful Harvest, etc. (How religious!)

6) Instead of sheep, you have water as a resource. (I liked this change, because then you've got a blue resource instead of two different shades of green--some newbies get confused between wood and sheep).

7) The only real significant change is the temple. For an ore and a brick, you can build a temple stone. Build at least three temple stones, and you can get the "Greatest Temple Contributor" card, which functions just like the Longest Road and Largest Army, in that a greater contributor can take it away from you, and it's worth 2 points. The catch is that there's a finite number of stones needed to complete the temple, so you can't get into an unlimited temple war like you can a road war. And since all four players contribute to the same temple, it's possible to count yourself out of the temple running long before the temple is actually completed.

Frankly, I was underwhelmed. I was hoping to see a game different enough that my strategy would be at least a little different (when I saw I couldn't get the Temple Contributor, it just became an extended game of Settlers). Seafarers of Catan is a much more welcome change to the same old Settlers routine. But I doubt I'll play Zarahemla again if Settlers is available.

I guess I need to get a hold of Cities and Knights of Catan.

* Even though the Zarahemla game has "Settlers" in the title, the name "Settlers" belongs exclusively to Settlers of Catan. No one calls it "Catan." You call it "Settlers." And you must pronounce it in two syllables with a glottal stop in the middle. Call it "Sed-a-lurs" and you aren't allowed to play.