The Disclaimer

I wouldn’t consider anything in this review to be a spoiler, and I’m about as spoilerphobic a guy as you are likely to meet. But spoilers are in the eye of the beholder, so caveat emptor. If you are really worried, skip the section entitled “The Playtest”.

Why does a board game review requires a spoiler warning? Read on.

Beastmen wrasslin’ robots. What’s not to love?

The Hook

Every once in a while an extraordinary idea galvanizes the board game community. Dominion, for instance, introduced (or, rather, refined) the idea of a game centered on deck building, and dozens of games utilizing this mechanism have since been released. Before that it was the idea of “worker placement”, pioneered by the seminal Caylus.

Risk Legacy, the newest version of the classic war game, is built around such an idea, though it would be more accurate to describe the premise as “polarizing” than “galvanizing”. Reaction to the announcement of the game ranged from accolades to derision, and spirited debates abounded months before it was published. But no one, not even that game’s fiercest critics, could deny that the central conceit of the game is extraordinary–and perhaps even brilliant.

Here’s the hook: as you play Risk: Legacy, the game changes. I don’t mean in the conventional sense of gameplay evolving as players become more experienced; I mean the game literally, physically changes. The components include an assortment of stickers, which players use to irrevocably alter play: stickers affixed to the board forever enhance or mar the topography, stickers added to cards permanently revise their value and utility, and so forth.

But wait, as they say: there’s more. The rules frequently ask–demand!–that players take up Sharpies and annotate the board, to name continents, record events, and immortalize victories by scrawling their John Hancock on the “Winner’s List”.

Some events require that cards be removed from the game. This is not uncommon–many games ask you to “take cards out of play” by setting them aside or returning them to the box; only in Risk: Legacy are you told to do so by ripping them into confetti and then tossing them in the trash. The horror.

The upshot of all this is that, after your first game, you are playing on a board unlike any other in existence, with cities positioned according to your whims, locations named by your opponents, and cards customized per the preferences of your game group. And that’s just the beginning. The Risk: Legacy box contains a number of sealed packets and compartments, which are only opened when specific conditions are met (e.g., a single player wins his second game). Opening a cache may introduce to the mix new cards, new stickers, new rules, and even new pieces (maybe! I don’t even know!). The game was designed to be played at least 15 times, preferably with the same group of people.

It’s difficult to overstate how anathema this is to many gamers, for whom even minor wear on the edges of a card is a travesty on par with the Hindenburg. The idea of defacing cards on purpose has some railing about the impending tsunami of “disposable games”, even though Risk: Legacy is, to date, the only game featuring this innovation.

Me? I’m a sucker for a gimmick. I had to have it.

Sealed packets introduce new elements into the game as milestones are reached

The Game

Risk: Legacy is … well, it’s Risk, albeit Risk with a science-fiction theme and a 100-word backstory so ridiculous that it was apparently dashed it off in the moments before the game went to press. As in the original, the map depicts Earth divided into 48 Territories, into which players place Troops. On a turn a player selects a Territory he occupies and commits a number of Troops to attacking an adjacent space owned by an opponent. Dice are rolled and Troops are removed; when the defender’s Territory is vacant the attacker moves in and can continue his conquest. At the end of a turn in which a player took at least one Territory he receives a card, and these cards may later be redeemed to receive bonus Troops.

That’s what’s the same; the biggest difference between Risk: Legacy and its progenitor are the victory conditions. In the classic Risk, a player only wins after systematically eliminating all of his opponents and controlling every Territory on the board, a process that typically takes three or four or seven hours. Here, the goal is simply to obtain four Red Stars. Each player begins play with a Headquarters, and ownership of an HQ is worth one Red Star. Much of the game revolves around the battle for these HQs, as control of four–regardless of to whom they initially belonged–wins the game.

There are, of course, lots of additional tweaks to the original design. But the game is much more Risk than not.

We watch in irritation as J. prepares for war

The Playtest

Four of us gathered Sunday evening to break in my copy of Risk: Legacy; we conscripted our host’s 13-year-old daughter to fill the fifth position.

I am, and always have been, a fan of Risk, even though I dislike the player elimination and find the playing time to be entirely too long. Some of my fellow players are less charitable to the original game. But we all enjoyed this latest incarnation.

We played the game three times in a row, in the space of perhaps two and a half hours. Early games go quick; until a player has won at least one game he begins with a free Red Star in addition to his starting HQ, and therefore needs only two more points to win. (The length of future games increase as, one by one, players require three Red Stars beyond their starting HQ for victory instead of two.)

The “gimmick” of the game–that of altering the components as you play–has real strategic implications. Early in game one, for instance, I applied a “bunker” sticker to Greenland, which gave the Territory a defensive advantage; as a result, Greenland became a good place for a player to hunker down in the second and third game. Another player used stickers to increase the value of the China card, turning the corresponding Territory into a resource coveted by all.

As one of my opponents observed, the brevity of the game lends itself to bolder play; if you take a gamble and fail, you will only suffer the consequences for another 20 minutes or so. In other words, this version of Risk actually encourages its namesake, and the game is more exciting for it.

We opened our first sealed packet at the end of our third game, to reveal new cards and rules. I won’t describe them, but I’ll confess to looking forward to our next match, eager to see how they affect play. The premise of Risk: Legacy–that of a game that evolves as you play it–appears to work exactly as intended.

Because my opponents wanted to start in China, and the rules disallow starting in a Territory with a sticker, I founded the city of Skruyu.

The Verdict

My policy is never to review a game until I have played it at least three times. In one sense I have fulfilled this obligation, having played Risk: Legacy thrice Sunday night. In another very real sense, though, I’ve only played a fifth of the game. With rules, cards, and pieces entering the game over the course of 15 plays, I still haven’t experienced everything it has to offer.

Given my previous statement, that I like Risk except for the player elimination and the long playing time, it stands to reason that I would enjoy a version of Risk that has neither. And I did, quite a bit. I remain unconvinced that my enthusiasm won’t wane before we reach game 15, though. An alternative peril, since the game is designed to be played by the same group week after week, is that I will want to play through to the end, but that one or more of my colleagues will eventually beg off.

Of course the “evolution” element is designed to address this, to goose the replayablity of what is at heart a pretty simple game. Whether it succeeds remains to be seen–we have another play session on the books for next Sunday, and I will report back after.

If I make it through game 15, what will I do with Risk: Legacy then? Maybe just toss it out; by that point the board will be covered with graffiti, the cards will have been defiled and destroyed, and, for all I know, I may be instructed to set fire to the box at some point. You might think that $50 for a game you’ll only play 15 times is a total rip-off, and many are making this very argument. But honestly, 15 plays ain’t bad for a game, especially one that can provide a unique experience. I don’t regret my purchase yet and, based on what I’ve seen so far, do not anticipate doing so.

You can find more information on Risk: Legacy on its Boardgamegeek entry, and even read a PDF of the rules online. Risk: Legacy is available on Amazon, Funagain, and elsewhere.

The Update

Rob Daviau, the designer of Risk: Legacy, responds via Twitter:

@matthewbaldwin Thanks for the review; glad you are liking the game. The backstory took me at least 20 minutes, thank you very much.

January 26, 2012 10:58 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@robdaviaugamer

robdaviaugamer

@matthewbaldwin (Actually, game theming is deliberately vague to allow each group to fill in the history and details as they see fit.)

January 26, 2012 10:59 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@robdaviaugamer

robdaviaugamer

Rob discusses his inspiration for the design in this NPR story.

The Top Ten Eleven

My 2011 Good Gifts Game Guide (G4), in which I provide capsule reviews for my favorite easy-to-learn-and-teach games of the year, appeared in The Morning News last Friday. The listed games follow.

Honorable Mentions
Whittling the list down to 10 (actually 11 games, as Summoner Wars and Jab share an entry) was unusually difficult this year, as I started with 19 worthy of inclusion and amassed half a dozen more as I asked others for recommendation.

Here are some that didn’t make the cut but are worth looking into if they pique your interest.

Elder Sign (1-8 players, 90 minutes, dice): Arkham Horror–the dice game! If you are unfamiliar with Arkham Horror or uninterested in H. P Lovecraft, this is not the game for you. If you are a fan of the mythos, though, Elder Sign allows you to battle eldritch horrors in as short as an hour. I will be reviewing both Arkham Horror and Elder Sign soon as part of the H. P. Lovefest. Why it was left off the main list: Uses the same central mechanism as the more accessable King of Tokyo. [Boardgame Geek | Amazon | Funagain ]

Letters from Whitechapel (2-6 players, 90 minutes, family strategy): One person assumes the role of Jack the Ripper, carrying out his dark business on the streets and in the alleys of London; the remaining players are detectives, trying to track the killer down and bring him to justice. Why it was left off the main list: It is currently out of print and the company that made it has gone belly-up, so there’s no guarentee that it will be available anytime soon. If you want a copy, call your local game store and see if they have any in stock. Otherwise check out the classic game Scotland Yard (which uses the same One Person Plays the Bad Guy, The Others Play the Detectives mechanism), or the two-player Mr. Jack (which has both the Ripper theme and the deduction element). [Boardgame Geek | Amazon | Funagain ]

Mondo (1-4 players, 20 minutes, puzzle): More multi-player jigsaw puzzle than board game, Mondo has players racing against the clock (and each other) to assemble a map of the world, striving to score points for completed environments and collected animals. Similar in feel to Carcassonne, with the timer injecting an element of urgency. Why it was left off the main list: It’s a fun game, but the dearth of player interaction ill-suits for the G4. [Boardgame Geek | Amazon | Funagain ]

Fortune and Glory: The Cliffhanger Game (1-8 players, 90 minutes, adventure board game): Rated highly on Boardgame Geek and perhaps the board game with the most buzz at the 2011 Penny Arcade Expo, Fortune and Glory is a loving recreation of pulp-era yards, complete with lost treasure, abominable monsters, and boatloads of Nazis. Flying Frog‘s streak of producing well-received thematic games remains unbroken. Why it was left off the main list: List price of $100. Yikes. [Boardgame Geek | Amazon | Funagain ]

Quarriors! (2-4 players, 20 minutes, dice): As “deck building games” reach the saturation point (see my review of Thunderstone: Dragonspire on the main 2011 G4), designers need a unique take on the genre to stand out. WizKids has done so by eliminating the deck entirely, and replacing the cards with dice. The result is a game that plays fast and gives you the great satisfaction of rolling a huge handful of bones on each turn. Why it was left off the main list: Same reason as Elder Sign, essentially: too many dice games on the main list already. [Boardgame Geek | Amazon | Funagain ]

Other Opinions

Don’t trust the yeti? Here are the highlights of some other “2011 best game of the year” lists.
German Game of the Year:

• Winner: Qwirkle (featured in the 2007 G4; maybe it just made it to Germany this year?)
• Winner (“Advanced Strategy” category): 7 Wonders
• Runner-Up: Asara
• Runner-Up: Forbidden Island (a fun, lighter version of Pandemic)

Deutscher Spiele Preis (the “other” German Game of the Year award):

• First Place: 7 Wonders
• Second Place: Die Burgen von Burgund
• Third Place: Troyes

International Gamers Awards:

• General: 7 Wonders
• Two-Players: A Few Acres of Snow

GAMES Magazine Awards:

• Game of the Year: Tikal II: The Lost Temple
• Family Game: Lemmin Mafia
• Strategy Game: Glen More
• Advanced Strategy Game: Die Burgen von Burgund
• Abstract Strategy Game: Confusion: Espionage and Deception in the Cold War
• Card Game: Hey Waiter!
• Party Game: Funfair
• Word Game: Pathwords

Where to Buy

I dunno about your hometown, but board game stores have recently been cropping up in Seattle like toadstools after a rain. Plug “games” into Google Maps and see what you get.

As for online, Amazon now carries just about everything I recommend. Funagain Games is one of the oldest board game retailers and remains one of the best. Others that I’d recommend include:

• Boards and Bits
• Fairplay Games
• Games Surplus
• Thought Hammer
• Time Well Spent

Need additional info, or want a more specific recommendation? Don’t hesitate to drop me a line.

My 2011 Good Gift Games Guide will appear in The Morning News this Friday. In the meanwhile, I have updated my list of Good Gift Games Greatest Hits, a showcase of my 20 all-time most recommended easy-to-learn games.

In doing so I added nine new games to the list, replaced Wits and Wagers with Say Anything, and dropped Hoity Toity entirely (sorry H.T., you had a good run).

Most of the newcomers are titles from the last five years that have earned their place in the Hall of Fame. They are as follows.

Pandemic

Players: 2-4
Time: 45 minutes
Price: $35
Type: Family Strategy / Cooperative
My Full Review: Here

“In this game we are all epidemiologists, trying to synthesize vaccines to four deadly diseases that are rapidly spreading across the globe …” Oh my God, can you even imagine a less-enticing introduction to a board game? It sounds so soporific that you’d expect to find pillows and PJs in the box. And yet Pandemic, an engrossing (if stressful) family strategy game, has exactly this premise: travel the world, conduct research, and cure the virulent contagions that threaten mankind. As a cooperative game, Pandemic has the players working as a team, winning or losing as a group. And, like any good medical thriller, the tension in Pandemic builds geometrically: Halfway through you’ll be high-fiving each other over your presumed victory; 15 minutes later you’ll be sweating bullets as the situation grows increasingly dire. Also: Forbidden Island is by the same designer and uses the same central idea, but is easier to learn and easier to win. The former makes it more suitable for families; the latter, however, means that it will not challenge you for as long as Pandemic.

[Official Site | Boardgame Geek | Amazon]

* * *

Dominion

Players: 2-4
Time: 30 minutes
Price: $45
Type: Card / Family Strategy

Every once in a while a game comes along that spurs an entire new genre of design. Such a game is Dominion, which spawned the latest craze of “deck building games”. Each player starts with an identical deck of ten cards, which they use to “buy” more cards, which they use to acquire yet more cards, until each has built up a formidable deck from practically nothing. This innovative system is complemented by the huge amount of options available: The game comes with 500(!) cards in total. It’s perfect for the recovering Magic: the Gathering addict on your list, or anyone who enjoys a quick card game with myriad of variability.

[Official Site | Boardgame Geek | Amazon]

* * *

Say Anything

Players: 4-7
Time: 30 minutes
Price: $30
Type: Party

After its release in 2005, Wits And Wagers quickly became my favorite party game. It held that distinction for three years, until the company behind it, North Star Games, introduced their newest title: Say Anything. One player is appointed the Judge in each round of Say Anything, and asks the group a question such as, “What’s the most important invention of the last century?” or, “Who is the most annoying celebrity in show business?” After everyone has jotted down their replies, players then bet on which answer the Judge will deem “Best”.  The “all players answer, all players bet” mechanism was taken straight from Wits and Wagers, but this implementation is slightly more to my liking.  Pick Wits and Wagers if you lean toward trivia games, Say Anything if you prefer party.

[Official site | Boardgame Geek | Amazon]

* * *

Bananagrams

Players: 1-8
Time: 15 minutes
Price: $15
Type: Word

Take Scrabble, distill it down to just the fun parts (i.e., remove the scoring and the downtime), and you are left with Bananagrams. Players receive 21 wooden tiles, each bearing a single letter, and simultaneously assemble them into a lattice of words. When a player has used all of his letters he yells, “peel,” whereupon everyone claims two more tiles from the central pool. When the pool is depleted, the first with no tiles left cries, “Bananas!” for the win. Playable in a quarter hour, portable in its stylish bananabag, Bananagrams allows you to scratch your cruciverbal-itch at the drop of a hat.

[Official Site | Boardgame Geek | Amazon]

* * *

Small World

Players: 2-5
Time: 90 minutes
Price: $50
Type: Family Strategy / Light Wargame

Remember Risk?  Remember how fun it was?  Unless, of course, you got knocked out early, and had to watch Golden Girls reruns while the rest of the players staggered on to the finish line five hours later.  Imagine all the fun of Risk, but with no player elimination and a system that guaranteed that every game would play out different.  Or better yet, stop imagining and pick up Small World.  Each player adopts a unique civilization composed of a random race and a random class, which can give rise to Commando Halflings and Diplomat Skeletons.  He then marches his tribe across a fantasy landscape, snapping up provinces and giving the previous inhabitants the heave-ho.  Small World allows you to watch the rise and fall of civilizations in a civilized time-frame of only 90 minutes.

[Official Site | Boardgame Geek | Amazon]

* * *

No Thanks!

Players: 3-5
Time: 15 minutes
Price: $10
Type: Card
My full review: Here

On your turn you do one of two things:  take the face-up card (and all the chips on it), or place a chip onto the face-up card and pass.  You now know all the rules to No Thanks!. Except for scoring that is, and the scoring is what makes this game shine. Each player receives points equal to the value of the cards he took minus the number of chips he owns, with the lowest score winning.  So ask yourself: how many chips will a card need before you are willing to take it?  You will agonize over that question for the 15 minute running time of No Thanks!–and then another 15 minutes, and then another, as you and your group keep playing “just one more”.

[Official Site | Boardgame Geek | Amazon]

* * *

BANG!

Players: 4-7
Time: 30 minutes
Price: $20
Type: Card / Party

Who will rule the West: the Sheriff and his deputies or the outlaws? Players are randomly assigned to one side or the other, but the composition of the teams begin a secret. Want to know who is on your side? Shoot someone and see how they react. BANG! is a clever variation on the traditional game of Werewolf, works best with a group of six or seven people, and has no shortage of expansions to keep things fresh.

[Official Site | Boardgame Geek | Amazon]

* * *

Blokus

Players: 2-4
Time: 20 minutes
Price: $25
Type: Abstract / two-player

Blokus is one of those abstract games that even people who profess to hate abstract games (such as myself) wind up loving. Players place plastic pieces (alliteration!) onto a grid in accordance with a simple law: newly placed pieces must be diagonally adjacent (and only adjacent) to previously placed pieces of the same color. That one rule, along with the variety of differenly sized and shaped pieces, makes for a tense game of control, as you wall off territory with the goal of leaving your opponent with no possible moves. Go play a few games of Blokus online and see for yourself. The original Blokus plays up to four, and is suitable for kids as young as seven; if you are looking for a two-player version, check out Blokus Duo instead.

[Official Site | Boardgame Geek | Amazon]

* * *

Incan Gold

Players: 3-8
Time: 20 minutes
Price: $20
Type: Card / Party / Push-Your-Luck

Two men enter, one man leaves! Or, in the case of Incan Gold, as many as eight explorers enter a perilous temple in search of jewels, and one by one flee in terror as they encounter snakes, mummies, and rock slides. Those who get out before catastrophe strikes keep the booty they amassed; those that push their luck too far wind up with nothing. One of the simplest game on this list but also one of the most tense, Incan Gold packs all the anxiety of a two-hour suspense film into a tidy 20-minute package

[Official Site | Boardgame Geek | Amazon]

* * *

This post is part of the H. P. Lovefest. It is not, however, a review of the Call of Cthulhu Roleplaying game, despite the title. It is instead an high-level overview of the game and its affect on both roleplaying and Lovecraft’s legacy.

If you are unfamiliar with tabletop roleplaying games, or have only been exposed to RPGs of the electronic variety, you might equate the entire genre with Dungeons & Dragons: wizards, unicorns, swords, potions, and lots of dice. And that’s not a bad description of D&D, at least insofar as how some groups play it. Players draft characters, form a party, delve into a dungeon, and hack away at the monsters therein, accumulating Experience and losing Hit Points.

“Hit Points”, in the lexicon of D&D and many other roleplaying games, are a measure of physical health, and when they drop to zero or below your character may pass out or even die. “Experience”, on the other hand, is an abstract measure of how much your character has “done” in its life, and is amassed by performing tasks such as killing monsters and completing quests. After you’ve accumulated a certain amount of Experience your character “levels up”, becoming more powerful in the process. As there are many many ways to recuperate Hit Points and few ways to lose Experience, the end result is a game in which characters become ever more powerful and very rarely die.

This model is ill-suited for a roleplaying game set in the world of H. P. Lovecraft for a variety of reasons. For one thing, the entire concept of “Experience”–the rewarding of players for performing tasks–implies that doing things is worthwhile, which flies in the face of the pervasive futility found in the Mythos tales. For another, a game in which death is rare is about as far from Lovecraftian as you can get. And what’s the point of characters becoming “more powerful” when, even at their zenith, they are but specks before the Great Old Ones?

Sandy Petersen, designer of Call of Cthulhu, solved all these problems with one deft stroke of genius. While the core of the roleplaying game is very generic (so much so that it is called the “Basic Roleplaying System)–with statistics such as Strength and Dexterity, a list of possible skills, and yes even Hit Points–it features something that no game before had included: Sanity. Sanity (or “SAN”) works much like Hit Points do, as a measure of someone’s current condition; however it does not track the character’s physical health, but rather his mental health. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to recuperate Sanity in a Call of Cthulhu game. And as the characters (called “Investigators” in CoC parlance) learn more about the horrors of the Mythos, the maximum that their Sanity rating can reach slowly dwindles. In short, the heroes in Call of Cthulhu grow ever more fragile over time rather than stronger, as exposure to eldritch horrors drives them to the brink of madness and beyond.

To the uninitiated this might sound like a clever twist on the Hit Points formula, but not something that would necessarily set the tone for the entire game. But it does. For one thing, players quickly learn not get attached to their characters–after a few sessions they will be dead, or insane, or–best case scenario–retired recluses with a crippling fear of everything. Needless to say, all of this serves wonderfully to reinforce the sense of existential terror. It also has characters acting in ways striking different than they would in other RPGs; when monsters appear in CoC, players quickly learn that the best strategy is not to attack but to turn tail and run like hell. With brawn all but useless when faced with the omnipotent horrors of the elder gods, Investigators can only succeed by using their wits; when they enter battle at all, they typically do so armed not with knives and guns but with dilapidated tomes and arcane knowledge.

The relationship between H. P. Lovecraft’s legacy and the Call of Cthulhu roleplaying game is one of strange symbiosis. The sanity rule, inspired by Lovecraft’s brand of cosmic nihilism, has made CoC one of the most beloved roleplaying games of all time; the popularity of the game, in turn, has sustained the interest in Lovecraft’s works, and the company behind CoC (Chaosium) had expanded the pool of Mythos-related material though the publication of fiction and CoC sourcebooks. And when you consider the overlap between those who play roleplaying games and those who work in technological fields, it’s no wonder that the Internet is rife with Lovecraftia. (Wikipedia alone has hundreds of pages devoted to the man and his creations, everything from Azathoth to Roger Zelany …) How odd that the man who described games as “avenues of escape for persons with too poorly proportioned and correlated a perspective to distinguish betwixt the frivolous and the relevant” would have his own relevance extended into the 21st century by a pastime such as CoC.

Last month I attended the 2011 Penny Arcade Expo. Last week I wrote a ridiculous amount of words about it. And today The Morning News published every single one of those words, in the form of PAX Primer.

I grateful to a lot of people for their help. First and foremost Anthony Yvarra, a.k.a. Nerdgasm, who gamely (ha) answered my questions about the fabulous life of an Omeganaut. Sarah Giffrow of SGC, who generously allowed use of her beautiful and evocative photographs. And Robert Khoo of Penny Arcade, who let me reprint some PA strips and then publicized the article by tweeting about it this morning.

And a thank you to novelist Nicholson Baker as well. I had intended to write my report in the week following PAX, but kept putting it off; I may never have done so had I not read Painkiller Deathstreak, in which Baker plays video games for the first time in his life, mostly the first-person shooters recommended by his teenage son, and then simply describes them. It’s an amazing piece, and inspired me to knuckle down on my own longform chronicle of gaming. Do not read Baker’s article just before reading my essay, or just after reading my essay, or within a year of reading my essay before or after, but please read it.

Yesterday afternoon my friend A treated a bunch of kids to a Harry Potter treasure hunt. He loosely based it on some of my puzzle hunts of yore.

I contributed the following logic problem to the endeavor:

The puzzle can be solved with only the information above. However, since this was aimed at youngsters, I provided two additional clues. Feel free to use them if you get stumped, or want to verify that your answer is correct:

I was pleased with how it turned out. Having exactly one clue per Slytherin struck me as elegant, it has a bit of a twist, and the challenge was about perfect for the target audience of fourth graders. The challenge of solving the puzzle, I mean. The challenge of writing about “wands” and “length” without making the target audience of fourth graders snicker uncontrollably was one I didn’t even bother to tackle.

I tend to overuse certain adjectives when describing boardgames. Brilliant. Elegant. Engaging. Non-Edible.

So when I call Cosmic Encounter my “favorite game”, I expect skepticism. “Really?,” you say. “Your favorite game? Haven’t you described a dozen games as your favorite?”

Yes. Guilty as charged. But in all of those cases, I meant the game in question was my current favorite, or my favorite in a genre. Cosmic Encounter is my favorite game. Period.

I got my first set over twenty years ago, and have purchased three more since then. The first was lost in Bolivia, where I routinely played the game with other Peace Corps Volunteers. The second set was destroyed by a dog with a predilection for chewing. The third set is still on my shelf, but when I saw the production values of the new Fantasy Flight edition, released last year, I had no choice but to upgrade.

My first three Mayfair copies.

Fantasy Flight!

At its core, Cosmic Encounter has a fairly simple and abstract system. An encounter begins when a player uses a strike force of 1 to 4 spaceships to attack a planet belonging to an opponent, with the number of ships on the planet determining the initial strength of the defense. The encounter ends when both of the main players play cards from their hands and add the numbers on the cards to the ships they have on their side. The highest total is victorious, the ships belonging to the losers go to the graveyard, and a new encounter begins. Winning an encounter as the offense allows you to put some of your ships on the loser’s planet; establish five foreign colonies and you win the game.

Pretty simple, really. But two things greatly enliven (and complicate) things, the first of which is alliances. After the attacking player ponies up his ships, he may ask any or all of the other players to join his side. The defender may then do likewise. Each person who is not already involved in the encounter may then (if invited) add 1 to 4 of their own ships to one side or the other. These ships factor into the victory calculation. The more people who join your side, and the more generous they are when doing so, the more likely you are to win.

The second factor–and this is the element that has made Cosmic Encounter one of the most popular games of all-time–are the powers. Each player in the game represents a distinct alien race, and is allowed to do something that no other player can. Ships belonging to The Zombie, for instance, never die. When Anti-Matter is a main player in an encounter, the lower total wins instead of the highest (and ships on his side are subtracted from his total instead of added). Parasite can join any alliance, regardless of whether he was invited. And so forth.

Giving each player a special ability is par for the course in games today, but was ground-breaking when CE was first released. And where many games include, say, half a dozen special powers in a game that can be played by up to six people, the Fantasy Flight version of Cosmic Encounters comes with no less than 50 (with 20 more in the each of the two expansions: Cosmic Incursion, Cosmic Conflict). Each forces you to approach the game from a new angle, so as to best maximize your unique ability. And the interaction between the various powers can sometimes lead to surprising and unprecedented situations,

The variety might explain why I have been playing CE for a score of years, but doesn’t entirely account for my fondness. What I like best about the game is that it allows players to beat up on one another, but does so in a way that engenders no ill-will. For one thing, a player does not choose whom to attack, but instead draws a card from a special “Destiny” deck that designates the target of the encounter. This alone defuses a lot of the tension–it’s hard to fault someone for aggression when they had no choice in the matter. Also, the constantly changing alliances make grudges all but impossible. And Cosmic Encounter even allows multiple players to win as a team (though the question of whether “shared victories” are somehow less satisfying than “solo victories” makes for frequent and often inebriated post-game philosophical debates).

Those who prefer strategy games often accuse Cosmic Encounter of having too much randomness and politicking. I, on the other hand, find these very qualities a welcome relief from the analytical, themeless, and low-interaction games that I usual play. And there something to be said for history. There is no game on my shelf that I have played or enjoyed more over the years than Cosmic Encounter, and the new version from Fantasy Flight has kick-started my interest once again.

I spoke about Cosmic Encounter on the radio last December, during my annual games segment for KUOW Presents. And you can find much (much, MUCH) more about Cosmic Encounter on the web: Wikipedia, Boardgamegeek, Blogmic Encounter, and Comsic Encounter Online, to name a few.

Mail call!

Hi, a few questions about games I've come across on your website. I'm thinking of getting a new game for a couple that plays together a fair amount and tend to like two minute-type games (I've already given them several from your list-- Lost Cities, etc). Do you had any thoughts on games in a similar vein to Lost Cities, which I guess I would describe as lightweight, two-player-compatible, and perhaps don't require a ton of skill/strategy/attention?

Thanks in advance for your help. T

“What are some good games for a couple?” is a question I get asked this a lot. Which is nice, because it’s one of the few in this world for which I have a ready answer. And here it is! (Many of these are reviewed here or on the Good Gateway Games page.)

• The aforementioned Lost Cities or Jaipur (I am pairing up games that are similar enough to each other that I would recommend one or the other, but not both)
• Carcassonne (which is playable up to five) or Carcassonne: The Castle (two-player only).
• Blokus or Ingenious.
• Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation (assuming the couple is “fantasy-tolerant”).
• Jambo or Rivals for Catan.

That set of suggestions has remained pretty much constant over the half decade.

But then, a few years ago, Mr. Jack was released, and threatened to muscle its way onto the list. As I wrote in the 2007 Good Gift Game Guide:

There’s no shortage of games that replicate the formula of Monopoly (make money!) and Risk (wage war!). But few have gone the route of Clue, challenging players to unmask a killer via deductive reasoning. Thankfully, Mr. Jack is picking up the slack. Eight characters—ranging from Sherlock Holmes to Sir William Gull—wander the streets of Whitecastle; one of them is secretly Jack the Ripper. The Jack player knows the identity of the fiend, and works to keep it concealed; the detective strives to apprehend the criminal by game’s end. Simple, brief, and ingenious, it’s a perfect pastime for anyone who enjoys a good mystery.

The problem with Mr. Jack, though, is that it’s just a smidge too unusual to give as a gift to non-games. Well you could give it, but it would likely sit upon their shelf until the end of days.

Thankfully, the designers have released a new, smaller, and simpler version of the game that fits the bill perfectly. Mr. Jack Pocket feels like the original, but boasts fewer rules and a shorter playing time.

As before, one player assumes the role of Mr. Jack; his opponent becomes the Detective, with three Investigator at his disposal: Sherlock Homes, Watson, and their dog Toby (who is apparently canon). The game board is assembled from nine square tiles, placed in a 3×3 grid, with each tile depicting a t-intersection of roads. That means that three edges of each tile have streets leading off of them, and the fourth does not. Like so:

In the center of each tile is the headshot of one of the nine Suspects, any of which could be the killer. The Mr. Jack player knows the identity of the culprit, while the goal of the Detective is to deduce this information.

Before play begins, the three Investigator tokens are placed outside the grid. The hunt for the killer then unfolds over a series of rounds, during which the players move the Investigators around the perimeter of the grid, rotate tiles, swap the position of tiles, and take other actions. An Investigator can peer down the roads on the tiles, and see everyone until his vision is blocked by a wall. Thus, at any given moment, some of the suspects will be “seen”, and others (those that are in no Investigator’s line of sight) are unseen.

At the end of a round, Mr. Jack checks to see which of the Suspects are visible to the Investigators, and announces whether the guilty party is “seen” or “unseen”. With this knowledge, the Detective can the rule out Suspects in the opposite state. If Mr. Jack declares the killer to be “unseen” for instance, but William Gull and the Madame are visible to one or more Investigators, the Detective can exonerate these two.

The game continues until only one Suspect remains, at which point the Detective makes his collar. Mr. Jack may instead win by stalling the investigation long enough to escape. All this plays out like competitive puzzle-solving, as each player tries to figure out the best combination of actions to take to achieve his objective.

I ain’t gonna lie to you: I am dubious of this game’s long-term replayability. But that concern stems from the fact that I am playing it a lot right now. As the game can be completed in a quarter hour, it can be taught in a few minutes more, and it’s small enough to be brought to and played at a bar, my copy has already seen plenty of use since I picked it up a month ago. So it’s entirely possible that I will tire of it soon. For most folks, this is a perfect, light, two-player game, and one that I will be giving as a gift to couples for many years to come.

My Good Gift Games post has been updated with lots of additional information. See it here.

The 2010 Good Gift Games Guide is available at The Morning News today.

Unfortunately a few of the games appear to have gone on backorder between the time I started making the list and today. That said, most can still be found online:

Honorable Mentions

Here are some games that just barely missed the main list.

Long Shot: There is no shortage of horse racing games on the market, but few allow the players as much control over the proceedings as Long Shot. The horses that move, and the distance they travel, is determined by the roll of the dice, but players can nudge luck in their direction by purchasing animals mid-race, and by playing any of a huge number of cards affect the position of the ponies and the state of the bets. Horse racing is one of those themes that seems to go over well with nearly any crowd, and Long Shot even allows you to play with as many as eight. [Funagain | Amazon]

Mr. Jack Pocket: Mr. Jack was listed in my 2007 GGG Guide as an excellent two-player deduction game. Mr. Jack Pocket is not simply a smaller and more portable version of same, but a completely different game–albeit it one with the same theme, atmosphere, and many of the same mechanisms of the original. One player is Jack the Ripper, and strives to keep his identity secret; the other is the detective, working to unmask the killer. It’s a great little game, and perfect for travel–be it to the Bahamas, or the local pub. [Funagain | Amazon]

The Adventurers: It’s not Indiana Jones: The Board Game, if only to avoid copyright infringement. Players send their archeologists into a booby-trapped temple, hoping to collect riches and not get crushed by rolling boulders. This game looks great–set it up, and family members will gravitate to the table out of curiosity alone. [Funagain | Amazon]

Onirim: As I mentioned in the main 2010 GGG guide, quality two-player games are hard to find. Rarer still are good one-player games, but Onirim fits the bill. The player is a dreamwalker, trying to escape a labyrinthine nightmare before he is trapped forever in his own mind. As solitaire games tend to lose much of their appeal once “solved”, the box contains no less that three expansions, to keep you puzzling for a long time to come. And if the thought of sleeping alone sound depressing, rules are included for a cooperative, two-player game as well. [ Funagain | Amazon]

The Resistance: The Resistance began as a free, Internet-distributed version of Werewolf (a.k.a. Mafia), but is now available with professional-quality cards. Playable by up to 10 people, The Resistance puts most in the role of rebel fighters, but some in their midst are covert agents for the empire. Unlike Werewolf, The Resistance does not require a moderator, and there is no elimination (so everyone is involved until the final victory). And continuing a trend we’ve seen with other games this year (Fresco, Onirim), The Resistance comes complete with an expansion, which as new cards to the mix for extended replayability. [Funagain]

Zombie Dice: Last month I declared myself sick of all things zombies. And it’s true, it’s true. But that doesn’t prevent Zombie Dice from being a pretty good little package, and cheap at ten bucks. As a push-your-luck game it’s really not that different from Bunco or Ten Thousand (both playable with a fistful of regular dice), but a few clever twists and the neato dice make this perfect for killing time between episodes of The Walking Dead. [Funagain | Amazon]

Second Opinions

Don’t trust the yeti? Here are the highlights of some other “2010 best game of the year” lists.

German Game of the Year:

• Winner: Dixit – this was in my 2009 GGG Guide
• Runner-Up: Roll Through the Ages — also on the 2009 list, and one of my favorite light games of the year.
• Runner-Up: Fresco
• Runner-Up: Portrayal
• Runner-Up: à la carte

Deutscher Spiele Preis (A.K.A., “The Other German Game of the Year Award”):

• Winner: Fresco
• Second: Vasco da Gama
• Third: World Without End
• Fourth: Tobago — my top pick in 2009
• Fifth: Hansa Teutonica

International Gamer Award:

• Best General Strategy: Age of Industry
• Best Two-Player Strategy: Campaign Manager

GAMES Magazine Awards

• Game of the Year: Jump Gate (wha-? I’ve never even heard of this …)
• Best Family Game: Burger Joint
• Best Advanced Strategy Game: Uncle Chestnut’s Table Gype.
• Best Abstract Strategy Game: Arimaa
• Best Family Card Game: Jaipur
• Best Family Strategy Game: Valdora
• Best Party Game: Telestrations

Good Gift Game Archives

You can find my previous GGG lists, as well as my top 15, on the Good Gateway Games page.