Game: Cold War: CIA vs. KGB

Thread: Re: Question about political and economy cards

MsbS — 2008-10-07T07:48:47+00:00

Bridyhelphelp wrote:
It is possible to mobilize other group card except the economy card? true?but the you mobilize other group card - it doesn't mean you can use the power correct?

Yes and yes (here's the quotation from the rules):
Cold War Rulebook wrote:

This can make a mobilized card ready, or
a ready card mobilized. (In the latter case, the group’s
power does not take effect.)

The main idea is to "disarm" your opponent, by making their groups useless.

Thread: Re: Rule clarification

Bridyhelphelp — 2008-10-07T03:38:42+00:00

thx, so it means UP TO maximum population, so possible to pass with less population.

Thread: Re: Question about economy cards

Bridyhelphelp — 2008-10-07T03:34:12+00:00

Just want to final confirm about economy cards,
It is possible to mobilize other group card except the economy card? true?but then you mobilize other group card - it doesn't mean you can use the power correct?

Thread: Re: Rule clarification

thepackrat — 2008-10-07T00:46:18+00:00

Play? If the population limit is 5 you may have up to and including 5 cards in front of you. You can not draw cards and your opponent cannot give you cards once you hit this limit.

There is nothing which forces you to have the full population of cards on the table, except that if you have no cards in front of you, you must always recruit, you cannot pass. The influence struggle ends when both players pass in a row, regardless of how many cards they each have.

B>

Thread: Re: Rule clarification

Bridyhelphelp — 2008-10-07T00:27:31+00:00

From case study above,
Could I play with less population than 5?
or it has to be exact population = 5 to play ?

Image

jsper — 2008-10-05T17:54:38+00:00

Some ´objetive´ cards in spanish version

Thread: Re: Question regarding Civil Disorder

FezAZ — 2008-09-24T21:19:57+00:00

free_planet wrote:
Nessmk2 wrote:
I'm pretty sure ... No token was placed ...

Please read the rulebook thoroughly.

On Page 11, under the Heading "Phase 4: Cease-fire", the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph: "First, the player with the highest Influence total that does not exceed the objective's Stability score puts his domination token on the objective."

Therefore, you put your domination token on the objective when your opponent exceeds the objective's Stability (causes Civil Disorder).

If you claim that "No token was placed" in such case, please quote the rulebook to support your assertion.

Thank you.

Thanks for the insights. But no thanks for the obnoxious tone. Ease up dude.

Thread: Re: Question: Assigning the Balance Token

voynix — 2008-09-22T21:59:05+00:00

Yes, the ties are broken by whoever placed their objective token last turn regardless of who actually gets the objective (which is resolved the next phase). If both players lost their agents due to civil disorder that prior turn, then I suppose you would use the prior prior turn to decide.

Thread: Re: Question: Assigning the Balance Token

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-09-22T03:11:24+00:00

The balance token basically goes to whoever is currently losing. So, with that in mind, we play:

If you're tied in points, the tie breaker looks at the most recent cease-fire phase. Thus, we play it based on who lost the objective in that phase, because that's a better indicator of "losing" than the domination token.

If no one got the last objective, then I'd further break that tie by looking at the domination token, and that person would be "ahead".

Thread: Question: Assigning the Balance Token

Colorado_Jeff — 2008-09-21T22:06:05+00:00

My wife and I played out first two games today, and really enjoyed it. The rules were challenging, but after a re-read and checking here, we pretty much figured it out.

One clarification needed, though. We had a close game, with several rounds having a tied score.

Page 6, "Assign the Balance Token" states in part: "If there's a tie, the player who lost last turn's Cease-fire phase takes it."

The question is, what determines the winner of the Cease-fire phase?

The winner of the "Cease-fire" phase is determined by whose domination token is on the objective card, right?

It has nothing to do with who wins the objective card, which may go to no one. Just checking to see if this sounds right to others.

The game flow was a little rough at first, but the player aid made by Tim Pelletier was a huge help.

Thread: Re: Yellow group cards - useless?

Colorado_Jeff — 2008-09-21T21:10:22+00:00

...The rules for the economic card say "economic cards can change the state of another group card in play." We both took that to mean your personal group cards.

This is a little ambiguous, but I agree that the designer's intention was to allow the economic card to affect any group in play, not just your own. I could not however find a FAQ to back this up.

The sentence that made me think it was ok to use it on opponents cards was, "This can make a mobilized card ready, or a ready card mobilized."

I couldn't think of a time I'd want to mobilize one of my cards with one of my economic cards instead of using it.

Thread: Re: A Quick Review

rwebb — 2008-09-20T21:56:49+00:00

UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
Boogers wrote:
It never plays itself at all. It may appear simple, but a player needs to be careful of the timing of what he does.

Agreed, I've never understood that criticism of the game.

I'll try to explain. Maybe I'm playing wrong and you can clarify. Please take my comments as those of a novice player who admits there *may* be more depth to the game with more plays.

In CvK, we always have very few cards out. Of them fewer will be ready to act. So you have three choices: possibly use your one card that is ready, draw, or pass.

1. When you do use your card, I have rarely seen interesting choices. I my experience (which is limited), at least 70% of the time there is only one interesting way to use the card and rarely do we have more than two available to use. Of course there are usually more options, but they all depend on the luck of the draw, so they aren't tempting.

2. Draw. The 21-like aspect of trying not to bust is interesting (a face down card and no agents might even be fun). Having a military card gives you lots of flexibility. If you don't bust then you might draw something tactically useful. Then there's the hand limit for each objective, which occasionally means you are stuck with low cards and wish you had more (or that you had previously played Master Spy, too late now). All in all drawing is more interesting than playing 21. Knowing the top card(s) can be interesting, so this is a fun aspect of the game, but it's completely random and drives all the other game play (hence my feeling that the game is playing us).

3. Pass. Pass when you're behind and it seems like you played Master Spy, if you did there's little your opponent can do other than try to change the totals through Military and Political cards. Given that, if you didn't play Master Spy then, you're going to loose the round (fun). So you pass when you are ahead, about to bust, or at your hand limit. None of those reasons are interesting. And of course you can always jump back in later if your opponent gets a better total or changes your total.

As for the agents, all but the Master Spy favour the highest score under the stability. So we've never managed to get into worrying about if low scores will win the round. If it becomes obvious that your opponent is going for that, then there's still some chance they are bluffing and switching your strategy for the round is usually too difficult and risky at that point.

I think there's an interesting game here somewhere. I love Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation so I think a bluffing, risk, burn-rate game appeals to me. I'll try again.

Thread: Re: Shuffling the group deck... confused...

Deckard_78 — 2008-09-20T11:44:05+00:00

Exactly! The rules tell you to shuffle the "discards" back in. It makes no mention of the cards played in front of you.
Of course, the game is impossible to play if you leave them in, but still it could have been worded diffrently. Imho.

Cheerio!
/A

Thread: Re: A Quick Review

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-09-19T16:11:58+00:00

Boogers wrote:
It never plays itself at all. It may appear simple, but a player needs to be careful of the timing of what he does.

Agreed, I've never understood that criticism of the game.

Will you deliberately bust to try for a miracle win

You can never win when you busted. You bust, the other player gets the objective regardless of agents in play. If he busted too, then neither of you get the objective, it goes on the bottom of the deck.

Thread: Re: A Quick Review

rwebb — 2008-09-19T08:19:44+00:00

You do make it sound interesting. I'll have to give it another try with a different opponent (maybe we were being too nice).

Thread: Re: A Quick Review

Boogers — 2008-09-18T08:26:29+00:00

rwebb wrote:
Drawing groups and using their powers seems fairly obvious and we felt the game was playing itself. Am I missing something? Please explain if I am. I wondered if having some cards in your hand would help or if some kind of draw two and offer-one-to-your-opponent mechanic would add the feeling of tension and control that we are missing.
It never plays itself at all. It may appear simple, but a player needs to be careful of the timing of what he does. Also, the objective is not won until both players decide to pass. Will you deliberately bust to try for a miracle win or sac your Master Spy to win the objective? Is it worth risking your agent or concede the objective? If I pass now and my opponent plays, might he pick up a critical card or mobilise a group to mess you up?

CIA vs KGB is simply awesome!!! It's one giant mind-nuke!!! (putting it in polite terms...)

Thread: Re: Discard all Groups after the resolution of a mission?

jose633 — 2008-09-15T21:33:34+00:00

balsamo wrote:
Hi,
I'm one of the Author and I confirm that ALL the Group Cards (the discarded ones ,the previously played ones and the ones remaining in the stack) must be shuffled together during the phase I:" Briefing ".

Thx for asking.

Are you sure of that?

Thread: Re: Shorter than Twilight Struggle

boris317 — 2008-09-11T14:18:24+00:00

Nice session report.

I feel the theme is integrated nicely into the game. far from pasted on i would say.

Thread: Re: Shorter than Twilight Struggle

donkeystyle — 2008-09-11T14:01:25+00:00

I love your session report's title. This is a fun little card game. While the theme may be pasted on, something about it just feels right. The mechanics feel like a Cold War game.

Thread: Re: Rule clarification

james_bond — 2008-09-11T09:10:30+00:00

thanks guys... I got the game a couple of days ago and i really like it!

Thread: Re: Shorter than Twilight Struggle

thepackrat — 2008-09-11T08:38:03+00:00

Yes, it's certainly shorter than TS, but the theme really is pasted on pretty loosely. Clearly needs some dice and minatures. Having said that, I am quite taken with it as a short game, but a warning, if both people lose their director early, game time can drag out.

Thread: Re: Rule clarification

thepackrat — 2008-09-11T08:29:17+00:00

This can lead to some desperate cycling as someone draws even further over the stability limit trying to get cards which will let them get back under it before the population limit stops them.

Note that you might not be able to recruit all 5 if your opponent has used a political card to donate a group to you, since the limits is cards in front of you, regardless of how they got there.

B>

Thread: Re: Rule clarification

MsbS — 2008-09-11T08:14:35+00:00

james_bond wrote:
I need a clarification about recruiting group...

Rules state:

"A player may never recruit a group if it would make him exceed
the number of population icons on the current objective".

How does it work? Lets say population icon is 5... how many group cards can I recruit?

Population icon of 5 means that once you've recruited 5 groups, you cannot recruit any further (until you get rid of one or more groups, by using a military or political group).

Thread: Rule clarification

james_bond — 2008-09-11T07:45:18+00:00

I need a clarification about recruiting group...

Rules state:

"A player may never recruit a group if it would make him exceed
the number of population icons on the current objective".

How does it work? Lets say population icon is 5... how many group cards can I recruit?

thanks.....

Thread: Shorter than Twilight Struggle

MerricB — 2008-09-11T05:57:44+00:00

It's no secret that Randy and I love Twilight Struggle; for both of us, it's our #1 game. However, it is also no secret that the game takes a couple of hours to play... and we do also like to play other games from time to time. Especially given how many 2-player wargames Randy has that we still haven't looked at. (We've looked at about 3. He has over 50!)

So, what do you do when you've got another big wargame lined up for a night and you'd also like some cold war action? Well, Randy had the solution: a small little FFG game: Cold War: CIA vs KGB.

It's a very amusing cardgame where you pit your spies against each other, trying to gain control of groups in various conflicts that come up in various places around the world. It's nowhere near as good or as deep as TS, but it was fun... and we'll probably play it again in the near future.

There's brinkmanship, there's bluffing, there's good tactical play. Yes, it's a Cold War game, all right!

Here's a quick rundown of how the game played. Randy was the KGB, I was the CIA.

1) In Korea, my Double Agent caused civil disorder and the KGB moved in. My Double Agent was disowned by my side, and Randy's Master Spy took the spoils. (0 to 10)

2) In Vietnam, Randy's Master Spy outbluffed my Deputy Director. (0 to 30)

3) In Afganistan, my Assassin caused civil disorder and was eliminated by his own side, leaving Randy's Assassin wondering at the Americans! (0 to 45)

4) In Iran, my Director caused Civil Disorder and was eliminated, but Randy's "Master" Spy gave the objective to me. (I believe this was a rules mistake on our part - once Civil Disorder is caused, I think Randy gets the objective regardless of his spy) (15 to 45)

This left me with only three spies left to conduct the entire war! I was struggling!

5) IN Honduras, my Deputy Director outfoxed Randy's Assassin (25 to 45)

6) In Panama, my Deputy Director looked on as the Director of the KGB was eliminated for causing unrest. (40 to 45)

7) In Turkey, my Deputy Director outfoxed Randy's Assassin - again! (55 to 45)

8) In Chile, my Master Spy discovered that Randy had planted a Double Agent in my office... but too late to do anything about it. Still, Chile fell under my control (65 to 45)

Despite my poor start, I'd come back! Only 35 more points to get to win the game, but you can never write off Randy completely...

9) The Nobel Peace Prize went to Russia, as my Deputy Director failed to stop the antics of Russia's Kronsteen. I mean, analyst. (65 to 50)

10) Greece was a problem. Randy's Assassin took out my Deputy Director (who I instantly replaced), and took the prize. (Our second rules mistake: the assassin can't claim objectives) (65 to 60)

11) In Cuba, my Master Spy out-bluffed the Analyst. (75 to 60).

12) In the Congo, my Deputy Director was no match for the KGB's Double Agent (75 to 70)

13) Czechoslovakia was a big turning point, as my Deputy Director was completely outwitted by Randy's Master Spy (75 to 90)

14) The Russians turned up the heat with Nuclear Escalation, and threw in a Double Agent as well (75 to 95)

15) Finally, there was a Summit Meeting, which the KGB organised in Moscow for everyone to become acquainted with the New World Order: The Soviet Union was in charge! (75 to 100).

The event cards came up a bit too late for us to do anything with them, and we misplayed a couple of rules, but as a short filler, the game is a lot of fun. We'll likely play it again in the near future.

Thread: Re: Yellow group cards - useless?

Virus — 2008-09-08T17:44:55+00:00

Ah yes, I suspected we had misinterpreted the rules. I realized the yellow groups would me much more important if you couldn't 'ready' a group without one. A lot of the stalemates my opponent and I created would have resolved as well.

Thread: Re: A Quick Review

james_bond — 2008-09-04T12:52:22+00:00

Guys,
you helped me to decide to buy this game. I love espionage and was searching a game could meet this taste... thanks

Thread: Re: Master Spy Misprint?

sasquatchdjh — 2008-09-02T05:30:26+00:00

UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
Your master spy card says *both* you claim the objective and your opponent claims the objective. Each one is in a different colour box, but you only read the one that corresponds to the colour of the token.

So, if the russian spy is played, and the token is blue, you read the blue box which says "You claim..."

If the russian spy is played, and the token is red, you read the red box which says "Your opponent claims..."

Yeah I asked the question, and we went back and played another game. It totally clicked that the colors on the card indicate that the agent x powers activate depending on which token is on, and claiming the objective.

Thread: Re: Master Spy Misprint?

Zeromus — 2008-09-01T19:37:01+00:00

If *your* token is on the objective, your opponent gets it. If *their* token is on the objective, you get it. When you play the Master Spy you want to lose.

Thread: Re: Master Spy Misprint?

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-09-01T19:35:32+00:00

Your master spy card says *both* you claim the objective and your opponent claims the objective. Each one is in a different colour box, but you only read the one that corresponds to the colour of the token.

So, if the russian spy is played, and the token is blue, you read the blue box which says "You claim..."

If the russian spy is played, and the token is red, you read the red box which says "Your opponent claims..."

Thread: Master Spy Misprint?

sasquatchdjh — 2008-09-01T19:05:24+00:00

Is there a misprint on the Master Spy cards? In the rules it says the master spy takes the objective if the other player has their domination token on it. However, the Master Spy card says your opponent claims the objective.

I'm not seeing another thread on this, so I thought i would ask. It makes more sense to do it the way the rules say, but often when there are conflicts one is to choose what the cards say. I dont see any use in the master spy other than to give your opponent VP's if one goes based on what the card says.

Thread: Re: A Quick Review

rwebb — 2008-09-01T08:43:30+00:00

I'll have the join MisterCranky in calling the game simplistic. I'd love to find out that I'm missing the point, but so far the Influence phase of drawing group cards is sadly lacking in strategy. Yes, you have to wonder if the Master Spy is in play and will make the lower influence win, but the best you can really do is decide what you think and go for high or low influence (probably high since all the other agents favour high influence). Drawing groups and using their powers seems fairly obvious and we felt the game was playing itself. Am I missing something? Please explain if I am. I wondered if having some cards in your hand would help or if some kind of draw two and offer-one-to-your-opponent mechanic would add the feeling of tension and control that we are missing.

Thread: Re: A Quick Review

MisterCranky — 2008-08-31T23:20:37+00:00

Thanks for your review. I initially enjoyed the game, but quickly dismissed it as almost entirely trivial. I would have much preferred the version you nearly suggest--different sides have different agent capabilities. That might (very hard for me to be sure) have kept the game fresher for me somewhat longer.

Thread: Re: Question about Political Card usage

capthairy — 2008-08-31T15:35:10+00:00

Thanks, somehow we both missed that one!

Thread: Re: Question about Political Card usage

voynix — 2008-08-31T14:05:21+00:00

As outlined above you can never use a political card to give a card to your opponent if their stability number is exceeded. It is irrelevant if the given card makes them go over the stability number or if they had already exceeded it prior.

Of note, you can always exceed your own stability by taking a card from your opponent (as long as you don't exceed the population number). This is often helpful when you snatch a low value military card from your opponent, which in turn allows you to discard a higher value card to get you back below the stability number. This is why this game is so great; there are many clever uses of the cards!!!

Thread: Re: Question about Political Card usage

asmiles — 2008-08-31T03:21:42+00:00

capthairy wrote:
I have a question about political card usage. In a recent game, my girlfriend had already exceeded the stability number with her own draws. I then wanted to pass her one of my cards using a political card (my reasoning being that my passing her the card wouldn't make her exceed the stability - she had already done it). Does this go against the intent of the rule, or is it an intended tactic?

As a side note, she decided to allow it because she agreed with my reasoning, but we just wanted an official ruling.

Thanks!

I bolded the specific section you were looking for.

Rulebook, page 8 wrote:
Political cards can switch the allegiance of another group card in play, moving it from one player’s side of the table to the other’s. A player may not do this, however, if it would make the receiving player’s number of groups exceed the objective’s population icons. A player may also not do this if it would make his opponent’s Influence total exceed the objective’s Stability (or if his opponent’s Influence already exceeds the objective’s Stability). A player may, however, move one of his opponent’s groups to his own side in violation of the objective’s Stability. Such a move is risky, but legal. Groups moved between players retain their current state, ready or mobilized.

Thread: Re: A Quick Review

voynix — 2008-08-31T02:53:10+00:00

Thanks for pointing that out Yoki; you are absolutely right. The theme is more than merely "pasted on." The mechanics do indeed fit the theme rather well.

Thread: Question about Political Card usage

capthairy — 2008-08-31T02:50:56+00:00

I have a question about political card usage. In a recent game, my girlfriend had already exceeded the stability number with her own draws. I then wanted to pass her one of my cards using a political card (my reasoning being that my passing her the card wouldn't make her exceed the stability - she had already done it). Does this go against the intent of the rule, or is it an intended tactic?

As a side note, she decided to allow it because she agreed with my reasoning, but we just wanted an official ruling.

Thanks!

Thread: Re: A Quick Review

Yokiboy — 2008-08-30T22:40:28+00:00

Nice review Dan. I love the game too, but wanted to point out one thing you didn't touch on much. I think the game mechanics totally fit the theme. The game fits the theme to a tee.

Please look me up on JSP for a game.

Thread: Re: A Quick Review

voynix — 2008-08-30T20:29:25+00:00

Exactly on all accounts

Thread: Re: A Quick Review

troubadour — 2008-08-30T19:40:08+00:00

This game meets with unanimous approval from all the people I introduce it to. The game is rich with opportunity for clever plays to crow over or be dazzled by. It has currently outpaced most of my other light two player games, such as Roma, Hera and Zeus or Blue Moon, as the 2 player game of choice. The quality of production is very high for a game that really doesn't have a lot of pieces. I'm glad to see another review, because I think this game doesn't get the attention it merits.

Thread: New Recruit Groups method

JimA759 — 2008-08-30T18:16:35+00:00

I was wondering if one of these methods might be useful to reduce (just a tad) the luck of the draw.

During the 3:Influence Struggle, when recruiting groups, you draw two cards and choose one to play - simple and direct. The other card is placed face down in a discard pile. (this would be in keeping with the designers stated intention of having no cards in hand).

Instead of placing the 2nd card in a discard pile, another option would be to keep it face down in front of you during the Influence Struggle and future 'recruit groups' would only get you one card and you would choose which of the two to play, keeping one card in your hand. At the end of the Cease Fire all cards, including the one in your hand would be reshuffled for the next objective.

Any thoughts on how this would benefit or detract from play.

Jim A

Thread: A Quick Review

voynix — 2008-08-30T14:41:15+00:00

Cold War is a 2 player (only), fairly light weight card game that is based on the post WWII US/Soviet cold war. Players either play the US side (CIA) or the USSR (KGB). This is an overview of the game. I left out small details, since I am not trying to regurgitate the rules.

At the beginning of a turn, an objective card is turned up (there are 21). This objective card will be the focus of the turn. Whoever wins it will gain the allotted VP's. The first player to gain 100 VP's wins. Most Objective cards represent a country.
]]>

Then each player secretly selects an agent from his deck (there are 6 per player). Any agent can be selected except the one that was played last turn (or any other agents that may be on leave or terminated). Each agent has a special power, which will be later revealed and resolved after the (apparent) winner of the objective has been determined.
]]>

Next, players vie for the objective. By doing so, each player in turn either draws a card from the group deck (24 cards; all 24 cards are always reshuffled to form a new deck at the beginning of each turn) OR activates (mobilizes) a group card in his possesion. When a card is mobilized, it has to be readied to be used again.

Each card has an influence number. Your goal is to get as close to the influence number on the objective card without going over (if this happens, your agent is terminated). The player closest wins. Ties are broken by the bias icons on the objective card (top right corner). You can only have a certain number of influence cards based on the population number on the objective card. The powers of cards allow the following:

Military: destroy a card, either your own or an opponent's card
Political: give a card to your opponent or take one from him
Economic: Ready a mobilized card for use again (or do the opposite to your opponent)
Media: secretly look at the top card and either take it, leave it or discard it.

All of these powers are valuble and the key to winning an objective is using these powers very cleverly.
]]>

After the objective winner has been determined, each player reveals his agent. They incur certain powers, sometimes only if you win the objective. The Master spy is the trickiest because he allows you to take the objective if (and only if) you lost the objective. This means every turn that your opponent has an available master spy, you have to keep this in the back of your mind. The final winner of the objective gets the VP's

Overall, I have really taken a liking to this game. It is small and thus makes a great travel game. The rules are well-written. Though not an overly complex game, there is a lot of interesting game play options with regards how to use the group card special powers. Selecting the right agent at the right time is also an important factor. The Master Spy adds a bluffing element to the game. The cards are nice quality as are the 3 game poker-style chips. Though I have only had this game for a relatively short period of time, I suspect it will have a high replayability factor.

Any negatives?
1. I like the box and everything, but the oversized agent cards fit rather awkwardly
2. Both sides' agents have identical powers. This means that both sides play identical to one another. It would have been interesting if each side had agents with unique powers.

Currently, this is one of my favorite new 2 player card games and I easily give an 8 to 8.5.

Thanks balsamo for the nice photos

Thread: Re: Yellow group cards - useless?

voynix — 2008-08-30T03:56:13+00:00

me either! I haven't played it much yet. I am still learning the game, but I must say I really do like it a lot thus far

Thread: Re: Yellow group cards - useless?

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-08-30T01:13:03+00:00

Ah, you're right, just going from memory. Obviously I haven't played it enough.

Thread: Re: Yellow group cards - useless?

voynix — 2008-08-30T00:36:58+00:00

deactivating his yellow card so he can't re-ready one of his other cards, etc.
I don't think you can do this, since the rules state you cannot use a yellow card to affect another yellow card.

Thread: Re: Yellow group cards - useless?

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-08-29T20:36:21+00:00

turtleback wrote:
The rules for the economic card say "economic cards can change the state of another group card in play." We both took that to mean your personal group cards.

Nope, that's what makes the game fun, deactivating the other guys military card before he uses it on you, deactivating his yellow card so he can't re-ready one of his other cards, etc.

Man, without that, most of the fun and choices are gone.

Thread: Re: Yellow group cards - useless?

turtleback — 2008-08-29T20:03:19+00:00

We just played our first game of this last week. We played the economic (yellow) cards correctly, but it never occured to either of us to use a yellow card on your opponent. Unlike the military (green) cards the rules do not specifically say you can use it "on either players' side". The rules for the economic card say "economic cards can change the state of another group card in play." We both took that to mean your personal group cards.

This is a little ambiguous, but I agree that the designer's intention was to allow the economic card to affect any group in play, not just your own. I could not however find a FAQ to back this up.

Thread: Re: Yellow group cards - useless?

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-08-29T17:09:37+00:00

Virus wrote:
The one type of card we never saw a real use for was the yellow groups though. Their special ability is to mobilize any ready group, or ready any mobilized group. How is this useful?

Hint to all game players: whenever you reach a conclusion of "why does that piece of the game even exist, it's useless", question your base assumptions and re-read the rules.

Thread: Re: Yellow group cards - useless?

watcher_b — 2008-08-29T16:10:18+00:00

Ya, I kinda wished too that the rules more explicitly stated that the only way to ready a card is with a yellow card. It talks about readying a card through out the rule book, but then only mentions in passing that that is what the yellow cards do.

Thread: Re: Yellow group cards - useless?

Mike A — 2008-08-29T15:56:12+00:00

Virus wrote:
Have we misread the rules? It seems that compared to the other group types, the yellow cards are quite useless. They delay an action for one turn, but leave you vulnerable to the effects of the same card one round later. It is my understanding that you can 'ready' a mobilized group on your turn in preparation for use next turn without having to use a yellow card on yourself.

That appears to be your problem right there. You cannot ready a mobilized group without having to use a yellow card on yourself. You always have to use a yellow card to make a card ready again once it is mobilized. That makes yellow cards very useful, in fact.

Image

jsper — 2008-07-28T00:07:00+00:00

Promotional in spanish

Image

nnoc — 2008-03-23T18:24:10+00:00

Close-up of the Cards and Tokens

Image

joebelanger — 2008-03-12T19:06:34+00:00

Agent selected.

Image

jsper — 2008-02-10T16:16:56+00:00

Rulebook cover in spanish

Image

jsper — 2008-01-20T10:08:28+00:00

Side of the box (spanish edition)

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-01-16T17:08:53+00:00

Box Front Fantasy Flight Games

Image

EricMatt — 2008-01-16T12:30:11+00:00

French edition box

Image

Znapperhead — 2008-01-11T14:03:34+00:00

Cold War: CIA vs KGB box

Image

Znapperhead — 2008-01-11T14:02:16+00:00

Example of Agent X-cards