Game: Inkognito: The Card Game

Image

jsper — 2008-09-11T12:28:32+00:00

Promotional sheet in german

Thread: Re: Mini vs Card?

playitsam — 2008-04-21T05:03:10+00:00

It's the same game...The name "Mini-Inkognito" has caused some confusion in the past...Traders would list their card game as "Inkognito", as that's the first link that would appear. So, "Mini-Inkognito" has recently been changed to "Inkognito - The Card Game". Now, when you search on "Inkognito", both links appear.

Image

dsmeyer — 2008-03-29T14:52:14+00:00

Tile Set Three (can this be called a set?)

Image

dsmeyer — 2008-03-29T14:51:05+00:00

Inkognito Tile set Two

Image

dsmeyer — 2008-03-29T14:49:40+00:00

Tile Set One

Image

dsmeyer — 2008-03-29T14:47:23+00:00

High Res Scan of Scorecard

Thread: Re: Misprint replacement

MasterDinadan — 2008-03-19T16:19:40+00:00

I had the exact same problem with mine. Misprinted Agent X. No replacement in the box, but I had them send one and the replacement was lighter than the original.
Just use the misprinted card, unless you sleeve them. It's essential for the cards to have uniform backs. The artwork is not important at all, just the agent name.

Image

josefm — 2007-07-06T13:47:07+00:00

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2007-04-23T03:27:35+00:00

score card

Image

SpiderOne — 2007-04-23T02:47:40+00:00

Abacus Spieles Front of Box

Image

SpiderOne — 2007-04-23T02:47:01+00:00

Abacus Spieles Back of Box (readable)

Image

SpiderOne — 2007-04-23T02:46:00+00:00

white back of cards

Thread: Misprint replacement

NickB — 2006-02-06T23:13:22+00:00

Just picked this up from the recent B&N 50%-off sale (probably wouldn't have picked it up otherwise). There is a misprinted Agent X card, but it also came with a packaged replacement card. Unfortunately, the back of the replacement card is a slightly different shade than the rest of the cards. Is it that much of a big deal, or should I just use the original card and live with the incorrect picture (the card is correctly marked as Agent X)?

Thanks,
Nick

Thread: Don't blink....

mpetty31 — 2006-01-15T22:32:13+00:00

Players: Greg, Paul, Al and myself

Man, this game is fast. It's too fast to really involve much deduction. I think the game took four rounds. It's easy to get shut out of a round by accidentally going to a place too many people go to. It's also very easy to pass someone a card that they will immediatly recongize as "false", thereby making it obvious the other is "true".

All in all, our game took about 15 minutes and the information I gained came in huge bursts. Paul and I determined we were partners by round three. In round four we met up and I gave out the code. Greg and Paul had some information. Paul even knew I was his partner. Al, however, wasn't involved in many exchanges by this time, so he knew practically nothing.

Being so short, you'd think we'd all be quick to play again. That wasn't the case though. It's just cumbersome enough that it wasn't terribly fun. The logic was as obvious as you'd expect after reading the rules, so there wasn't much to discover. I'll play this from time to time as a filler.

Thread: Mini vs Card?

ekted — 2005-08-18T13:46:35+00:00

Are these 2 versions the same game? If so, can someone comment on quality differences?

Thread: User Review

Fawkes — 2005-03-28T11:05:12+00:00

Inkognito the Card Game – The Review

Ah, the Venetian Masquerade. There’s something about the setting that inspires mystery, be it ill-advised romantic interludes or secret agent skullduggery. This is the scene of Inkognito, designed by the pairing of designers Alex Randolph and Leo Colovini.

Players take the roles of secret agents, spies, thieves or any number of mysterious appellations. These personages are in search of the combination to a safe, which supposedly unlocks the way to a mysterious personage. It could well be rubies and diamonds, or the recipe to a world-destroying weapon. It doesn’t really matter. All the agents know is that they need that code, and that they have a friend out in the darkness.

]]>

This game, published by Fantasy Flight Games under their Silver Line, is based on the board game version of Inkognito. (I haven’t played the boardgame.) For your twenty bucks, you get 40 cards (it’s five sets of the same eight cards, with different colors) and 25 tiles (it’s five sets of the same five tiles, with different colors). You also get four small player screens in the players’ colors, and a pad of notation sheets. This is one of the sparsest packages in FFG’s Silver Line. The graphic design is excellent, and I like the portraits of the agents, but it’s just five drawings – four agents and one “safe dial” for the four combination numbers. The location tiles also seem to have nice art on them, but they’re too small to appreciate properly. The font they chose, while evocative of the game’s setting, is difficult to read. The rules to the game are on simple black and white leaf, and are easy to understand.

The Game

The object of Inkognito is to determine which player is your partner and to determine the correct code sequence. The first team to do so and meet up to enter the combination wins the game.

There are four agents in Inkognito, whose personas are assumed by the players – Lord Fiddlebottom (F), Colonel Bubble (B), Agent X (X) and Madame Zsa Zsa (Z). Each player takes one of the colors, and the set of eight cards of that color. Depicted on the cards are portraits of the four agents and four pictures of a safe dial each bearing a number (13, 28, 36, 47). F and B are always allied, and X and Z are the other team. (However, the players start out the game not knowing who is who.)

]]>

The fifth set of cards, colored black, are dealt out randomly to the players. Thus, each player is assigned a persona and one-fourth of the code. The correct code is expressed in a fixed order – F’s piece, then B’s, then X’s, then Z’s.

Each player also takes a set of five location tiles in his color. Again, black is left out, to be used by the non-player Ambassador (in a four-player game).

The start player begins the game by selecting one of the five locations to go to, followed by the other players. Lastly, the Ambassador’s location is determined by turning over one of the black tiles.

If exactly two agents meet at a location, and the Ambassador is not there, they may exchange information. This is done by showing each other two cards, one of which must be true. The agents must note down what they have show to who – the same pair of cards cannot be shown to an agent more than once.

If an agent meets the Ambassador alone at a location, he may question the Ambassador, who apparently knows everything. The game effect is that the agent may ask any one of the other three agents to show him one of his black cards. (Since it’s a black card, it must be true.)

Once all information has changed hands, the start player passes to the left, and each player chooses a new location tile from the four remaining, again ending with the Ambassador. Location tiles are played until all five are used, after which everyone gets all five tiles back. Play continues in this manner until one of the players feels that he has all the correct information.

When a player is ready for the reveal, he needs to meet up with his partner alone at a location. (Remember that F and B are partners, and X and Z are partners.) If more than one player wants to reveal, the agent first is turn order gets to go first if both are successful at the meet up. The revealing player names which player is his partner (fairly obvious, since they met up for the reveal), and the correct code sequence. This is verified by the players all revealing their identities, and their code pieces.

If the player is correct, his team wins the game. If he is wrong, the other team wins the game.

The five player variant has a fifth player taking the role of the Ambassador. He will need to piece together all the identities and code numbers on his own.

]]>

Strategy

This is a game where being first in turn order is not an advantage, since you can’t select a location where you’ll be able to exchange information. If you go late in the order, you can choose to meet up with an agent, or try to find the Ambassador. As the location tiles are spent, it gets easier to predict where the Ambassador is going to be. Other agents can block you, but in doing so they waste their turn as well.

When revealing cards to another agent, go for the person-person and number-number pairs first, before giving up a person-number pair. On the fourth meet-up, the correct pair will be obvious. If it’s taking you that long to figure it out, you’re not going to be the one doing the reveal.

Meeting the Ambassador is very useful, but it’s risky unless there are only one or two location tiles left. Even then, you need to have the correct locations remaining.

Reviewer’s Tilt

Inkognito isn’t a pure deduction game simply because luck plays a significant part in who gets information, and what kind of information. If you get unlucky and the Ambassador spoils one or two of your meet-ups, the other players will have a huge advantage. Receiving information from the Ambassador once or twice is also a huge advantage, making Inkognito a battle of luck as much as a battle of elimination and deduction.

This is the kind of game that you’d play with non-gamers. The theme is cool, the graphic design is very nice, and the luck factor will lighten the game up from being a true brain-burner. The game is also fairly simple – there are only four agents and four numbers, and you already start knowing your own information leaving just three to figure out. A game shouldn’t last more than half an hour unless people get really unlucky with their meet-ups.

If you’re looking for a deep deduction game, Inkognito isn’t it. It’s a fast-playing filler-type diversion with some deduction elements and some luck. Should that description appeal to you, look the game up.

]]>

Fawkes (3/28/2005)

Thread: Session Report

latindog — 2005-03-14T04:49:23+00:00

I recently played this game with four other members of LIBO, the Long Island Boardgaming Organization, John, Chris, Debbie and Joe. On the first several turns of this light deduction game I found myself in the same locations as John and we exchanged information about 3 or 4 times in a row and I eventually knew exactly what character he was and what his combination number was by the time we were through. I then met once with Chris and once with Debbie and had all the information I needed to solve the crime. I never was able to meet Joe, the ambassador, in a room until I had all the necessary information and was looking to meet my partner, Debbie, alone in location in order to end the game. On the turn after I knew all the facts, Chris also knew the information and Debbie found out one turn later. The end game basically became a race to be in the same location as our partners and Debbie and I won after several frustrating turns of exchanging info that no one really needed at that point.

Thread: Session Report

Wombling Star — 2004-07-16T23:21:50+00:00

Played for the first time tonight with Alan (Mystah Softi), Catherine and Laure. We brought the game with the £20 winnings from a Cluedo games machine.

The rules were quite easy to understand. Catherine and I met on the first turn and swapped identical cards so I knew her identity (my partner Lord Fiddlebottom) and she knew I was number 13. The game was over very quickly as she managed to meet the Ambassador and reveal Alan's and Laure's cards.

We played again and this game took a little longer. Catherine and I were partners again and we both worked out everybodies identity and number very quickly but we had problems meeting alone as Alan, who sat between us, tried to arrange to meet me everyturn. Catherine knew she had cracked the code so did not want other people meeting together and so also played the same location card so making three people at the location. Unfortunately Alan was repeatedly unable to meet with anyone to share information. Eventually he gave up and tried to meet Laure, his partner, and that turn I was able to meet with Catherine and correctly announce the code. We had won again!

Enjoyed the game and will play again.

Thread: Re:Session Report

MasterDinadan — 2004-02-11T23:45:42+00:00

It is not necessary to confirm the partnership before you meet to open the safe (the numbers are a safe combination, not a phone number). You meet with your partner and can immediatly declare that the other is your partner, and that you know the combination. You can do this even if the person you met with does not think you are his partner, and he cannot object to this. If you are wrong about your partner or the combination, the other team wins (the person you meet with to declare the safe combination might also be on the other team, in which case you also lose.)

Thread: Re:Session Report

MasterDinadan — 2004-02-10T02:19:11+00:00

Rick Thornquist (#15885),
The partnership concept seems basic at first, but realizing your partner is also an important part of the game. You'll want to hide as much information as possible from your enemies, because you don't know what they know, and something you tell them may reveal more to them then you want to. If you share information mainly with your partner, both of you will come closer to the solution, while neither of your opponents are getting any closer. It's also important not to make it obvious that you are partners, or the other two will know they are partners.
This game seems simple at first, but there is a lot of depth to it. It's a lot of fun to have a group who really understands how to play this well. I definatly think this game gets better each time you play, there is more to it then it seems at first...

Thread: Session Report

Deleted User 1 — 2002-04-08T18:17:54+00:00

It time for another session report from the Terminal City Gamers. Tonight is a special Game Theme Night – the theme is Crime and Mystery games.

First up is Mini Inkognito. Andrew, his wife Lenka, David and Rick (your narrator) are the players. The rest of the group went for Who Stole Ed’s Pants? We took the some time to learn the game, it was a little confusing and the game is quite different than our usual fare.

Mini Inkognito is a card game version of the board game Inkognito. There are four players and each person is dealt a character and a number. Your job is to determine, through deduction, which person holds the character of your partner (you don’t know who is your partner is, you have to figure that out). After you’ve determined who your partner is, you have to figure out which number each of the characters holds. The first partnership to figure this out wins.

We played two games.

Game One

Winners - *Lenka and Andrew*

In game one, Lenka was Colonel Bubble and Andrew was Lord Fiddlebottom. They discovered each other and Andrew as able to deduce the numbers.

Game Two

Winners - *Lenka and Rick*

In game two, Rick (as Colonel Bubble) was able to identify the cards with Lenka.

Ratings:

Lenka – 6
Rick – 6
Andrew – 6
David - 5

I think all of us has mixed feelings about the game. It is a little confusing, and I think this is mainly because you’d expect there to be more to the partnerships, but there isn’t. The only reason to figure out who is your partner is so you can meet them at the end of the game to make the final declaration – the partners can’t work together in any other way.

The game is also a little, shall we say, “fragile”. During the game, players shows sets of cards to each other – if these sets of cards are not correct, it can mess things up good. Also, the method of keeping track of things takes a little getting used to.

I think there’s a good game in there and with a few more games under our belt, it would show. Perhaps also the Inkognito board game has more to it, at some point we’ll have to give it a try.

Thread: Session Report

dougadamsau — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Debbie writes:

Glenn, Julian, Roger, Debbie

This game clearly has elements of Clue(do) and other guess-the-secret type games, but the difference here is that this one actually works. Not that we played it right, which kind of messed things up for us all, and we all came up with the wrong solution. We realized this close to the end of the game and so decided to move on to something different. But I definitely want to try it again, this game has fabulous potential.

My rating: 7. Really makes you think!

Our Something Different was a little game that I was shocked to learn was not from Reiner Knizia.

Thread: Session Report

dougadamsau — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Doug writes:

David, Roger, Doug and Janet closed the evening out with one hand of this clever deduction game, based on cards. The idea is you know 2 pieces of that comprises 8 parts. You need to deduct where the other 6 pieces are to have a chance at victory.

An added snag is your identity (one of the pieces) is paired with another identity played by another player. You have to work out who your partner is (it changes every game) and "meet" them alone in order to win.

To meet someone and exchange information you have to meet them alone. If three arrive at the same location, then nothing can be done that turn. Cards are played to determine the location for the turn, but once played are useless until all your five locations cards are played over five turns, and you then get them back.

When you meet someone you must exchange two of the 8 pieces of information, ONE of which must be the truth. So gradually through meeting players you build up a firm picture of who is what identity and what other piece of information they are carrying (it's 2 digits of an 8 digit number).

Things get a little easier if someone you are meeting shows you a piece of information you are carrying - which obviously means that is the other players false lead, and the other piece must be the truth. Once one piece is established, the rest snowballs quickly and it becomes a race to meet up with your partner to win the game.

This requires two turns of meeting alone - the first to confirm the partnership, and the second to win the game by declaring the phone number for the win (or 1 point if you play several games).

In our game David was a jinx, not being able to meet players due to the interference of the "ambassador" - a mysterious figure who turns up in random locations to help, or hinder, the other players. I managed to meet up with Roger successfully early and determined his identity. After meeting Janet twice early, I managed to work out all the information apart from who my partner was! It was either David or Janet. The others all appeared to be ahead of me in the deduction race, when David revealed his identity to me and confirmed that he indeed was my partner.

The next turn allowed us to meet alone to confirm the partnership, which meant that all we needed to do for the win was meet again. However, Roger and Janet had confirmed their partnership on exactly the same turn, and they had a safe meet lined up for the next turn, while David and I could have been thwarted by the ambassador.

Luckily, both pairs managed to meet successfully, and the game was a dead heat. 1 tournament point to each player we assume.

Doug's rating: 7 We are going to try and play a "first to three points" game next week.

Thread: Session Report

dougadamsau — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Julian writes:

David arrived next, so we started Inkognito. Just as we were about to start, Donna & Allan arrived & disappeared into the kitchen for a Settlers Kartenspiel. The final scores were Alan 12 & Donna 8. No further report is expected.

Again, Janet misunderstood a rule here, & showed Doug 2 true cards early on. This led Doug to believe that he had the answer, and wanted to meet David, who he believed was his partner. David was keen for him to do this as David knew he wasn't. The rules imply that you need to meet your partner and inform them that they are your partner, but we couldn't see the point of that being mandatory, and assumed that it was optional (in the second game). Doug guessed wrongly, and David & Janet therefore won by default. In the second game, I knew the answer but had to wait 3 rounds to meet Janet to pick up the phone. Unfortunately, everyone knew that this was the case, because we had the rules clarification at this point. However, after one negative round David and Doug couldn't stop the meeting and I got it right. Now that we believe that you only have to meet your partner to pick up the phone it makes more sense (and you don't end up giving away your intention).

Scores
Game 1: Janet & David
Game 2: Julian & Janet