Game: Inkognito

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-12T01:52:39+00:00

Front of rulebook

Image

Toynan — 2008-11-01T12:45:07+00:00

for halloween 2008

Image

sekke — 2008-08-22T21:39:04+00:00

back of a card

Image

sekke — 2008-08-22T21:35:59+00:00

Image

sekke — 2008-08-22T21:31:20+00:00

Image

sekke — 2008-08-22T21:27:41+00:00

Image

melee — 2008-08-22T09:27:06+00:00

True Inkognito with the lights out

Image

matthew.marquand — 2008-07-04T19:39:12+00:00

Our Lady of Inkognito - Class of 1917

Image

matthew.marquand — 2008-07-04T19:38:30+00:00

The Phantom of Prophecy

Image

Toynan — 2008-06-07T12:48:51+00:00

Close up on a red caracter during the game

Thread: Crónica en español de una partida

Schroinger — 2008-04-24T06:00:27+00:00

Luis Paulino nos ofreció como postre un juego de deducción llamado "Inkognito". Este juego es algo similar al famoso y comercial “Clue”, por lo menos en el sentido de ir investigando a base de preguntas y apuntando en un cuadernillo.

]]>

La trama del juego se desarrolla en Venecia (en italiano Venezia, en veneciano Venezsia y en veneciano antiguo Venexia), la ciudad de los canales y la capital de la región de Véneto. Está situada sobre un conjunto de islas que se extiende en una laguna pantanosa en el mar Adriático, entre las desembocaduras de los ríos Po (sur) y Piave (norte), en el noreste de Italia.

Venecia goza de una fama legendaria por su amplio patrimonio artístico y largo historial como referencia de la pintura europea. La riqueza de los poderosos de la ciudad (la Iglesia, los políticos y ciertos comerciantes) permitió mantener un prolongado patrocinio sobre pintores, arquitectos y demás artistas: desde Gentile Bellini en el siglo XV hasta Francesco Guardi a finales del siglo XVIII. Resulta ser, que el estilo pictórico de Guardi es conocido como pittura di tocco (de toque) por sus pequeñas y enérgicas pinceladas puntuales. En esto se aparta del estilo de Canaletto, más sólido, meticulosamente dibujado y exacto desde el punto de vista arquitectónico, tal como lo demuestra en su obra: Piazza San Marco con la Basílica, donde recoge con estupenda perfección la vida que circula por este lugar. Justamente, allí es el epicentro del famoso carnaval de Venecia, el cual, para no perder el hilo, sirve como ambiente para "Inkognito", por lo tanto, cada jugador utiliza un disfraz que lo distingue de los demás.

]]>

Aparte del disfraz, cada uno tiene una identidad y media misión. El juego debe jugarse con 4 jugadores, debido a que se juega en parejas, sin embargo, uno de los objetivos del juego es encontrar a la pareja, pues al inicio todos somos incógnitos. Una vez encontrada la pareja, se le debe indicar a esta, ya sea revelando las cartas de identidad, disfraz y misión, o por medio de señas (cada identidad tiene una seña en particular). Cada pareja comparte una misión codificada (Alfa, Bravo, Charlie, Delta) y debe ser decodificada utilizando el pasaporte de cada uno.

Durante el transcurso de la partida, rápidamente deduje quién era mi pareja (Nino), esto gracias a los apuntes de los jugadores de al lado (¿¿culpa mía o de que expongan sus apuntes??); sin embargo, Nino se hizo bolas con las respuestas de Luis Carlos, quién, dando muestras de su ingenio, mostró 2 cartas verdaderas a Luis Paulino, algo sumamente inesperado, lo que provocó que Nino divagara durante algún tiempo y repitiera constantemente las mismas preguntas a Luis Carlos.

Mientras, en la otra esquina, yo naufragaba, viendo que mis dos enemigos se adelantaban en el juego, hasta el punto de pensar que en realidad mi pareja me había traicionado y estábamos jugando 3 contra 1, pues Luis Pa, al creer que su aliado era Luis Carlos, hizo una seña engañadora para que yo la viera, con lo que se me hizo un arroz con mango increíble y comenzara a dudar de mis deducciones.

]]>
Más perdido que perro en Misa.

Durante la mayor parte de la partida Luis Carlos era el único que lo tenía todo claro, el Espíritu Santo lo había iluminado y rápidamente había descubierto a su compinche (José) y se aprestaron a cumplir su misión. Sin embargo, para sorpresa de todos, al final del juego todos lo teníamos muy claro y Luis Car fue el único que se confundió. Así pues, después de estar a un movimiento del gane de la partida, Luis Carlos sorprendió a propios y extraños al dar media vuelta y emprender su camino para el lado contrario a su misión. Una vez llegada a su errado destino, proclamó la victoria, sin caer en cuenta que había cavado su propia tumba.

]]>

De todas maneras, siempre queda el mal sabor de boca, y no me proclamo ganador [nota de Luis Paulino: "Yo sí, humilde que es uno..."], pues mi equipo no venció, nada más no perdimos (¿Vale esto alguna puntuación?). Y como siempre, ya lo dijo el viejo y conocido refrán: “No hay que llegar primero, hay que saber llegar”.

Esta crónica puede verse también aquí: http://juegosdemesacr.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&t...

Una lista completa de las crónicas visibles en www.juegosdemesacr.com puede verse aquí:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/30029

Thread: Re: My first session of Inkognito: Random movement detracts from a fun game

Martin Ralya — 2008-03-17T15:51:01+00:00

One of my friends threw out pretty much the same idea after the game, and I think it sounds pretty solid -- thanks for the suggestion!

One that crossed my mind was gluing a yellow marble in place, and letting the other two fall normally (with the game owner's permission, of course). That way you'd be guaranteed at least one useful move. I prefer your idea, though.

Thread: Re: My first session of Inkognito: Random movement detracts from a fun game

ekted — 2008-03-17T13:23:39+00:00

I wonder if this would work:

Give each player a small deck of cards (white, red, black, blue) in some quantites. On their turn a player plays 2 of thir cards with which to move. They must use up all their cards before they can pick them all up again. So if you leave your "no move" cards until the end, you basically lose a turn.

Thread: My first session of Inkognito: Random movement detracts from a fun game

Martin Ralya — 2008-03-17T01:24:44+00:00

My wife, Alysia, and I hosted a board game night this weekend, and one of the games that made the rounds was Inkognito. After Julie, Brianne, Sam and Daniel played it once (while Alysia, Jaben and I played In the Year of the Dragon in the other room), we switched people around and I got a chance to play Inkognito with Sam, Brianne and Daniel. Sam and Brianne had played several times before, while Daniel had played just once; it was my first game. I'd heard them shouting about facial tics and wanting to know each others' bodies from the dining room, and the game definitely sounded like fun.

Tired and coming off of three tense games back-to-back (Puerto Rico, In the Year of the Dragon and Zooloretto, all three of which were decided by one point), I initially found the rules a bit confusing. By the time it was my turn, though, I'd pretty much gotten the hang of it. The other players suggested some good ways to keep track of cards seen and cards shown, which helped a lot.

]]>

Inkognito has great components: a beautiful board, cleverly assembled pieces and the Phantom of Prophecy/movement mechanism all combine to evoke the theme nicely. Unfortunately, the Phantom also kept me from being able to do much during the first half of the game, as I frequently pulled two white marbles and one movement marble, and rarely saw an Ambassador marble. Sam was in pretty much the same boat, too. Meanwhile, Brianne and Daniel were both pulling two and three movement marbles per turn, and getting plenty of chances to visit the Ambassador. I got asked a lot of questions by both of them, but had few chances to ask any questions myself.

Partway through the game, I joked with Brianne -- who had clearly figured out most of our identities and body types -- that she should just pass me three gray/real cards the next time I got a chance to ask her a question, and was pleasantly surprised when she did (well, not three grays, which wouldn't be a legitimate play, but two grays and one card of the appropriate type). She'd sorted out that we were teammates, and over the next couple of turns we were able to share missions and body types, putting all the pieces together.

]]>

Unfortunately for us, Daniel and Sam had also deduced that they were teamed up, and resolved their unanswered questions sooner than Brianne and I did. Daniel moved his pawn to my real pawn, stood up, shook Sam's hand, and said, "Mission accomplished." Brianne's turn would have been next, and if she'd pulled any combination of two land/any movement marbles, she would have been able to fulfill our mission that turn.

Random movement is one of my least favorite game mechanics, and it was the only thing I really disliked about Inkognito -- there's nothing quite like spending half the game not being able to play the game. It's the same problem I have with Clue, where a handful of bad rolls (usually followed by being whisked to the opposite end of the board from where you need to be) can make a whole stretch of the game pretty boring. In both cases, I'd much prefer the game with a non-random movement mechanic, or at least less randomness.

That said, I'd definitely play it again, and I enjoyed the deduction aspect of the game, as well as its quirky theme and flair. I think I'd be able to make better use of bad luck the second time around, too, should the same thing happen again.

Thread: Re: bad game!

Spielguy — 2008-02-29T21:42:20+00:00

Patient: It hurts when I do this.

Doctor: Then don't do this.

Thread: Re: bad game!

Mugnaio — 2008-02-26T11:55:36+00:00

sommese wrote:
Showing immidiately your gray cards to opponents, game end with a fast victory of the one who have best colored balls.
No strategy in this game.

I think this strategy is VERY bad.
Instead, I wrote something I think is better here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2112440#2112440

Thread: cards to give

Mugnaio — 2008-02-26T11:54:07+00:00

First thing, we plays with old rules, (you can give the same information up to 2 times, and no limitation with Ambassador):

Let's suppose you are Fiddlebottom.
At the beginning of the game if the player from your right ask you with the
Ambassador about your identity, give him your true identity (but not the withe one!) and the identity with play together. In this example you will give to him Fiddlebottom and Bubble. Then when is your turn ask him something.

If you play with him, he will give his white cards (he understood who are you), great advantage. If he doesn't play with you, he won't, now you know he is either ZaZA or mr. X, he knows you are Fiddlebottom or Bubble.
This is the best combination.

If you give Fiddlebottom and (for example) mr. X, if he play with you he will have no help receiving those cards. But if he play against you, he as 50% probability to know your identity and you don't want this happens.

If the first question is not made with the Ambassador, you can try the same strategy giving to him Fiddlebottom and Bubble and the mission card

Thread: Re: bad game!

tonyfung1205 — 2008-02-04T07:32:32+00:00

sommese wrote:
Showing immidiately your gray cards to opponents, game end with a fast victory of the one who have best colored balls.
No strategy in this game.

It's a strategy, but definitely an inferior one which gives no good odds to ensure your winning.

Thread: Re: bad game!

chockle — 2008-02-04T03:31:34+00:00

Well, I'd call your...
sommese wrote:
Showing immidiately your gray cards to opponents
a strategy, though not a very good one. The problem is that each opponent has only a 1/3 chance of being your partner, so you are probably giving the other team an advantage. I'm sure there are better strategies, but it does not sound like you care to be convinced.

Thread: Re: bad game!

Drew1365 — 2008-02-03T23:53:05+00:00

sommese wrote:
. . . game end with a fast victory of the one who have best colored balls.

Uh . . . er . . . will you just take my word for it?

Thread: bad game!

sommese — 2008-02-03T23:21:14+00:00

Showing immidiately your gray cards to opponents, game end with a fast victory of the one who have best colored balls.
No strategy in this game.

Thread: Re: Third turn victory

Oboewan — 2008-01-14T14:09:51+00:00

Stupid Nun and her coloured balls!

Thread: Re: Inkognito: ergo sum fun

Friendless — 2008-01-14T01:33:18+00:00

Oh dear, what frustration! In the game I played I figured out my partner but (I believe) I'd been show some all false information by the opponents so my partner and I had different opinions on who the target of our mission was. I figured out that we disagreed so started reinvestigating. Eventually I figured out where I'd gone wrong and we completed the mission successfully. Our opponents still had no idea who was who. This is a great game if you have a switched-on partner.

Thread: Re: Inkognito: ergo sum fun

Drew1365 — 2008-01-13T17:01:17+00:00

Great subject header!

Thread: Inkognito: ergo sum fun

batesbj — 2008-01-13T15:50:18+00:00

I just got to play Inkognito for the first time with a group of my friends. We try to get together about once a week to play a game or two. Heather and Bobby are married and they are both competitive and love to play games. Kathy mainly comes for the social aspect and is not very competitive. I am very competitive and I love to try new games.

After a quick explanation of the rules and a few questions, we began. Bobby went first. He didn't get to look at any cards. Then, it was Kathy's turn. She was holding H&B's baby, so she was very distracted. She got to look at my cards - I showed her 2 true ones and a false one to try to throw her off. Then it was my turn. I decided to look at Bobby's cards. I was lucky enough to be by the ambassador, so I got to see 2 identities. He showed me my identity and his, so I immediately knew that he was Col. Bubble. Since I was Agent X, this meant that Bobby was not my partner. Heather went next and looked at some cards.

Bobby got to look at my cards next. I accidentatlly showed him one of my white (real attribute - tall) cards. I hoped he didn't notice, and lucky for me, he didn't. Bobby was catching on and so was I. Heather and Kathy were still a little lost. On my turn, I looked at 3 of Heather's cards. She happened to show me my identity and her identity, along with an attribute. I found out that she was indeed Lord Fiddlebottom because she thought one identity must be true and one false. She didn't understand that the true card could also have been her attribute card. Well, it worked out great for me - I knew everyone's identities and it was only round 2. Now, to let my partner, Kathy, know who I was so we could accomplish our mission . . .

The very next round, Kathy chose to look at my cards - what luck! I passed her all of my real cards, including my mission card (D). I got to go next, so I was excited. We could finish this game, shake hands, and win the game. I, of course, chose to look at Kathy's cards, but was sorely disappointed - she did not let me see the mission card. Great, I thought, she doesn't understand the significance of the white cards in the game - this will be a long game now.

I announced to everyone that I knew all of their identities and I even called some people by their identities. Bobby caught on quickly and figured out that Heather was his partner. Kathy and Heather were very confused and Heather thought she was my partner and so Kathy thought she must be Bobby's partner. I doubted that Kathy would figure it out, because she was really distracted by the baby, so I thought I would just keep trying to figure out people's attributes. After round 4, I had figured out who everyone was and what all of their attributes were - why couldn't I get that mission card. I decided to help my partner indirectly - I passed cards to Heather that would allow her to determine my identity so she could stop thinking I was her partner. A light came on in her eyes and then I just pointed out to Kathy that she was indeed my partner.

I also pointed out that my partner should show me the mission card so I would know what the mission was. I also explained that Kathy should already know what our mission was since she had seen my mission card. She didn't remember that, but I helped her figure out what the mission was by reminding her of the card I had shown her. I knew the game wasn't working out anyway, so by now I was just trying to end the game. Our mission was to get next to Lord Fiddlebottom with any one of our pawns. Kathy chose to take one of her pawns next to the short Fiddlebottom - I knew this was incorrect, but it was late and I knew the game would be over soon enough. Heather and Bobby won because of confusion on how to play the game.

I was excited that I figured out how to play the game and I can see some real potential. We decided we would have to play another night, now that everyone understood the rules and how to play. I look forward to playing the game again, but I don't think I will be lucky enough to figure out the identities at round 2 and the attributes at round 4. We will see how it goes the next time we play.

End Results:
Heather was the fat Lord Fiddlebottom
Bobby was the short Col. Bubble
Kathy was the skinny Mme. Zsa Zsa
I was the tall Agent X

I think Inkognito is lots of fun! I give it an 8.

Thread: Third turn victory

caesarmom — 2008-01-13T02:29:03+00:00

For the second game of the day, Tucker proposed Inkognito. For anybody unfamiliar with the rules, each person receives:

1. A set of four pawns, each with a different shape. One of these pawns represents the character and the other three are decoys/minions.

2. A screen with a grid showing which two characters are partners and the winning conditions for each secret mission combination.

3. A secret identity card indicating which character you represent (different for each player).

4. A card that identifies which pawn is the real character (different for each player).

5. A card with a letter indicating a secret mission (different for each player).

6. A set of eight cards (the same for all players), one for each character and one for each pawn shape.

Your goal is to determine which player is your partner, which mission he or she has, and what your collective victory condition is. When one of your pawns lands on another player's pawn, you can ask that player about their identity or aspect (i.e. pawn shape). The player has to show you three cards -- two about the requested information, and the other about the other type -- of which at least one has to be true. If one of your pawns lands on a special non-player pawn called the Ambassador, you can ask any player about their identity or aspect. In this case, the player has to respond with only two cards, both about the requested information. At any time you have the option of passing a player the unique cards showing your secret identity, pawn shape and/or mission instead of the requested information. There's an insane nun thing that will haunt my nightmares for the next few weeks that determines how (or even whether) you get to move your pawns.

Tucker quickly ran through the rules, then he, Emily, Jeff, and I jumped in to complete our secret missions. We had a couple of average rounds (move a couple of pawns, maybe ask one question), and then I caught up with the Ambassador and asked Tucker about his identity. Tucker passed me two identity cards, one of which was mine and the other which identified him as my secret partner. After Jeff's turn, it was Tucker's turn. The nun blessed Tucker with a sweet set of possible moves, so he started by asking me a question. I responded with my unique ID and mission cards, so he now knew our victory condition. As luck would have it, Tucker was able to use his final move to fulfill our victory condition, thus ending the game after about 15 minutes, much to the disgust of Emily and Jeff.

Even though this session seemed to be pretty fluky, it seemed to indicate a signficant flaw in the game. As I see it, the most viable strategy (perhaps the only viable strategy) would be to use the Ambassador to quiz everybody about their identity. After at most four Ambassador quizzes, you would know your partner's identity, then you could slip them your ID and mission cards. Luck (in the form of the evil movement nun, the order in which you choose to quiz players, and the cards that they choose to show you) seems to play a much bigger role in determining victory than does deductive reasoning. I'm also not sure how this game would last anything close to 90 minutes once players had worked out this strategy. If I'm missing something here, please let me know!

In any case, this session left us all feeling unsatisifed, so we pulled out Sleuth and played a REAL deduction game.

Thread: Re: Completing Missions

tonyfung1205 — 2008-01-08T17:58:52+00:00

I suppose, only normal movement actions are allowed.

Thread: Re: Which cards to pass

tonyfung1205 — 2008-01-08T17:56:06+00:00

Adding one card to to a previous set of card pair is not valid. It is stated in the rulebook.

You can see the logic because adding the third card offers no new information at all.

Thread: Re: Can two players play this game?

AllenDoum — 2007-07-30T05:30:24+00:00

grobanite wrote:
I recently bought mini inkognito the card game and it came with a seperate set of rules for two players. This lead me to wondering if this game can be played with two players as well.
Easy answer: No.

The board game is a deduction game where you have to discover which of the other players is your partner, then arrange to complete a "mission" that the other team will try to prevent.

Thread: Re: Can two players play this game?

apotheos — 2007-07-30T05:10:59+00:00

I'm not at all familiar with mini inkognito, but I can't see how it could be played with 2. There are provided rules for 3 players, but even those don't really appeal to me. The 4 player game is quite a treat if everyone can "get" the game.

Thread: Can two players play this game?

grobanite — 2007-07-30T04:41:27+00:00

I recently bought mini inkognito the card game and it came with a seperate set of rules for two players. This lead me to wondering if this game can be played with two players as well.

Thread: Re: 3p game impossible to complete

ekted — 2007-07-25T19:20:33+00:00

Thank you! It's right there in parentheses. I read this page 3 times and missed it.

Thread: Re: 3p game impossible to complete

Asyncritus — 2007-07-25T19:09:24+00:00

Don't have the rules handy, but it does address this. I believe you have to move any pawn to Agent X's cohort in this case.

Thread: 3p game impossible to complete

ekted — 2007-07-25T18:41:11+00:00

For the 3p game, the rules say to remove the pawns of the 4th player. Say, for example, that Agent X is the one not playing, and that the Fiddlebottom/Bubble team has mission cards A and B respectively. Their mission is to move any pawn to Agent X. How can you possibly do this?

Thread: Re: Have You Seen My Friend? He's About Yea High...

Critical Mass — 2007-07-19T09:45:24+00:00

I was under the impression that you were allowed to put on the affectations of other players characters to confuse your opponents into thinking that you are their partner. Is this true or not?

Thread: Re: Spies in Molasses

ekted — 2007-07-18T20:04:12+00:00

2.5 hours eh? Did you find it took a lot of "questions" to make deductions? I think in my last game, I found all 3 complete identities with only 5 or 6 questions, and I don't think players were trying to give away too much info.

Thread: Re: Lord of the Rings Theatre Board Game

tomski — 2007-07-18T12:00:17+00:00

perhaps it's a misquate...

Thread: Re: Lord of the Rings Theatre Board Game

Critical Mass — 2007-07-18T11:36:49+00:00

yeah it seemed a little out of place.

Thread: Re: Lord of the Rings Theatre Board Game

firewizard — 2007-07-18T11:22:56+00:00

I think you'll find this is Mike Siggin's Theatrical LotR game:
Lord of The Rings

Why are you posting this in the Inkognito forum though?

Thread: Lord of the Rings Theatre Board Game

kevwill — 2007-07-18T10:57:47+00:00

Games Lore in the UK are offering this new game. I quate from their website:

To Mordor you must travel and in doing so defeat the forces of Sauron. This exciting board game, inspired by the extraordinary stage production of The Lord of the Rings, will entertain as well as remind you of your experience in the theatre.

Does anyone have any more info? Publisher? Mechanics?

Thread: Re: Spies in Molasses

Critical Mass — 2007-07-18T10:53:42+00:00

here's another idea for the phantom. Take out one ball to make the balls move around more easily- no series of the same result over and over. Specificly take out one white ball- far less likely to have a series of very limited movement turns.

I haven't played yet but it seems like an obvious improvement if the game is frustrating or slow.

Thread: Re: Answers too revealing in one case

Critical Mass — 2007-07-18T10:39:40+00:00

There is nothing stopping you from passing an opponent who doesn't know your identity yet your mission card. It may be high risk but if they run with it and complete the mission they think they have with you then you will win.

Thread: Re: Session Report

Critical Mass — 2007-07-18T10:28:41+00:00

Even though you did not know the identity and aspect of each opponent, couldn't you have narrowed down their mission to one of two options and judged which they were going for then moved your pieces into that area to nab anyone who came close?

I don't know if that works since I haven't played though.

Thread: Re: Which cards to pass

ekted — 2007-07-02T17:16:45+00:00

I think the rule is that you just can't pass the exact same set of cards. One different, one more, one less are all fine.

Thread: Which cards to pass

DavidT — 2007-07-02T15:00:48+00:00

In the rules, it states that you can't pass the same "set" of cards to the same player a second time. So, consider:

If I pass X, Y and Z to player #2 on one turn, can I pass X, Y and N the next time? Those are two different "sets," but it doesn't seem right. For example, if that player has asked me a question about my identity both times, and cards X and Y are both identity cards, they're getting virtually no additional information (except getting closer to my attribute).

I guess what I'm asking is, is a different "set" considered to be just a different mix of cards (i.e., at least one new card of either type), or is a different "set" an entirely new batch of cards (not repeating any previously given).

On this same tack, what about someone who has already questioned my identity using the Ambassador? Consider:

Player #2 meets the Ambassador and asks me about my identity. I show her Mm. Zsa Zsa and Fiddlebottom.

Player #2 lands on one of my pawns one turn later and asks me about my identity. Can I show her Mm. Zsa Zsa and Fiddlebottom, plus one *new* card (an attribute) she hasn't been given before (this *is* a new "set", after all)? Or, must I replace one of the identity cards (so as not to repeat the pair given in the previous turn)?

If I have to replace one of the cards, that leads to a two-step process that will *always* give concrete information. If I swap in one different identity card, Player #2 knows which identity card is true (because one of the two she saw during the Ambassador round had to be correct, so it must be the one remaining now). Alternatively, if I give her two entirely different identities, she knows neither is true and is thus informed of my true attribute, without a doubt.

Thread: Re: Aspects

Profesor Mora — 2007-07-02T14:43:19+00:00

DavidT wrote:

Doesn't this make the game harder for one team than the other?

Yes, it's not balanced, but it's part of the fun. However, I think that the FF edition have a more balanced set of missions than the original Milton Bradley.

Thread: Re: Seeking rules clarifications

DavidT — 2007-07-02T14:42:10+00:00

bwechner wrote:
I should add we established the house rule of moving all your pawns first, then relocating the met pawns as required before asking your questions. We allowed only one question by an opponents pawn meeting and one by the ambassador meeitng (2 question limit per turn).

What if you want to use a single one of your own pawns to encounter two different players (i.e., move-question #1, move-question #2)? There's nothing in the rules, that I can see, that prohibits this.

Thread: Re: Aspects

DavidT — 2007-07-02T14:25:52+00:00

BeyondMonopoly wrote:
ekted wrote:
For example, if my mission is to "Move any of my pawns to Agent X", do I need to move a pawn to specifically one of the four Agent X pawns that represents his true aspect?

That is correct: you need to move it to Him, with Him being the right color and the right aspect.

We played this for the first time last night, and this is what we concluded, as well. One question, though: Interpreting the rules this way makes some of the missions markedly harder than others.

For instance, if one team gets the mission "Agent X must move to space #2," the only information that each team member must deduce is the identity of his/her partner.

On the other hand, if the other team gets the mission "One of your pawns must move to Agent X," the information required is the partner's identity, as well as Agent X's identity and attribute (fat/tall/skinny/short).

Doesn't this make the game harder for one team than the other?

Thread: A little deduction, a lot of fun

FerrumEtBombyx — 2007-06-15T18:19:02+00:00

Introduction
Inkognito is a light deduction game for 3 - 4 players.
It's carnival time in Venice, and the streets are awash with masked characters running here and there. The players are each international super-spies who have taken advantage of this time to come to Venice and accomplish their secret mission.
But they don't know what their mission is. They only know HALF of their mission. They have to meet up with their partner (who has the other half of the mission) to find out exactly what their mission is.
The twist is that you don't know which player is your partner.
You must ask questions of the other players to deduce their identities, figure out who your partner is, share your halves of the mission information with each other, and accomplish the mission - all before the opposing team accomplishes their mission.

Rules in Brief
At the beginning of the game, each player is dealt an identity (which of the four super-spies they are), a body-type (whether they are fat, skinny, tall, or fat), and a mission half (A, B, C, or D). Each card is unique, so if I'm "Lord Fiddlebottom" and I'm the "short" body type, I know that no one else is.
To determine their move, players roll the "Phantom of Prophecy." The Phantom is a strange, masked head containing various colored balls. Shake it around and flip it upright - whatever three balls come to the front tell you what your move options are (land, sea, anything, etc.)
Players move their pawns onto other players' pawns, having an "encounter" with that player. During an encounter, you will learn a little bit of information about the player. The player will slip you cards representing statements about their identity and body type. You will be told several bits of information, one of which has to be true. For instance: you may be told that the player is Lord Fittlebottom, that the player is Mr. X, and that the player is tall. This is done through the giving of cards, so only you and the encountered player will know the information exchanged.
As you continue to ask questions, players must not tell you the exact same bits of information. Repeated questions help you winnow down the possibilities until you are able to deduce the information you need.
You then encounter your partner and slip them your mission half like you normally would any other card during an encounter. Once you know the two halves of your mission, you must accomplish it.
A mission would be something like "Get any one of your pawns onto Mr. X" or "Move Col. Bubble to location #5).

Components
The components are gorgeous. There are 16 player pawns, representing the fat, skinny, tall, and short body type for each of the four colors. The "Phantom of Prophecy" is intriguing, definitely unusual. The Phantom is generally well-made. However, you have to hold it tight as you shake it or parts will pop off and you have to shake it well to randomize the balls. Not shaking vigorously enough will not change the outcome, so you'll just get the same "roll" again and again.
The board is a quite large map of Venice with surprising detail. One of my friends has actually visited Venice and pointed out to me the various landmarks which were accurately depicted on the map.

So what's it like?
I'd say that Inkognito is about as complex as Settlers of Catan. It's appropriate for lighter-type gaming groups, and it also makes a pretty fun game for two couples.
The experience of playing the game is loads of fun. There's tension to find your partner, and the aspect of racing against the other team adds a nice element.
Other reviews I've read and opinions I've heard from players say that this game is no fun when one person plays poorly and ruins the whole experience for everyone. Well, Inkogntio is a partnership game. If your partner stinks, you'll probably lose - even if you did everything perfectly. Some people hate the aspect of this game. I, however, grew up with and still love 4-player card games like spades or Rook - so the partnership thing doesn't irk me as much.
The deduction aspect of the game, at least for me, is not that difficult. You probably won't be racking your brain trying to figure out all the possibilities. I think this help keeps the game fun and somewhat-accessible, instead of just being a puzzle.
After a lot of plays, the game takes on a different feel to it. It gets less fun in a way because the best strategies become more obvious.
Everyone is trying to get to the ambassador (the best way to get good information), and there's not a lot of strategy to that. Everyone's trying to get there - everyone knows that everyone is trying to get there. It's simply a matter of getting a good roll. Not exactly enthralling.
But, with repeated plays, there's a psychological aspect to the game. It's as much about reading the other players as it is deduction. You want to move your pieces to accomplish your mission - but if you're too obvious, you'll tip off your opponents. I've figured out who my partner was on many occasions just due to the way the other players looked at each other and the board. Then you can get into the realm of false signals and all those mind games.

Final Thoughts
All in all, Inkognito is fun for lighter-to-middle weight gamers. The partnership aspect is fun, while at the same time it can be frustrating (if your partner stinks). The game has limited replayability, but it's loads of fun to take out every now and then.
It's worthy of being included in a game collection (especially if you regularly play lighter-type games), but it wouldn't be one of my "desert island" games.

Thread: Re: Have You Seen My Friend? He's About Yea High...

Marfried — 2007-05-16T11:00:40+00:00

ekted wrote:

Habits

(...) I find this part of the game to be silly. One, it takes away some of the deduction and positioning in the game. Two, guys blowing kisses to each other is usually really creepy.

I always found this the funniest part of the game, when you know who your partner is and try to contact him by doing the "habit", kicking him under the table, passing your character card under the table, and so on, since the deduction is really not what keeps the game interesting.

Good review though!

Thread: Re: Have You Seen My Friend? He's About Yea High...

ekted — 2007-03-12T21:07:26+00:00

magicode wrote:
However, you cannot ask 2 questions of the same player in the same turn.

Is this accurate?

It is not stated plainly in the rules--only implied. Still, I think it's good to keep a player from getting too much info about another player on a given turn.

"When showing your cards to another player whose figure has met the Ambassador, you are not allowed to show a pair of cards that is part of a combination of 3 cards that you have shown that player before."

Thread: Re: Have You Seen My Friend? He's About Yea High...

magicode — 2007-03-12T20:58:52+00:00

However, you cannot ask 2 questions of the same player in the same turn.

Is this accurate? I know you cannot have two of your pawns meet up with another player twice, but can't you meet the ambassador with one pawn and another player with a second pawn and ask both sets of questions to the same player (one would require 2 cards, the other 3)?

I think I like your interpretation better, as when we played, this happened often and you would always ask the 3 card question first and then the 2 card question so that the player could not respond with the same two cards just shown in the 3 card question.

Thread: Re: Have You Seen My Friend? He's About Yea High...

ropearoni4 — 2007-02-20T15:16:59+00:00

Newest version says she is a snob and the stuck up nose effect is her habit. I'm glad someone got to that translation before I acquired my copy. According to the "old" rules, my 1 yr old niece must be Zsa Zsa.

Thread: Movie characters!

Paul Mackie — 2007-02-07T11:13:13+00:00

There’s already been one movie reference for tonight, but here’s another two: Amadeus, and Eyes Wide Shut. Both of these came to mind on seeing the little masqued figures and the ball-based movement “nun”.
This is a neat little deduction game, certainly enhanced by the components which are simply expensive gimmicks, but the interesting difference is the teams aspect. Your objective is to discover who your team mate is, then accomplish your combined mission, which is typically about moving one of your pieces to a particular board location. Use of the Ambassador piece helps you narrow down information about other players much more quickly, although I think I got to use this once only while Pat positioned himself to use it over and over again!
Eventually Nick figured out I was his partner (before me), and was able to provide his body type. This allowed me to manoevour him right next to our joint objective for him to complete on his next turn.
16 mins rules explan, 60 mins game time.
Results: Nick + Paul triumph over Pat + Brian.

(Originally posted at www.themineshaftgap.com.)

Thread: Re: Spies in Molasses

pusboyau — 2007-01-29T23:03:38+00:00

Thanks for the insight, and I think I'll point out to other players that the "Racka Racka Racka" noise means "hurry up!!". I'll let you know how the first session goes.
Nick

Thread: Re: Spies in Molasses

dkearns — 2007-01-29T13:32:04+00:00

Multiple meetings were allowed per turn but you could not question the same player twice in the same turn.

Also, we did not allow people to question the ambassador twice in one turn. We couldn't tell but this seemed to be a logical extension of the above rules.

Honestly, I can't remember if double questions were a huge factor in slowing the game down or not. You will probably be surprised, as I was, at just how difficult it is to move anywhere. You just don't often have the opportunity to question twice. Still, the one meeting per turn seems very appropriate. I would recommend it.

Shaking before the end of the last turn is a good idea. But it is obnoxiously loud and distracting and our Analysis Paralysis player did not like feeling rushed. "Oh you're thinking? Lemme just *RACKA RACKA RACKA*..."

I'm thinking of a variant of banishment in which you send the person you questioned anywhere on the board but ADJACENT to another colored pawn.

Good luck with your first game. I suspect that it is good. I just wasn't prepared for certain aspects.

Thread: Re: Spies in Molasses

pusboyau — 2007-01-29T04:02:17+00:00

Hi Daniel,
Recently bought Inkognito and was curious to know if you played so that only one "meeting" was allowed per turn for that player (despite several of his/her pawns occupying the ambassador/other players' spaces) or did you allow upto 3 meetings per turn.

The reason I ask is that Rick Heli commented on his website : "the 2001 edition rules suggest that a player may meet multiple agents during a single turn, which for balance and downtime reasons does not seem wise".

I imagine allowing only 1 meeting per turn would make turns quicker, reduce the amount of the frustrating "banishment" occuring and so pieces would stay closer longer, with more emphasis on deducing the actions of others, and maybe considering the odds of what colour ball will appear. The other thing I may implement in my first game is allow the next player to "roll" while the current player executes their movement.

Regards
Nick

Thread: Spies in Molasses

dkearns — 2007-01-28T17:52:13+00:00

Inkognito Session

First play. Let me start by saying that I underestimated this game. After reading the rules, it seemed both quick and easy. In practice it was neither.

In the game there are four players: two teams of two. To make things intereting, from the beginning, no one knows who their partner is. Furthermore, each partner has one half of the victory conditions that cannot be deciphered until they find their partner and the other half of the plan. All very cool.

There are four different identities you can have and the teams are fixed according to these identities. Each player has four different pawns of different shapes and sizes but only one of these corresponds to the actual player. The pawns are placed on a map of Venice and are connected to each other by road and waterway paths. Your job is to move any of your pawns onto that of another player to get information about their identity or pawn attributes. Still cool.

Each player has a hand of cards in their color, and there is one card for each identity and attribute (tall, fat, thin, short). When you question another player you ask them for either their identity or attributes. If you ask for identity, they must show you two identity cards and one attribute. If you ask for attribute, they must show you two attribute cards and one identity. In either case, one card must be true. There is also a neutral pawn, the ambassador, and if you talk to him, you can ask any player for information but they only give you two cards, of the type you asked for, and one must be true. He’s a good person to talk to.

Okay, weird thing number one. After you talk to someone’s pawn, you send them flying to any other space on the board. Weird thing number two, when being interrogated, you cannot show the questioner the same set of cards you’ve shown them previously. This means that not only do you have to track the info you receive but also the info you give.

Now for my first problem. It is NOT easy to walk around and talk to people. The board looks pretty tight but you use a weird movement system. There is this scary nun looking thing that has colored balls in it and when you shake it, three of those balls become visible. This tells you how you can move your pawns. Red – one land space, Blue – one sea space, Yellow – 1 land or sea, Black – move ambassador, White – no move. You really have to shake the hell out of that thing to randomize the outcome. Also, we had many situations where you would get Black, White, White and essentially not be able to move. Pretty random. Also, having your pawns flung over hell’s half-acre tended to make it so some players are always trying to get back into the middle of board and other players, questioning them and sending them flying back to the edge. Not necessarily a huge problem as you technically have a partner who is hopefully doing something. Still, kind of frustrating.

I was playing Madam Zsa Zsa and I had to find my partner Agent X. The other players were my wife Katie and another couple, Mel and Zack. I was interrogated a few times and my pawns were being exiled to the perimeter. So I spent my turns trying to move back into the center. Because I wasn’t doing much questioning myself, I thought I would do my best to reveal my identity to other players hoping my partner would find me rather than the other way around. Giving leading information is surprisingly hard. Zack questioned me a few times and I kept showing him the Madam Zsa Zsa card and he eventually got the message and when I was able to question him, he showed me the Zsa Zsa card, the agent X card and an attribute. It looked like he was trying to confirm he was my partner but I couldn’t be sure, maybe he was lying about agent X and the body type he showed me was the true card. A clever ploy (as he wasn’t my partner) and this type of dynamic is what is the most fun about the game. Eventually, I asked Katie one question and everything became clear: everything. In one question, I was able to identify everyone’s identity and body type. I felt smart.

And the game was fun for a while. But it went on for so so long. Zack, god bless him, suffers from the double whammy of both Analysis Paralysis and Oh-Is-It-My-Turn Syndrome. The box says Inkognito should take 45 minutes, our game went for two and a half hours. WAY too long and it wore out its welcome.

My second problem with the game is the asymmetric victory conditions. Ours were as follows: Katie and I had to get her pawn to a single space on the board. Mel and Zack had to move one of their pawns onto Katie’s real pawn (the tall blue guy). What is wrong here? Getting one pawn to one space is incredibly specific and can be stopped by someone interrogating her and flinging her to the other side away from the goal. Extremely difficult. On the other hand, they have eight possible pawns to get to a single space, the tall blue guy. This seemed trivial. When we entered the endgame, one side effectively had no chance at all. Another weird corollary was that even though we didn’t know exactly which goal the others had, we each had a very good idea. They could have designed it so each side could have narrowed to two possible goals focused on two different pawns and make the endgame more interesting. Instead, it was clear that both sides had to focus on 1 pawn, with some trivial grey area (tall blue has to go to space 2 or 6. Whereas I would have preferred that tall blue to either be going to 2 or fat yellow going to six and they didn’t know which they had to prevent. Did that make any sense?)

Things could have been different. For instance, I could have interrogated Katie’s tall blue pawn and flung her right next to our goal. The tall blue was in the center of the board and all four of my pawns were on the edges, as far from her as possible. I didn’t intentionally do this, I just seldom was able to move due to bad shaking of the nun-thingy and getting flung.

So I don’t know what to make of this game. If it was shorter it would be more fun, that is for sure. But the shaky thing was very annoying and the card passing and documentation got on my nerves too. Also, if you have to pass two identity cards and one attribute, how do you ever reveal your half of the code? Everyone just decided to break the rule on their own otherwise the game doesn’t work. I assume we played this correctly.

Things I learned.

* This game can be BRUTALLY slow. 2.5 hours is unacceptably long for this game. You’ve got to keep it moving. I’m not even sure why it took so long because you really have limited options due to the movement system. Analysis paralysis certainly took its toll but still…

* The endgame was disappointing. Anti-climactic and asymmetric in difficulty. Not a deal-breaker unless it is combined with a 2.5hr ordeal.

* The edge of the board is a terrible place to be. You won’t go there willingly and it is pretty tough to get off it. As soon as you try and move inward, someone will bounce you right back out.

* You don’t want to be totally obtuse about the information you give, remember you want your partner to find you.

* I think next time I will try and “pretend” to be my partner when I pass cards. For instance, if I’m Zsa Zsa, I will act like I am Agent X. This will give the most information to my partner without giving any info to my enemy. I think you’d have to have played the game to understand and I might be wrong.

* The nun thing seemed like a really neat idea but it is hyper random when it works as it should. Paradoxically, it is very difficult to ensure you get a random result. Sometimes, you’ll just keep getting the same outcome I think because the balls didn’t move around. 3 six sided dice would have accomplished the same result. Annoying.

* I would definitely like to give Inkognito another go. With the heads up that we’ve got to play faster.

Thread: Re: Have You Seen My Friend? He's About Yea High...

smithhemb — 2007-01-12T16:48:39+00:00

Oh yeah and one translation I read says that Zsa Zsa's habit is "disdainfully lifting her nose" -- which would spare you the air kisses, LOL!

Thread: Re: Have You Seen My Friend? He's About Yea High...

smithhemb — 2007-01-12T16:43:48+00:00

Thanks for the very complete explication of rules. We played (my older German edition of) Inkognito last night for the first time and suffered from intolerable downtime as well as the very bad/incomplete English ruleset available online. I wish I'd read your description first, but we ultimately reached the same conclusions about how to play next time.

Despite a not-so-great first outing, I am eager to play again. In addition to Mystery of the Abbey, the two other games Inkognito reminds me of are Warumono 2 (which I've played and may like better) and Kutschfahrt zur Teufelsburg (which I haven't played yet but which also requires you to figure out who you partner is).