Board Game: Ingenious

Thread: Re: This game was given the perfect name. It really is Ingenious!

Xeenu — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:55:22 +0000

A very nice story indeed. I had the same feeling when I gave a game to a family (Zooloretto in my case). They were so incredulous (for us? to keep?) and got really good milage out of it in family time with their sometimes fiddly sons...

Thread: Re: This game was given the perfect name. It really is Ingenious!

PThron — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:26:32 +0000

Nice Review, Ben. You've captured my feelings about the game completely. It also works nicely as a solo game, though of course it's an exercise in trying to beat your own previous score. Works for me, though.

Agree completely about the board and the pieces. The bits are very nice indeed, but I concur that it would have added a great deal to have grooves in the board as well as the scoring cards. My OCD is driven nuts with the slightest shake near the tiles. I've thought about the travel edition for this very reason.

On a side note about the game: my sister visited a few months ago and fell in love with the game. (BTW, she also commented on the lack o' grooves). Her birthday is in August and I had planned on getting it for her as it would be an ocassion where a present was absolutely perfect. Anyway, 2 weeks ago she was in a very bad car accident (she's all right now, thank God) and I went immediately to the hospital to see her (she's in PA, I'm in Jersey). On the way out the door I grabbed my copy of the game. Once I got past seeing her in the hospital bed and realized that she would definitely be all right, I gave it to her, telling her I knew she'd be laid up for a while and would probably have some time on her hands. Well, she lit up like a Christmas tree. During her recovery she got her 5 year old son to play with her (he loved it) and, I believe, played a fair amount of solo games. But in the chaos of those first few hours, seeing her smiling and happy, even briefly, was worth the world.

Games can, indeed, be therapeutic.

Thread: Re: This game was given the perfect name. It really is Ingenious!

Mislav — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:12:31 +0000

Blott wrote:
However, Ingenious is one of the most frustrating "table-bump" games available. By that I mean that, with a simple bump of the table the entire board can be messed up beyond recovery, because there are no grooves to hold the tiles in place. Likewise, there isn't anything keeping the cubes in place on the scoreboards other than gravity. I really love this game and would recommend it as a great addition to anyone's collection, but don't ever play it on a shaky table or you'll never know who really won.

Hm, I have played numerous games of Ingenious, and the accidents like those mentioned NEVER happened to us.
I don't really agree about the main board being messed up so easily (it would take quite a bump), but I do agree that scoreboards can be risky if people aren't careful.
One small piece of advice is to hold scoreboards ABOVE the tile-holder because:
1) Your tiles are nearer to you.
2) Everyone can see the results of other players more clearly and most importantly:
3) There is definitely less chance of accidentally catching the wooden cubes with the sleeve while taking or playing tiles.

The reason I say this obvious thing is because I have seen lots of photos with people having their scoreboards below the tile-holder.

Regarding the title of the thread, I think Ingenious is only INGENIOUS with 2 players, because there are all sorts of strategies that arise that are pretty much impossible with more players because it's hard to block more people at the same time, and screwing only one often isn't a big enough gain in a 3 or 4 player game.
With 3 or 4 it's a great game too, but definitely more chaotic and luck-prone.

Thread: Re: This game was given the perfect name. It really is Ingenious!

artakserkso — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:32:28 +0000

Actually, what you guys are talking about is one of the reasons I prefer the travel edition. ;)

EDIT: Whoops... Intermezzo! The OP and the next guy. :D

Thread: Re: This game was given the perfect name. It really is Ingenious!

HavocIsHere — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:31:31 +0000

What does Blott think of Ingenious?

Why does Blott speaks in 3rd person?
I surely like his review however.

Thread: Re: This game was given the perfect name. It really is Ingenious!

wmshub — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:14:00 +0000

I agree about the table bump. It's the scoring cubes that always get scrambled beyond repair for us. I keep thinking of making some cribbage-style scoreboards, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

Thread: This game was given the perfect name. It really is Ingenious!

Blott — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:53:17 +0000

Abstract strategy games (which I define as board games without a theme) intrigue me a great deal. I'm always amazed at how these games come with such a simple set of rules, and yet the strategy involved has a depth that you'd never suspect after learning the rules. So whenever I hear that there is a good multi-player abstract game, I am very interested in exploring what it has to offer. When I saw Ingenious on sale, there really wasn't anything that could hold me back from making a purchase. But did it contain that depth, or was the strategy as simple as the rules? Read on...

What do you get with Ingenious? In the box you get a rulebook, the game board, 4 individual player scoreboards, 4 sets of 6 different colored wooden cubes, 4 tile racks, and a big bag stuffed with a ton of tiles.

How does Ingenious work? Each player gets a tile rack, a scoreboard, and a set of wooden cubes. The cubes are placed on the matching color symbols on the far left of the scoreboards. Then each player draws 6 tiles from the bag. The tiles are all made up of 2 hexagons linked together, and each hexagon has one of the 6 colored symbols printed on it.

Players take turns playing one of their tiles to the board. They score one point for every same-symbol hexagon, which is connected through a straight path to their placed tile. Each half of the placed tile can score for tiles that radiate out from it in this fashion. The player moves the matching color cube(s) one space for each point they got in the color(s). Then they draw a new tile to replace the one played.

There are 2 special rules:
1. When a player draws a tile at the end of their turn, if they don't have any tiles of the color for which they currently have the lowest score, they can dump all their tiles and draw 6 new tiles.
2. When a player moves one of their score markers up to or past the last (18th) space on the scoreboard, they can immediately play another tile before drawing. (They then would draw more than one tile to get their rack back up to 6.)

The game ends when the board has filled up and no more tiles can be played. At that point each player only looks at how far they have moved their lowest scoring marker, and that is their final score. Whoever has the highest score wins.

What does Blott think of Ingenious? This game is so aptly named. The scoring system works perfectly here because you never really know whether to race up in order to hit the 18 with one color so you can play that extra tile, or slowly inch up all your cubes. The way that players can execute a number of different clever moves never ceases to amaze me. There are times when you will block out other players, and fight with defense. And there are times when you will just let a huge row of the same color accumulate so that you can get one big score. But that idea of your worst color being your score is really what makes this game shine. You are constantly battling with yourself wishing that you could get that one color to move faster, but it just continues to inch along.

Who will enjoy Ingenious? Ingenious is a great game for almost anybody. There is a great deal of strategic depth in the way you will play your tiles, but at the same time the rules are so simple that you can explain them to anyone. People with no experience gaming can learn every single rule in minutes and could even give a pro a run for his money. Those who value theme over mechanisms will undoubtedly be disappointed with the game, but at least the designer and publisher never even pretend that there is a theme involved. Also of note...each color also has a unique shape, so the game should be color-blind friendly.

Any parting comments about Ingenious? The one drawback to this game is the components. Now, don't get me wrong, the tiles are made of a decent plastic that is nice and sturdy, the bag is strong and holds all the tiles well, and the board is well-laid out with a pattern that is easy to see. However, Ingenious is one of the most frustrating "table-bump" games available. By that I mean that, with a simple bump of the table the entire board can be messed up beyond recovery, because there are no grooves to hold the tiles in place. Likewise, there isn't anything keeping the cubes in place on the scoreboards other than gravity. I really love this game and would recommend it as a great addition to anyone's collection, but don't ever play it on a shaky table or you'll never know who really won.

Thread: Re: Ingenious vs. Travel Ingenious- A deathmatch review.

Gnomekin — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:22:04 +0000

What? Ingenious didn't at least get a jab in about how its score boards are much easier to see with a greater contrast in the individual colors, as well as how much easier it is to lose those teeny tiny pins stolen from a travel mastermind set?

Thread: Re: A Girlfriend's Perspective on: Ingenious

jefftang — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:09:35 +0000

I see, my definition of "block" would be like Blokus where one can really stop the advancement.

Thread: Re: A Girlfriend's Perspective on: Ingenious

iklinck — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:13:08 +0000

jefftang wrote:
I've played this a few times, am I playing it wrong as I don't see a way to really block someone. Seems like they can just place a new tile of their needed color anywhere on the board.

Placing it elsewhere on the board, though, will probably only be a couple of points at most. You "block" if you can prevent them from making that 10-point combo.

Thread: Re: Ingenious vs. Travel Ingenious- A deathmatch review.

Mr Thijs — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:45:16 +0000

Yinsh is waiting!

Will probably knock Ingenious its teeth out, smash its nose and finnish it of with a KO in 30 seconds. After it ingenious will cry for mama Knizia

But nice and entertaining review, thanks

Thread: Ingenious vs. Travel Ingenious- A deathmatch review.

ragingoptimist — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:57:52 +0000

In the blue corner, the reigning champ, the Knight of Knizia, the Abstract Terror, the one, the only, Ingenious!

In the red corner, the upstart challenger, the small but mighty, the portable powerhouse, the double-hexed mind vex, Ingenious: Travel Edition!

This will be a fight to the death to see which is the best version!

Round 1: Gameplay
Ingenious starts off strong with a flurry of jabs, stating that it plays very well with 2, 3, or 4 players, which is how it defeated the mighty Blokus in a previous death match. Travel Ingenious counterpunches with a reply of how the most satisfying and least chaotic version of Ingenious is the 2 player game. Ingenious battles back with the sharp reply of how it plays the 2 player game identically to the Travel Edition, and knocks the challenger to the mat with a vicious upper cut.

Round 2: Portability
The champ has its work cut own for him this round. TE is relentless, mentioning how large the champ's box is, how perfect of a coffee house game the Travel Edition is, and how precious game shelving space is. The champ has no response, but takes its beating without getting knocked down.

Round 3: Components
Travel Edition battles back to start out the next round, stating how crisp and clear its pieces are. The champ counters with a left hook, declaring how its pieces are larger, more numerous, and more stunning visually. The feisty challenger was ready for the attack. TE bounced back with a vicious one-two punch about the raised hexes that kept the pieces from jiggling on the board after being placed and the brilliant piece holders built into the board. The champ hits the mat, knowing that the pieces being jostled and the crummy Scrabble-style tile holders were weak in comparison to TE's sleek design.

Round 4: Price
TE has a hungry look in his eyes, and the champ is on the ropes. The champ knows that his beauty comes at a price tag double that of the new contender. He fight back valiantly, but there is no answer to the alluring price tag of under 15 bucks at many online retailers. The champ hits the deck, and is out for the count.

The Aftermath:
The honorable TE decides to not finish the champ off, but to instead help him to his feet. The crowd roars as TE raises the Champ's gloved fist in his hand and declares, "With gameplay this good, we are both worth owning in a gamer's collection!" What beautiful words! In the post fight interview, TE boldly declares, "Yinsh, I'm coming for you and your whole family. I want the international belt!"

Thread: Re: Scoring Solo Play

Fading Captain — Sat, 30 May 2009 17:29:02 +0000

Doh! Looked at other threads. My question has already been answered: you keep counting up. . .

Thread: Scoring Solo Play

Fading Captain — Sat, 30 May 2009 17:23:16 +0000

When you play the solo version with two score cards and, you get to the second card, do you continue your color score at nineteen or do you start at zero again.

The solo rules do not seem clear here. . .

Thread: Re: Knizia: The God of Small Things

elfrododumbo — Fri, 22 May 2009 04:07:33 +0000

Great review.
I love this game and got hooked on it the first time I played it ( for me,a good sign of a great game). :)

Thread: Re: Knizia: The God of Small Things

B Weage — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:40:29 +0000

55cards wrote:

The other wrinkle is that if a player reaches the maximum 18 points in any colour he must (a) exclaim ‘Ingenious!’ (or ‘Mensa!’ in my British ruleset) and (b) immediately play an extra tile. (To be honest, part (a) isn’t strictly necessary!) So with this rule the game is pulling players in two different directions: there are benefits to getting high scores, but actually winning is necessarily one of them.

I think you meant to include a "not" in that last sentence.

I read Isamoor's comment earlier in the day, and was thinking that his preference works with E&T, but is less useful here with the scoring tracks, where I find just saying your final score is your worst color is actually preferable. I'm glad to find that others feel the same way.

Overall - I like this review, but I think the organization of it tends to obscure an important point. There is a lot of emphasis on the cleverness of the "your score is your lowest value" rule - essentially claiming that this one rule is what makes the game compelling. Yet this rule, on its own, would only create an incentive for balanced scoring - and I think lead to a rather boring game where players ignored any colors that had already achieved the higher values.

For me, the clever part is the way that the "extra play for a high score" mechanism interacts with a scoring system that focuses on the need to raise the lowest score. This is pointed out near the end - even mentioning that this pulls the play in two directions - but (perhaps due to the late positioning and characterization as a "wrinkle") I don't think it comes across as an important part of the interest of the game, at least to a reader who has never played the game and might be considering purchasing it.

In every game of this I have ever played there have been several turns where it was difficult to decide if I should try to boost a low score or try to set up for the extra turn. (I don't mean the easy decision of taking advantage of a play that takes you to 18 and earns the extra turn, but rather the play before that which puts a color within striking distance of the 18.) A lot of subtle balances come into play here. The score to gain the bonus (18) has to be based on the board size and number of tiles that will be played - so it is high enough to be worth a bonus and so that everybody does not top out too soon. The typical "low" final score for a color needs to be around the 8-12 range, so that pushing past that into the 12-15 range before the end of the game is actually a deliberate "set-up for the bonus" action. The rewards of the bonus play need to be worth it but not overpowered. In this case, the simple "extra tile play" is remarkably balanced - two tiles in a row can be enough to shut off access to a color (useful if it is your opponent's lowest color) or to set up another couple points in your own lowest color. Near the end, with few places left to play, getting one more tile in play before the end can be worth quite a bit. The amazing "nuance" here is that everything on the bonus concept is so well balanced while retaining a very simple elegant rule set.

BTW: I expect that some of this is "serendipity" in action. Knizia probably based the board size on the general numbers of plays per player he felt would be right, and knew as soon as he went with the "highest minimum score" mechanic that he would also want some "in-play" reward for a high score. The simplest was an extra tile play. Based on his other designs, if that hadn't been a reasonably balanced solution - he would have added something like "an extra tile play and advance your lowest marker by one" - and I would be claiming how clever and balanced that solution was. In contrast, the choice of 18 as the top value was probably the result of considerable play-testing, rather than just a convenient multiple of 6 in the right approximate range.

In any event, this review is great - but I just thought a reader looking to purchase this might not realize how much subtle tension and decision making can be produced by the interaction of these two concepts. You will certainly appreciate the look on your opponent's face when there are only a few plays remaining with you lagging behind by one point in a color he has cut off completely - and you drop a tile into place where one end pushes your high color up to the bonus play and the other end is your low color, and then your bonus play is a double in that color scoring two points off that other end with no chance for him to shut it down first. I really enjoy moments like that in this game - even when I am the victim of them.

Thread: Re: Knizia: The God of Small Things

alexd — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:34:57 +0000

Ok, yeah, you get 10 per set in Dragonland, and one per unmatched item. Which isn't pure Tigris/Ingenious scoring, but in effect it ends up fairly close (you better darn well keep your eye on what you're weak in, not your total).

Thread: Re: Knizia: The God of Small Things

alexd — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:31:54 +0000

Isamoor wrote:
For what it's worth "Highest Lowest" always makes new players scratch their head. I always just describe it as "Most Sets of 6 Colors".

With the scoring tracks in Ingenious, this doesn't seem to work well for me (since I'm not making sets of cubes, I'm looking down the board to see what's at the bottom).

The "make sets" works well for quickly following your progress and allocating treasures in Tigris & Euphrates, though. And it's how it's described in Knizia's Dragonland, though iirc, you get _something_ for non-matched things there?

Thread: Re: Knizia: The God of Small Things

55cards — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:28:35 +0000

alexd wrote:
This is the only abstract-abstract that I'm certain I like.

I'm not much of an 'abstract-abstract' kinda guy either, but this one really engages me, probably because there isn't really any long-term strategy (just interesting short-term tactics) and the game doesn't outstay its welcome.

alexd wrote:
I really stink at it, or perhaps my wife is just really good at it -- I think I've won once, with amazing luck (and she may have intentionally played sub-optimally out of pity after so many times either just sliding over me or totally crushing me).

You 'amazing luck' would appear to be that you have such a forgiving spouse. :)

Thread: Re: Knizia: The God of Small Things

55cards — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:24:04 +0000

Isamoor wrote:
For what it's worth "Highest Lowest" always makes new players scratch their head. I always just describe it as "Most Sets of 6 Colors".

I'd never thought of it like that, but you're absolutely right! That probably is a more novice-friendly interpretation.

Thread: Re: Knizia: The God of Small Things

alexd — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:15:49 +0000

This is the only abstract-abstract that I'm certain I like.

I really stink at it, or perhaps my wife is just really good at it -- I think I've won once, with amazing luck (and she may have intentionally played sub-optimally out of pity after so many times either just sliding over me or totally crushing me).

Thread: Re: Knizia: The God of Small Things

Isamoor — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:46:25 +0000

For what it's worth "Highest Lowest" always makes new players scratch their head. I always just describe it as "Most Sets of 6 Colors".

Nice review!

Thread: Knizia: The God of Small Things

55cards — Thu, 21 May 2009 11:34:36 +0000

Ingenious, also known as Genius or Mensa Connections, is one of Reiner Knizia’s most successful and well-known designs, and is something of a modern classic. The elegant gameplay and clean, colourful visuals makes this abstract tile-laying game ideal for both children and adults. But don’t let the apparent simplicity fool you! Dr Knizia has once again employed his trademark sparseness of rules to great effect, crafting a game that is light, quick and tactical, but with enough depth to make it a satisfying experience for the more dedicated gamer.

I bought my copy several years ago, but recently played a ‘best of three’ match with Peter which has only served to remind me of why the game deserves its success.

In the box you get a large folding board, a bag of tiles, four tile racks, four cardboard scoring tracks (with coloured markers) and the single, double-sided rulesheet. There’s no fiddly set-up or sorting of components, and even a cold reading of the rules will allow most groups to be up and running quickly. Having said that, new players unfamiliar with the typical nuance of Dr Knizia’s design sensibilities are likely to take a few missteps if they are not diligent in checking over each rule carefully. The ruleset is short, but Knizia generally does familiar things a little differently, and it is because of those differences that this game shines.

The players take turns placing a tile from their racks onto the board, drawing a replacement tile at the end of their turn. Points are scored by creating connected lines of similarly coloured symbols (there are six colours in the game). Each tile is a double hexagon, with two symbols, and each symbol on their tile will score if the player can place it adjacent to one or more matching hexagons. There is something very straightforward and familiar about this, and once players get used to counting the connected hexagons (only those in straight lines radiating out from each tile symbol are scored) then the gameplay is smooth and quick.

The players record their individual scores for each of the six colours on their own score track, moving the little coloured cubes along their respective rows. And so it goes, and so it goes, until the board is filled and no more tiles may be laid.

The Devil in the details

So where’s the trick? Where, exactly, is the ‘nuance of Dr Knizia’s design sensibilities’? Well, the thing is, the player with the highest overall number of points recorded on his six coloured score tracks doesn’t necessarily win. Knizia’s genius is to force the players to play a much smarter game. The winner (and pay attention here!) is the player with the highest lowest score. That is, each player’s final score is simply the the single value represented by their lowest scored colour, and the player whose score (this single value) is the highest wins. This means a player who, let’s say, scores 8 across the board (in each of the six colours) will win against a competitor who manages to score 18 in five of the colours and only 7 in the other.

This one rule turns the entire game on its head. Now a simple landgrab is not enough, and just going for big points in one or two colours isn’t going to help. Somehow players must balance the points they score in each of the six colours, while at the same time attmepting to stop everyone else doing the same thing.

An important feature of the game is that it allows the differing competitive sensibilities of different groups of players to be expressed; it doesn’t force a particular style of play. Specifically, although it can be played aggressively (deliberately blocking scoring opportunities for your opponents, even if these plays score nothing for yourself) it can also be taken rather less seriously and played in a distinctly more friendly, open way. This is what makes it great for kids (and more sensitive adults!); each group can play their way and the game doesn’t demand the complicity of its players (forcing them all to play in some necessarily scripted way) to create a satisfying experience.

And having said that, I think you can guess how Peter and I played! All three of our games were close (just 1 or 2 points decided each) and after roughly the half-way point in each things started to get nasty. At that point in the game you can see in which colours your opponent is weak, and if you can close-down scoring opportunities in those colours (while, of course, maintaining your own scores) then victory is assured. More or less. Things are not that easy, of course, but the theory is sound!

There are a couple of extra wrinkles in the rules put in just to keep things moving. If, after you have laid a tile your rack contains no tiles showing symbols matching your weakest score (which means you would have no immediate opportunity to score that symbol in your next turn) then you may swap all your tiles. This is a pretty important rules that stops the game stagnating and mitigates some of the inevitable ‘luck of the draw’. (And unlike certain other tile-based games the player is not penalized for swapping tiles by being forced to miss a turn to do so.)

The other wrinkle is that if a player reaches the maximum 18 points in any colour he must (a) exclaim ‘Ingenious!’ (or ‘Mensa!’ in my British ruleset) and (b) immediately play an extra tile. (To be honest, part (a) isn’t strictly necessary!) So with this rule the game is pulling players in two different directions: there are benefits to getting high scores, but actually winning is not necessarily one of them.

The God of small things

And so, in conclusion, it’s worth noting how the slim collection of simple ideas presented in Ingenious manifest themselves when played as something that is rather more than the sum of their parts.

Such ascetic parsimony is not the objective of all games or game designers — and nor am I suggesting it should be! — but Knizia’s brand of elegant brevity is something I personally both applaud and aspire to.

This article first appeared on my blog at www.brettspiel.co.uk.

Thread: Re: A Girlfriend's Perspective on: Ingenious

jefftang — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:12:03 +0000

I've played this a few times, am I playing it wrong as I don't see a way to really block someone. Seems like they can just place a new tile of their needed color anywhere on the board.

Thread: Re: A Girlfriend's Perspective on: Ingenious

jeff0 — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:57:08 +0000

My house rule is that you have to say Ingenious! loudly and enthusiastically. I find it greatly enhances enjoyment of the game.

Image

josephc4 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:43:21 +0000

Bay Area Games Night - Webster, TX - Cafe Express - Meetup.com

Image

josephc4 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:42:50 +0000

Bay Area Games Night - Webster, TX - Cafe Express - Meetup.com

Image

Atotalnutt — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:14:24 +0000

End of our very first game. My wife won.

Image

josephc4 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:16:59 +0000

Bay Area Games Night - Cafe Express - Webster, TX - Meetup.com

Image

josephc4 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:16:25 +0000

Bay Area Games Night - Cafe Express - Webster, TX - Meetup.com

Image

jsper — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:21:06 +0000

Image

Firepigeon — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:20:28 +0000

Your turn!!

Image

taragalinas — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:57:04 +0000

Ingenious played at LinCon 2009

Image

taragalinas — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:56:11 +0000

Golgar contemplating his next move. Picture taken at LinCon 2009

Image

Hollender — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:52:13 +0000

Christmas session at home. Good family game!

Image

Firepigeon — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:36:56 +0000

TrincaCON09 - Abrantes Portugal - playing time

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:11:53 +0000

Dutch 999 Games ad - Genius

Image

joshp — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:18:23 +0000

Are you ingenious?

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:50:23 +0000

Dutch 'Genius' ad

Image

Firepigeon — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:52:06 +0000

LeiriaCON 2009 - The portuguese convention