Multiple Cardplay Choices

 “Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well.”

— Robert Louis Stevenson

I’m thankful my son and I have found the time and motivation recently to (sometimes) resume our Thursday after-dinner “game night.” I’ll admit I occasionally cajole him into a weekend afternoon game (when I’m not outside engaged in the Sisyphean task of yard work on numerous fronts) in an effort to disengage him from his electronic devices. My task becomes easier when I have a menu of games to suggest, titles we’ve played before he particularly enjoys. Lately most of our favorite games rely on card mechanics; they’re not all card games per se, but board games where cards determine how one can manipulate the pieces and conditions on the board. More often than not this pleasantly complicates the decisions players face. Do I use a card for its stated effect — usually something bending the rules to my advantage — or do I spend it to take some kind of “standard” action? This kind of cardplay dilemma expands the decision space an extra level without adding too much complexity in learning the game.

Cards in most board games serve one purpose. Players must decide when to play them for the sole action they enable. (In general card games also rely on each carding having a single function in the game, much like Magic: The Gathering and Munchkin.) Columbia Games’ block wargames often use cards to randomize the number of action points players use each turn as determined by which card they play (along with inserting events with specific outcomes). Cards in the Commands & Colors series determine which units activate each turn, sometimes by type, often by which part of the battlefield they occupy (left, right, and center). These games require players to choose which card in their hand to play to take actions on the board, a pretty straightforward choice. Single cards have single effects; players can’t use them for some other purpose in the game.

But some games force players to choose between playing a card for its printed effect or discarding it to take a standard, seemingly less-ideal action. This adds depth to the decision process beyond the question of which card to play. Various factors go into these decisions, not the least of which are whether the card instructions would have maximum effect in the current situation, and whether I should hang on to it to better use it on some future turn. In these games I often find myself asking different questions before taking action on my turn beyond using a card for its given advantage or using/discarding it to take a standard action. Do I take a standard action to save another card for later or get rid of a currently useless card in my hand? In games where players draw from a common deck reshuffled with discards when depleted, do I hang onto a card that might greatly benefit my opponent later?

In some games this multiple use card mechanic helps keep the game moving. If I draw a crummy hand, I can always discard one card to take a standard action. (These games sometimes include mechanics for re-drawing or over-drawing and selecting less-optimal cards to discard down to a certain hand size.) Few things frustrate players than dealing with limits on the actions available in a turn, so using cards for more than one function gives them options to consider when their hand doesn’t offer ideal choices.

Several of our recent favorite games stand out as examples of multi-function card mechanic:

300: Earth and Water: Yasushi Nakaguro’s game of the Greco-Persian Wars uses a small 16-card deck to drive the movement of armies and fleets across the board, with dice mechanics resolving conflicts when occupying the same locations. At the start of each campaign players purchase cards (along with armies and fleets), up to a maximum of six. Each card contains two events, one used by the Greek player, the other by the Persian player. During a campaign players take turns using cards (or passing, though when both pass consecutively the campaign ends). Use a card for its stated event — often effecting movement or combat — or discard it to make one move with armies or fleets in one location...and resolve any conflicts that result from their final placement. 300 is a good introduction to this kind of card play, especially since many events require particular conditions to play. It also encourages players to hold on to cards that are obviously beneficial to their opponent; the game allows players to keep a variable number of unused cards after a campaign ends, but they re-shuffle the discard pile to a new draw pile, so used cards often resurface later. The cardplay expands the decision space beyond the usual focus on moving units on the board and resolving combat.

The Shores of Tripoli: Kevin Bertram’s historical board game from Fort Circle Games simulates young America’s conflict with the Barbary Pirates. Like 300, this game relies on cards to drive the action of multiple components on the board: moving ships to various locations to guard the trade lanes, pillage merchant vessels, or assault ports. Each player has their own deck, with three cards representing key events set out for use at any point. The cards, each with a wonderful period illustration, bend the rules for movement and combat or enable historical events swaying the balance of the game. Some have conditional prerequisites for pieces on the board in particular locations. Players always have the option to discard a card to take one of several standard actions: building a gunboat or corsair to reinforce their fleets; or moving two frigates (US) or sending corsairs on a raid from Tripoli. This gives players the option of taking meaningful actions driving them toward victory while still holding onto certain cards advantageous in particular conditions. As the game marches toward the climactic assault on Tripoli, both players struggle to keep key cards useful to triumph in that final showdown...so managing essential cards and sacrificing less-ideal cards becomes a core strategy.

The Hunt: Matthias and Engin Cramer’s game about the cat-and-mouse chase for the German pocket battleship Graf Spee in late 1939 uses cards to move units across the south Atlantic. The Germans use various methods to seek out and destroy merchant vessels while the British send out cruiser task forces to intercept and eliminate the Graf Spee. Players each have individual 18-card decks with multiple functions. Manipulating units on the board requires using Action Points. Each card provides a variable number of action points as well as an event. Each turn players use only one card each. They can spend a card to harness its Action Point total to move, hunt, and, in the case of the Germans, deploy and repair the Spee’s reconnaissance floatplane, and for the British, advance another task force closer to deployment. Events, however, can help a player or hinder the opponent while providing Action Points to use. (Players can also use some events as “interrupts” against incidents on the board.) British players can also use an action point to spend a card for its intelligence advantages, either giving a bonus for all searches in a turn or forcing the German player to place a “hint marker” on or adjacent to the Spee’s otherwise hidden location. So each player weighs different factors in using cards for Action Points or events or exceptional bonuses. The cards also help determine the outcome of the climactic battle based on the Action Point totals. On top of all that, two cards help initiate key events in the final Battle of the River Plate: the Spee’s retreat to Montevideo and the decision to scuttle it rather than try breaking through a growing blockade of British warships.

Air, Land, & Sea: Jon Perry’s game of loosely World War II-themed battle has players deploying forces to three theaters of war. What seems like a simple card game where players deploy different forces (with various values and in-game effects) adds depth in how players can use cards. The 18 cards belong to three “suits” corresponding to the theaters: players receive six each, with the remainder set aside. They take turns playing cards to the three theaters, trying to dominate them with higher point values. But one can only deploy a card to its associated theater. For instance, “Heavy Bombers” goes to air, “Super Battleship” to sea, etc. But the card backs all display the game logo and the number “2.” Players can put a card face down in any theater, with the value of two counting unless, by further cardplay, they turn it over; in which case it counts for points and effect even if it isn’t in the associated theater. This choice plays an key role in some rather deceptive winning strategies, with some tension whether a future card can reveal the hidden force and change the tide of the game.

These serve as just a few examples with which I’m familiar...from games we’ve really enjoyed because of the multi-faceted nature of the cardplay. It’s certainly become an element of play style I like and wish to seek out in future titles. This particular mechanic doesn’t necessarily work for every game with card-driven rules, but, when applied artfully (as in these cases), it can expand the decision space and give players more options for affecting core processes on the board. More options provides different ways one estimates the current game state and more strategies to achieve one’s goals.

“The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity.”

— Amelia Earhart