YORKTON - When it comes to abstract strategy games – a genre this writer particularly enjoys – a general drawback is that they falter when you look for games that play more than two.
The genre is about having access to all the information and planning strategy based off that, so when you add multiple players that becomes basically impossible, and of course it sets up preying on the weak / kingmaker elements, so the games rarely work – Photosynthesis. Through the Desert, Battle Sheep at least a few bucking the general rule.
So when Sinoda from designers Scott R. Kelly, and Bill Murphy arrived with the promise to play two, three, four or six, there was not a great deal of expectation it would deliver a good game experience in such varied numbers.
Our first experience was two player, the spot Sinoda as an abstract strategy game needed to excel first.
To start the game sets up easy. The board is functional, but I have to say a leather board would be super sweet if available.
The pieces are D4 dice.
Now dice and I rarely get along well, but on occasion some wily game designer will use them to create a game where they are just used as pieces – the granddaddy of such games being Tom Kruszewski’s classic 1985 release Chase – and they work here in Sinoda as well.
The D4s start as ‘ones’ and on a player’s turn they may move a single die up one, or down one, or in lieu of changing a piece, you may move a piece the exact number of spaces it is. If you end on an opponent’s piece at the end of your move, you capture it.
The piece captured is worth its current setting for end setting, so you want to get the four piece when possible.
The move or change was the germ of an idea that led to Sinoda.
“One day, Bill Murphy drew a grid on a piece of paper and we got out some d4s, and he suggested that we could use the dice as pieces, and that a player could change the value or move. He had a lot of other rules as well, with abilities depending on what number the die was, but I stripped all that away to focus on the simplest part of the core mechanic: change or move,” explained Scott Kelly via email.
“We were trying to make a game that was simple to learn to play, but had enough options and strategy to make players really think. Ideas for new rules got thought up, then discarded as we came back to the core idea of keeping it simple to play. We wanted a strategy game with levels of thinking and planning ahead, but that was so easy to learn that you were comfortable with all the rules by your third turn or so, so you could focus on strategy.
“We were also going for the look and feel of a game that was either ancient, or sci-fi.”
When someone has captured six pieces the game ends. You add up the captured pieces and see who wins.
As a two player game Sinoda is really solid. It’s a bit more game than say checkers, but not as heavy as chess. It’s a game that two-player is in that sweet spot offering easy to grasp rules, but enough thinking in-play to enjoy.
Next was three player – and we fully expected Sinoda to fail here.
It didn’t.
The scoring saves it as a three player. You can’t just feast on the weakest player and force a game-end situation unless you are sure you have the points to win too.
While we wouldn’t suggest it plays three better than it does two, Sinoda is arguably the best three-player abstract strategy game we have played.
Then we tried it four player – two teams of two. This is where Sinoda might be at its best in terms of a new game experience. There is huge opportunity for a team to play together enough to develop some actual strategies, which is rare among abstract strategy games. It is also notable there is nothing in the rules that says teammates can’t talk in-game, so you can coach as needed.
The onus really is on players to stay sharp. Pieces can move rather freely when at three or four, and with two opponents to track you can miss an attack coming quite easily.
Now it would stand to reason six would offer the same – we’ve not had six gathered to try it – but there is the fear that the board would be so crowded that play would be hugely chaotic in the early stages which would thwart strategic play.
In six you do have an option to play three teams of two, or two teams of three.
“With the higher player counts, extra players become spoilers and the board state changes more between your turns, you have to react more to what happened since your last turn than plan too far ahead. At six players, you can expect yelling, complaining, temporary truces and alliances, backstabbing, and general mayhem. It's really more like a party game at six players,” said Kelly.
What does this game offer others don’t?
“The juxtaposition of the depth of thinking required and how simple it is to learn. And a pile of d4s, possibly the most maligned of all the dice shapes,” offered Kelly.
“I don't know that we have anything truly unique, but we have put together elements for capturing opponents' pieces in an interesting way. The fact that you control the value of your pieces is unusual, though.
“Also, the game ends when a player is eliminated, so in a three-plus player game, anyone who is down to their last piece becomes the most important piece on the board, as their capture ends the game. This leads to fun situations and dynamics between the players as they protect that one player from being eliminated from the player with the most points, until they themselves have enough points to take the lead.”
This is easily the best abstract strategy game of 2024 we’ve played, and is highly recommended. Find it at
