The thing that impressed me most about Word Blind (4th Law Ltd., 2003 - no designer credited) when I picked it up at a clearance sale was how much the game weighed. I have heavier games, to be sure, but for its size (a little smaller than a shoe box) it certainly wasn't light. The drab colors on the box didn't thrill me, but the price was good, so I decided to give the game a shot. So did I hit the target buying this game? The answer is a resounding, "No!" I'm a big fan of word games and even will play a game of Trivial Pursuit now and then. But Word Blind is an extremely boring game, and one that I think I can safely say that I'll never play again. (You never know, but it's number 302 of the 302 games I currently own, and that's after I play the other 301 twice - including Candy Land.) Okay, okay, I'm probably being too harsh on the game, but I just didn't like it. Let me tell you more about the game, starting with a description of game play. There are fifty-six squares that will compose the game "board". One card, the "splitter" is taken out, and the rest are shuffled and placed in a pile face down. The "splitter" is then placed randomly in the top third of the pile. Each player takes a playing piece (something of their own, like a penny or a watch) and placed it in front of them. Two card boxes, with a total of 900 cards in them, are placed, so that all players have access to them. One player is chosen to go first; then each player takes a turn in a clockwise order. On a player's turn, the player to the right of them pulls a card from the box and reads aloud the initial of the word at the top of a card. ("b", for the word "bait"). Each card lists four definitions of the word from the most obscure to the most common. The reader then states the hardest definition. (i.e. "to lure or tempt"). If a player guesses correctly, they get four points. Otherwise (only one guess!) the reader goes on to the next definition (i.e. "to harass a chained animal"). If that definition is correct, the player gets three points. Otherwise, they proceed to the two-point definition, and then perhaps to the final one-point definition. (i.e. "to persecute with malicious attacks", "food used to catch a fish or animal") If the player still cannot get the question correct, they get no points, and play passes to the next person. The player then moves his piece on the board. If there are currently no squares in front of that player's piece (as in the beginning of the game), the player draws squares and lays them out. The piece is moved spaces according to the points scored, either forwards or backwards along the "track". The reason a player might ever move backwards is to take an advantage of a special square. Most (37) of the squares are colored a solid black, which means the player does nothing, and finishes their turn. There are six special squares, however. The doubler: On the next turn, whatever score the player earns is doubled. Open: On the player's next turn, they cannot move, but must rather read their card to the other players. The first player to answer correctly may move their piece. The accumulator: The player may immediately take another turn. However, on this turn, they pick their definition from the card (1-4). If they answer the question correctly, they may move their piece the matching number of spaces and draw another card. This may be done up to four times, as long as correct answers are given. Once an incorrect answer is given, the player is finished. The controller: On the player's next turn, they may move, and then move the other players in either direction according to the points they scored. (i.e. I got four points, so I move forward four, then move Joe back three, and Bob forward one - so he lands on the Open space.) One Shot: The same as the accumulator space, except only one card is drawn. Splitter: When this card is drawn, the track splits into two tracks. Otherwise, it has no meaning. The first player to land on the final space of the track by exact count is the winner! Some comments on the game: 1). Components: The box is of high quality, even though it opens like a fancy book box. The boxes inside, the cards, and the squares themselves are exceedingly well made. The problem is the design. Red and black are the colors of this game, and the producers have made that maddingly obvious. The box is black and red, and says, "Word blind". The board is composed of big black squares or big red squares with a white symbol on them. The game has a very, very drab appearance. And a drab appearance, as pitiful as this may seem, does not help to make an exciting game! And they should have included playing pieces. I'm not a big fan of any game that doesn't provide all the necessary pieces. 2). Rules: The rules are easy to teach and learn. They are printed on a pamphlet that is (surprise!) in black and red. The rules aren't too hard to decipher, but occasionally are a little loose. Some rules are left up to the player to decide, with no recommendations. 3). Definitions: The definitions are rather difficult. The last definition is usually a dead give away, but the first two, and sometimes the third, are usually very hard. This isn't that big of a deal, as hard questions can make a game fun. But when a person thinks about a hard question for a long time, and then thinks about it some more, and then does even more thinking - it can certainly drag a game out. The rules recommend that you put some kind of time limit on the questions, but it didn't really help the fun level of our game. 4). Board: The big advertisement of the game is the "changing board! - It literally unravels before your eyes!". The rules claim that there are over 1,000,000 different boards. And I don't doubt this. However, the boards really have hardly any texture. Since most of the squares are black squares, nothing much happens on them. And the other squares are mostly more of the same. I don't care if a board has one million combinations - if all one million are boring and drab! Some games get away with having a boring game board, like Balderdash! and others. But when the game play is also boring…. 5). Fun Factor: There is none. I don't like this game. I almost always finish a game to its end, even if I don't like it. But this game was so boring (and we only played with four players - it must be even more mind numbing with six), that after an hour or so, we gave up. It was taking a long time, and we hadn't even halfway finished, not to mention that two of the players were falling asleep while another ranted about the insanely hard clues. Everybody in the game group had a low opinion of this game, as did I, so I doubt it will hit our table again. I'm sorry, but I cannot recommend this game for anything, except perhaps is an expensive bookend. (But who would want such an ugly bookend?) Back to Table of Contents -- Game! # 8 To Game! List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2004 by George Phillies. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com