Lunar

• Designer: Masato Uesugi
• Publisher: Allplay
• Players: 2 or 4
• Age: 11+
• Time: 30+
• Amazon affiliate link: https://amzn.to/412VAhz
• Played with review copy provided by publisher

Lunar is a quick-playing, trick-taking game for two or four players in which players combine the phases of the moon and nocturnal animals to form cards played into tricks, which are combined to determine their value within each trick. Each round consists of twelve tricks played, and at the end of each round, a score is awarded based on the number of tricks and cards acquired. Once one player (or team) reaches 30 points, the game ends, and the side with the most points wins!

Lunar is a trick-taking game that was once known as Ortrick.  If you are familiar with that game, no need to read this rules part; you already know the game.  But for those of you who don’t know the game, let me paraphrase James Nathan’s explanation of the original in order to explain this one.

Each hand is played over 12 tricks – players are dealt a hand of 6 suits and 6 ranks.  Before any cards are played, teammates simultaneously choose 2 rank cards and 2 suit cards to exchange with their teammate.  You could use this to give your partner some valuable information, or more likely, use it to inform yourself of what your partner must now be holding!  After the pass, the trump suit is chosen.  There are four tiles, one showing each color.  Beginning with the starting player, one tile is flipped face-down, eliminating it as the trump suit.  The next player clockwise does the same.  Finally, the third player eliminates one more suit leaving the last one face-up as the trump suit for the hand. 

Lunar is a game in which the suits and ranks are separated on different cards. To play a “blue 2”, it will need to be two cards – a “blue” card and a “2” card. For the partnership game, this means you may be playing “4” while your partner will play “red”; together, you’ve played a red 4.  The deck is made up of 24 suit cards (6 each in four different colors) as well as 24 rank cards (3 each from 1 to 8).  It will be handy for scoring to know that one suit card in each color has a star on it and every “3” rank card has a star on it.

The setup of the game ensures that we each start with half suit cards and half number cards, and they have distinct backs. 

The start player leads a trick by playing any single card from their hand.  Play continues around the table with each player only playing one card, and obligatorily playing a different type of card than their partner.  Once a lead suit has been established, the other team must follow that suit if possible.   Once all players have played a card, each team will have a single combined card in this trick.  The team which played the highest trump card wins the trick. If no trump is present, the highest card of the lead suit wins.  If the start player in the trick leads a number card, what is the lead suit? In this case, the game chooses the simplest resolution: the first suit played is the lead suit. 

So when a team wins a trick, who leads next? Neither of us played the winning card, as we both played half of it! Lunar uses the unique feature of a fixed team lead – players get a little token that tells them which role they have on their team for the round, and those roles will rotate after each hand. This has a few interesting corollaries, such as (roughly) fixed seating in each trick – for this hand, I’ll be 1st or 4th and you’ll be 2nd or 3rd. This informs which cards I pass at the start of the hand and how I’ll lead.  Continue playing the hand until all 12 tricks are played. 

The teams score points based on how many tricks they win in each hand. If one team wins 0 to 3 tricks, they earn 10 points, and the other team gets…nothing. If that team makes it to 4 or 5 tricks, things reverse, and the team which won 4 or 5 tricks gets nothing…and the other team gets 10 points.   There is a circular scoreboard included in Lunar – each time a team wins a trick, they move their marker forward one space.   At the end of the round, the chart tells you how many points you have won, and in every hand 10 points total are handed out this way.

Lunar also has certain cards you want to capture which will be worth a point regardless of how many tricks you win – these are the aforementioned cards with a star on them.  In total, 17 points are available each hand – 10 from winning tricks and 7 from capturing these starred cards. This makes the two “landing spaces” for how many tricks you want to win interesting.  If your team tries to win 0 to 3 tricks, you have a 4 trick variance to get it right; while winning 7 or 8 only gives you 2 possible results – but winning those extra tricks means you probably are getting more of the starred cards. 

The game provides you with a scoreboard and a dry-erase marker to track the scores – and just figure out whatever way works best for you to do so.  (I am not a big fan of the board, and I just use the bottom spaces to track the ongoing scores). Once a team has at least 30 points and is alone in the lead – the game is over and that team wins.  Otherwise, play another hand.

Lunar also offers rules for a 2-player game, where each player plays one card from their hand for a trick and one card from a shared open 6 card “Sky” tableau.  These cards can be played in either order.  Trick resolution and scoring are otherwise the same.

My thoughts on the game

I have been a big fan of this game since I first played its original version, Ortrick.  I’m super glad that the game has been re-done by Allplay as it opens the game up to a much wider audience.  There are so many parts of the game that are fascinating to me.

First, there is the challenge of figuring out the team scoring.  The teammates are not allowed to communicate openly – but it helps to get on the same wavelength as your partner here.  The bad ranges are 4-5 tricks and 9+ tricks; your team will score no points if in either.  But, how do you communicate non-verbally with your partner so that you know what you want to happen?  Some of this can happen in the pass, other information will have to be conveyed through the play of the cards; perhaps making a show of intentionally losing or winning a trick in a way that makes it clearer what you want to happen.

Going low feels easier at first, as there is a wider range of valid trick numbers to score you the ten points.  Interestingly, the starred cards act as a nice balance here.  If your team only takes one or two tricks, it is possible that you don’t get any of the starred cards – and this means your opponents will take all 7 of them.  Their score for the starred cards almost is as much as your total for the tricks!  And, if you somehow miscalculate things and take a fourth trick, your gambit will have totally failed as your opponents will now likely score 15 or more points in the hand – that’s halfway to winning the entire game!

Second, there is a really interesting “pre-game” bit going on here.  There are many interesting decisions to be made about what cards to pass and what to make of what your opponent passes you.  Then, the way in which trump is chosen is also neat; and can help you give information to your partner.  Say I’m the lead player, and I just received two Green suit cards from my partner.  If I turn the green tile over, stating that I do NOT want Green to be trump, I’m giving a pretty strong signal about how many tricks I want to take.

Third, I love the way that nearly every hand of Lunar comes down to the final trick or two.  Unlike some traditional games like Euchre where the hand can be thrown in before the completion of the final trick; it’s amazing just how often the scoring of a hand comes down to the very last trick.  It feels like at least a third of the time, the final trick decides whether teams split the trick points 5-5 or 10-0.   This feature keeps every hand of Lunar tense and interesting.  My games usually take three to five hands, and that feels just right for this one.

Thoughts from other Opinionated Gamers

Joe Huber (1 play) – My one play was made difficult by being the second partner to play on each of the first two hands – but that also helped to clarify that the game wasn’t for me.  I felt I had no significant decisions to make on either hand.  I have no doubt that, had we continued, I would have had more decisions in the last two hands – but the experience left me with no great interest in doing so.  Everyone else seemed to enjoy this much more than I did, so it’s possible it’s just me…

Ratings from the Opinionated Gamers

• I love it! Jim B, Dale Y
• I like it. John P
• Neutral.
• Not for me…JoeH

Amazon affiliate link: https://amzn.to/412VAhz