Game Review: Balle of LITS

When it comes to print-and-play, abstract strategy games are generally easy to print, in these kinds of games, gameplay is king and so the rules matter more than the aesthetic. A consequence is that it's relatively easy to create your version with the materials you have.

In this review the board game in question is Grant Fikes' Battle of LITS, a board game version of a Japanese logic puzzle. While you can buy a copy on nestorgames, files are still available on the BGG page for you to print.

The game is essentially a territorial one, where players cover enemy squares while trying to keep their own squares uncovered. Players playing as either X or O share a pool of  20 tetrominoes (five each of L, I, T and S) and a 10x10 grid of squares. There are four default boards provided, with each board having a different placement of symbols on its squares.

X goes first and places a tile anywhere on the board, after which O can either switch places or continue playing as O. Players continue by legally placing a on the board.

A tetromino placement is legal if it:

1. Connects to another tetromino
2. Doesn't connect to a tetromino of the same shape, disregarding orientation
3. Doesn't create a 2x2 block of covered squares

Play ends when no legal placement is possible. They then count how many squares with their symbols remain visible on the board. Whoever has the most squares remaining wins, in case of a tie, whoever placed the last piece.

Now, unless they know about the puzzle, the rules of the game might seem abstract to the uninitiated and some wrong moves might be played before they get the hang of it. Moves are not obvious to see, and players can find surprise moves when it looks like the game has finished.

Unlike most territorial games, positions are still unclear even near the endgame, whether this is the shortcoming of the game or the players is unknown. In some boards, counting territory may be a visual challenge.

Nonetheless, this is a game that took its inspiration and remained faithful to it. The mechanics ensure some interesting situations where squares become immune and the only good move involves some sacrifices. Games tend to lead to fights on different chunks of territory wherever they're made.

Fikes suggests that one can make their own board design, optimally 10x10 in size, has an equal amount of X's and O's and should have a third of its squares neutral. They are just suggestions, so go crazy if you want to cook up a board.

As with most territorial games, games would need to be played out rather far to clarify the position, luckily games conclude in relatively few turns, although an option to resign is still handy in some cases.

While I wouldn't recommend this as an introduction to abstract games, on it's own, this game is stable and plays fine, even though it does need some more development.