Review: Holmes: Sherlock & Mycroft

Holmes: Sherlock & Mycroft

I’d like to thank the fine folks at Devir Games for supporting Women Like Board Games by providing a review copy of this game.  I played a total of 5 times with 3 different players before putting together my thoughts below.

Given the theme, Holmes: Sherlock & Mycroft seems it should be a game of deduction, testing the wits of the Holmes brothers as Mycroft tries to prove a boy’s guilt while Sherlock searches for clues to prove his innocence.  However, while you are gathering clues, there’s little deduction involved in this straightforward game of set collection.  What Holmes: Sherlock & Mycroft does offer is a quick, tight puzzle of balancing economy, efficiency, and luck.

 The game is surprisingly simple.  Each round you’ll take 3 actions, which you carry out by moving your pieces to different locations on the board, speaking to various characters from the world of Sherlock Holmes.   Icons at the bottom of the character cards depict the reward you get for visiting.  Each character in the game offers something unique, though mostly you’ll be collecting investigation markers and buying cards that represent clues.



When you purchase cards, you’ll either buy them from the face up line, placing them face up in front of you, or from the top of the draw pile which you keep face down, hidden from the other player.  The clue cards all have clues with associated numbers on them, and your goal is to gather as many as possible of each type/number, ideally, more than your opponent.  You’ll get bonus points if you collect full sets, and one easy thing to remember is that the number on the card tells you not only the max points you can earn if you win that set, but also how many cards of that type are in the game.   

That’s pretty much it.  Place your pieces to get investigation makers and collect cards, and at the end of the game, if you have more of a one clue than your opponent you’ll get its point value minus however many clues of the same type your opponent picked up.  It’s elementary, really!  [Sorry, I felt compelled.]

The game starts on Day 1 with 5 characters to visit, and each day through Day 7 a new character will enter the game, expanding the options available to both players.  If both Sherlock and Mycroft visit the same character that card is flipped over and unavailable the next round.  

While all but one character will appear in every game, because the cost/reward of several characters depends on the day of the investigation, the timing of when a particular card comes out can make it either very powerful or completely useless.  

Let me give you an example.  Early on, Billy (who lets you sell clue card) is an excellent option for getting lots of investigation markers, but if he appears late game he’ll probably be ignored.  That’s because you sell the clue for its value minus the day of the investigation, so on Day 2 a clue worth 9 will give you 7 investigation markers, while on Day 7 it only provides 2.  

There’s also Irene Adler (who lets you steal a card from your opponent and keep it hidden on your side) who has a similar issue – because her cost is also tied to the day of the investigation, unless you’re replete with investigation markers late in the game, she’s too costly to bother.  

Toby the dog, on the other hand, is great for getting investigation markers mid- to end-game when you’ve had a chance to amass enough clues, but early on it’s better to spend time with Mrs. Hudson, or Wiggins, if he’s available.

 
Other cards are either situationally powerful or rarely used, and seem to be included for the sole purpose of variety.  Inspector Gregson may be strong if investigation markers are easy to come by, but if not, it’s more economical to spend time with Dr. Watson and Inspector LeStrade. 

Shinwell “Porky” Johnson lets you remove face up clues from the line for free, and might be a good choice if you’re out of investigation markers or can’t get more at the time (or it’s the last round of the game and you really don’t want your opponent to have particular cards), but it’s usually better to purchase cards if you can.  Violet is also free and allows you to switch a card you’ve got for one in the line.  She may also be a good alternative if you have no investigation markers, but it’s still usually better to just purchase the card you’re eyeing instead.

Then there’s Langdale Pike, who lets you collect hidden clues.  Pay more investigation markers and you can look at more clues, but you always only keep one.  He’s more useful if he comes out early in the game so you can keep your opponent guessing.  However, due to the cost and randomness of the draw pile it’s usually best to gamble on the first card available rather than wasting precious investigation tokens on cards you’re forced to discard, especially since they may be cards you need.  While some I I feel this takes something away from the potential strategy Langdale offers.

At this point you might be thinking, “OK, but when these cards are used they’re usually worth it, right?”  Well, not necessarily.  Because of the way worker placement is executed in the game, you’re guaranteed to be able to use two of the same spots each round.   Unless the spot you really wanted to go to is unavailable, there’s usually a better third option than most of the cards mentioned above.

A lot of these issues I have with the characters are due to the way luck is incorporated into the game.  There’s a lot of luck to which characters are revealed on each day of the investiagation, and how they affect the game.  It’s not just the timing of characters coming out – much of the game is dependent on luck, especially the luck of the draw in the clues that are revealed and available for purchase.  Collecting hidden clues is, of course, always a gamble since you draw them face down and you never know when you pick one up if it will benefit you.  Hidden clues also add a layer of randomness to the end game scoring.

That’s because you have no way to look at your opponents hidden clues.  Of course you can deduce what the other player may have based on the clues they’ve stolen from you and how many of each clue is visible towards the end of the game, but there are always clues left over in the draw pile and the randomness of that pile might come back to bite you. I find it annoying to have carefully planned all of my moves throughout the game, spending my efforts collecting specific clues based on the odds of my opponent having certain hidden cards, only to find that Lady Luck threw the odds out the window. 

This level of luck might not be an issue for some players.  Some people might thrive on trying to guess what their opponents have hidden, delighting in the unpredictability of the end results, never quite knowing if they’ve pulled off a win until the last hidden card is revealed.

I’m not one of those people.  I find myself frustrated that there aren’t many options to mitigate luck in this game.  The only thing you do have control over is where your three pieces will go each round – which again, feels constricted by the character cards in any given game.  Since certain combinations of characters usually offer the greatest return on investment, some plays feel like they’re on rails with the outcome entirely dependent on the clue cards that come out.

On the other hand, the up side to all of this luck is that no two games will be quite the same.  Each time you play there’s a slightly different puzzle to solve.  Some games are a test of efficiency, especially those where investigation markers are hard to come by.  In these games, it’s rarely worth it to take the costly actions that hinder your opponent.  Other games will have you flush with investigation markers and clues, and the cost of taking actions that could potentially hurt your opponent no longer matters, allowing for much more interaction.  Sometimes it will be a battle of collecting full sets of lower numbers, while other games will be a back and forth balancing act of how many points to take away from your opponent while maximizing the points you can earn yourself. 

This leads to some games feeling like a neck and neck race with a photo finish, while others feel like a leisurely stroll with plenty of time to stop and smell the flowers.  People who appreciate variability will enjoy this aspect of the game, while others may find themselves frustrated with the lack of consistency.

I find myself in the latter camp.  On the one hand, I really enjoy the simplicity of how the game implements worker placement and how the variability creates a different puzzle each game in moving your pieces in ways that allow you to maximize what you can accomplish in any given round.  I like that the variability keeps the set collection fresh, and how each game I need to rethink my strategy in order to stay ahead of my opponent.  I just wish there was a way to maintain the positive aspects of this variability while also providing consistency in ensuring character cards come out at the times they are most useful.  I feel this kind of consistency would help the game feel more strategic and less dependent on luck.

Perhaps I just had different expectations for Holmes: Sherlock & Mycroft than what the game actually offers.  To me, a Sherlock Holmes game should be calculated and stretch a player’s ability to outwit and out think their opponent; luck shouldn’t play a major role.  Nor should luck play a major role in a game of set collection where the number of cards collected on both sides significantly affects end game scoring.  And if there is luck in a game like this, there should be ways to mitigate it. 

I really do enjoy the mechanics and the experience they come together to create in Holmes: Sherlock & Mycroft, but it’s a light, airy game burdened by the heavy expectations that come with the theme – and it doesn’t live up to those expectations. The artwork is so beautifully illustrated and every component in the game so dramatically evocative of the world Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created, from the charming investigation tokens to Watson’s magnificent journal that folds out to become the game’s gorgeous board,  it’s disappointing to realize just how thin the veneer really is. 

The rule book says you’re trying to “obtaining the necessary clues to accuse or exculpate” the suspect, with Mycroft trying to prove a boy’s guilt and Sherlock trying to show his innocence.  However, in no way does this come across while you’re playing the game.  There’s no rationale to why there are more of one clue than another, or an explanation as to why an explosive device is worth only 3 points while a button is worth 7 or a fingerprint 9, and all clues are worth the same to both Holmes brothers.  There’s no point in the game where you’re actually interacting with the story in any way.  

It feels the same with the characters you visit.  While I am not deeply familiar with the Sherlock Holmes universe, some character actions feel more thematic than others.  I like that there are descriptions in the rule book to help immerse you in the theme, but it simply doesn’t come across when playing the game.

Something else you might expect from a game that pits Sherlock against Mycroft is some sort of asymmetry, or at least a thematic special power for each player to use, but there’s none to be found in this game.  Even the extra content affects both brother equally.  A double-sided card with Sherlock on one side and Mycroft on the other activates the same special ability for both players, and villiains also have the same affect on both brothers.  I feel like this was a huge missed opportunity, especially in integrating theme with mechanics.  A little bit of asymmetry could have gone a long way.

There were also a couple of minor things that bothered me in Holmes: Sherlock & Mycroft.  While I greatly appreciate language independent games and love that the designer strived for it, I and other players found the icons on the cards unintuitive.   The rule book provides excellent descriptions of each card that introduce the characters from the world of Sherlock Holmes and the actions they offer, however, I’d prefer not to feel compelled to check the rule book each time a new card comes out.

Furthermore, it can be a bit much for new players to wrap their heads around, especially the end-game scoring.  First, newcomers have to figure out the puzzle presented by this particular game and the cards available, not fully knowing what they mean.  The concept of having to collect investigation markers to buy cards is easy to understand, but the relative values of the different actions available is not, giving seasoned players a distinct advantage.  And when it comes to scoring, it’s tough for new players to remember that they only get points for a set if they have more of that clue than their opponent, but the actual number of points they get is not the number on the card – it’s dependent upon how many of the same clue your opponent has.  This makes it difficult to estimate scores mid-game, especially with hidden cards in play, and convolutes the scoring at the end.  

So who exactly is this game for?  Holmes: Sherlock & Mycroft offers something unique in the two-player only experience with its combination of worker placement and set collection that plays in a half-hour or less, and if you’re looking for something different in this space I’d recommend it for that reason alone. 

If you’re a fan of set collection looking for something that works well with two and you don’t mind a bit of luck, this game is also something you should definitely check out.  If you’re interested in it for the worker placement, however, unless you’re specifically seeking minimalism there are other games that work well with 2 players and offer a richer and deeper experience with this mechanic (Lords of Waterdeep, for instance).

My biggest hang up is the disconnect between gameplay and theme.  Holmes: Sherlock & Mycroft is a satisfying two-payer (somewhat abstract) game with beautiful, evocative artwork and a different puzzle to solve each time you play.  The mechanics are clever and many people will fall in love with its simplicity, rapidity, and replayability.  I honestly have a lot of fun playing Holmes: Sherlock & Mycroft, I just wish the mechanics and luck integrated better with the chosen theme.  As a Sherlock Holmes game, Holmes: Sherlock & Mycroft misses the mark.  There’s very little deduction and you don’t feel at any point like you’re trying to solve a mystery – two hallmarks of a quintessential Sherlock Holmes experience.   

Women Like Board Games Rating: