Compare selective blocking
Favor your own high-value cards and nearly complete sets. Test blocking only where the expected benefit exceeds the points sacrificed.
CASE STUDY 01 / CARD DRAFTING
Sushi Go!
When is blocking an opponent worth the card you give up?
The question.
Sushi Go! combines immediate points, set collection, and competition over cards. We compared eight strategies, checked performance at different player counts, and examined whether taking Sashimi to block opponents improved the player’s own result.
What the assessment found.
CASE STUDY / SUSHI GO!
Mechanism assessment
6.7/ 10
Rules reliability8 / 10
Fairness & balance6 / 10
Meaningful decisions6 / 10
Strategy diversity8 / 10
Strategic depth4 / 10
Game progression8 / 10
Original edition · 2–5 players · Report V1.6
Keep the card values. Refine the advice.
The report found reliable rule execution and several viable strategies at every player count. More careful planning often helped. The tested Sashimi-blocking approach, however, reduced scores at 3–5 players.
The next step is to compare more selective blocking and strengthen examples for special Maki scoring. The current card values are retained.
Blocking has an opportunity cost.
Score lost after adding the blocking approach
Compared with the original Wasabi and Nigiri approach · points lost
012345
3 players
4 players
5 players
120 matched comparisons in each cell; the same deals and seats were used for both approaches. Both batches showed losses at 3–5 players. The two-player result is discussed separately in the report.
A Sashimi card taken to deny an opponent also uses up your own pick. If it does not complete your set of three, it earns no points. The report recommends protecting valuable sets and comparing selective blocking before adding it to a strategy guide.
What was tested.
| Comparison | Complete games |
|---|---|
| Rules and scoring | 1,600 |
| Seat comparisons | 6,400 |
| Eight strategies against each other | 89,600 |
| Two additional opponent types | 22,400 |
| Planning comparisons | 7,680 |
| Sashimi blocking | 5,760 |
| Game progression | 2,000 |
| Total | 135,440 |
A further 100,480 card-choice comparisons were drawn from 48 source games and counted separately. This study used the original 108 cards and three-round rules.
Recommended next steps.
Clarify special scoring
Add an example for a round in which only one player has Maki icons, while confirming the intended scoring interpretation.
Extend the comparisons
Measure seat differences more precisely and investigate the value of late-round choices with five players.
Independent study · Original edition · Report V1.6 / GQS V5.0.
Request the sample reportWORK WITH ZONE IN
Tell us what you want to test.
Your game’s stage, player count, and main question are enough to start a conversation.