Roti Canai

Roti Canai is from Faculty of Fun, the makers of Nasi Lemak. Nasi Lemak has been highly successful in Malaysia. It is simple and accessible. It has reached many people. I often hear people tell me they've played this fun game, and they sound like they want to say Uno or Monopoly, but the game they want to tell me about is Nasi Lemak. 

Roti Canai, like Nasi Lemak, is a light card game designed for casual players. It is the kind of game you can teach in less that two minutes. Everyone starts with a hand of cards, and your goal is to get rid of all your cards. 

Every round, the lead player rolls two dice. The dice indicate which type of roti your customer is ordering. In the photo above, that would be roti sardine and roti bomb. Everyone must play two or three cards face down to fulfil the customer's order. 

If you don't have the right cards, you can choose to draw cards before you play them. You can draw as many as you want. You don't necessarily stop when you have enough of the required cards. Since the cards are played face down, you can lie about your cards, putting down roti which don't match the customer's order. This helps you get rid of your cards, but there is risk of getting caught. 

Once everyone has played cards, beginning from the lead player, everyone has the option of challenging one card belonging to another player. If anyone is caught lying, all his cards go back to his hand, and he must draw two more cards. However if the challenging player is wrong, he must draw two cards as a penalty. This is a game of bluffing. Sometimes you play a mix of right and wrong cards hoping to get away with it, and using up your cards as quickly as you can. Sometimes you play the right cards and try to trick your opponent into challenging you. 

Most cards in the game are different types of roti, but there are also rat cards and broom cards. Rat cards are traps. If anyone challenges your card and it is a rat card, he will be the one being penalised and he draws as many cards as there are rats on the card. However if he happens to have a broom ready, he can give the rat card to someone else, who will take the penalty instead. 

This is a very simple game. In both cases of Nasi Lemak and Roti Canai, I know I am not the intended audience. I will pick these games if I am playing with a group of non gamers or casual gamers. However in Roti Canai there is one element which gamers will find interesting. It is the bluffing and psychological play. This part is about gaming your opponents and not the game system. How well do you read your opponents? How well can you bluff and get away with playing the wrong cards? 

Malaysia Design & Play game design competition 2026 finalists

This is the second year the Design & Play game design competition is held. I am one of the judges, together with five other local game designers and publishers. Our goal in doing this is to encourage others to try their hands at game design, to develop Malaysian game design, and to bring more good Malaysian games to the world. This year we had 113 registrations. By the time of submission (2-minute video and rulebook required), 65 contestants managed to have their games ready. We have now completed the judging for the first round, and shortlisted our top 9 - our finalists. We are supposed to have just the top 8, but because scores were close, we agreed to make it nine. This exact same thing happened last year. It might become a tradition. Now the finalists are sending to us their physical prototypes, and we will have a judging day for all of us to play the games. Final results are to be announced on Malaysia Day, 16 September 2026. 

These are our Top 9 (in random order): 

Our judging process requires that every game be rated by at least three judges. Around position 8 we had several games tied in points. All these games were then rated by the other judges who had not rated them yet. Even after this scoring, the points for some games were very close. So we agreed to again make an exception and have nine finalists this year instead of the originally planned eight. 

Here are some of my thoughts after having completed the judging for our first round. 

1. The overall quality of the games has gone up. There are more games that make me feel I want to try them. There are some games I am keen to try which did not make it to the top 9, because they didn't do as well with other judges. 

2. AI has been helpful in making prototype art and rulebook layout. Many games look great. Art is not scored, but it does make our lives as judges a bit happier. It helps us get into the mood of the games. We are better able to imagine what it feels like. I am guessing some participants asked AI to help proofread and tidy up their rulebooks. This certainly made our lives easier too. I suspect some asked AI to write the rules or design the game for them. These did not work out well at all. They were incomplete and did not make sense. 

3. I reflect on the fact that we as judges are so very imperfect. As I do the judging, I question myself - who am I to judge this game? How good a game is is subjective. As judges, we all have our biases. Although there are six of us, I think even as a group we still have some common biases. We may think a game is too simple and lacks meaningful decisions, but if that game gets fantastic art and is marketed well, it might become a viral hit none of us would have expected. Fun is subjective. Despite my imperfection, I still need to do my job as a judge, and I rate the games to the best of my ability. I need to be able to articulate at least to myself why a game is good or bad. 

4. I am a little surprised that some good designers did not make it to the top 9. Some of them participated last year. Some of them have participated in other competitions, or we have seen their designs elsewhere. I interpret this as: even when you are a good designer, not every one of your games will be great. Some are better than others, but you keep at it and you keep improving your average quality. I also interpret it as: sometimes your idea just doesn't click with the judges, due to their personal preferences and biases. 

5. We have new faces in the top 9. That's a good thing. 

I think we have already achieved the most important goal of the competition. It is to get many people to be doing game design, discussing it, giving feedback to one another, learning from doing, gaining experience. I don't want to sound like I'm trying to console those who didn't make it to the finals. I truly believe one very important thing you get from competitions is what you learn and how you become better at designing a game. That is why all of us judges take the time to write feedback for every game we judge. 

This is the Youtube playlist of the 2-minute video introductions for the Top 9 games: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLO9jzqUhmrEI

 

This is for all contestants: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLciPyvfyKznI 

Wondrous Creatures

This is a game I feel I shouldn't like, but I end up quite enjoying it. It's almost a heavy game, with lots of stuff to do. An island with many never-seen-before creatures has been discovered. Many scientists flock to it to discover new species and to collect them. During the game you will collect resources, discover creatures, and spend those resources to collect the creatures. You gain points in various ways, and highest scorer wins. All of this sounds like just another Eurogame to me, and that's why I did not expect to like this much. 

You have three crew pieces, and each piece takes up two hexes. One of the things you can do is to place a crew on the board. When you do this, you collect resources from adjacent hexes, or you collect creature cards. You may also collect eggs. Eggs are a kind of resource too. After you have placed all your crew, you will need to perform a reset action to take them back. While they are out there, they block others from placing their crew on the same spaces. 

Some of the habitat hexes (those single hexes showing fruit, coral, flower or mushroom) have special abilities you can use, by spending a net. For example getting an extra resource, sweeping the card market and getting a card. 

There is a market of 6 creatures. There is always a cost to play a creature into your reserve, i.e. your collection of creatures. This is how you will spend resources. Creature cards come in 5 types, and they have powers which trigger in different ways. There are single use powers, permanent powers, powers that trigger when you do a reset, end-game scoring powers, and finally limited use powers. In the middle of the screen above, you can see public objectives. When you fulfil an objective, you can spend an action to claim a trophy. You will gain points and other rewards. Some of these objectives have two tiers, e.g. get 3 butterflies or get 6 butterflies. If you fulfil the first one, you can't do the second. It will be left for the other players. When you reach 3 butterflies, you have to think hard whether to take a trophy now or to collect three more butterflies to claim the bigger reward.

This is your player board. One of your crew pieces is your captain, and it has a special ability, but this is unlocked only after you fulfil your first public objective. 

So this is essentially yet another game about collecting resources and fulfilling contracts, here presented as playing a creature into your reserve. Creatures are worth points and they also give powers. There are many public objectives you compete on. So far so typical. I'm not entirely sure why I enjoy the game. I think it is because it gives me goals and a sense of progress. In the first game I played, I decided that the first thing I would do was to unlock my captain's ability. That meant I needed to find a public objective that I could complete quickly. There was one which required a certain number of creatures of a certain species. That was manageable, and I focused on doing that in the early game. After I had that, I found I had another goal which was not too far from completion. I then worked towards that. Since all the creatures have powers, you want to fully utilise them. I had a creature which scored points based on how many creatures I had which lived on flower terrain. Before I played it, I wanted to make sure I had four other creatures in play with the flower terrain icon. That would maximise the points I received. This became my next small project. 

This is also a tableau building game, like Race for the Galaxy, one of my favourite games. Your collection of creatures is your tableau and they give you various powers. If you have a creature which scores points every time you gain an egg, you will try to collect eggs at every opportunity. Putting together a set of creatures that work well together is satisfying. 

When you fulfil a public objective, you place one of your quills on the objective card. 

Quills are taken from your player board. They are along the left edge of your player board. Whenever you remove a quill, you gain the benefit listed next to it. 

I am guessing Wondrous Creatures makes me happy because it keeps feeding me a sense of purpose and progress. I still feel I shouldn't like it, but strangely I have to admit I do like it. The lesson here is sometimes you are wrong about what you think you will like or dislike. I'm happy to be proven wrong sometimes. 

Shady Lady

Shady Lady is yet another game by Kaya Miyano I have played this year. This is a very Japanese style game - minimalistic but clever. It has a juicy element of trying to read your opponents and sometimes cunningly misleading them. 

You have a hand of three cards. There are only two types of sets in this game, three cards of the same value, or three cards in sequence. Cards are numbered 1 to 4, then 6 to 9. There are no 5's. On your turn, you have three options. You can draw a card then discard a card. One thing interesting is everyone has his own discard pile, and you can draw from the draw deck or from anyone’s discard pile, even your own. That means you have many options, especially when there are more players. The next thing you can do is to "Try". That means showing a set that you have made, and betting yours is the strongest. If it indeed is, you score a point. However if someone else shows a stronger set, then he scores the point instead. You need to go around the table once. It is possible that one other player shows a stronger set, and then that in turn gets beaten by yet another player. After all is done, everyone who has shown his set must discard the whole set then draw three new random cards. Only one person will score. 

The third option is to "Jack". This simply means making a bet that someone has a valid set. You point at that person, and he must show his hand. If he does indeed have a set, then you score a point. He discards his hand and draws three new cards from the draw deck. If you are wrong, he also discards his cards and redraws, but he scores the point. Because of this "Jack" mechanism, if you are very unlucky in getting sets, you can pretend to have made them and trick someone else into catching you, only to end up giving you a point. Or you can spend your effort catching others. You'll score points as long as you read them correctly, even if your hand is horrible. 

The cards are glow-in-the-dark. I don't know why. Marketing gimmick?

To win the game you need to get to three points. The rules are very simple so this is easy to teach. The game creates many opportunities for fun player interaction. Making sets is simple and everyone understands it immediately. But the game is not only about making sets. It is very much about observing and reading your opponents. Being able to make a strong set doesn't guarantee you will score. If someone else catches you before you declare "Try", he gets the point and you discard your set and start all over. You want to watch which face-up cards others are taking. If you think they have a set, catch them. It might be an easy point for you. But of course there is risk too. Do you keep taking face-up cards to give the impression you have found a good card for your set? When you take two 9's one after the other, everyone will be wondering whether you already have three 9's, the strongest set in the game. The only way they can stop you from scoring is to catch you by declaring "Jack". 

The art is by Sai Beppu, possibly the most popular boardgame artist in Japan. This is a bold design that's very different. I enjoy how she surprises us and offers new experiences. 

Shady Lady is easy for casual players to pick up and have fun with. It is also something gamers can enjoy because of the psychological play. I suspect this works better when you have a bigger group. 

boardgaming in photos: Goa, Eslite, Nemesis, Pokemon Code Talk

I asked my artist Edwin to design a roll-up bunting for Pilgrim Poker. I plan to bring this to exhibitions. I'm pretty happy with how this turned out. 

I was at Eslite Bookstore (诚品书局) on Sun 16 Aug 2026 to demo Malaysian Holidays. Eslite ran a small event showcasing Malaysian themed and locally designed tabletop games. I was one of several designers at the event. 

Events like these are important because they help us reach out to the general public. In Malaysia, most people know little to nothing about modern boardgames. So it is important to create more awareness. 

I demo'ed at one table and Buddhima of Specky Studio demo'ed at the next one. 

Buddhima also showcased games from LUMA designed by Choon Ean. I joked with him that he looks like a rapper. 

Ray demonstrated Teh Tarik Game. This was the game which won the Malaysian Design & Play game design competition in 2025. 

I saw this game Workplace Dilemma at Play Play Asia (the game shop at GMBB Mall specialising in Asian games). I skimmed the rules and it sounds promising. This is a play copy but I did not have time to try it out. This game pokes fun at the typical workplace. The boss has a project to be done. Everyone must contribute. The project will succeed only if you collectively put in enough effort. If it succeeds, the most visible guy (not necessarily the one who put in the most effort) gets the reward. If it fails, the one who put in the least effort gets penalised. Can you get away with not putting in enough effort because someone else put in even less that you? 

Jon brought this back from Korea. 

Think of this as advanced tic-tac-toe. To win, you need to create three-in-a-row. There are nine sectors each with nine spaces. The spaces are numbered 1 to 9. When you place your pokemon, the number you put it on determines the sector the next player must place his pokemon. That's it. 

The game looks great!

Bulbasaur!

This can be quite thinky. You need to play smart to restrict your opponents' options. If you look at the situation above, green has lost because in all nine sectors there is a space orange can win with. 

The game is for 2 to 4 players

The Korean version of this game is called Hands Up. The original English version is a game from 2015 called Hands. 

You have a hand of cards showing various hand gestures. Every round, everyone simultaneously makes a gesture following one of the cards in hand. You want to find someone who is making the same gesture as you. If that happens, both of you score points. You score your card, and you get to draw a new one. 

That means you have to watch what other players are doing. If you see a gesture that you have the card for, you should do it next and hope the other player will do it too, or notice you and soon do it. 

Some gestures require two hands. If you choose to do one of these, you have to put down your hand cards because you'll need both your hands. Whenever you see someone do a two-handed gesture, drop everything and follow him, because the last person to do so will be penalised. 

This as a rowdy party game. 

I played Nemesis Retaliation on BGA. We played a cooperative scenario. Everybody calls Nemesis the Alien boardgame. They are right. 

In the cooperative game, all of us wake up from hibernation, and we don't really know what's going on on the spaceship. We have even forgotten the layout and have to relearn it by exploring the spaceship. The scenario tells us what our objectives are. In this particular game, we have to discover all rooms of two types, and at least one of us need to survive and bring an alien egg away. 

When we move about the spaceship, we make noise and attract aliens. When we shoot at them, we make even more noise. This is a pretty stressful experience because the aliens keep coming. Also the spaceship itself is not in great shape. Fires break out, systems break down. I got myself killed because the room I was in ran out of oxygen. 

This was my character. 

I must admit I did not learn to play this properly. This is the same problem with me when I play complex games on BGA. Nemesis uses a deckbuilding mechanism. Each character has his own deck. I don't think I utilised my deck well. 

Goa is a game from 2004. I have the first edition. This year it is released again through Kickstarter. The new version is certainly pretty. I played on BGA. 

I remember it being compared to The Princes of Florence, because you also do an auction followed by actions which others cannot interfere with. However I'd say they are quite different games. The auction phase is done on this 5x5 grid above. Players collectively trace a connected path to mark tiles which will be auctioned off. The tiles give you all sorts of benefits and resources. 

This is your player board. You have five tech tracks, each associated with an action type. When you advance on a tech track, you make your action stronger. Advancing is important because you score points for your progress.