Seas of Strife Review: I Wanted To Like This Trick-Taking Twist More
An Early Impressions review of Seas of Strife by wakasm — based on 1 play
I usually like trick-taking games, so I went into Seas of Strife already kind of interested. I didn’t know it was a retheme of Texas Showdown when I played it, which is probably a fun fact to people who already know that game, but it also meant I was just reacting to Seas of Strife as its own thing vs being. In fact, I didn’t even know this until I read the rulebook afterwards.
I like the idea here. I can see the pitch. A trick-taking game where the lead suit can shift mid-trick sounds like it should give you more agency, more little tactical moments, more chances to look at your hand and say, okay, I can wriggle out of this. But in the ONE game I played (yes, I write reviews/early impressions after ONE game), especially with the Strife rule, it mostly felt like the game kept pulling the floor out from under whatever decision I thought I had made. Maybe I would like it more without that rule… but that also seems to be the newer intended version, so I don’t know.
What is Seas of Strife?
First, it wasn’t taught to me that this rule was a variant or optional. I only learned that after reading the rulebook myself – a habit I have – especially when I feel like something about the rules felt off. (in this case, they were!)
Seas of Strife is a trick-avoidance card game for 3 to 6 players. It was previously published as Texas Showdown (again, I learned after the fact), and the Seas of Strife rulebook includes the Texas Showdown rules as the main rules, plus a Strife variant that the rulebook describes as the designer-intended version.
- Players are trying to avoid taking tricks.
- One player leads a card, and players must follow one of the currently played suits if they can.
- If someone cannot follow the led suit, they can play a different suit, and that new suit can become something later players may have to follow.
- The trick is usually won by the highest card in the suit that appears most often in the trick.
- With the Strife variant, the highest card of a suit, called a Face card, can cancel that suit out of the trick entirely.
- If you take a trick, you take points, and points are bad.
- The game supports more than four players, which is less common for trick-taking games and is probably one of its biggest practical positives.
The easiest way to think about it is that Seas of Strife starts with familiar trick-taking muscle memory, then messes with the part of your brain that assumes the led suit is the led suit. Someone can introduce another suit. That suit can become dominant. Then the highest card of a suit can zero the suit out completely. On paper, that sounds pretty fun. In practice, at least in my one five-player game, it was sort of anti-fun.
What I like about Seas of Strife
The shifting suit idea is genuinely interesting
I do want to give Seas of Strife credit for the core trick here, because I think there is something neat about a trick-taking game where the lead suit is not locked in the normal way. If I don’t have the main suit, I can play something else, and then suddenly that suit matters. If two people sneak in with a different color, maybe that becomes the suit that wins. That alone is a cool twist, and I can see why people who play a lot of trick-taking games might enjoy having that extra layer.
It also creates a different kind of table tension. You are not just asking, “can I follow suit?” You are asking what suit might become the problem by the end of the trick. That is a good idea. I don’t think the concept is bad at all. Actually, that may be the part I like most about the game. I imagine there some card counting strategy/meta layer here for those who want to play the game seriously… which I guess this is a problem because it doesn’t feel like a game to merit that serious (if the name was Texas Showdown, maybe it might warrant it?)
More than four players is a real upside
This is a small thing, but it matters. A lot of trick-taking games are best at four, or at least feel designed around that traditional structure. Seas of Strife playing above four players is a real positive, especially if you have a group of five or six and want something in that space.
My game was at five players, and while I didn’t love how that felt with the Strife rule, I still appreciate that the game is trying to live in a slightly wider player-count range. That is useful. I don’t want to oversell that as some huge selling point, but it is absolutely a point in the positive column.
The card distribution has a fun weirdness to it
I also like that the suits are not just normal hearts, diamonds, clubs, and spades. The cards go way up, into the 70s or 80s (I think, I don’t remember what the highest value was), and the suits seem to have their own ranges instead of being normal duplicated ranks. That is a neat way to make the game feel different from a standard deck trick-taker.
There is something kind of funny about a higher-numbered suit being scary in a normal trick, but then becoming useless because of the color majority or the Strife cancellation. I can see the shape of the game there. I can see how someone might look at that and think, this is great, everything is unstable in a fun way. I just don’t know if that instability landed for me and I felt like I had even LESS choices or ways to bluff around to avoid tricks. We had players forced to take tricks with low value cards with suits that were played later in the trick.
The iconography worked
Another small point, but the iconography on the cards did what they needed to do. The high cards were slightly confusing because of the inverted color thing they did, but the effective information of “how many cards are in a suit” and “where does this lie in the value of each suit” worked well.
What I don’t like about Seas of Strife
The Strife rule made the game feel too random for me
The biggest issue for me is the Strife rule. The idea is that the highest base card in a suit cancels that suit out of the trick. So if red would normally win because there are more red cards in the trick, but the highest red card is also played, red can get wiped out entirely. Then suddenly some other suit wins. Or maybe I played some random yellow card because I didn’t have red, everyone else played red, someone cancels red, and now I am stuck taking the trick. It’s like the equivalent of the Charlie Brown football trick in board game form.
I get the appeal. If you are the person playing that high card and forcing someone else to eat a trick, that probably feels great. You get the little villain moment. But sitting on the other side of it, I felt like too many tricks were decided by timing and chaos rather than by a decision I could meaningfully plan around. If I went too early, someone could erase the suit. If I went too late, I might be stuck with whatever the table left me. If I was in the middle, it often felt like I was just hoping the rest of the trick didn’t mutate into something awful.
The agency felt weaker than the idea promised
What bothered me is that Seas of Strife sounds like it should give you more control. The lead suit can shift, more suits can enter the trick, and you can maybe set up a weird escape. That sounds like agency. But for me, the actual experience felt more like the game was constantly asking me to make a decision with incomplete information, then punishing me because the table state changed after my card was already down. Again, maybe some card counting strategy aspect exists here for I would have to be heavily involved in these kinds of games to do so.
That is not automatically bad. Trick-taking games are full of uncertainty, and part of the fun is reading the table. But here, most turns felt like I either could play a card or I couldn’t, and if I could play a card, the usefulness of that play depended heavily on where I sat in the order. Even when I made what felt like the best choice, someone could still negate the suit anyway. Maybe better players can see that coming. Maybe repeated plays make that chaos readable. In my one game, it just felt muddy.
The two rule sets did not help
There was also a rules issue in our teach, or at least some confusion around which version of the rules we were actually playing. In the main Texas Showdown-style rules, if you take a trick with the highest card of a suit, you can choose who leads the next trick. That might have changed the feel of the game, especially later when hands are smaller and turn order starts to matter even more. In the Strife variant, Face cards cancel their suit instead, and if you take a trick with a Face card, you do not get to choose who leads next.
So I do want to be fair here. I played one game, it was taught with at least some confusion around the rules history, and I was checking things afterward because it did not feel totally settled. That matters. I don’t want to pretend I have some grand final judgment after one slightly messy play. But I also have to review the experience I had with the Strife variant, and the experience I had was not great.
At five players, everything felt more frustrating
Five players might also be part of the problem. More players means more chances for the trick to shift, more chances for the suit you thought mattered to stop mattering, and more chances for someone to accidentally or intentionally stick you with something. I can imagine this feeling sharper at a different count, or without the Strife rule, but at five players it crossed from clever into frustrating for me.
The frustrating part is that I can see the better version of this game in my head. I like the shifting-suit idea. I like the wider player count. I like that the card system is unusual. But with everything layered together, it just became a trick-taking game I didn’t really enjoy playing especially in 2026 when there are SO MANY TRICK TAKING GAMES.
Final Thoughts about Seas of Strife
Seas of Strife is one of those games where I respect the design idea more than I enjoyed the actual play. And even then, I use respect loosely. I can see why someone would love the Strife rule. It creates weird reversals, it makes no trick feel totally safe, and it gives players a way to blow up what looked obvious. For some groups, that probably sounds amazing.
For me, it pushed the game too far into chaos. I usually like trick-taking games, and I am not allergic to weird ones, but this felt like a game where the clever part kept getting in the way of the fun part. I would try it again without the Strife rule, mostly because I am curious whether the base Texas Showdown system would click better for me. But as played, I didn’t really love it.
So yeah, this lands pretty low for me. Not because there is nothing interesting here. There is. I just did not have much fun with the version I played, and that is hard to get around.
Disagree With Me Here
Discussion and disagreement are welcome here — that's what makes talking about games fun. Just keep it kind. Attacks on people, not ideas, will be removed.