From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Toys (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unlicensed variants[edit]

I think that this sub-section needs major work. First, "unlicensed variant" implies that the game is unofficial, illegal, a homemade game or otherwise dubious. Also, "variant" implies that the game is very similar -- with simply altered rules. So, CLUE MASTER DETECTIVE is a fitting variant of CLASSIC CLUE.

However, Kill Doctor Lucky is a game in its own right, which has existed for over 10 years. You do NOT go around trying to deduce WHO did it, WHERE and WITH what weapon. There is no real mystery or crime solving or Sherlock Holmes. It's more like Jack the Ripper, if anything else. Just because it might fit into the category of board game and "murder" or perhaps even "mystery" (but not really), it doesn't mean that it should be listed here as an "unlicensed variant of CLUEDO". This is highly inaccurate and, I believe, inappropriate. It is no different than trying to list a HOW TO HOST A MYSTERY game or a bona-fide SCOOBY-DOO MYSTERY toy here in this section, which would also be highly inappropriate (and, no, I am not referring to SCOOBY-DOO CLUE).

MYSTERY AT HOGWARTS, on the other hand, is clearly a CLONE and so is MYSTERY MUSEUM.

WHODUNIT is another OLD game from the 70s and 80s that has its own legs and, really, is not appropriate for this section.

Here I must stop and suggest something. Unless a game has THOUSANDS of players or is AT LEAST published as a REAL game that you can buy from a retailer, as opposed to a one-off HOMEMADE game; I do not think it is proper to mention said game since it is obviously NOT notable. If someone whips up a homemade game in a week and a couple people play it one day or over a few days, it should be immortalized on WIKIPEDIA as a NOTABLE GAME?? I don't think so.

CLUE OF CTHULHU and PIKACLUE should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakewlk11 (talkcontribs) 19:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved Whodunit to it's own page, and added Whodunit (related board game)--Closettrekker (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


Does anyone else think that WHODUNIT should go, if anywhere, on its own page? Considering the length of the article, I don't think we need to describe in detail each and every related game. It is clearly not just a clone.

EasyRiding95 (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Merchandising section?[edit]

The last section on this article is seems to be stating obvious and non-relevant information. Mainly "there is merchandise." I move it should be removed, unless there's some notability to it's mechandising outside from being a board game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexprod (talkcontribs) 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of addressing this question, most assuredly the merchandising section needs to be fleshed out, but yes ere are some notable Cluedo branded products that have nothing to do with the game ... Cluedo cologne is worth mentioning, as are the Cluedo scale model racing cars. But ultimately it goes to the brands popularity outside the game itself, and should remain for that reason alone -- albeit some attention needs to be paid to the entry.--Closettrekker (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Rule variations[edit]

Might it be appropriate to describe rule variations between versions of the game from different locations (in particular between UK and North American editions)? I think there's already a mention of the number of players being given as 2 to 6 in the UK, 3 to 6 in NA. But I believe there was one other key difference: in the UK, once in a room, you could stay there as long as you want, making another Suggestion on each successive turn; but in NA, you are allowed only one Suggestion in a given room, after which you must leave the room (by door or secret passage), and either go to a different room to make a Suggestion, or return to the room you were in only after spending one turn out of that room (which does permit you to jump back and forth through secret passages between corner rooms). And I believe Hasbro in recent years "unified" the rules everywhere to the NA restriction. Another variation, I believe, was that in the UK a final "Accusation" was secretly recorded, so the Accuser then checks the envelope: if he was correct, he reveals his recorded Accusation, and wins the game; if wrong, he is out of play, but no one else sees what his Accusation was. In NA, a final Accusation is simply announced publicly like a Suggestion.

And speaking of Accusations, I believe the description of the rules in the article is a little misleading, in saying that a player's turn ends after a Suggestion. In fact, if the results of the Suggestion lead a player to feel ready to Accuse, he makes his Accusation on the same turn. (A restriction on this is that this follow-up is only permitted if the Suggesting player WAS NOT shown a card by another player -- a rule which I've always felt came about "by accident", but that's just my opinion. I think that someone composing the rules just assumed that naturally the realization of the final piece of information that was needed would come about by some Suggested aspect NOT being in anyone else's hand, thus "revealing" what must be in the envelope -- so, "unthinkingly", they wrote the rule for Accusation based on this situation; but in fact, if one has narrowed the last unknown down to two possibilities, then, NAMING one of them in a Suggestion will show whether it was the NAMED option, with no card shown, or the UNNAMED option, by the showing of the NAMED card, which equally well tells the Suggester what they need to know. I believe the writer simply overlooked that last possibility. Again, just my opinion, but I wanted to say it!) (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Books: "Mrs. Peacock kills Mr. Boddy out of starvation"[edit]

Does that mean she eats him?!? (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)