Apples to Apples - Tips & Strategies

It can be very frustrating for people to lay down the perfect card only to have a judge choose something goofy one turn and something serious the next. Unpredictability adds to laughs sometimes, but it minimizes what little skill is available to players.

When turning a green card, the judge should state something about what he/she is looking for. This could be “best match”, “most sappy”, “wacky”, “hilarious”, “clever”, etc. — depending on the card. The judge can also say “I have no idea how I’ll choose”.

As long as the judge attempts to follow his/her statement it allows the players to choose cards that will maker judging a little more relevant.

At the end of the game, when everyone is getting ready to call it quits, don’t draw any more red cards. You have to play the cards you have in your hand until you have 1 card left. For the last play, everyone plays their last card and you vote for the best. You end up with some even wilder and funnier rounds as players try desperately to convince who ever turn it is to choose their card.

My group has picked up the habit of describing, in descending order which card we like the best. It makes for a longer game, but we love the time to tell a bit of a story and build some tension. It really makes the game come alive when you can use story telling elements.

Out of the Box has a list of “Official” variations on their site, almost every “rule” posted here seems to be included there, as well as many others. Quite interesting to check out, I think I’ll suggest some of them next time I play!

http://www.otb-games.com/apples/apples_variations.html

Know your judge and play your cards towards what you think he/she will pick. I have played with my cousins and know that a majority of the time playing something funny will get mine picked. My husband, for instance, will lean towards more serious avenues so playing toward that strength has netted me many victories also. It turns out to be a great strategy when you are winning hand after hand. So basically, read your judge, know your judge and win the game.

Apples to Apples (and each of it’s expansions) comes with extra blank red and green cards that allow you to add your own favorite nouns and descriptors to the game. It’s tempting to write in things from your personal experience; your ex-girlfriend’s name, the name of your neighbor’s loud dog, your boss, or the place you and your friends hung out at in college.

Don’t do it.

Apples to Apples is first and foremost a social game that depends on universal, or at the least, common reference points. You’ll most likely play this game with a variety of different people along the way, and while “Stinky Rover” may evoke hilarious memories of the time the dog knocked over and dug through every trash can on the street for you and your roommates, the hosts of the dinner party you’re invited to next year will have no idea what to do with that card when they draw it.

Or worse, and intensely embarrassing, the new friend your roommate brings to the game actually knows that specific person you’ve named, and has an entirely different take on them.

Better to write the general “awful exes”, “skeevy restaurant”, or “noisy neighborhood dog” than to make a reference that requires a deep contextual understanding.

Our group of very friendly, outgoing, hard-core social gamers has a hard time with the default ruleset. We remove two rules when we play:
1. The cards are not anonymous. Everyone knows who played what.
2. The players are allowed to make arguments for their card.

This adds a few things to to game that some people might like and others won’t. Primarily, it adds a lot of yelling, arguing, and laughter for us. The point of the first rule is to allow the second (can’t really argue if it’s anonymous), and the second is to make the game social instead of just a bunch of people quietly considering their hand of cards.

I’ve seen tons of great outcomes from this:
Four players make awful arguments, and the quiet guy with the worst card wins it because the other four people said such stupid things. (Judge can judge on anything they want!)

Two people have a serious debate over the merits of their two, and Judge makes a judge-like ruling on the case at hand.

One person puts down their card and just repeatedly says the name (“KITTENS. KITTENS. KIT. TENS.”) — manages to win it due to the hilarity of their argument…

Of course, there’s downsides to this. Bribery, truces, deals… But that’s all part of the social game aspect, too! 🙂

If you’ve played this game enough you know that inevitably you will wind up with junk cards that are boring or just don’t seem to ever get used.

To help fix this, simply add in the rule that any player may discard his or her entire hand at the beginning of each round and redraw the same number of cards.

Get to know the other players. Some players will pick cards that most closely match the adjective. Other players will pick cards that are the most hilarious or make no sense at all. Clearly different cards will fit with each of these personality types, so know who is picking the card and play the card based on that.

Additionally, there are cards titled something like “My bank account”. When you play these cards that are self-referencing, remember that you’re not referring to your own bank account, when the card is read, it will be interpreted as the judge’s bank account. That can completely change the meaning of the card, and many people forget this.

But in the end, just have fun!

I played with a group where the person whose card was picked got to be “it” next. In a big group, this got really frustrating for some of the people who never got picked. I don’t even know if this is the official way to play or not but either way, take turns!