Board Gaming Session 60: Changerbot Apes Steampunk Mages Halfling Zombies Robo-Horses

Clash of Factions: A Night of Smash Up Strategy

The ongoing journey of playing through a hundred full matches of Smash Up is filled with unpredictable combinations, surprising plays, and the occasional lesson in why randomization matters. Game 60 stands as one of those memorable evenings where wild synergy, lucky card draws, and strategic missteps all collided at the same table. It was played on a Thursday night in early September, at a familiar gathering spot where four players brought together their chosen or randomly drawn factions.

Smash Up, at its heart, is about pairing two very different groups and seeing how they clash or cooperate. Sometimes the pairing sings in harmony, producing unstoppable chains of actions. Other times, they grind against each other, leaving a player frustrated and underpowered. This session captured both extremes, from game-winning plays to faction pairs that simply couldn’t deliver.

Setting the Stage

The match began with four players, each representing their own faction pair:

Brian selected Cyborg Apes and Changerbots, one of the few players that evening to pick rather than draw at random.
Mike (not the author) combined Mages with Steampunk.
Luis brought in Robots and Mythic Horses.
The author (Mike) piloted Zombies alongside Halflings.

From the start, the bases themselves promised tension. Locations like Standing Stones, Grey Opal, and Cool Cat’s Alley carry unique abilities that can make or break strategies. Others, like Hotel of Holiness and Shark Reef, add situational advantages that reward timing and foresight.

The game opened with Standing Stones, Spikey Chair Room, Hotel of Holiness, Grey Opal, and Cool Cat’s Alley on the table. Each base offered its own twist, forcing the players to consider not just their hand of cards but also how these bases might shift momentum.

Brian’s Dominant Clyde 2.0

One of the defining features of this match was Brian’s early use of Solarshout, combined with the base ability at Standing Stones. The result was a stream of extra actions that let him build an unstoppable minion. His Clyde 2.0 quickly became the star of the evening, gaining layer upon layer of support: Cesium Armor, Missing Uplink, Shielding, Flying Monkey returning repeatedly to his hand, Change Into a Gun, and power counters stacked on top. By the late stages of the game, this single figure had grown into a fortress of strength, resistant to interference and central to Brian’s scoring strategy.

This development highlights how Smash Up can swing when one player locks into a strong combo early and maintains it. Clyde’s growth wasn’t just about raw power; it was about the psychological weight it placed on the table. Every other player had to factor Clyde into their decisions, whether directly challenging him or trying to maneuver around his dominance.

Zombies and the Power of Cool Cat’s Alley

Mike’s play with Zombies turned out to be another focal point of the evening. Cool Cat’s Alley, a base that allows minions to scatter across the board, worked seamlessly with the undead faction. On one explosive turn, Mike used Rude Awakening to not only secure the Grey Opal but also to spread his undead army across multiple bases. This single move created both immediate points and long-term presence, forcing the others to rethink where they could compete.

The synergy between Zombies and Cool Cat’s Alley shone again later in the game, when Mike managed another massive turn that disrupted the flow of bases. Zombies thrive on recycling and persistence, and combined with the ability to extend across the board, they turned into a relentless presence that could not be ignored.

Luis and the Experiment of Robots with Horses

Luis faced an unusual pairing: Robots and Mythic Horses. Robots generally thrive on modularity and incremental builds, while Horses introduce a thematic unpredictability and potential bursts of power. While not the strongest pairing on paper, Luis approached it with creativity. His strategy involved balancing steady robot plays with the occasional horse-driven push.

Although Luis didn’t manage to climb to the top in points, his gameplay added variety and unpredictability to the table. Robots tend to create stable engines, while Horses can act as wildcards that shake up expectations. Even though the final score didn’t reflect dominance, his combination still contributed to the shifting dynamics, ensuring that no single strategy completely monopolized the board.

The Struggle of Mages and Steampunk

Meanwhile, the author experienced firsthand how some faction combinations simply do not mesh. Mages and Steampunk, while intriguing individually, failed to click together during this match. The synergy that other players found in their pairings was missing here, leaving turns that felt underpowered compared to the explosive plays happening elsewhere.

The disappointment was amplified by the absence of key cards like Aggromotive, which never appeared in hand throughout the entire game. Smash Up can sometimes feel cruel in this way; even the most carefully considered pairing can falter when the right cards stay buried. Despite best efforts, the lack of draw luck and poor synergy left this faction pair struggling to stay relevant on the scoreboard.

Faction Interactions and Shifting Strategies in Game 60

Every game of Smash Up tells a unique story, and while the score sheet might capture who technically won, the real richness comes from the interactions that happen during play. Game 60, part of the larger one-hundred-match challenge, wasn’t just about Clyde 2.0’s rise or the Zombies dominating bases. It was also about how each faction pairing created tension and how the players responded to each other’s choices.

Why Faction Pairings Matter

Smash Up thrives on its modular design. Each faction is built with a specific identity — some focus on raw power, others on recycling cards, while some specialize in manipulating bases or actions. Pairing two factions together creates either harmony or dissonance. Sometimes the abilities overlap in a way that produces powerful synergy. Other times, they clash, making it harder to find consistent strategies.

In Game 60, these dynamics were on full display:

Cyborg Apes and Changerbots were an intentional choice, combining flexibility with enhancement.
Zombies and Halflings brought together persistence and surprise, thriving on disruption and second chances.
Robots and Horses introduced balance between steady engine-building and unpredictable bursts.
Mages and Steampunk revealed how two factions with situational strengths could leave a player stranded when the right cards failed to appear.

The interplay of these four pairings created a table where dominance shifted from base to base, yet certain strategies emerged as stronger than others.

Brian’s Calculated Power Build

Brian’s approach with Cyborg Apes and Changerbots highlighted a key element of Smash Up: committing early to a strategy and building it steadily. While others tested different bases or spread their presence, Brian focused on constructing a single, nearly untouchable powerhouse in Clyde 2.0. By stacking multiple actions, counters, and defensive tools, Clyde became not just a strong minion but a centerpiece strategy.

This decision required foresight. It isn’t always obvious in Smash Up whether investing in one large minion will pay off. Concentrating too much strength in one place can make a player vulnerable if others collaborate to take it down or if the base shifts in a way that minimizes its value. In this case, however, the extra actions granted by Standing Stones allowed Brian to continually reinforce Clyde without losing momentum elsewhere.

What made this play so striking was the psychological pressure it created. Every turn, Clyde’s presence loomed, reminding the table that Brian could break bases almost at will. Even when other players tried to redirect their efforts, Clyde’s strength kept him in contention until the final points were tallied.

Mike’s Explosive Zombie Turns

Mike, the other player sharing the same name as the author, demonstrated a very different strategy. Instead of building one dominant figure, he spread his power across multiple bases at key moments. Zombies are designed for recursion, thriving on bringing cards back from the discard pile and overwhelming opponents through sheer persistence. When combined with Cool Cat’s Alley, this persistence turned into explosion.

The Alley’s unique ability allowed Mike to maximize every play. By winning the base and simultaneously scattering minions across the board, he gained immediate points while also setting up future turns. The first time he pulled this off, the table recognized it as impressive. The second time, near the game’s conclusion, it became clear that this synergy was decisive.

Where Brian relied on steady reinforcement, Mike relied on bursts of activity that changed the game’s landscape in a single turn. His strategy underlined how Smash Up rewards both long-term planning and well-timed bursts of aggression.

Luis’s Balancing Act

Luis, piloting Robots and Horses, faced the challenge of managing two factions with very different rhythms. Robots thrive on modularity, producing steady and reliable growth as their pieces connect into stronger minions. Horses, however, are less predictable, introducing situational effects that can either propel a player forward or leave them struggling for consistency.

This meant Luis had to juggle two playstyles at once. He leaned into Robots for reliability, using them as his foundation, while Horses acted as tactical wildcards that occasionally swung bases in his favor. This approach didn’t produce overwhelming turns, but it ensured that he remained competitive across the mid-game, even if his final score landed below the leaders.

What Luis’s game revealed is how Smash Up often forces players into compromise. Not every faction pair is naturally synergistic, and when that happens, creativity is required. Even without a dominating strategy, Luis shaped the flow of the match by contesting bases and preventing others from running away with easy points.

The Struggle of the Author’s Pairing

The author’s combination of Mages and Steampunk provided one of the clearest examples of how Smash Up can sometimes betray a player. Both factions are thematic and intriguing, but together they lacked cohesion. Mages often depend on the right timing of spells, while Steampunk builds toward incremental advantages through devices and enhancements. Unfortunately, these mechanics didn’t align well in practice.

The absence of key cards like Aggromotive further deepened the frustration. When important tools remain buried in the deck, a player can feel powerless, watching others execute flashy plays while they are left with situational cards that don’t fit the current state of the game. This mismatch underscored an important truth about Smash Up: even strong factions can falter without synergy or luck.

Despite best efforts, the author’s strategy never found momentum. Each turn felt like trying to assemble a machine with missing parts, and while points trickled in, they were not enough to keep pace with the others.

The Importance of Base Abilities

One aspect that cannot be overlooked in this game is the role of bases. While players often focus on their own cards, bases can dramatically shift outcomes. In Game 60, several bases became pivotal:

Standing Stones enabled Brian’s extra actions, fueling his Clyde strategy.
Cool Cat’s Alley turned into a game-breaking tool for Zombies, amplifying their recursive strength.
Grey Opal offered opportunities for clever timing, which Mike exploited with Rude Awakening.
Hotel of Holiness and Tsar’s Palace offered situational boosts that helped Luis and Brian secure points when needed.

The lesson here is that bases are not just neutral ground; they are active forces in shaping the game. Players who recognize the synergy between their factions and specific bases often gain an edge. Mike’s repeated exploitation of Cool Cat’s Alley is a prime example, showing how base awareness can be just as important as card play.

Psychological Shifts at the Table

Beyond mechanics, there’s a social dimension to every Smash Up session. Decisions are not made in a vacuum; they’re influenced by table talk, perceived threats, and shifting alliances. Game 60 captured this dynamic vividly.

Once Clyde 2.0 began to grow into an unstoppable minion, the other players had to decide whether to challenge Brian directly or divert their efforts elsewhere. Some players might have chosen to gang up and neutralize Clyde, but in this game, the decision tilted toward avoidance. Instead of confronting him head-on, players tried to work around his dominance.

Similarly, after Mike’s first explosive Zombie turn, the table began watching his plays more closely. The recognition that he could repeat the strategy forced others to account for it, though stopping it entirely proved impossible.

Luis, meanwhile, benefited from being a middle-of-the-pack threat. His Robots and Horses were disruptive enough to earn respect but not so overwhelming as to draw constant attention. This allowed him to maneuver with relative freedom until the final turns.

The author, struggling with poor synergy, experienced the frustration of being overlooked. When your deck isn’t delivering, it can feel like you’re playing a different game than everyone else — present but not fully competing. Yet even this role contributes to the table dynamic, as other players may underestimate the potential for a comeback.

How the Match Concluded

The closing turns of the game were tense. Brian’s Clyde continued to exert pressure, while Mike executed his second massive Zombie turn. Luis stayed relevant but couldn’t match the others’ scoring pace. The author searched for opportunities but found none substantial enough to close the gap.

The final points told the story:

Mike edged into first place with 16.
Brian followed closely with 15, his Clyde strategy nearly enough to win.
Luis ended with 10, a respectable effort given the pairing.
The author closed with 9, reflecting the harsh reality of mismatched synergy.

The closeness of the top two scores showed how evenly matched the leaders were, while the gap below illustrated how faction choice and luck can determine outcomes.

Broader Lessons from Game 60

Game 60 offered several broader insights into the nature of Smash Up:

Randomization preserves balance. When players select their factions, as Brian did, they may gain unfair advantage by creating powerful combos. Random draws, while sometimes frustrating, ensure variety and fairness.
Bases are as important as factions. Ignoring base abilities can leave opportunities on the table. Mike’s Zombies thrived because he aligned them perfectly with Cool Cat’s Alley.
Synergy is everything. Factions that complement each other amplify their strengths. When they clash, even skilled players struggle to keep up.
Psychological presence matters. Clyde wasn’t just powerful; he shaped how others played, influencing decisions even when he wasn’t directly contesting a base.

Factions in Focus: Lessons from Smash Up’s Hundred-Game Journey

By the time Game 60 rolled around, patterns had already started to emerge across the long arc of the hundred-game challenge. Some factions had appeared repeatedly, their strengths and weaknesses well known to the players. Others remained relative rarities, surfacing only a handful of times. Game 60 brought together both kinds: well-trodden choices like Zombies and Cyborg Apes alongside less frequently used options like Changerbots and Mythic Horses.

Looking closely at how these factions interacted in this particular match helps illuminate their overall character and why they perform the way they do across many games.

Cyborg Apes: Consistent Enhancers

The Cyborg Apes had already appeared a dozen times in the challenge before this game. Their defining feature is their ability to augment minions, stacking upgrades and actions to make individual figures into powerhouses. When paired with a flexible partner like Changerbots, they become even more dangerous, capable of turning almost any minion into a threat.

Brian’s use of Clyde 2.0 in Game 60 was a textbook example of what makes Cyborg Apes shine. With the right draw, they can transform a single minion into an unstoppable juggernaut. The downside, of course, is vulnerability: if the table bands together to remove that minion, the Apes lose much of their momentum. But in this game, the threat Clyde posed went unchallenged, allowing Brian to exploit their full potential.

The broader lesson from the Apes is that they reward commitment. Players who are willing to pour multiple actions into reinforcing one minion can reap enormous benefits. However, the risk remains that over-investment can backfire if the table responds aggressively.

Changerbots: Rare but Impactful

Changerbots had only appeared three times in the challenge so far, making them one of the rarer factions. Their appeal lies in their adaptability, shifting forms to meet different needs. In practice, this means they can support almost any partner, but they don’t always bring overwhelming strength on their own.

When paired with Cyborg Apes, however, they provided the flexibility Brian needed to support his Clyde strategy. The ability to alter tactics on the fly gave him options, whether reinforcing Clyde or redirecting attention elsewhere. Changerbots rarely dominate games by themselves, but in the right combination, they amplify the strengths of their partner faction.

Game 60 demonstrated how they can turn a good faction into a great one, smoothing out weaknesses and keeping strategies flexible.

Zombies: Masters of Persistence

Few factions embody the identity of Smash Up as clearly as Zombies. Their recursion mechanics — bringing cards back from the discard pile — make them relentless. Even when cleared from bases, they return, creating an ever-present threat.

Mike’s play in Game 60 showcased the Zombies’ strength in dramatic fashion. With Rude Awakening, he was able to not only claim Grey Opal but also flood multiple other bases at once. Combined with Cool Cat’s Alley, the Zombies’ persistence became explosive. The ability to spread across the board while recycling minions created momentum that was difficult for others to counter.

Across the broader challenge, Zombies had only been played six times up to this point, a relatively low number compared to factions like Dinosaurs or Aliens. Yet every time they appeared, they reminded players of their ability to swing games with single turns. Their ceiling is incredibly high, especially when paired with bases that reward multiple placements.

The key lesson from Zombies is that they thrive on timing. A well-played Rude Awakening or recursive combo can devastate opponents, but mistimed plays can leave them feeling underwhelming.

Halflings: Surprise Disrupters

Halflings, paired with Zombies in this game, are a faction built around surprise and trickery. They specialize in popping up unexpectedly, disrupting plans, and adding unexpected power where opponents least expect it. While not as flashy as Zombies, they can tilt the balance of bases in subtle ways.

In Game 60, their contribution was overshadowed by the sheer dominance of the Zombies. Yet their presence still mattered, creating opportunities for small but crucial shifts. The pairing with Zombies wasn’t the most synergistic, but it offered layers of persistence and disruption that kept opponents on edge.

In the larger challenge, Halflings had appeared 13 times, making them a fairly common faction. Their reputation is that of a faction that rarely wins outright but often denies others easy victories. They serve as spoilers, forcing opponents to plan around their potential surprises.

Robots: Building Steadily

Robots are one of the game’s most reliable factions. With modular upgrades and the ability to combine smaller parts into larger threats, they reward players who enjoy steady, incremental growth. Luis’s play in Game 60 reflected this identity. While he never dominated the table, his Robots provided a consistent foundation that kept him relevant throughout the mid-game.

Robots had appeared 11 times in the challenge by this point, a middling frequency. Their reputation is one of stability — they rarely implode, but they also don’t often produce the kind of explosive plays that win games outright. They are dependable but not spectacular.

What makes them valuable is their ability to partner with almost any other faction. In Game 60, they provided stability to the more unpredictable Horses, ensuring that Luis always had a solid base of operations even when the Horses’ situational effects didn’t line up.

Mythic Horses: Unpredictable Wildcards

Horses were among the newer factions, appearing only 10 times so far in the challenge. Their design embraces unpredictability, creating bursts of power and thematic flair. When their abilities align with the state of the game, they can surprise opponents and snatch points. When they don’t, they can leave their player stranded.

Luis’s pairing of Horses with Robots highlighted this tension. While the Robots gave him steady presence, the Horses provided occasional surges that allowed him to contest bases he might otherwise have ignored. The pairing wasn’t dominant, but it was interesting, showing how Horses can complement a more stable partner.

The broader lesson from Horses is that they require adaptability. Players who can pivot quickly and take advantage of fleeting opportunities will find success. Those who prefer rigid strategies may find them frustrating.

Mages: High Potential, Low Consistency

Mages, paired with Steampunk in this game, are a faction that depends heavily on timing. Their spells can produce powerful effects, but they often require specific circumstances to shine. Without the right conditions, they can feel underwhelming.

In Game 60, they never found their rhythm. Key cards remained buried, and the synergy with Steampunk failed to materialize. The result was a deck that felt disjointed and powerless compared to the explosive plays happening elsewhere.

Mages had been played 13 times in the challenge so far, making them a fairly common faction. Their reputation is mixed: they can deliver dramatic, game-changing plays in the right hands, but they are also prone to inconsistency.

Steampunk: Incremental Builders

Steampunk, like Robots, focus on incremental advantages. Their devices and enhancements provide steady growth, but they rarely deliver immediate, game-breaking effects. When paired with a faction that thrives on persistence or disruption, they can be effective. But when paired with a situational partner like Mages, they risk becoming redundant or slow.

In Game 60, Steampunk’s strengths were muted. Without Aggromotive or other key tools, their incremental advantages never materialized. The combination with Mages created too much reliance on situational draws, leaving the deck without a clear path to victory.

Steampunk had appeared 10 times in the challenge, showing up often enough to be familiar but not dominant. Their role across the challenge has been that of a supporting faction — rarely the star of the show, but sometimes the glue that holds a pairing together.

Patterns Across the Challenge

Looking at the broader faction tally by Game 60, a few patterns stand out:

Popular factions like Dinosaurs, Aliens, and Bear Cavalry had already been played 14–15 times, suggesting they were both accessible and appealing.
Mid-tier factions like Robots, Mages, and Steampunk appeared often enough to be familiar but not dominant.
Rare factions like Changerbots and Ignobles remained elusive, surfacing only a handful of times.

This distribution reflected both player preference and random draws. Some factions, by virtue of their strength or popularity, became recurring characters in the challenge. Others remained curiosities, appearing only occasionally to shake things up.

Lessons in Faction Balance

Game 60 reinforced the idea that balance in Smash Up comes not just from the factions themselves but from how they interact with partners and bases.

Strong factions thrive when paired with flexible partners. Zombies, already powerful, became devastating when paired with a base that amplified their strengths.
Incremental factions need synergy. Robots and Steampunk can succeed, but they require partners that provide bursts of power or disruption. Without that, they risk falling behind.
Unpredictable factions require adaptability. Horses, Halflings, and similar groups reward players who can seize opportunities on the fly.

These lessons extended beyond one game, shaping how players approached future matches in the challenge.

The Human Element

Of course, no discussion of factions is complete without acknowledging the human players behind them. The challenge wasn’t just about testing factions; it was about seeing how different people adapted to them. Some players leaned into risk-taking, others preferred steady growth, and others thrived on disruption.

Brian’s choice to hand-pick his factions showed a desire for control and optimization. Mike’s explosive Zombie turns reflected opportunism and timing. Luis’s Robots and Horses revealed creativity in handling an unusual pairing. The author’s struggles with Mages and Steampunk highlighted how frustrating it can be when luck and synergy fail to align.

Each faction tells a story, but each player’s personality shapes how that story unfolds.

Reflections from Game 60: Patterns, Surprises, and the Long Road Ahead

Game 60 of the one-hundred-match Smash Up challenge was not just another tick on the scoreboard. It was a microcosm of what makes the game compelling across so many sessions: unexpected faction combinations, uneven power levels, memorable plays, and the reminder that even when things go wrong for one player, the story of the match remains entertaining. By this stage in the challenge, patterns had started to settle into place, but surprises continued to arise, keeping each night of play distinct.

The Power of Randomness

One of the clearest lessons from Game 60 was the importance of randomization. Brian’s decision to choose his factions — Cyborg Apes and Changerbots — gave him a noticeable advantage. While the other players wrestled with awkward synergies and uneven card draws, Brian was able to assemble a pairing that maximized his strategy from the outset.

This highlighted a central tension in Smash Up: the balance between control and chaos. On one hand, hand-picking factions can create satisfying, carefully constructed combos. On the other, it removes some of the unpredictability that makes Smash Up so exciting. Random draws often force players to think creatively, finding synergy where none seems obvious. While this sometimes produces mismatched disasters (as with Mages and Steampunk), it also leads to fresh discoveries and unexpected victories.

Game 60 reaffirmed that randomness isn’t just a mechanic — it’s the heart of Smash Up’s replayability. Without it, players might gravitate toward the same dominant combinations, reducing variety. With it, every session feels distinct, even after dozens of plays.

Bases as Equalizers

While much of the attention in Smash Up goes to factions, Game 60 demonstrated again how crucial bases are in shaping outcomes. Standing Stones gave Brian a steady flow of extra actions, allowing him to reinforce Clyde 2.0 beyond what most tables could tolerate. Cool Cat’s Alley, meanwhile, transformed the Zombies from persistent nuisances into an unstoppable swarm. Grey Opal gave Mike the timing he needed to secure points with Rude Awakening.

Each base brought its own narrative twist. They didn’t just provide locations to fight over; they actively influenced strategies. Players had to adapt not just to their hands of cards but to the shifting geography of the table. In some cases, bases amplified a faction’s natural strengths. In others, they created opportunities for weaker factions to punch above their weight.

The lesson here is that bases should never be treated as background scenery. In Smash Up, the map is alive, and success often depends on reading it as carefully as one reads one’s hand.

Player Dynamics and Table Politics

Game 60 also illustrated the subtle social layer of Smash Up. Every player knew that Brian’s Clyde 2.0 was a looming threat, yet no coordinated effort was made to neutralize it. Instead, players adjusted their own strategies, either working around it or focusing on maximizing their own points. This decision wasn’t purely mechanical; it was shaped by personalities at the table, differing risk appetites, and the inherent chaos of multiplayer games.

Similarly, Mike’s Zombies gained momentum not just because of strong faction abilities but because the other players failed to stop him after his first explosive turn. Perhaps they assumed he wouldn’t be able to replicate it. Perhaps they were too focused on countering each other. Either way, the lack of collective response allowed him to seize control in the end.

This social layer is one of Smash Up’s enduring strengths. The game isn’t just about numbers and mechanics; it’s about reading people, anticipating their choices, and sometimes bluffing or misdirecting. The psychology of play shapes outcomes as much as the factions themselves.

The Role of Weak Pairings

Every Smash Up session seems to produce at least one pairing that struggles. In Game 60, that role fell to the author with Mages and Steampunk. On paper, both factions have interesting abilities. In practice, they offered little synergy, and the absence of key cards like Aggromotive compounded the frustration. The result was a deck that never found its footing, scoring only 9 points.

And yet, this weakness was instructive. It reminded everyone at the table — and in the broader challenge — that not every game is about winning. Sometimes, it’s about experimenting with combinations, learning their limitations, and appreciating the highs and lows of randomness. Even in failure, there’s a kind of story being told: the struggle of trying to make an awkward partnership work, the quiet hope that a miracle draw might change everything, the humor of watching other players’ flashy turns while your own cards sputter.

Weak pairings serve a vital role in the ecosystem of Smash Up. They keep the game from being predictable and remind players that victory isn’t always the only measure of fun.

The Broader Patterns at Play

By Game 60, some trends in faction usage had already become clear:

Popular, straightforward factions like Dinosaurs and Aliens had seen heavy use, showing their appeal to both new and veteran players.
Mid-tier factions like Robots and Steampunk appeared often enough to be familiar but rarely dominated.
Rare factions like Changerbots remained occasional novelties, surfacing only when random draws allowed.

Game 60 itself highlighted both extremes: the familiar persistence of Zombies, the steady presence of Robots, and the unusual appearance of Changerbots. It was a reminder that the challenge wasn’t just about tracking wins and losses but about exploring the full breadth of Smash Up’s design.

Lessons for Long-Term Play

As part of a hundred-game journey, Game 60 offered insights that applied beyond the immediate session:

Adaptability matters more than raw strength. Even powerful factions like Cyborg Apes need flexible partners or bases to truly shine.
One big play can change everything. Mike’s Zombie turns proved that a single explosive moment can swing the momentum of an entire game.
Consistency is underrated. Robots and Steampunk may not win often, but their incremental strength ensures they remain viable across many games.
Frustration is part of the fun. Not every pairing will work. Accepting that reality makes the highs of strong synergy even sweeter.

These lessons are what sustain a long challenge. Without them, the grind of playing the same game a hundred times might feel repetitive. With them, each session becomes a new experiment, a fresh story waiting to be told.

The Storytelling Aspect of Smash Up

What Game 60 reinforced most of all is that Smash Up is more than just a competitive card game — it’s a storytelling engine. Clyde 2.0’s rise to power wasn’t just a tactical move; it was a character arc. The Zombies’ spread across the board wasn’t just a scoring strategy; it was a cinematic moment. The author’s frustration with Mages and Steampunk wasn’t just a personal disappointment; it was comic relief that gave the session personality.

Each game becomes a miniature narrative, with heroes, villains, climaxes, and anticlimaxes. Even players who don’t win leave with memorable moments: the time a single minion grew unstoppable, the time an army of undead swarmed across the table, the time a promising combo never came together.

Game 60’s story will always be remembered not just for who won but for the cast of characters it brought to life and the way those characters interacted.

Final Thoughts

Game 60 of the Smash Up challenge turned out to be more than just another log of scores and faction pairings. It showed, in a very clear way, what this game is about at its core — unpredictability, creativity, and stories that emerge from the strangest card interactions.

Brian’s domination with Clyde 2.0, powered by layers of upgrades and actions, reminded us how dangerous a single minion can become when left unchecked. Mike’s Zombies demonstrated the joy of timing and explosive plays, where one massive turn can tilt the entire board. Luis’s Robots and Horses proved that even uncommon pairings can carve out a space when approached with the right balance. And the struggle of Mages and Steampunk underlined that not every combination works, but even the weaker decks add value to the experience by keeping things fresh and unpredictable.

More importantly, Game 60 emphasized the role of bases and table dynamics. Locations like Standing Stones and Cool Cat’s Alley weren’t just backdrops — they actively shaped the strategies and outcomes of the match. Likewise, the absence of coordinated counterplay against Clyde 2.0 showed how much player psychology and table politics influence results in a multiplayer setting.

At this point in the challenge, patterns of faction use were beginning to emerge, but surprises like the appearance of Changerbots or Mythic Horses proved there were still plenty of stories left to tell. With forty games to go, the road ahead promised more discoveries, more clashes, and more lessons about what makes Smash Up endlessly replayable.

In the end, Game 60 captured the essence of Smash Up: a mix of triumphs, frustrations, laughter, and unforgettable moments. It was a reminder that the real victory isn’t just in scoring the most points — it’s in walking away from the table with a story worth retelling.