San: three ways to win, but a theme that evaporates

I have a soft spot for games that get straight to the point, and on paper San ticked every box: a two-player deck-building duel, done in twenty-five minutes, with that little festival buzz that always tickles my curiosity. I brought it out four times rather than once, because I wanted a real opinion and not a hot take. And after those four games, my verdict is settled, and a little mixed: it is clever, it is fast, it is an excellent gateway into deck-building, but it did not grab me as much as I had hoped.

Publisher: Blue Cocker · Designers: Jules Messaud & Martin Montergnole · Art: Mathieu Leyssenne · Year: 2026 · Players: 2 · Duration: ~25 min · Age: 10+ · Price: around 16-17 €

A cyberpunk theme... on paper

On the box, the promise is enticing: two rival megacorporations fighting for control of a futuristic city through corruption, propaganda and cyber warfare. "Three paths to power. One city to control." There is plenty to dream of in terms of atmosphere. Except that once you are at the table, that veneer evaporates almost entirely. You are not playing a corporate war, you are manipulating colours, tracks and symbols. I am not the only one to point it out, several outlets make the same observation: the theme is there in the sales pitch, absent in the game. If you are after immersion, keep walking. If you come for pure, tense mechanics, on the other hand, you are in the right place.

How you play

Each player starts with an identical deck, and the turn is disarmingly simple. You play as many cards from your hand as you want, with a single constraint: only one type of mercenary, so one colour per turn, with the grey equipment cards freely layering on top. A little find I loved: the cards you play generate the money to buy from the river themselves. No more useless "coin" cards clogging your hand; here, you act and gear up in the same motion, and you cycle through your deck far more often than in a classic deck-builder.

The heart of the game is its three paths to victory, one per colour, and this is what won me over most. In blue, you run propaganda and try to cross the dedicated track entirely. In yellow, you corrupt the river, and as soon as you have corrupted twelve cards, the game is yours, with the handy bonus of easing your own propaganda while hampering your opponent's. In red, you launch viruses that infect the enemy's chip cards: each player has five, and neutralising your opponent's five seals the win. The three tracks do not live in isolation, they talk to each other constantly, so that every turn you juggle between advancing your own path and sabotaging the other's.

On top of that comes the deck work. As in any good deck-builder, you look to acquire strong cards and thin out the weak ones to tighten your draw, but the tempo here is brisker: you revisit your cards often, you reuse your purchases faster than elsewhere, and the equipment cards open up combos that reward the player who plans ahead. It is a small engine that tunes itself in a few turns, without ever drowning you in setup or length.

What clicks

The pace, first. San is nervy, it flies, and every card purchase can tip the game. That pressure of a ticking clock and three conditions advancing in parallel forces you to keep your eyes everywhere, on your own plan as much as your opponent's. It is a genuine tug of war, highly interactive, a world away from games where everyone tunes their engine in their corner.

Accessibility, next. The iconography is quickly understood, the rules sink in within minutes, and yet there are several levels of reading. That is exactly what makes it an ideal gateway into deck-building: you can put it in front of someone who has never touched the genre, they climb aboard at once, without it feeling hollow to a more seasoned player.

What holds me back

Then there is what left me wanting. From the very first game, you understand that you are better off not spreading yourself thin and staying focused on one colour. My first reaction was frustration, the sense that the optimal path revealed itself too quickly. After four games, I soften that: it is actually logical and intended, since each colour is a victory condition in its own right, and above all some equipment cards specifically let you play cards of mixed colours, which reopens some flexibility. So it is not the balance flaw I had feared, more of an assumed identity. But it does not carry me away, and combined with that missing-in-action theme, it explains my lukewarm verdict.

Verdict

San is a good game, clever and fast, that I recommend without hesitation to anyone wanting to discover the two-player deck-building duel: at 16-17 euros, for twenty-five minutes of tense tug of war, the entry ticket is very fair. Its three paths to victory create real pressure and nice dilemmas, and its find of cards doubling as currency deserves a nod. But I will stay honest, my enthusiasm is measured: the theme evaporates completely and the game quickly takes on the look of a well-oiled race on rails rather than an adventure. A good buy to get started or for a quick duel between two doors, a little less so for those who, like me, also like a game to tell them something.