Review: Watergate

Introduction & Overview

In June 1972, five men were arrested at the Watergate building in Washington. Newspaper reporters launched a deep investigation that uncovered one of the greatest scandals in U.S. history, culminating in Richard Nixon’s resignation as President.

This is the premise behind Watergate, a design by Matthias Cramer (Glen More, Lancaster, Kraftwagen). The game was published in 2019 by Frosted Games in German and English editions. The illustrations and graphic design were handled by Klemens Franz (Orleans, Agricola, Oh My Goods!) alongside Alfred Viktor Schulz.

In Spain, it is published in Spanish by Salt & Pepper Games (the game is quite language dependent). It accommodates 2 players, with a minimum suggested age of 12, and plays in approximately 30 to 60 minutes. The MSRP is €31.95. For this review, we used a copy of the Spanish edition from Salt & Pepper Games, kindly provided by the publisher as a review copy.

Important: if you already know the game and/or are only interested in my opinion about it, you can go directly to the Opinion section. The Content and Mechanics sections are especially intended for those who do not know the game and prefer to get a general idea of how it works.

Components

Inside a two-piece cardboard box (lid and bottom), measuring 20.3 × 20.3 × 5.1 cm (a medium square box similar to Kahuna or The Rivals for Catan), we find the following components:

Game Board (cardboard)
44 Cards (75 × 105 mm):
- 20 Editor Cards
- 20 Nixon Cards
- 2 Momentum Cards
- Initiative Card
- Summary Card
36 Evidence Tokens (cardboard)
7 Conspirator Tiles (cardboard)
9 Momentum Tokens (wood)
1 Initiative Marker (wood)
Bag (cloth)
Rulebook

How to Play

Watergate is a two-player design in which one player takes on the role of Richard Nixon while the other represents the press (in the persona of the Editor), striving to uncover the infamous Watergate scandal. The core mechanic is card-driven: players play cards from their hands either to trigger their printed effects or to spend action points to tug various items along a central bidirectional track. These contested items include initiative for the next round (granting the player with initiative one extra card/action), momentum tokens (which serve as one of Nixon’s primary paths to victory), and evidence tokens (which players pin to a corkboard evidence web connecting Nixon to various informants). Nixon’s goal is to secure five momentum tokens or hold out until the supply runs dry, whereas the press must connect Nixon to two informants via unbroken paths of evidence.

Key Concepts

Let us start with the Board. Most of its surface depicts a corkboard featuring a photograph of President Nixon in the center, encircled by a network of strings connecting to seven potential informants, each also represented by a photo. These strings intersect at pushpins, beneath which lie colored tabs in three possible hues: blue, green, and yellow. On the right side sits the research track, consisting of an 11-space column with the value 0 in the center space, scaling outward toward both ends. At the start of each round, a set of items is placed on this track for players to fight over, aiming to pull them onto their side by round’s end.

The primary objective for the Editor is to connect Nixon to two of the seven informants using Evidence Tokens, the first of these contested elements. These tokens display one or two of the aforementioned colors. Once won, they must be pinned to the board on a pushpin space sharing at least one matching color. If Nixon secures the evidence instead, he places it face-down (still matching the space’s color) to sever potential routes. Some tokens also feature a red circle with the number one inside, which grants an immediate shift of the momentum token toward the player who claimed it.

Momentum Tokens represent Nixon’s primary route to victory and serve as the second element moving along the research track. Each player has a dedicated card to store captured momentum tokens. For Nixon, collecting a fifth token instantly wins the game, while the Editor unlocks powerful recurring or immediate bonuses starting with their third token. Nixon also wins if the momentum token supply is completely exhausted.

The third and final element moving across the track is the Initiative Marker. This white wooden token grants initiative in the subsequent round, conferring one extra turn over your opponent.

The Informants do not start on the board; instead, both players must recruit them to their respective sides. Nixon can silence them, placing their tile face-down on the board and permanently barring the Editor from using that informant to win. Conversely, if the Editor sways an informant, the tile is placed face-up, opening an avenue to link them to Nixon via evidence.

Last but not least are the Action Cards, the mechanical engine of the game. Each player has a completely asymmetric deck. Nixon commands events and conspirators, while the Editor wields events and journalists. All cards share a uniform layout, showing an action point value in the upper left corner tied to a specific evidence color. These points can be spent to tug an element along the research track (evidence tokens must match the color indicated). Alternatively, players may execute the card’s text effect, which frequently causes the card to be permanently removed from the game.

That is enough to get started.

Preparación de la Partida

Players decide which side each will command (Nixon or the Editor).
Place the board between both players, oriented so that the research track runs perpendicular between them.
Each player takes their 20-card deck, shuffles it, and sets it to one side.
Place the initiative card next to the board, initially pointing toward the Editor.
Set up the informant supply by placing all 7 tiles face-up beside the board.
Both players place their respective momentum card in front of them.
Form a general supply with the momentum tokens.
Place all evidence tokens into the cloth bag.

We are ready to begin!

Game Flow

A game of Watergate is played over an indeterminate number of rounds. Each round consists of three phases.

Phase I: Initial Phase

Proceed as follows:

The Nixon player draws 3 evidence tokens blindly from the bag, examines them secretly, and places them face-down on the 0 space of the research track.
The player holding initiative draws 5 cards, while their opponent draws 4. Whenever a player’s draw deck runs empty, their discard pile is shuffled to form a fresh draw deck.

Phase II: Card Phase

Starting with the player who holds initiative, players alternate turns playing one card from their hand to the table.

Each card can be played in one of two ways:

Action Points: The card displays a number of action points tied to an evidence color. The player must spend all points to move a single element along the research track, after which the card is always placed in their discard pile. Momentum and initiative markers have no color restrictions, but moving an evidence token requires it to match the color on the played card. If Nixon moves a face-down token, he must immediately reveal it. If the Editor wants to move a token and no face-up evidence of that color is visible on the track, they ask Nixon if any of the face-down tokens match. If so, Nixon flips one matching token face-up (without disclosing if there are others), and that token is the one moved. If no matching tokens exist, the Editor must spend those action points to move the momentum token, the initiative marker, or another face-up evidence token.
Action Text: Read and resolve the card effect. There are three types:
- Events: Once resolved, these cards are removed from the game.
- Conspirators: Found in Nixon’s deck; they go to the discard pile once resolved.
- Journalists: Found in the Editor’s deck; they go to the discard pile once resolved.

After resolving the card, the turn passes to the opposing player.

If any element reaches the space marked 5 on either side, that player claims it immediately, pulling it off the track into their play area. If this element is an evidence token bearing a momentum icon, that player also pulls the momentum marker on the track one space closer to their side.

Phase III: Evaluation Phase

Proceed as follows:

All evidence tokens remaining on the 0 space are returned to the bag.
The player with the initiative marker on their side of the track retains or claims initiative for the next round (rotating the initiative card accordingly). If the marker rests on the 0 space, initiative flips to the other player.
The player whose side holds the momentum marker claims it and places it on the next open space of their momentum card. For the Editor, starting with the third token, this triggers immediate special abilities upon placement. If the Editor’s card is already full and they claim another token, it is removed from the game.
A new momentum token and the initiative marker are placed on the 0 space of the track.
Players place any won evidence tokens onto the board, starting with whoever holds initiative. The Editor pins tokens face-up, while Nixon places them face-down, always matching a pushpin space to a color on the token. Any evidence token showing a momentum icon immediately shifts the momentum marker on the track for the upcoming round.

If neither player has met their victory condition, a new round begins.

Game End

The game can end in several ways:

Nixon wins if:
- He places a fifth momentum token on his momentum card.
- At the start of round preparation, no momentum tokens remain in the supply.
The Editor wins if:
- They connect Nixon to two informants via unbroken lines of face-up evidence tokens.

Personal Opinion

Matthias Cramer is one of those designers who often treads on tricky ground, seemingly always on the cusp of a runaway hit without ever fully breaking out. He certainly has commendable titles under his belt, like Lancaster or Glen More, even if they show occasional flaws (I tend to set Rococo aside, as I feel the Malz family contributed heavily to that great design).

Now he presents an offering that pivots away from his past portfolio, stepping closer to a thematic board game than a traditional eurogame with Watergate, bringing one of America’s biggest political scandals to the table. Let’s see if this shift suits Matthias well—not before thanking Salt & Pepper Games for providing the review copy that makes this tocho-review possible.

In 1972, five men were arrested inside the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex during a break-in to steal documents. This event unraveled a web of conspiracy that ultimately led to Richard Nixon’s resignation as President of the United States under the looming shadow of impeachment. The game tasks you with either reliving history by stepping into the shoes of the Editor—representing the Fourth Estate exposing the corruption—or altering it entirely by playing Nixon to keep the scandal buried.

Mechanically, this is a Card-Driven Game where each side wields an asymmetric deck themed around historical events and figures. Every card serves a dual purpose: executing its printed effect or spending its action points. These action points are used exclusively to shift components across the bidirectional research track, with each opponent striving to haul contested items toward their side. By pulling an item one space closer to yourself, you simultaneously drag it further away from your rival’s grasp.

It is worth noting that if an element reaches the end of the track, the corresponding player claims it instantly. Usually, however, you resolve claims at the end of the round, where simply keeping an item on your side of the 0 space suffices to secure it.

Securing these items is the undisputed core of your path to victory. The Editor must secure evidence tokens (three are up for grabs each round) to build trails across the corkboard web between Nixon and the various informants—informants who must also be persuaded or intimidated via card effects. Naturally, Nixon fights tooth and nail to intercept this evidence, placing it face-down to sever those critical pathways.

On the other front, Nixon is compelled to seize momentum tokens to fill his card; claiming the fifth token yields an immediate victory. The Editor will strive to disrupt this by capturing momentum tokens instead, which, unlike Nixon’s straightforward tracker, unlocks potent perks beginning with the third token earned.

The final crucial contested piece is the game’s initiative. Being the start player in a round provides a significant advantage: an additional turn backed by an extra card drawn at the round’s start.

Players trade alternating blows across rounds in a tense tug-of-war, racing to be the first to reach their personal win condition. There are no convoluted detours beyond this focused framework.

What stands out first and foremost is that, despite dealing with political intrigue and using mechanics popularized by wargames, this design is exceptionally direct, easy to teach, and remarkably fast-paced. Everything centers on that tug-of-war track and making the most of each round’s contested pieces. Trying to cover every base will spread you far too thin; knowing when to pick your battles is what delivers the win.

As with many games of this lineage, the heart of the challenge lies in divided attention. Every single action forces you to weigh attack versus defense. Each side has a natural objective—Nixon angling for momentum tokens and the Editor targeting evidence. Yet time and again, you must pause your own plans to snatch a piece away from your opponent and derail their momentum.

This tension is especially palpable for the Editor, who arguably faces a steeper uphill battle: building paths requires collecting matching color sets of evidence and spending precious turns to recruit informants. Nixon’s path seems cleaner on paper, needing only five momentum tokens to wrap things up without stressing over spatial network connections or blocked routes.

In this regard, it evokes sensations reminiscent of abstract games like Hive, where one player dictates the tempo while the other is forced into defensive parries to reclaim initiative. If both sides tunnel-vision on purely offensive pushes, the player with the tempo advantage usually prevails. The same applies here: if both blindly pursue their own victory requirements, Nixon will often win, as his objective requires fewer intermediate steps.

One might assume the design leans too heavily in the President’s favor, and there is some merit to that observation. In my plays, the administrative machinery often feels more robust than the Fourth Estate. However, checking Nixon is entirely manageable: all the Editor needs to do is poach those momentum tokens, gaining access to formidable abilities after pulling it off a few times.

Layered over this are the card effects, many engineered specifically to stall your rival or trigger cross-board swings. As is standard in the genre, knowing when to fire an effect versus when to spend the raw action points is paramount. These effects pack a punch and frequently leave little doubt about their use, presenting constant “now or never” decisions, particularly with the informant cards.

If forced to highlight a single defining virtue, it would unquestionably be the sheer tension. From turn one, players feel immense pressure to avoid missteps when playing each card. A persistent sense of sudden death hangs over every decision, mounting as the endgame draws near. Matches routinely boil down to both sides needing just one final action to clinch the game. That razor-sharp uncertainty over who will cross the finish line first is thoroughly gripping.

This quality is inherent to the card-driven tug-of-war mechanism, seen in modern classics like Twilight Struggle (tocho-review here), its streamlined sibling 13 Days: The Cuban Missile Crisis (tocho-review here), or the lightweight historical design The King’s War (tocho-review here). All share that high-wire friction where every round hinges on anticipating your opponent’s schemes while keeping your own from collapsing.

Inevitably, many of you will wonder how Watergate stacks up directly against those titles. Naturally, Twilight Struggle sits in an entirely different stratosphere (above this and 99.9% of published board games). Comparing it to The King’s War is a stretch, as their design weights put them in different leagues. However, matched against 13 Days: The Cuban Missile Crisis, the duel is remarkably close. In fact, both complement each other well on a shelf, and personal preference will likely dictate which one you favor.

13 Days leans much harder into bluffing, psychological reads, and hidden information to score prestige, mirroring Twilight Struggle’s psychological weight. Throughout the game, you are constantly trying to get inside your rival’s head to decipher the motive behind every move.

By contrast, Watergate strips away the psychological smoke and mirrors, handing both players a sword and a shield before shoving them into the arena to trade lethal blows. Those weapons are the asymmetric decks and disparate win conditions. Hidden information is minimal, essentially limited to Nixon playing shell games with face-down evidence tokens on the track.

The experience is direct, ruthless, and unforgiving of tactical blunders, whereas 13 Days demands long-term misdirection and maneuvering. Deciding between them comes down to which dynamic fits your table best.

I must point out one notable critique: the impact of card draw luck. Given the brisk pacing and separated decks, matches can occasionally hinge on the cards drawn in what ends up being the final round. I have seen games where the Editor claimed immediate victory on turn one of a round via an event that plucked a random token from the bag, happening to draw the exact color needed to seal the second informant link. Similarly, with Nixon needing just one last momentum marker, drawing two recruitment cards worth 3 or 4 action points can guarantee him the win before the Editor even gets a chance to react.

Ending a hard-fought contest on a lucky draw can be mildly anticlimactic. Luckily, the remedy is setting it right back up for a rematch, as games rarely exceed thirty minutes (unless someone suffers from severe analysis paralysis). Were the playtime any longer, this variance would be a genuine issue, but it remains a known factor worth keeping in mind.

This brisk running time can also be a double-edged sword for players craving a sprawling strategic canvas. Watergate is an intense, bare-knuckle tactical duel, meaning bingeing it incessantly might make individual plays blur together.

Even so, asymmetric decks double its longevity. In shared-deck card-driven games, players quickly memorize the card pool and optimal timings. Here, controlling entirely distinct decks allows you to experience the conflict through two fundamentally different lenses, breathing significant life into replayability.

Before closing out our thoughts, a quick note on historical games: whenever a title inspires you to look up the real-world events and investigate the historical figures pictured on the cards, it has succeeded on all fronts. It entertains while sparking genuine historical curiosity, and Watergate succeeds at that brilliantly.

Production-wise, the components are functional and well-made. The cardboard tokens have good thickness and punch out cleanly. The wooden markers are generously sized discs. The cards stand out with their oversized format (accommodating substantial text, occasionally to the point where small details can be overlooked), sturdy cardstock, pleasant linen finish, and solid snap. The rulebook is logically structured and explains everything clearly.

Visually, the game relies on archival photographs—a staple of the genre—paired with crisp graphic design and clean iconography. The cover art is evocative enough to catch the eye on a game shelf, though the historical name itself remains the primary draw.

And let’s wrap this up. Watergate is a card-driven game depicting the events that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation as President of the United States. One player assumes the role of Nixon (fighting to suppress the conspiracy) while the other acts as the Editor (striving to blow the lid off the scandal). It is exceptionally tense, brisk, simple to teach, and undeniably engaging. Its drawbacks lie in a somewhat tight strategic ceiling and occasional late-game draw luck that can leave the losing side frustrated. Fortunately, its swift playtime makes back-to-back matches a breeze. For all these reasons, I give it a…