by: Michael Barnes

Volko Ruhnke’s LABYRINTH: THE WAR ON TERROR, 2001- ? is the newest release from GMT Games, the house that brought us other modern classics of the card-driven wargame format such as TWILIGHT STRUGGLE and HERE I STAND as well as Mr. Ruhnke’s own WILDERNESS WAR, a game about the French and Indian Wars. This game isn’t about the Cold War that our fathers and grandfathers experienced nor is it about conflicts fought long ago over causes that have lost significance. Wargames are generally a reflective medium, looking back on historical events with the safety of distance. LABRYINTH is different. The history it describes is fresh in memory—some of it unwritten. The names and faces on the cards are ones that if you’re old enough to play the game, then you remember seeing them on the news or in the papers. This is a game about our history and our time, and specifically the geopolitical reality of the post-9/11 world.

Undoubtedly, the ongoing conflict between the Western world and Jihadist strains of Islam is a volatile, somewhat touchy subject for a game. Before its release, the game was controversial for a number of reasons ranging from its suggestion that certain countries have “poor” governance (indicating nations under irresponsible, unaccountable regimes) to the use of the crescent and star symbol on the Jihadist player’s tokens. Many asked whether or not it’s somehow appropriate for a game to take on such a recent and still-raw subject matter, or if it’s somehow moral for players to assume the role of violent, fringe Muslims, apparently forgetting the hundreds if not thousands of games that put players in the shoes of the Nazi high command or in charge of divisions of Waffen SS.

LABYRINTH is not a frivolous, silly game and it absolutely does not trivialize any aspect of the War on Terror nor does it vilify mainstream, moderate Muslims. It is also not at all satirical, like the hilarious WAR ON TERROR board game that caused a stir a few years ago. It is a very serious, very analytical treatment of the subject matter executed by a game designer with a background in CIA intelligence, foreign policy, and counterterrorism. This authority, coupled with a distinct perspective, results in a game that shows players how the War on Terror is fought every day, even as we speak, while also commenting on how certain events fit together and presenting uncountable “what if” scenarios that demonstrate how history might have been different—or how the future might change based on decisions made now. This is an authorial game, and even if you do not agree with Mr. Ruhnke’s opinions regarding the policing of Islamic fundamentalism or his assessment of governance quality, it remains utterly fascinating and completely riveting whether you are playing the two player game, with one player representing the US and the other the Jihadists, or the solo game with an automated adversary.

Like most card-driven wargames, the central mechanic is based around cards that may be played either for Operations points to execute core actions or for a narrative event. Taking a cue from TWILIGHT STRUGGLE, most cards have an alignment so that if a side plays one of the opponent’s cards, then the event is triggered. This creates some incredibly tense, do-or-die moments in the game while also fomenting long-term strategic planning as players may have to be prepared to mitigate particularly catastrophic events in addition to unseen ones played by the other player.

It is an asymmetrical game. Each side has a different menu of options to choose from for entirely different goals. The US must attempt to improve governance in resource-producing Muslim nations or eliminate all cells from the map, not an easy thing to do as they spring up persistently throughout the game. To do this, the US player must conduct War of Ideas operations (representing negotiation, aid, and other non-violent means of coercion) to support positive government change and to shift neutrals and adversaries to allies, disrupt terror cells, and when necessary enact resource-draining regime changes to overthrow Islamist regimes, similar to US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Jihadist player recruits cells throughout the Muslim world, Asia, and Europe. These cells can travel from nation to nation, enact terror plots including WMD attacks, and worsen governance in embattled nations through Jihad. A Jihadist victory is won by shifting the balance of the Muslim world toward radical Islamist rule, reducing the United State’s world prestige, or by successfully completing a WMD attack in the United States.