Diese Anleitung ist noch nicht übersetzt — unten steht sie auf Englisch.
Every Kludoku case is solved from testimony — short statements from the suspects about where they and the others stood. There are nineteen kinds of them, and every single one is a constraint you can act on. This is the full field manual: what each statement proves, what it quietly rules out, and — because the harder cases hide an accomplice — what it means when the statement is a lie. The phrasings below are the real ones, with a case’s cast names filled in as the game fills them.
“Delia was in the kitchen.” (a room testimony) — the strongest single statement in the game. The suspect's squares collapse to one room. Play these first, always.
“Delia was in the kitchen or in the garden.” — a split room testimony. Weaker alone, but it pairs viciously well with a row or column statement that only touches one of the two rooms.
“Nadia was in row 3.” / “Nadia was in column 5.” — a line testimony. Remember the iron rules of the genre: exactly one person per row, and never two in a column (a wider-than-tall scene simply leaves a column empty). A line testimony does not just place its subject — it evicts everyone else from that line.
“Victor was touching the outer wall.” and its negative — the edge testimony. On a big board “touching the wall” still leaves a long ring, but “not touching the outer wall” is a strong statement on a small one: the interior of a 5×5 scene is only nine squares.
“Victor was in the northern half of the scene.” — the half testimony. Halves overlap on odd-sized boards (the middle row belongs to both), so read the veil, not your assumption.
“Delia was in the same room as Zeno.” — the classic pair. Neither is placed, but their candidate rooms intersect: any room that cannot hold both drops off the map for both.
“Delia and Zeno were in different rooms.” — weak alone, decisive late. When only two rooms remain open, it splits them.
“Nadia was right beside Victor, in the same room.” — adjacency with a room condition. Beside-chains (A beside B, B beside C) force long straight runs that fit in very few places.
“Nadia was somewhere north of Victor.” — a direction testimony, and its exact form “Nadia was exactly 2 rows north of Victor”. The soft form orders two rows; the exact form is a rigid offset you can slide around the board as one piece.
“Zeno was all alone in a room.” — an occupancy statement about everyone: whichever room holds this suspect holds nobody else. And “Zeno and Delia were alone together in one room” — the pair version. Remember what the game is about: whoever was alone with the victim is the killer. An alone-with naming the victim is the case handing you the murderer.
“Victor was beside the piano.” and “Victor was not beside the piano” — object adjacency. The eight squares around each copy of the object (there can be more than one!) are the candidate ring; the negative subtracts that ring.
“Delia was in the same row as the statue.” / “same column as the chest” — object alignment. Like a line testimony, but you must first find every copy of the object and take the union of their rows or columns.
“Zeno was seated on the sofa.” / “lying on the bed” / “on the carpet” — occupancy testimonies. Occupiable furniture (the green list in the case file) is exactly where a suspect can stand; these statements pin them onto one class or one object. The negatives — “was not seated on anything”, “was not lying in any bed” — subtract the whole class.
“Nobody was in the vault.” — an empty-room testimony. Every suspect loses those squares at once; on room-heavy boards this is the loudest statement in the case.
“Exactly 2 people were in the garden.” — a room count. Bookkeeping, not geometry: as the garden fills toward its count, everyone else is evicted; if it can no longer reach its count with the suspects still free, somebody currently elsewhere must move in.
“Nadia was not in the study.” — the negative room testimony. File it and move on; its job is to break the tie two positive statements leave behind.
In an accomplice case, exactly one suspect's statements are all false — and false has an exact meaning: the logical opposite. “I was in the kitchen” becomes “I was not in the kitchen”. “We were in different rooms” becomes “we were in the same room”. “Exactly two people were in the garden” becomes “some other number of people were in the garden”. Mark a suspect as your suspected accomplice in play and the game renders their card inverted for you — see the accomplice technique guide for how to hunt the liar down.
All nineteen types compose: a room census plus a same-room, a direction plus an alignment. The craft is choosing which two to intersect first — the techniques guide is the drill book for exactly that.
Play free · the rules · your first case, worked
Kostenlos spielen — kein Download
Diese Seite lesen auf: Català · English · Español · Euskara · Français · Galego · Italiano · 日本語 · 한국어 · Nederlands · Português · Русский · Valencià · 中文