Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Board games

Silva

Arcane
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
4,778
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
My personal recommendation if you can find it: Chaos in the Old World. It's a 4 player (strictly 4 player, anything else sucks) area of control/dudes on a map type game that's probably my favourite overall board game. Extremely thematic, replayable, and interactive. Plus, it's Warhammer before it went to shit. Get it if you can. I own the first edition from 2009-ish, and there was an expansion (Skaven) that was kinda bad, not essential at all. I don't know if there are more recent editions, as the publisher (FFG) lost the license
I see Chaos is from author Eric Lang. How is the author newest games compared to it? Say, this Kemet or Blood Rage?

The premise of Chaos looks awesome but the 4P requirement seems beyond my reach these days, as a I play mostly 2-3P. Also, 2 hours is my sweet spot, with half an hour above or below at most.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
5,869
Kemet isn't by Eric Lang afaik - I've never played Blood Rage and don't know how it compares to Chaos.

3p might be doable, it's just that the game is very tightly designed and all the gods balance each other out - it's a very asymmetrical game with different goals, so it's the sort of game where players must be on their toes to constantly stop each other from easily fulfiling a special win condition.

The good news is that it plays very quickly once players are familiar with it - definitely doable under 2 hours. I need to stress the fact that the expansion isn't good at all - it actually makes the game worse IMO. Base design is brilliant, no need to mess with it.
 
Last edited:

Silva

Arcane
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
4,778
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Thanks for the decription. I must have confused Kemet for Ankh, which is from Eric Lang.

My question about Blood Rage and Ankh is to see if they capture the appeal of Chaos in the Old World but on a simpler, faster and lower player counts package. After a cursory look though, it doesnt seem the case: Blood Rage looks awful simplistic and Ankh, while possibly more interesting, looks like a different kettle of fish altogether. Lagi I know you're the local Ankh fanboy. How does it compare to Chaos, if at all?
 

Lagi

Savant
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
726
Location
Desert
I really like these guys reviews, even when I disagree with their conclusions.


i dont have time to listen to this shit
Merging is rubbish - just ignore it.

Scorpion with just destroying monuments is one of the greatest fun in this game!! No dice rolling, no save, no stupid recovery procedures, just brutal instant reality - its goddam pure... and i love it... go play warhammer where you roll bucket of dice multiple times, to deal in 4h of game 2 wounds to single enemy regiment.
plague of locust is brilliant !! Everybody except the winner DIE. Death is eternal, even Death may die. There is not many games that properly deliver good grim feeling of your troops just dying (except Inis). Fcking shit.... rules of Ankh are simple, quick and excellently thought out. After playing shit out of it, you will find that some metas are just much stronger than other
there is t3 power that grant you Devotion for losing units in combat - all players trying to win, and by doing that they pushing you to victory. Pyramid attune - allow you to spawn near pyramids all your minis on a single action which is broken
, but the simplicity of rules is flawless.

god damm go play some chinessium / manga shit.
 

Silva

Arcane
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
4,778
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
:lol:

Cut the butthurt Lagi , it's just the guy's opinion. And his reviews are fairly informative that one can take a good idea of games even not agreeing with him, which I think is the mark of a good review. They actually ditched all games I ended up getting (classic Dune, Dune Imperium and Scythe) just like they did Ankh.

About Ankh, can the merge be ignored? Is it just a catchup / "anti-kingmaking" mechanism or is there more behind it? Looking from afar it seems a potentially interesting mechanic IF players are expecting it from the beginning AND on a 4P+ game. Also, how are expansions? Any that you feel mandatory?

Speaking of kingmaking, you also cite Inis, and everywhere I look this game is praised, but after watching a playthrough I'm not sure I like it. It's "kingmaking embracing" ethos doesn't seem fun to me. It's like players keep alternating at leadership and then getting bashed indefinitely until one sneaks out with the victory. There's no build-up to anything, no strategy. Also, the victory conditions feel so... technical? I must have 6 clans or 6 territories or 6 whatevers, and these keep changing chaotically at every round. WTF? What's good in this shit?


EDIT: found this Inis review which reflects some of my feelings..

I hate how that, by making the win conditions organic and simple, it actually makes it too hard to track conveniently. Towards the end of the game, you have to stop and add it all up constantly, trying to factor in the potential power shifts and then decide how to accurately pick your battles. Plus, remember this is a game of inches. The game is most likely going to be determined, not by overwhelming military force, but via a SINGLE UNIT which can be placed, moved, or removed nearly at whim. Very rarely will there be big battles that determine victory. Most often it's a sneaky emissary, exploration, or a new alliance card determining things for good. (God forbid you failed to account for those Epic Tale cards.) It's so hard to parse the busy board state and players' win potentials that punishing the leader is pretty much impossible to do reliably, and winning feels akin to random chance.

I've won nearly every game of Inis I've played and each victory does not feel like a master stroke of strategy, to me, so much as politely squeezing past two people fighting in a doorway. Sometimes it even seems entirely an accident that I've won. I feel like I should APOLOGIZE for winning, except everybody else is just glad that this un-fun game is over.

If I had to point at the one thing Inis does the most wrong, is the fact there isn't any moment of positive feedback. You don't feel measurable progress towards victory, at least nothing more permanent than the promise of rain on a cloudy day. Battles don't always result in your gain. Exploring a Territory means very little for you. Building a Citadel may actually hurt you. Placing dudes on the map may actually LOSE you the game. Even the simple act of playing a card might result in nothing happening at all, because of the ever-present Geiss-cancel. Everything is in such an ephemeral state of flux that few actions can be performed with surety that they were good for you to do.
 
Last edited:

Lagi

Savant
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
726
Location
Desert
ankh have many boxes, all are good. more gods, guardians. more variety. I think the basic game is good enough.
Pharoah expansion is a mess. there is 2nd board with stupid mini game of moving your priest between rooms. It adds you over power cards from palace that just break the game. I like the sphinxs as 4th monument though.
Merging is a novelty mechanic, not very well applied, that should be ignored. I play once with it, and i regret that good game was spoiled.
...........................
or temples - i forgot how much you need to control.
I read this INIS review and i dont understand this guy problem. This is what make this game good.
INIS is very well design game, without broken concepts. I hate games that are decided at the start, because someone knows the best meta.
you select cards at the start, which basically dictate your options for the round, and you know well that if you dont take card X, your opponent will.
INIS have the most mind games, thats true. TBH mind games is the definition of fun for me in any games.
when i playing something on PC and i solved the AI, i need to LARP or self impose some challenge, otherwise the game is like work (except the real life work is often unexpected, and new stuff happening all the time - which you cannot say about computer games).
.....
they make 2nd edition of INIS, and they didnt change a thing, except more fancy cover on the box. This say it all.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom