Nuanced and balanced analysis with lots of great points. I personally love Inis, and although everything you said is technically correct, I personally think the marriage of the cold predictability of the drafted cards and the whackiness of the red cards and the randomly drawn tiles is a happy one. But I can definitely see, why people might disagree. About the combat, I find it very important to inform new players, that war is brutal, sometimes arbitrary, and that in Inis combat is almost solely a test of will and resolve. The fact that combat is so extremely attritional is really important IMO, because it makes people think really hard before initiating it and forces them to come to terms, when things don't work out as planned, before it gets out of hand. Not letting yourself succumb to blood lust, thirst for revenge or the sunk cost fallacy which will trap you in attritional warfare is part of learning to play the game well, and I personally wouldn't have it any other way. The one thing I really do agree with is the slightly broken system of the Brenn. Personally I play with the house rule that simply removes the Breen as a victory condition tie breaker. There is no reason for that rule to be there, it removes a good portion of the incentive to hold on to the title of Brenn, and it has no influence at all on gameplay. Good review, even though my conclusions about the game are different from yours.
I like your reviews but I disagree with this one. The main point of your review is that the red cards make the design problematic and ruin the balance created with the green cards. But I'm telling you this. The green cards are not going to win you the game, the red cards (and sometimes the yellow cards) are. The point is to try and get close to more than one victory condition while building your deck of red cards and then draft the green card to optimise your strategy. If you build your strategy around your green cards you will be unlikely to succeed. Out of the 10 games I played I won almost every time. I always played with four players. Obviously if you play with people that just want to screw you over without any will to win you're not going to enjoy your game. All the points you're making about the clash spiralling out of control and "smart players got caught in" are biased by your experience with the game. If you're smart you don't get caught. Either you stay in a region if you know you can shield your clans in a Citadel or you move out before the big battle begins. Much depends on the players. Inis is semi-cooperative in the way that all players should contribute to kick a camping Brenn or to stop a pretender from winning while at the same time fulfilling their secret objective that is dictated by his epic tale cards and opportunity. The game is solid for me. I managed to play a 2 hour game in which I was almost wiped out of the board and the come back to win even if I only had 5 units on the map and despite all the others having winning conditions of their own (I snagged the capital just before last Assembly phase). Give it another go and keep it up with your excellent reviews.
Great analysis and this is basically what I was going to say too. To me, the puzzle of Inis is squarely "How can I achieve a victory condition in a way that nobody will be able to 1) See it coming and 2) Stop me." Late game, that certainly revolves around tailoring your draft to your growing hand of Epic Tale cards. These cards give you ways to break the stalemate that Inis can become late game via proper Action and Advantage card combo play with them. As such, the Epic Tale cards basically act as another timer on the game (along with the Deed tokens). I don't necessarily need to know what specifically my opponent has in his hand to know that if he's 4/6 on a victory condition with a hand that includes 4 Epic Tale cards and plenty of spare dudes on the board, he's probably about to set up a combo to win the game, especially if he is playing his round for card advantage by passing a lot. If you recognize early that players with too many Epic Tale cards are a threat, it's usually not too late to stop them because of the decks' often situation nature.
Sorry for Zombie thread, but I have to agree. I feel like Mark may have missed part of the character of the game here-for me, it plays out much more socially than the typical mechanical dudes-on-a-map game. It's been a while since I played, so I never fully mastered the red and yellow cards, but my greatest success in Inis has come from playing the table *and* the cards. The randomness by certain cards and the land tiles and the OP nature of the Brenn, means victory comes from navigating loose-knit alliances, and a mixture of posturing and deception to seize power. The pretender token is obviously designed to encourage bluffling-though it comes at a cost. Combat is settled when both players agree, so stupid attrition only needs to happen when people are being stupid. It's entirely possible (though not easy) to win a game with all three victory conditions, without having been Brenn, playing against competent players. Wrangling the chaos and flipping the script on your enemies plays out as much like a poker game as dudes-on-a-map. All that said, love that someone has the chutzpah to take on the big titles, really enjoying the podcast (So Very Wrong About Games) and am very much hoping that people are still getting this gem to the table.
Just found your channel and love your video's, instantsubscribe. Is a Blood Rage review comming up or could you give your impressions? I've really been on the fence about that game (also because of how expensive it is) and thought Inis would probably be a better fit for me as a combo between drafting and dudes-on-a-map, but after your review, I'm not so sure.
I thoroughly enjoy this game. I've played this game now with five different gaming groups and all have had a pretty similar opinion. I agree with your thoughts on enjoying the way the action selection works through this draft. I also love the art and happen to love the design of the tiles. The one negative I agree on is the way Brinn works. In most my games the person who started as Brinn remains the Brinn most the game. I disagree on you're negative of the Epic tale cards. The game has little randomness and that small amount of randomness with the cards is needed and enjoyable for me. The Epic tale cards can also help to mitigate a fight being just pure attrition. I always explain to you players that getting the Epic tale cards is crucial. I will say I think this game is begging for an expansion. New region tiles, new epic tale cards and something to help with the Brinn control.
Very interesting thoughts about replay value. Any chance that your experience might be tied to the meta of your group rather than the game itself? Also with those Mutually Assured Destruction clashes, don't clans typically have the option to withdraw to any of their neighboring territories?
Gerhardt Schtitt You can decide to stop a clash even before it starts, or stop it at any time as long as all parties agree to, which happens quite often. It is not total annihilation. I don't think this reviewer understands the game very well. It is very nuanced and must be played several times before you really understand the mechanics and strategy. The replayability is high and every game feels different.
I actually have purchased the game since my first comment and it has become one of my all-time favorites. That said, Mark is the smartest, most incisive board game reviewer I know of and I think it is highly unlikely that he misunderstood the rules. I think my difference of opinion with him on Inis is probably just due to the different types of people we play board games with. I made it very clear to my board game group that clashing is almost always lose-lose unless you have a very clear agenda in mind. As a result, clashes going beyond 3 or 4 maneuvers are very rare. In fact, during my last game, there was not a single clash that did not immediately end with all parties agreeing to peace.
I did not say he doesn't understand the rules. I said he didn't appear to understand the game. As you have probably found out, it takes several plays for this game to show its beauty, strategy and balance. For example, there are often specific reasons to risk a clash beyond just trying to crush another player (e.g. to pick up a Deed). There are subtleties like tempo vs. passing and knowing when to forge ahead or put on the brakes. Or making sure you collect more epic tale cards than your opponent to gain a later game advantage. You can't really appreciate this game by playing it a single time. This is one of those love it or hate it games, except I don't know anyone who still hated it after giving it a second or third chance.
All good points - I think you've mostly convinced me. I still wonder though if Mark's bad experience might have more to do with the people he games with. What I mean by that is that if you play Inis with a bunch of people who all come to the game with the mindset of playing it like Risk - it's going to be a nonstop attritional blood bath no matter how well you yourself understand the spirit of the underlying mechanics. My biggest criticism of Inis is that the rulebook does not emphasize enough how greatly the game deviates from norms of the DOAM genre: PASSING IS POWER - CLASHES ARE ALMOST ALWAYS LOSE LOSE - DEEDS ARE CRITICAL.
I really like and enjoy this game but appreciate the reviewer's main points. They're valid to a degree, but fall under the, "to each their own" category. The only part where I wondered if he missed a very critical rule is when he talked about the "quagmire" situation that may arise from a clash. He seemed to focus on how such a situation could end up screwing over an innocent player, etc, as these clashes will go on without end until somone is completely hosed. Or at least that's what I took from his discription of what he considers a "quagmire". So this makes me wonder if he's aware that all involved parties can either agree to stop fighting, or make a deal to stop fighting, at any time? (I'm not talking about withdrawing - I'm talking about simply stopping the fighting in place so that no one suffers any further losses and all coexist in place) Knowing how thorough he is, I have to assume he knows about the rule. But if he does, he didn't bother to mention it as a very likely way to put a stop to the quagmire situation that he faults the game so much for.
Thing is that that requires consent of all involved. If one person is a jerk, or feels that he wants to gain the edge and attack once more before peace (and then the next person feels the same etc.), it doesn't work. Though I don't think it's the fault of the game or bad design, rather the fault of the players not realizing they're just letting the third guy benefit the most.
You articulated my complex feelings on this game perfectly. Although the "Pretender Token" mechanics also baffle me. I don't believe that they add anything to the game except a really convoluted way to declare "check" with no strategic value.
I agree with all of this and add that I didn't find a lot of the decisions were all that interesting. My decisions are based entirely on the cards I had many hands that were bad drafts that did not lead to me caring about what I was doing because it was all I could do. I honestly don't know how I will look at Inis on my shelf and Cry Havoc and choose Inis.
It may sound strange, but yes, I trust the opinon of Mark. After seeing the review of SU&SD, I thought that Inis was a very interesting game and one to have as soon as possible; now, I'm not so sure. The main reason is that I don't like very much the drafting mechaninc, so I think I will pass on this game (even if the art is really goregeous and innovative). I like others Matagot productions: Kemet (that I have and love) and Cyclades (that I tried, and found very good), but I will wait more to see how this Inis will be.
As much as listening to more than one reviewer is the smart thing to do it's best to find a UA-camr that matches your board game taste and make his opinion worth bit more than the others. For example, for me it's Sam from the Dice Tower and the fact that Inis made to his top 12 of all time speaks to me quite strongly. Watching a not-so-positive review of a game that is praised everywhere else can be interesting but one needs to keep in mind that there might be a reason why everyone loves the game. That reason beeing the possibility that it's actually great and simply one reviewer (that is somewhat known for nit-picking and grilling popular games) did not like it. That's it. It does help to make an educated decision. Critical reviews are often bit more honest than the positive ones.
Cyclades, Kemet, and Inis are part of what I call the "Matagot Holy Trinity;" three dudes-on-a-map games with novel, interesting mechanics all playable in under two hours. I have all three, and of them Inis is probably my favorite (though they are all excellent). This reviewer is a habitual contrarian, don't let his excessive cynacism prevent you from enjoying one of the best games of 2016.
The point was that it's bad design if the bad decision of one player to attack another results in a third party easily winning the game merely by not being involved in the whole mess, rather than through skill.
Doesn't Puerto Rico also have this ? Where a player's dumb decision may benefit the person sitting next to them? It's not a design flaw as far as am concerned. Maybe it's just that the game is better played with people who fully understand the subtleties of the system.
Another review that i can link friends to when ask how i feel about Inis. Personally i cant play it at all anymore. Even winning I have to admit that my opponents strategy was in no way worse, we even reached one victory condition in the same turn, but I had the "Brenn". Its like starting Catan with 3 Cities when everyone else has 2 villages. The red cards basically make this a dice game.
"F.O.S." by What does it Eat Thanks. I'm only listening to those videos as side activity, so I never see the credits. I only searched the info box down below.
When will you review Blood Rage? I really don't like balance issues, so Inis doesn't sound like a game for me. I'd like to know whether or not Blood Rage has card balancing issues.
another weak review. it seems that the positive reviews are (unsurprisingly) the most informed, with the less egregious rules mistakes and so on.negative reviews such as this one are the opposite.
The way you've written your comment seems needlessly provocative, without any real content. It would be great if you could explain which 'egregious rules mistake' you think the reviewer has made, Adelin.
The presumption running around some circles, including those of my most treasured trolls, is that I don't understand any game I don't think is perfect. In this case, there is the assumption that I don't know how withdrawal works. I have always played with the correct withdrawal rules, and yet still have the temerity to fault the game.
Okay, what ever you say is best. However, your smug self-righteousness seemed refreshing for a couple of reviews but so quickly became grating - similar to your written replies by the looks of things. Unsubscribed.
you can peacefully coexist on the same territory ,which nicely complements the attritional battle system. you do not get the game: it encourages peaceful coexistence, not stupid battles. you are not that smart as you claim to be apparently
Nuanced and balanced analysis with lots of great points.
I personally love Inis, and although everything you said is technically correct, I personally think the marriage of the cold predictability of the drafted cards and the whackiness of the red cards and the randomly drawn tiles is a happy one. But I can definitely see, why people might disagree. About the combat, I find it very important to inform new players, that war is brutal, sometimes arbitrary, and that in Inis combat is almost solely a test of will and resolve. The fact that combat is so extremely attritional is really important IMO, because it makes people think really hard before initiating it and forces them to come to terms, when things don't work out as planned, before it gets out of hand. Not letting yourself succumb to blood lust, thirst for revenge or the sunk cost fallacy which will trap you in attritional warfare is part of learning to play the game well, and I personally wouldn't have it any other way. The one thing I really do agree with is the slightly broken system of the Brenn. Personally I play with the house rule that simply removes the Breen as a victory condition tie breaker. There is no reason for that rule to be there, it removes a good portion of the incentive to hold on to the title of Brenn, and it has no influence at all on gameplay.
Good review, even though my conclusions about the game are different from yours.
You're a champ at this. Keep it up.
I like your reviews but I disagree with this one. The main point of your review is that the red cards make the design problematic and ruin the balance created with the green cards. But I'm telling you this. The green cards are not going to win you the game, the red cards (and sometimes the yellow cards) are. The point is to try and get close to more than one victory condition while building your deck of red cards and then draft the green card to optimise your strategy. If you build your strategy around your green cards you will be unlikely to succeed.
Out of the 10 games I played I won almost every time. I always played with four players. Obviously if you play with people that just want to screw you over without any will to win you're not going to enjoy your game. All the points you're making about the clash spiralling out of control and "smart players got caught in" are biased by your experience with the game. If you're smart you don't get caught. Either you stay in a region if you know you can shield your clans in a Citadel or you move out before the big battle begins.
Much depends on the players. Inis is semi-cooperative in the way that all players should contribute to kick a camping Brenn or to stop a pretender from winning while at the same time fulfilling their secret objective that is dictated by his epic tale cards and opportunity. The game is solid for me. I managed to play a 2 hour game in which I was almost wiped out of the board and the come back to win even if I only had 5 units on the map and despite all the others having winning conditions of their own (I snagged the capital just before last Assembly phase).
Give it another go and keep it up with your excellent reviews.
Great analysis and this is basically what I was going to say too. To me, the puzzle of Inis is squarely "How can I achieve a victory condition in a way that nobody will be able to 1) See it coming and 2) Stop me." Late game, that certainly revolves around tailoring your draft to your growing hand of Epic Tale cards. These cards give you ways to break the stalemate that Inis can become late game via proper Action and Advantage card combo play with them.
As such, the Epic Tale cards basically act as another timer on the game (along with the Deed tokens). I don't necessarily need to know what specifically my opponent has in his hand to know that if he's 4/6 on a victory condition with a hand that includes 4 Epic Tale cards and plenty of spare dudes on the board, he's probably about to set up a combo to win the game, especially if he is playing his round for card advantage by passing a lot. If you recognize early that players with too many Epic Tale cards are a threat, it's usually not too late to stop them because of the decks' often situation nature.
Sorry for Zombie thread, but I have to agree. I feel like Mark may have missed part of the character of the game here-for me, it plays out much more socially than the typical mechanical dudes-on-a-map game. It's been a while since I played, so I never fully mastered the red and yellow cards, but my greatest success in Inis has come from playing the table *and* the cards. The randomness by certain cards and the land tiles and the OP nature of the Brenn, means victory comes from navigating loose-knit alliances, and a mixture of posturing and deception to seize power. The pretender token is obviously designed to encourage bluffling-though it comes at a cost. Combat is settled when both players agree, so stupid attrition only needs to happen when people are being stupid. It's entirely possible (though not easy) to win a game with all three victory conditions, without having been Brenn, playing against competent players. Wrangling the chaos and flipping the script on your enemies plays out as much like a poker game as dudes-on-a-map.
All that said, love that someone has the chutzpah to take on the big titles, really enjoying the podcast (So Very Wrong About Games) and am very much hoping that people are still getting this gem to the table.
Great job on these reviews... I have just found your channel and watched a few tonight. Thanks for sharing your ideas with the world.
Just found your channel and love your video's, instantsubscribe. Is a Blood Rage review comming up or could you give your impressions? I've really been on the fence about that game (also because of how expensive it is) and thought Inis would probably be a better fit for me as a combo between drafting and dudes-on-a-map, but after your review, I'm not so sure.
I thoroughly enjoy this game. I've played this game now with five different gaming groups and all have had a pretty similar opinion. I agree with your thoughts on enjoying the way the action selection works through this draft. I also love the art and happen to love the design of the tiles. The one negative I agree on is the way Brinn works. In most my games the person who started as Brinn remains the Brinn most the game. I disagree on you're negative of the Epic tale cards. The game has little randomness and that small amount of randomness with the cards is needed and enjoyable for me. The Epic tale cards can also help to mitigate a fight being just pure attrition. I always explain to you players that getting the Epic tale cards is crucial. I will say I think this game is begging for an expansion. New region tiles, new epic tale cards and something to help with the Brinn control.
Very interesting thoughts about replay value. Any chance that your experience might be tied to the meta of your group rather than the game itself? Also with those Mutually Assured Destruction clashes, don't clans typically have the option to withdraw to any of their neighboring territories?
Gerhardt Schtitt it does sound like his groups never utilized the 'withdraw' maneuver.
Gerhardt Schtitt You can decide to stop a clash even before it starts, or stop it at any time as long as all parties agree to, which happens quite often. It is not total annihilation. I don't think this reviewer understands the game very well. It is very nuanced and must be played several times before you really understand the mechanics and strategy. The replayability is high and every game feels different.
I actually have purchased the game since my first comment and it has become one of my all-time favorites.
That said, Mark is the smartest, most incisive board game reviewer I know of and I think it is highly unlikely that he misunderstood the rules. I think my difference of opinion with him on Inis is probably just due to the different types of people we play board games with. I made it very clear to my board game group that clashing is almost always lose-lose unless you have a very clear agenda in mind. As a result, clashes going beyond 3 or 4 maneuvers are very rare. In fact, during my last game, there was not a single clash that did not immediately end with all parties agreeing to peace.
I did not say he doesn't understand the rules. I said he didn't appear to understand the game. As you have probably found out, it takes several plays for this game to show its beauty, strategy and balance. For example, there are often specific reasons to risk a clash beyond just trying to crush another player (e.g. to pick up a Deed). There are subtleties like tempo vs. passing and knowing when to forge ahead or put on the brakes. Or making sure you collect more epic tale cards than your opponent to gain a later game advantage. You can't really appreciate this game by playing it a single time. This is one of those love it or hate it games, except I don't know anyone who still hated it after giving it a second or third chance.
All good points - I think you've mostly convinced me. I still wonder though if Mark's bad experience might have more to do with the people he games with.
What I mean by that is that if you play Inis with a bunch of people who all come to the game with the mindset of playing it like Risk - it's going to be a nonstop attritional blood bath no matter how well you yourself understand the spirit of the underlying mechanics.
My biggest criticism of Inis is that the rulebook does not emphasize enough how greatly the game deviates from norms of the DOAM genre: PASSING IS POWER - CLASHES ARE ALMOST ALWAYS LOSE LOSE - DEEDS ARE CRITICAL.
Just to set the record straight: it's pronounced "Inish," so no need to worry about referencing Carlos Danger.
I really like and enjoy this game but appreciate the reviewer's main points. They're valid to a degree, but fall under the, "to each their own" category.
The only part where I wondered if he missed a very critical rule is when he talked about the "quagmire" situation that may arise from a clash.
He seemed to focus on how such a situation could end up screwing over an innocent player, etc, as these clashes will go on without end until somone is completely hosed. Or at least that's what I took from his discription of what he considers a "quagmire".
So this makes me wonder if he's aware that all involved parties can either agree to stop fighting, or make a deal to stop fighting, at any time? (I'm not talking about withdrawing - I'm talking about simply stopping the fighting in place so that no one suffers any further losses and all coexist in place)
Knowing how thorough he is, I have to assume he knows about the rule. But if he does, he didn't bother to mention it as a very likely way to put a stop to the quagmire situation that he faults the game so much for.
Thing is that that requires consent of all involved. If one person is a jerk, or feels that he wants to gain the edge and attack once more before peace (and then the next person feels the same etc.), it doesn't work. Though I don't think it's the fault of the game or bad design, rather the fault of the players not realizing they're just letting the third guy benefit the most.
You articulated my complex feelings on this game perfectly.
Although the "Pretender Token" mechanics also baffle me. I don't believe that they add anything to the game except a really convoluted way to declare "check" with no strategic value.
I agree with all of this and add that I didn't find a lot of the decisions were all that interesting. My decisions are based entirely on the cards I had many hands that were bad drafts that did not lead to me caring about what I was doing because it was all I could do. I honestly don't know how I will look at Inis on my shelf and Cry Havoc and choose Inis.
The Citadel card lets you steal the location card from the bran and make invading easier.
and red cards are AMAZING. not uber powerful in any but in very specific situations. i really like them.
You can always play without that too. Super easy house rule.
Very useful informations about a game that WAS in my wishlist! Thanks!
You trust this guy over nearly every other reviewer? Interesting.
It may sound strange, but yes, I trust the opinon of Mark. After seeing the review of SU&SD, I thought that Inis was a very interesting game and one to have as soon as possible; now, I'm not so sure. The main reason is that I don't like very much the drafting mechaninc, so I think I will pass on this game (even if the art is really goregeous and innovative).
I like others Matagot productions: Kemet (that I have and love) and Cyclades (that I tried, and found very good), but I will wait more to see how this Inis will be.
As much as listening to more than one reviewer is the smart thing to do it's best to find a UA-camr that matches your board game taste and make his opinion worth bit more than the others. For example, for me it's Sam from the Dice Tower and the fact that Inis made to his top 12 of all time speaks to me quite strongly. Watching a not-so-positive review of a game that is praised everywhere else can be interesting but one needs to keep in mind that there might be a reason why everyone loves the game. That reason beeing the possibility that it's actually great and simply one reviewer (that is somewhat known for nit-picking and grilling popular games) did not like it. That's it. It does help to make an educated decision. Critical reviews are often bit more honest than the positive ones.
Cyclades, Kemet, and Inis are part of what I call the "Matagot Holy Trinity;" three dudes-on-a-map games with novel, interesting mechanics all playable in under two hours. I have all three, and of them Inis is probably my favorite (though they are all excellent). This reviewer is a habitual contrarian, don't let his excessive cynacism prevent you from enjoying one of the best games of 2016.
Great video yet again, keep up the good work
Wait, wait, wait... It's bad design that a game allows players to make bad decisions? That's kind of a big stretch there.
The point was that it's bad design if the bad decision of one player to attack another results in a third party easily winning the game merely by not being involved in the whole mess, rather than through skill.
Doesn't Puerto Rico also have this ? Where a player's dumb decision may benefit the person sitting next to them? It's not a design flaw as far as am concerned. Maybe it's just that the game is better played with people who fully understand the subtleties of the system.
Another review that i can link friends to when ask how i feel about Inis.
Personally i cant play it at all anymore. Even winning I have to admit that my opponents strategy was in no way worse, we even reached one victory condition in the same turn, but I had the "Brenn". Its like starting Catan with 3 Cities when everyone else has 2 villages. The red cards basically make this a dice game.
What is this theme song? It's so catchy.
There's information on the top line of the end credits.
"F.O.S." by What does it Eat
Thanks. I'm only listening to those videos as side activity, so I never see the credits. I only searched the info box down below.
For all the smart research you do which I love about these videos, Inis is definitely pronounced wrong :)
EDIT: It is Gaelic, and should be "in-ish"
I'm sorry? Where?
All the Games You Like Are Bad I actually meant pronunciation, it is "in-ish"
When will you review Blood Rage? I really don't like balance issues, so Inis doesn't sound like a game for me. I'd like to know whether or not Blood Rage has card balancing issues.
Love the mecha in the backgroung! I want the tomahawke
For not calling it a Warhammer or Excalibur, you are now my favourite person on UA-cam.
I love your reviews, but the torn Jane Austen cover is driving me M A D
I didn't buy it, but I would play it.
i think you have a weird aversion to the word grok... so do i.
drafting game? No it isn't.
you're entitled to your opinion; but it's wrong :P
All the reviews you make are bad
another weak review. it seems that the positive reviews are (unsurprisingly) the most informed, with the less egregious rules mistakes and so on.negative reviews such as this one are the opposite.
The way you've written your comment seems needlessly provocative, without any real content. It would be great if you could explain which 'egregious rules mistake' you think the reviewer has made, Adelin.
The presumption running around some circles, including those of my most treasured trolls, is that I don't understand any game I don't think is perfect. In this case, there is the assumption that I don't know how withdrawal works. I have always played with the correct withdrawal rules, and yet still have the temerity to fault the game.
Okay, what ever you say is best. However, your smug self-righteousness seemed refreshing for a couple of reviews but so quickly became grating - similar to your written replies by the looks of things. Unsubscribed.
purely attritional battles? you have maneuvers, you can retreat your troops in citadels, you can do lots of things. have you even read the rules?
you can peacefully coexist on the same territory ,which nicely complements the attritional battle system. you do not get the game: it encourages peaceful coexistence, not stupid battles. you are not that smart as you claim to be apparently
+1