The 4 Squares Review - Ankh: Gods of Egypt
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
- The Dice Tower takes a look at Ankh: Gods of Egypt!!!
Intro 0:00
Overview 1:06
Ankh Powers Overview 7:30
Battle Overview 11:35
Gods Overview 19:44
Final Thoughts 23:39
Merge Rule 37:44
Scores 48:47
Support The Dice Tower at www.dicetowerkickstarter.com
Support the channel by becoming a member!
/ @thedicetower
Subscribe to our newsletter, "The Dice Tower Digest": dicetowerdigest.com
Check out the friendliest conventions on Earth!
Dice Tower Cruise - www.dicetowercruise.com (February 13-19, 2022)
Dice Tower West - www.dicetowerwest.com (March 2-6, 2022)
Dice Tower East - www.dicetowereast.com (July 5-9,2023)
Dice Tower Retreat - www.dicetowerretreat.com (September 8-12, 2021)
Buy great games at www.GameNerdz.com
Find more reviews and videos at www.dicetower.com
Get a great game table here! www.rathskellers.com/
BGG Link: boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2... - Ігри
Here's the bottom line that people are interested in for the triology ranking
_ Zee: Ankh > Blood Rage > Rising Sun
_ Tom: Rising Sun > Blood Rage > Ankh
_ Roy: Blood Rage > Ankh > Rising Sun
_ Mike: Blood Rage > Ankh > Rising Sun
I believe for Tom it should be Rising Sun > Blood Rage > Ankh
@@ZeeGarc Thanks, fixed
If you scored them (2pts for first place, 1 for 2nd) then ankh has a score of 4, rising sun 2 and blood rage 6
It's so funny, because when I first heard Mike explain the merge rule, my immediate response was "Oh that's so cool." Different strokes for different folks I guess
They mentioned more than once that it sounded very cool to them too, but the execution is lacking.
For me it was the complete opposite. I was immediately like "Oh no, I don't like that" .So yeah it's indeed different strokes for different folks. :)
I can see a strong appeal for people who like to play cooperatively. And the thought of working towards a merge from the beginning of the game, than starting with a strong setup into the finale - that just sounds exciting!
Though upon the merge, one becomes a counselor and that just doesn't work in my group (thereby the counselor becoming the one to get snacks and beverages^^).
Yeah, I don't see the appeal either, especially in a competitive area control game where everyone is wanting to be going at each other. Think about it. If you play a 3 player game and the top 3 players are close, like within 2 or 3 points but the 4th player is way behind all you essentially do is punish the 3rd player. Makes no sense to me.
I'd like to see a merge that actually is a bit more streamilned and beefier!
I played this yesterday and was part of the merge…and we won. It kept me in the game.
That’s the point of it., can really give you a boost as you are always going to get 2 actions every round
On the other hand I was part of a merge, and all the figures that were lost really screwed our merging. Our board presence was severely handicapped and it all felt like more of a negative than a positive. I think it just depends on how the game rounds have gone.
yeah the people are just winning everywhere.... why not accept the design choice and try to get fun?
I bet the player that came in second hated the merge... they played the best all game but didn’t win... would have been better off playing the worst all game. Terrible idea, whether it technically works or not. Should just be a thematic variant.
@@benjaminjohnson8377 No it became part of the strategy. The person in first actually moved into second on purpose to become part of the merge and then became part of the winning team. It makes you change your strategy to cope with the merge.
In my opinions this works a lot like the forced alliances in Struggle of Empires and it makes sure that the person in last place stays involved so they have a chance to stay in the win. I like the mechanic…you just have to play differently to cope with it once you know it is coming.
Very informative discussion. Always fun to listen to you guys!
Been waiting for this one!
The merge is a highlight for me. I've been in first place and last in my several playthroughs. The merged player was a threat so first place cant coast to victory. And as a merged player you have an awesome underdog feel with a partner trying to take out the other players that have been beating you down all game. Ankh is my fav of the trilogy and the merge aspect is one of the reasons.
I strongly agree with this sentiment. It is an interesting and engaging catch-up mechanic once people get passed on the fact of working with another player to win the game.
Removing the merge might result to a run-away victory for the leading player(s) and that will make the game boring.
I wish that they could have tried the game without the merge so that they'll be able to say if it is better or worse without it.
I hope there will be another video discussing their experience playing the game without the merging rule.
My first thought as well when I finished watching this review.
These 4 square reviews continue to be in a class of their own.
Was waiting for this review!
Good night, 55 minutes? We are blessed on this Sunday, thank you, fellas.
my ks copy is somewhere in transit. and excited to get even more now. thanks for a great review!
I’m really enjoying this game.
Played it 4 times.
Really like the merging.
Regarding merge, I had lots of fun when I was merged with one of my friends and we had to discuss every action. I really don't see that as a problem at all. It simply becomes a cooperative game for 2 players. The fun to be had with that depends more on the players than on the game itself.
The problem in my opinion is the second to last player being dragged down in devotion. If the last is too behind, it becomes a real issue.
We house rule it so that the two merged gods keep the second to last player devotion instead of the last one hehe
As someone who plays game at 2 players 90% of the time, I am very intrigued. Sounds cool.
It plays excellently at 2 player. I was really impressed!
Really great overview, Mike. Thanks!
I played 2 games yesterday, both times I was merging, once as my God, the other time as my friends God. Both times we lost, but we were close, within 3 points both times. We gained 25 points in the final round, which was incredible and exciting. It sucked losing pieces, and entire presence on the board, but after I got past that feeling and put myself back into the game and tried to win with my partner, it was a ton of fun and I didn't feel like I wasn't in the game anymore.
@@Ironhawx we only played 2, 3 player, games. So there wasn't any real way for us to see if kingmaking had any effect on the game. I bet with 4 or 5 players then it would be more of an issue. We played a base scenario and the city scenario, which was really fun. Here's a tip for that scenario, don't go straight for the cities, it's a trap!
the world need more players like you
@@bernardorippe7024 I have never been the type of person that feels as if these types of games are black and white. Meaning, you're either the winner, or you're the looser. My friends all feel that way, but I prefer to just see how well I can score. I honestly don't care if I win or lose, although winning is still enjoyable and fun, and loosing still sort of sucks. I would rather have my friends enjoy the victory, and have an overall fun time, than for me to be butt hurt the entire game because I made a huge mistake turn two and will never recover from it.
The problem in my opinion is the second to last player being dragged down in devotion. If the last is too behind, it becomes a real issue.
We house rule it so that the two merged gods keep the second to last player devotion instead of the last one hehe
Sounds like there's a lot of 'Ankhxiety' in playing this game....Roy definitely had some Ankhst.
Stuck in my punk rock ways I guess lol 😝
literally laughed out loud 👍
@@EpicGamingNight :D
@@shawngillette1414 lol
@@coyotemoon722 cheers!
so stoked for this to arrive, can`t wait to paint the minis
Fantastic discussion, thanks Guys
This is my 1st big ks and I'm pumped to get it. Still awaiting my sweet fully loaded last Lang trilogy goodness. Very excited for the figures
The two lowest people merging is better than them kingmaking.
I’m surprised no one mentioned this. Not having played it yet, it seems like Eric Lang was trying to avoid one of the most common complaints about dudes on a map games. This would seem to turn king making on its head.
And better than 'lame duck'
Really great and helpful video! Love this series
Excited to grab this when it hits retail later this month
The merge mechanic is awesome. We have had about 8 games so far and every time the merge has caused the gap to be closed within 5 devotion
Is that a good thing though? I would hate that as the first place player. I’m not a big fan of games that use rubber band catch up mechanics.
matches my experience. merging has brought players back and made the finish much closer and even win. The only three criticisms for the merge I have is the slowing down of the battle with the discussion and the top merger having final say in all of it, and the strange meta gaming of second to last wanting to boost the points of the last player. all of which could have been fixed, but likely in a way that makes the merged player to strong (by averaging point on combination and both players keeping battle cards and the top merger gets the odd numbered battles and the bottom gets the even ones). At the moment it almost feels too strong as it is, definitely not a weak thing, and on one game we felt worse for the 3rd to last player, who didnt get the boost.
@@alecgalbraith5604 I guess it's much better if some players know they have no chance and either get bored for the last quarter of the game or decide to kingmake someone?
@@alecgalbraith5604 It's strong in Ankh. The whole game is a race forward - and only 1 remains in the end.
This lessens kingmaking. Keeps lower players from getting bored and makes endgames more interesting.
@@iainlangley7219 Not really a rubber band scenario. First, the 3rd place player moves their score marker to the 4th place player. So if they game isn't tight, they could be dropping down a long ways. Second, the merged God gets, effectively 2 actions a round, not 4. So each player gives up an action. Certainly the right mix of God abilities and the chance to take the same action twice in a row can be powerful, but this is not quite a rubber band.
This is an amazingly good game at 2 player I feel. I haven't played it 3-4 yet, but I get the feeling I will like it better than Blood Rage in the end, and a very different experience of Rising Sun.
I CAN´T WAIT TO PLAY IT!! Great review! I am reallly curious abot the merge mechanism. I think that besides being thematic it was created to make the game even faster.
Ha, Mike at 49:40 - this game reminded me of something like Euphrat & Tigris as well
I really like it at 2.
I struggled on the single time we played it at 4, the 4th player was very far behind, and I had to drop down a LOT of points in the merge. It would have been close, but I was taken completely out of contention. C'est la vie.
The Pharaoh expansion is a lot f fun, but I can see most people hating it. The cards are incredibly powerful, and changes the dynamic of the game completely. I've played it once, and it bordered on anarchy. Loved it :)
When I was part of a merge I knew I was going to be the last person, so I set up a big play with Mercy to move my point total up a lot…that way the drop would not be so bad. We actually one that one.
Note that this mitigates one big issue with these kind of games…you really don’t want to beat up one player too badly if you think you might be part of the merge. If you do you will mess yourself up.
Good to know it works well at 2p... At BGG there was a lot of "not recommended" at 2p.
Kingmaking seems difficult to combat, so I'm glad there are some designers experimenting with ways to approach the issue. I can't tell you how many times I've been in first place in a game, and the last place player repeatedly does things that negatively impact me, only for me to end up eventually in second place, and the last place player still ends up in last place. That is incredibly frustrating, and it's happened in various game genres, from Ameritrash to 18XX to heavy Euros (a recent game of Through the Ages comes to mind). It's basically the only aspect of gaming that truly frustrates me. Maybe the merge mechanic isn't the best solution, but I applaud the designer for at least attempting to tackle the issue. I'm definitely interested in giving it a shot.
We mostly play with two players and we LOVE the game! An easy 10/10 for us.
Agreed. I only got it 2 player so far...and it was an excellent game! Easily best I've played of its sort of genre.
Good to know it works well at 2p... At BGG there was a lot of "not recommended" at 2p.
@@dddmmm21 in all honesty, not sure what people didn't like about it at 2. I am sure it's different than the multiplayer experience, but it felt *really* good at 2.
For instance, the action track gets a lot of strategic pull as you can set up the options your opponent has, and you can get a lot more strategic counter-play even in that action track. I think in the multiplayer version, you have to be willing to be more tactical in action selection - dealing with what's given you rather than trying to carefully manipulate it.
For its genre, I honestly haven't played a better head-to-head 2 player game.
Being merged has a lot of advantages. You can trigger events more easily. More followers and guardians. Combined powers. Doing the same action twice in a row.
I play with my siblings at 3 players and we have just decided to not include the merging of gods and we absolutely love the game. Another house rule is that we added an extra guardian for lvl 1 just so everyone can get at least one guardian. It us one of my new favorite board games
Need an Ankh play through.
Very lucid review. Looks like a fascinating game. I would be interested to play at least once, but it's not something I need to own.
Thanks for the great review. I'm still waiting for my all-in pledge... I live in Canada...
Now we just need playtrough! 😁
Thnx for the review! Will you make one for the pharaoh expansion? Thnx again
It’s funny we’ve only had one play at 3 player and the merge mechanic was really good. I was a runaway leader. We were a bit suspicious of the merge idea when it happened but then my merged opponent overran me all over the place and ended up winning so they were very pleased
This is exactly what came up during the playtesting. with the way the game is set up, without the merge there are no real catch up mechanics and and early leader tends to stay in the lead. But with the merged god you actually get a chance to compete. Also the game usually ends pretty quickly after the merge as well. Most games I played during the play test period ended after battle 4. Very rarely did we make it to the 5th battle. I have not tried it with the last set of merge changes yet though, looking froward to it.
Mike looks so intelligent in his glasses. 🥸
I could speak at length about this game, but I probably shouldn't :). I will just say that it really bogs down at five players. You almost need player elimination to get through a five player game. Merging helps, although I don't LOVE it I also think there can be a reverse runaway winner problem where the last place player in a high player count game can be SO far behind that the merge at least gives them SOME hope. I think Zee may be onto something, although I didn't play it at two. It's probably a 7 for me, but I find it fascinating. The fact that I COULD speak at length about it says a lot. I have been thinking about it great deal.
We played a four player game recently and it really looked like myself and my merged partner had no chance. Game ended with us in second place only a point behind first.
Out of curiousity, how did it look like you had no chance when you finished in 2nd place, just a point behind the winner, and in a 4 player game...?
@Patrick White yup, although for me I need to play it a few more times to know where it falls in the trilogy.
@@tahayazici95 I’m not sure what you’re asking?
It was looking pretty much like we had no chance but no one had run away with it by that point. I think most of us were still in the red by then. By the time it came to merge I (being the lower) was able to gain points to make it a little closer but we were still behind. We also had the Cat mummy’s in play and had two at our disposal.
@@dimmok8344 I mean... Coming from last and finishing with a point behind 1st place sounds like a tight game. But what's important is that you had fun doing so 👍
I wonder why they don't just meet in the middle point wise it's wise. It is a merge after all.
Nice to see everybody together instead of on camera.
The merge rule sounds a lot like the original sympathiser rule in BSG, where for balance reasons one player ends up with a less fun limited-options role to play and you can wind up with counterintuitive strategies to manipulate the situation.
Both the review and the discussion here shows that game with such a new mechanic takes some time to grasp and also how different metas are in different play groups - as this game is so new, there is no online play or playing in conventions where people meet up with players coming from different groups and possibly different metagames. I can see how intuitively the merge mechanic feels bad for all the reasons listed in the review but also as many pointed out it seem like an interesting attempt at rubberbanding and to eliminate kingmaking. Seems like effectivness of this mechanic may be tied to how the game is played so it doesn'r work well for certain groups? I'm still waiting for my Kickstarter copy but as I mostly play with my SO I'm so glad my suspicion that this would work well as player game seems to be universaly confirmed.
I totally agree with you. There might be a meta where no one wants to be just ahead of the other players, if it's a tight game, just for the sake of not getting passed instantly by the merged god. You can however still win by NOT winning battles, playing the victim to this merged god's terror. It's just a matter of maintaining your monuments and followers.
Got my copy the other day and played a two player game yesterday. It was a blast! You've got something to look forward to.
I haven't played yet (got a date set three weeks out). I'm planning to use the merge mechanic to try the rules as they were meant to be played the first time. I'm going to really try to emphasize how it works. If the last place person is way behind, then it might make the fight for third-to-last more intense, which I think if approached the right way, can just be considered as part of how the game plays. And of course, if last place isn't far behind, then you prepare in a different way.
In our game, after the merge conflict, the game was over by the following conflict, so we effectively had a few quick rounds, one came event and then the final conflict. Perhaps 20 minutes from merge to end of the game. Plus we were still in the thick of things.
Finally got to play my copy the other night. My Amun merged with Isis who was slightly behind. We had a ton of fun working together to come from behind and steal the game from the lead player who tried to rush the timer and cause us to be forgotten before we could make up the devotion deficit.
You guys gotta do a gameplay of this
We enjoyed the merge in our games. It helps to solve the issue of the last placed player becoming nothing but a kingmaker when they decide who to throw their depleted forces into conflict with towards the end of the game. But it's super easy to house rule out, so I don't see a big issue unless you're playing in a situation with people you don't know where it can be hard to house rule stuff.
Thanks Zee for mentioning that the did the same thing as with Rising Sun (which I got from Kickstarter, with upgraded castles) and have small cardboard tokens for their monuments that get lost between the miniatures just to needlessly punish people supporting their local game store. I will no longer support something like that. I want to be able to watch reviews by trusted reviewers AND support my local game store which is keeping my local community alive and has enabled so many nice game nights. Companies who, through their business model, directly try to destroy that environment will no longer get my money ... no matter how good and beautiful their games might be.
Really nice review! Looks like house rules will pop up for guardians and merges though.
We will try mixing the powers for the last two players (the cards exist already for both) and let them keep playing for themselves. Though that leaves a lot of space covered on the board...
I don’t think it needs house rules as much as more scenarios, from both the community and publisher
Usually before they’ve even tried playing it 🤷🏻♂️
@@MikeB-nn4nh I always try the official rules first few plays. If I think houserules will make the gaming experience more fun I will try that instead of just throwing the game away :)
@@steffen3382 the only thing I would add at a full table is an extra guardian option
The debate over the merge thing is fascinating (I like it, personally, makes it unique, interesting etc.) but I wonder how much is it being a psychological, maybe cultural aversion to it. I know Tom hates not having a tie breaker, whereas for me, I don't even look for one (a draw is an exciting end symbolic of a close game, for me)... so are people just hating giving up control? I have no problem with that at all - if I'm last, the Merge keeps me in the game, keeps me invested and I've played LOADS of games, like Blood Rage, where last is just totally checked out for ages. My only issue would be being second-last and dropping miles back to last, that I'd probably say, that's annoying.
My primary issue at the moment actually is one player maybe not getting any Guardians at all (except for the KS exclusive big crocodile thing if they're last.) I'm considering playing with 2 at each level if it becomes a real problem later.
@@pczplughead Guardians are cool and yet won't win the game for anyone. Not having to race for them gives you time to actually create an engine and economy to really duke it out for points.
@@pczplughead to be frank I added an extra small base guardian at 2 player and it felt perfectly fine, and while I had all three and my opponent had only one, we still found she would have won (likely) with only one or two small strategic choices.
So for me, I think keeping a balance of availability and scarcity of the guardians is good - but I didn't find it broke the game at all to add a bit more guardian to the game than there would be normally. I also don't think they are critical for victory at all.
Bit getting to play big monsters is always fun!
I haven't played with the Merge yet (only just played 2), but I imagine a lot of it is growing to expect the merge... So if you're in last, your push should be to get as many points that last combat as possible, burning your resources for it since they don't carry over, and so on.
However, as it is a surprisingly subtle game in learning, it would be easy to see someone falling behind drastically in their first game, making the merge feel punishing rather than compelling. I think it would get smoothed to a fascinating mechanic with just a couple more plays.
That being said, I get why some might not like it at all.
@@bricelory9534 I just had a conversation with someone who doesn't like it and I still think there's a "no, I want to control everything myself!" thing going on... but I also agree that with more plays, yeah, the Merge becomes expected, planned for etc etc. I find this with all three games in this series, first plays often seen 'unbalanced' (Loki strategy, for example) but then, once known, the game really shines as scores remain close etc.
Yeah, played a few games 2 player with my wife, I was sobek, who can stand on water, and make more water spaces, but the restrictions on where you can place it make it really niche in a 2 player game with so much empty space, like it makes no impact. Sobek himself can sit in the lake area there and be in multiple regions and not die, so cool, effectively +1 in one other region (since any god adds +1 just by standing in a region), maybe 2 if camels split things right. My wife on the other hand had the god that let's you spend 1 extra follower for a free summon, which was HUGE.
cool review. Food for thought have you thought about comparing Ank to Mezo?
I believe the existence of the merging for most scenarios is so that the last 2 players are still able to catch up. I realize that the last 2 players are not gonna be able to catch up at all in the scenarios without merging. Of the course scenarios without merging is designed in that way which will not let one feel not able to catch up with the leaders.
Don’t agree with all the criticisms of the merge. What makes the game fun/unique/interesting is the very fact that you’re playing to AVOID the merge. That IS the game, to some extent. And think about it ….. no one is ever satisfied in a game when they’re third or fourth place and trailing far behind the leader. That’s not fun either. So why not mix it up a bit and add some interest to the outcome for players that are trailing? I love it when designers shake up the meta and make win/lose conditions that are different from simply just “first, second, third, fourth”. I mean, there’s only one winner. Why not add some spice for the two trailing players?
LOL...I don't know anything about the game but Jeremy I think you hit the idea of a LOT of Lang designs. The need for this explanation. I think it's a blessing and a curse because I really like that the game tries to have this kind of narrative for depth. But the curse is that it isn't always apparent and many people might tune out after one play because they don't 'get it'. I know *I* personally suffer from that a lot. But great summary on your part! :)
I also wonder if the merge was a direct counter to some of the king making and runaway leader issues in Rising Sun. in RS you can run across the problem of two players just deciding they are a team and if one wins, they both win. Merging actively pushes every player to grab as many points as they possibly can.
It also makes you not want to pick on the player who's last, possibly giving them some breathing room to catch up on their own.
If you'd been playing for ages and were barely in second (maybe because someone had just took the lead by 1 point) and player 3 (of 3) had half the amount of points, omg, it would truly suck and everyone would be facepalming.
Edit: because the merge puts your score as last place score.
And also as the zee said, with battle, having to discuss / debate battle cards or whatever.. too many cooks. I don't dislike the innovation, but perhaps just the execution of the merge + subsequent gameplay. I think it would be more fun for both merged players to team up and fight the leader together at the same time if the post merger mechanisms were tuned.
The merge mechanic is brilliant and believe it or not, the elimination mechanic is actually good. Because of merging, you never feel out of the game until you get knocked out. And with player elimination toward the end of the game, it removes the king making problem that can arise in area control games where there are two clear runaway leaders. Superb game which breaks the rules of game design for a purpose.
I've had a few games of alliance making where someone was essentially king making with what they were offering to the lead player, but if they didn't offer the lead player something, they would essentially no longer be playing the game. For me, that's what this merge sounds like, but instead of helping out the lead player, it forces an alliance with the lower players, which I really like *in theory*. I haven't really wanted to tell the people in last place to not make deals with the leader because that deal keeps them active in the game, but it's in no one else's interest for them to do so! So for me, this game is super intriguing.
Who the hell makes alliances with whoever is winning?
@@OrdemDoGraveto Here I'm specifically talking about Rising Sun, where the player in last is incentivized to make an alliance with the person in the lead, especially if the two people in the middle of the pack ally. The merge mechanic works against this impulse, which is nice.
@@BobbyReichle We always play rising sun in an odd number of players (but lately I've considered it a 3 players game only). People are incentivized to make an alliance with the players who will have an extra mandate in the season, regardless of who is winning. But we always avoid making an alliance with the winner if posible in order to not benefit it during mandates.
@@OrdemDoGraveto I agree that Rising Sun is a game for odd player counts, and this is, I think, not the case for Ankh specifically because of the merge mechanic, which is mostly what my comment was meant to communicate. In even player counts of Rising Sun, the middle players tend to form an alliance, and the losing player really doesn't have much incentive to not form an alliance with the lead player since the lead player mostly wants to chip away from 2nd and 3rd. So I think Ankh offers the best of both worlds in that it plays well at any kind of player count because this forces negotiations to skew away from king making that can happen otherwise.
@@BobbyReichle As I said, lately I only play Rising Sun exactly in 3 players. I think it's a great 3 players game, but personally there is a lot of other games I'd rather play at 5, like Blood Rage or Ankh.
Ankh, on the other hand, I just play in 5, because it's the number I belive works the best because of the dinamic the merge mechanic brings to the table.
The merge dinamic is AWFUL in a 3 players game in my opinion.
The merge is incredibly interesting and a great game changer. The only problem with it is if one player is doing absolutely awful it eliminates 2 players. But if the devotion race is really tight it really changes the game for the people in the last spots. Personally I think this game would not even be worth considering playing without the merge because that is what makes it a stand out title.
I wonder if instead of going to the lower devotion, going to the average of the two (so the middle point between the 3rd and 4th player) would be better instead. That way, if they're close it's not that much of a difference and if the 4th player is doing terrible, the 3rd player doesn't just get destroyed by the merge.
Now that certainly is a hot take there. I think this game offers more novelty than just the merge feature
I love the merge . A lot of the games end with a player who has no chance of winning anymore deciding who wins cause he can alter the game . Her it feels anyone can still win .
Ankh really reminds me of Mezo (which took himself some inspiration on Blood Rage and Rising sun) : how would you compare both of them ? are they distinct enough to both deserve a spot on crowded shelves ? seems they both work well at low players count. Curious at higher player count (provided you ignore the merge rule that hurts Ankh otherwise).
The "trigger events" mechanism here I feel is similar to Pioneer Days.
It was really good discussion and one that i largely agree with, love love love the game up until the merge and then really feel the game slows to an uncomfortable crawl. with that said i was surprised they rated it so high, i don’t know where my score would be, since i have no desire to play it anymore i feel i couldn’t rate higher than a 6, even though it has some many great elements.
The merge is thematic. The gods are fighting for their survival and some are forced to merge just to stay alive (=not be forgotten).
Players should plan with the merge in mind from the beginning.
That said I think there are several things in Ankh that I would want to change by house rules, especially the recruiting of the guardians!
And if it's true that it doesn't break the game to not do the merge (and maybe not even the elimination), then fine, keep it optional.
Honestly, I just added in a guardian or 2 to the mix from the get go...was really nice!
@@bricelory9534 But they then become less of a limited resource and so the choice to be made to get them are less difficult.
@@barrygregory8177 oh sure. I just like having monsters, so I purposefully made them less scarce. They weren't game breaking, so I don't think it is a flaw that the game is published with the numbers it has in the rule.
Very glad to see this before making a purchasing decision. The game looks incredible and seems fun but ultimately a very risky investment because of the polarizing rules. We will stick with Kemet for the theme.
Really hoping it hits Canada soon.
If some other publishing and design team put this out and there was already so much talk of tossing out rules and/or player variants to fix a mechanic… they would be crucified on the forums and social media.
That's almost word for word what someone said on BGG.
You mean that the publisher would be criticized for their product design? That is pretty much what is happening, they are litterally saying that is what is happening in this review. Are you the kind of person that walks out into the pouring rain, points at a watery rain puddle and says "if it was raining, that watery puddle of rainwater would be wet!"
I just took a quick look at the rulebook, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it just sounds like I can ignore the merge event and play normally. Am I right? Also, will there be video gameplay?
Havent played the game. But people here talk about the nerge rule as though it is player elimination. It is a catch up mechanism though in my opinion.
And I think this is a smart move. Two player who are in last place anyway can now try to get second or even first place by joining forces. Maybe I am wrong, but this is honestly one of the smartest catchup mechanisms I heard in a long time if not even ever.
Years I have been watching these reviews and usually If Tom gets prejudiced by something in the game he never can't get rid of that feeling. Here's the same thing.
@@ProfOfHifi I have now watched more reviews of other UA-camrs and the opinion there is also strongly against this mechanic. So maybe he is right here and its not the usual "Tom-Vassel-Prejudice" or his lack of understanding (which also sometimes happens, tbh).
But I like his reviews and opinions nonetheless... ;-)
I've been thinking about this game a lot since reading the rules. I had the opposite reaction to Tom. Player elimination and merging are things that none of my other games offer, so I just really want to try it at this point. To me, merging does sound like player elimination and I suspect that this has to be clearly expressed to everyone before playing. If all players are similarly enthusiastic and open-minded about that kind of experience then I think it could create exciting moments. Elimination moments in a chess-like game that isn't too long just sounds interesting to me and potentially what I'm looking for. I am now a bit worried about the awkward collaboration moments that Zee mentioned though. And I wish that the review had talked more about the different scenarios and how different they feel and how much they might add to replayability.
played two 3 player games and merged in both....we just took our turns without the issue Zee worried about, still ambivalent about it as a rule, as the game ends fairly quickly and it adds to decisions especially for 2nd player, I am willing to give this a long trial.
Have you tried using the 3 strength guardian instead of merging?
As far as I understood the biggest reason for the merge rule is that during playtesting in an overwhelming amount of cases the player order after the third conflict was the player order in the end, making the endgame rather anticlimactic. The merge rule shook up that dynamic, while also being pretty thematic. With the current meta the leading player is still in a great chance to win, but merged god is very much in the running, unlike in the pre-merge situation where the last two players realistically didn't have much chance.
If the players truly hate the rule though, I think the game doesn't suffer too much if the merge was made optional, and could only be done with the consent of both players. I would be weary though that this would represent a bad groupthink that unwillingly ruins the game, solving a minor problem (players disliking a sudden coop aspect) while causing a major (getting an uncatchable runaway leader in almost every game).
I have zero interest in the game, but I really enjoyed this review. Great job!
feels like a mix of kemet and heroes of air land and sea
I wonder if the merge becomes a lot better with 4 or 5. When I first heard the scenario it made me think of the bottom 2 players trying to get a fighting chance back in the game. The assumption was that they were much lower in score so the impact was less pronounced. Going up to max players, maybe it will have higher score discrepancy and facilitate this?
We played at 4 and will do 5 the next time and I think that is where the merge shines. At 3, I am not sure how it would go over. I guess in our group, scores were so tight going into the merge, that it was not a terrible thing. Now if last place player is doing really bad, especially at 3, that could be a bad day for them and the other merged player.
and for the game.. I did a full back on it.. But the board looks dull with the mat colors.. But thats just a me thing x) Would love if a fan would do a game mat with stronger colors.
This review is gonna spread like wildfire.
Never played Rising Sun but this easily eclipses Blood Rage for me by a large margin. The thinky aspects and the chess like quality of everyone having the same cards and anhk powers makes it great analytically!
@brandonboom Ankh and Rising Sun are very different experiences. This is all about map placement rather than the politicking and purposeful backstabbing/manipulating you ally to get the best out of the situation.
Merge rule is a great solution to board crowding and stalemate in DOAM games.
Just make so that the second to last player keeps it's devotion instead of being dragged down. Then most of the merge problems disapear.
I feel like the overview was a description of actions and powers, but what's the big picture? What is it you are trying to accomplish to win? I feel like I still don't know what the game is about really.
With recessed boards would be top notch.
I think the game is great at 4-5 players wih the extras in the KS. The merge allows the game to continue for the 4th and 5th players who are nearly out of the game to have a chance to win. If not then they either play sabatage against one person they dont like or just quit and like FF you hate that and it gives the leader or sometimes the 2nd player a defintie advantage.
So the merge stops those silly antics for larger games.
I played it on TTS during the ks, absolutely hated the merge, dropped my pledge. After that review I feel like I should have kept it as a good area control 2 player game (but I'm not gonna buy a retail copy, need those SGs).
Idea: For merge combat, there's only 2 conflicts left after the merge, maybe let the "lower" player run the first one, and the "higher" player run the second.
The power of the merge comes from being able to trigger events twice as often (since each of your one actions could trigger an event, maybe even before the next player if you happen to be side by side, etc) or less as often. As for removing components, while they could do some sort of, "each player removes half their stuff rounded down," that really just over-convolutes the same basic result. There's a game I played once, where you bid for control of various countries, and then build factories and ships and things. Each country has it's own color, and it's easy to get into a mindset of, "I'm Europe, which is green, thus I'm green," but then suddenly someone outbids you on Europe and it's not yours anymore... a big part of that game is not clinging to any given color/location too much, because it will cost you the game when it suddenly gets bought out from under you. With experiences like that in mind, don't be too attached to your stuff if you're last in this game and end up merged. On top of all that, buy into the theme as Zee suggested, and I think you'll appreciate the theme and mechanics that the merge brings.
Imperial 2030 :-) good game
Something interesting: In my game group everyone prefers Rising Sun over Blood Rage. (We like both games, but Rising Sun is clearly everyone's favorite of the Eric Lang games.) And it appears that all of the Dice Tower guys like Blood Rage more than Rising Sun. This makes me skeptical about this whole review. I don't think it's even close our group all would rate Rising Sun either a 9 or 10 and would rate Blood Rage no higher than an 8. (I own both Kickstarters so have all the content from both, and we always play with all the content.) Full disclosure: Now I will say we do play with alternate rules for the a couple of the clans. (one that's too strong, and one that's too weak) So we have tweaked the game a bit so compensate for imbalanced issues in the asymmetric clan powers.
What alternate rules do you use to fix those two clans? Something you created or something found on BGG?
@@LatenightLyle - One we created, which we've been using in place of the Dragonfly clan. - Your monsters can not be taken hostage. (It sounds weak, but it's actually quite useful and competitive with the other clans.
The others are ones we've been experimenting with off BGG.
Yesssss
Even with the Merge hate, 8/10 is a really high rating!!! Must be a good game. Usually if I really dislike a mechanism, I rate the game 5-6/10.
The only 2 negatives were the merge which you could play without it and that you might not get a guardian.
So merge is kinda like vagabond using dominance in root?
idea: shuffle the monsters together, and deal 1 to each player, then when you get to the level where you would unlock the monster you have, you get it. That way everyone gets a monster. Some may get a level 3 monster, but then they don't get it until later in the game, as those who got a level 1, etc.
The monsters aren't super powerful and they are not required to win the game.
BUT they are supposed to be a limited resource - you have to forego other things in order to get them.
@@barrygregory8177 I know. *shrug* I don't mind it as is, but after several games (2-player anyway) we did notice that Ankh powers are very strong, and getting the monsters on top of that, AND, as they say here, usually only one of us got all 3 monsters... well, we understand where the complaint comes from at least. Not enough for us to change how we play, but, for folks like Tom who just want a monster, my idea holds up well, especially when you consider that they aren't THAT impactful, so doling one out to each player at the onset feels like a nice spice rather than unfair dis/advantages. Just an idea.
Was kind of hoping this didn't work at 2 players so my impulse all in wouldn't tempt me to keep it but, then again, if it's really great then I have everything for it
it is great at 2
It’s fantastic at 2 player
yes
The worst thing is that merge could have be fixed and made more thematically interesting by simply adding the word "may".
If it is a choice that the two players make together it sounds amazing - team up to remain relevant and potentionally win as a team. It also represents the narrative better - there was no hostile takeover in the religion it was more gradual. By forcing the players to merge you take away their agency and cause situation when one of three close runner ups gets dragged back. Adding "may" will solve all the problems and keep the cool idea of giving the 3rd and 4th place players a power boost to go for victory.
Gods merging is in theme.. in history, Amun later combined with Ra., the more powerful your god the more they’re trying to stay relevant.. and even across other regions gods have been combined, often recreating a successor religion
By adding "may" who decides?
Does the second last player tell the last player that he is too hopeless to ally with? That he is too far behind and so doesn't want to help him?
Nice.
I have heard some good variations on the merge already.
The merge players get to pick which army they want to keep, lasts or second lasts. Pick the ankh power board to duplicate, last or second lasts. This would strengthen the merged player but so what, it keeps them both engage all the way through the game and I think that is worth it even if you get a few more merged gods wins. Last player doesnt feel like a +1, second last player gets more choice and is gauranteed to get more powerful post merge instead of maybe getting more powerful.
In my game at 4, it was not at all clear who would be merged until the end of that conflict. Despite this, the lower player I merged with had all the guardian recruited and this really put us in a strong position and if the player who had done the camel event had actually been paying attention, we likely would have stolen a win. Either way, the key is apparently to think about the merge and plan for it, if possible.
I thought 8.5 was the cut-off for seal of excellence. Did Roy's vote alone push it over the top?
They have said before that each reviewers score is being treated as independent review. If Roy did the review on his own, his 9 would warranty the seal of excellence. So even in 4 squares, they still allow it to follow the individual highest score
Whether or not the merge concept works in this particular game, I like the idea of a game having the last two players unite in a very late round of the game. I'd prefer some sort of alliance, though, where both players mostly keep what they have and continue taking turns but now win or lose together. Especially in a game where the leader(s) can run away with points of power in the game.
I believe the original merge mechanism allowed the players to keep more, or to have more devotion than just the last player's, but the merged players were too powerful.
You underestimate the catch-up power of the merge. As is it's strong and provides a renewed challenge to the leading player(s) and often enough allows the merge god faction to win.
Make it any stronger and it would win in a majority of cases - which would be quite unfair to the former leading player(s).
Is it a good thing this review came after the recent top 10 gimmicks podcast?
For me, merge rule just says "last player is eliminated and becomes an assistant to the other lagging player"
How does the merge concept compare to Oath, and the notion of being a citizen?
Not much.
Citizens are partial allies, but also remain competition. They work together to beat exiles, but simultaneously compete to remain/become chancellor.
Also an exile can steal the scepter and make him/herself a citizen. And the owner of the scepter can make a citizen an exile again.
So, not really a team, let alone merged.
My rank. 1) BR 2) chaos 3) RS. Waiting for Ankh test
Song of ice and fire had 2 types of plastic too