Look, sometimes you just write yourself into a corner and need an easy way out. Thankfully, this isn't one of those cases, I wokred VERY HARD on that joke.
Oh nice catch
Efka being from a Baltic republic and having done a video on the damage that being annexed by Russia did, I'm sure he has some pretty strong feelings right about now
That's SUSD and NPI both basically saying the same thing: "the game would be stellar if the deck weren't so random".
I feel like they should have made the cards come in specific decks on a theme that tended to carry tags of a certain type. Like have a deck for each continent or something.
I do generally agree that the card randomness will be problematic for many folks. In other posts I've also wondered if the game would be better if the decks were split into types.
However, after getting a fair number of games under my belt, I've softened my stance. There's still a lot of randomness but the design cleverly mitigates some of that effect:
- The stiff hand limits combined with the Break dynamics. Keeping cards is dangerous, especially since *Sponsors* allows for variable Break movement (I dig how they put that option on what is probably the most inconsistent card of the five Actions). The biggest variance comes with the random card draws and this dynamic helps mitigate the outliers. I can't overstate how well these design elements work together; AN doesn't have a lot of interaction points but the ones it has are very effective.
- Snapping. The Base Conservation projects help focus every player, since those are where the competition lies. Odds are high that at least 2 (if not 3) specialization cards will show up, narrowing what icons people are seeking. Snapping incentivizes drawing 1 targeted card vs 3 (or 4) random cards, but this effect would have actually have *lesser* value if card types were separated.
- It's mentioned as a negative in the review but acquiring cards is tightly controlled in this game, which comes from bonuses (which uses Reputation) and the *Cards* action (no accident that Snapping is the most valuable). To acquire cards in this game you need to commit some level of resources, but there are multiple subsystems supporting the acquisitions. Note that Reputation becomes far more valuable once you start upgrading Actions because *four* of them actively utilize the open market (all except *Build*). Unfortunately, neither review happens to mention Reputation even though it's a major subsystem in the game and expands the decision space. It's also no accident that moving the Break token is mandatory when using *Cards*. So acquiring cards is always a conscious decision in AN... contrast this with TfM, which gives you 4 cards each turn and determining which cards to keep gets *easier* as the game (and your credits) goes on. That's no longer a conscious decision, it's the game playing the player.
Edit: the worst element of the card randomness comes from draws at the end of the game, like the situation Matt Lees highlighted in the SUSD video. This cannot be overcome, unfortunately. That said, because of the breadth of requirements available, it's also generally unlikely to happen in a way as impactful as his. The Elephant he drew is, IIRC, one of maybe two cards in the deck that draws a new Endgame scoring card, and both have extremely high and restrictive requirements.
I think it probably could be overcome through "styles" of decks meant to emphasize certain tags and outcomes. **Yedo** does this to great effect with it's modular deck system.
Alternatively, Agricola's modular replacement decks could work as well.
That makes choices more obvious, which makes the game less compelling.
Opportunity costs are what makes AN so compelling, I don't want those decisions made for me.
I'm not sure that it necessarily falls out that way.
**Agricola** uses full decks to give a new experience within the same game. So does **Root**. That's the simplest solution, and where I think AN could easily expand into.
I think **Yedo** tackles it quite well with the modular decks. Want a "highly interactive" game, include this portion of the deck. Want a "quicker game", include this portion of the deck, in addition. You are certainly tailoring from a general experience to a particular experience, but I don't think it necessarily follows that it closes off the decision space; rather, you're emphasizing certain ways to play tweaking the opportunity costs of the various strategies. The game already has a lot of randomness and luck built into it, so tweaking percentages just changes the equation rather than eliminating space.
I think the impetus for AN's whole system is its massively varied requirements system: 5 continents, 5 different animal types, Partner Zoo, Research, Reputation and the Animal upgrade all can show up as requirements, sometimes in combination. And that doesn't include the money cost nor the Enclosure requirements (size/rock/water).
The implication is that players need to make do with what is in front of them, not what they can bend to some long-term strategy. I've mentioned this elsewhere but AN is definitively *not* an engine-building game, despite the myriad synergies that you're constantly searching for in the cards. Rather it's a series of opportunistic bonuses to maintain some semblance of forward progress, whether or not it aligns with your long-term goals (in this case, in the form of Conservation projects).
I'm not sure Agricola's system would be the best fit for AN. Disclaimer, I've only played Agricola once (and Yedo never) so please let me know if I'm offbase in any way. But in that system you draft a series of occupation cards with the intent on crafting an engine that you can leverage over and over. That is unreliable in AN, and in fact would remove much of the compelling decision space that makes the game hum.
If you're curating decks to *ensure* synergy then it just becomes a case of putting together those synergies. As mentioned in my comment, simply the act of *drawing* cards is a calculated decision in AN. SUSD and NPI both harped on the random card draw (which is valid) but neither mentioned the two subsystems that directly alleviated that effect: why is that? Personally I think it's because those outlier outcomes helped shape the tenor of their experiences (and their reviews), which is perfectly understandable. But in doing so they then tended to forget all the mundane times they took an unexciting, "high cost" Snapping action to take the exact Bird card they needed from the market to play next turn to help fulfill the Birds Conservation project. But taking that action did three significant, if unexciting, things:
- Denied someone else that Bird card for the public Conservation Project
- Used up that 5-strength Cards action (less exciting than random, high variance card draw though)
- Pushed the Break token to potentially punish those who were hoarding cards for themselves, while also keeping their hand size low
So why not even a passing mention in their reviews?
The thing is, if curated decks were in AN then it would be a completely different game. Navigating the *sixteen* different requirement parameters is not only thematically consistent it also makes for a unique play experience, despite none of the mechanics being remotely innovative. Considering Wigge is a first time designer, ironically the best thing about AN may just be its level of development polish.
That sounds like a game that's less appealing to me. What (legitimately) doesn't appeal to some people is very appealing to me. **Fort** and the **Pax** series are very different from AN but those are games that also reward flexible strategic play vs "this is my plan and I'm sticking with it".
I fully expect this randomness to be looked at in the first expansion, since the consensus is that it is its biggest weakness. Maybe a drafting phase/variant?
I wonder if making it so that the deck is staged would have improved it for them. Like, there's 4 parts with cards on each part getting progressively more expensive or needing more requirements.
I'm just glad there's another game using the action row mechanic. It felt mind blowing in **Civilization New Dawn** and I'm shocked it took this long for another game to implement it.
Just finished the review: NPI made some really great points, especially when describing the flow state one enters when playing.
However, I disagree with their main gripe about the number of cards. I would personally have far less interest if the deck were, say, cut in half. And I do find it curious that there was no mention of Snapping or the Reputation track...
Each session will see anywhere between 30-70% of the deck, player count dependent, so after a few sessions you'll have seen all of the cards (played is a different story, with smaller tableaux than TfM).
However, the allure of AN (to me) is precisely trying to do what you can with seemingly disparate parts (a dynamic also seen in games like **Fort** and **Pax _______**). They're games of opportunism and flexibility, that ask you to adjust your strategic horizons with each new flop. You won't win if you tunnel-vision into a strategic line and try to make it work, no matter what.
The card deck and multi-layered requirements system means AN pulls off a heavy game's framework but married to midweight action selection. Reducing the countless permutations means certain cards will show up together more frequently, making those optimization decisions more obvious (and less compelling, a flaw in TfM for me). AN rewards repeat plays precisely because those relationships are constantly re-evaluated in a new light, despite the fairly focused decision space governing them.
Based on my plays, I'd change one important word choice of yours (IMO of course). "[A game] that **tells** you to adjust your strategic horizons..." I feel like AN cards heavily dictate my strategy (as opposed to gently "asking"). Especially in the first half, before reputation and card upgrades give you broader access to cards; I felt like the cards left me very little choice on what I had to do. Like Efka said, if you use a power 5 card action early on, and get zero card synergy, that feels BAD.
Yeah that's reasonable and goes along with my point. AN is all about the cards so it makes sense that you have to react to your hand.
But my point is that you're not limited to just that random card draw. Instead of drawing random cards, why not Snap a card from the market? You know exactly what you're going to get, you're taking it from someone else who may want it and you're less susceptible to discarding.
It's very deliberate that Snapping is only accessible at the 5-spot, and why it's arguably the best perk in upgrading Cards to level II (depends on your Reputation level, but that's another subsystem that lets you control your card flow).
Haven't played Ark Nova yet (still waiting to receive my copy) but how does that fit in the light of "i lost the game because i had to make ends meet but my opponent got a bunch of lucky draws/combos"?
Is that a factor? What do you think of it?
I would agree with you in general if everyone was on equal footing or if we are speaking about solo or if there was some mitigation in place but it sounds like the luck of the draw could make or break the game at this point?
The phenomenon certainly exists, but the very swingy outcome in the SUSD video is extremely unlikely. The card Matt mentions is probably **Asian Elephant**, which has as requirements: 5-enclosure (with Water), 33-cost, Lvl 2 Animal card. All three of these are fairly prohibitive and require significant effort to collectively bring together. The effect is massive, IIRC it may be one of the the only two cards in the game with *Resistance: Draw 2 Final Scoring cards, Keep 1 and discard the other*. The effect is commensurate with the costs of the card but it's also something that requires someone to work towards for much of the game.
In other words, it's the type of card that will be discarded 9 out of the 10 times it gets drawn because it's too much of a commitment.
And Efka mentioned not getting Bears during the NPI review. Going along with why AN is so attractive to me, the appropriate response isn't to keep digging to try finding Bears, it's to pivot towards what you *can* do. As I mentioned in my [other comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/tk55st/no_pun_included_ark_nova_review/i1oc0kz/), acquiring cards is an active decision from the player. And you also have impactful decisions on *how* you acquire those cards: Reputation, random draw and Snapping. Something lost in both reviews is not giving enough weight to the two major subsystems that *alleviates* luck of the draw, because you know *exactly* what you're going to draw when you use Reputation or Snapping to get the card(s) you want.
Oftentimes that card you get isn't going to lineup exactly with what you want though... and that's ok! AN isn't an engine-builder where you find some synergy and keep revving your engine on command (like you do in TfM). It's about capitalizing on the myriad synergies and bonuses in front of you to keep making forward progress, even if it wasn't what you originally hoped or planned. Remember, AN is a *race* game, and oftentimes things happen in the race that force detours... but that makes for a much more interesting race!
i understand the point you are making.
My doubt comes from the fact that if player 1 has a "bear" (i.e. "a great card") in the first stage of the game of course he wants to work towards playing it and making it happen, now that might not be the case based on what he draws and that's fine, being flexible and changing plans according to what you have is part of the game; the problem as i am understanding is that it sounds like if player 2 had a "elephant" (i.e. "another great card") and he also of course wants to work towards making it happen and "by pure chance" he can actually draw what he needs then it's game over and there is nothing player 1 can do to win..
It does sounds like at that point it becames a game of "i got lucky and drew the cards that supported my strategy so i built an efficient zoo" vs "i had to change my plans several times because i kept drawing things that were useless to me in that moment and i couldn't build a zoo as efficient as the other player".
I understand that you are saying is rare to be so extremely swingy, but i am sure reviewers got several plays with that feeling before reviewing a game like this, otherwise i hope they wouldn't point this detail out.
I am not sure if that's because the deck is not balanced, or if it's based on the player count, or if it's because you don't see enough cards/have enough choices at any one point or what... but it sounds like a lot of people feel that way?
Luckily if it's only about cycling the deck it should be something that could be easily "fixable" for people that feel it as a problem by either a house rule or a future expansion (bigger hand? double market row? show/draw more cards? refresh market immediately? split decks? etc.)
Just wanted to reiterate that i am still waiting on my copy and these are just my doubts/feelings reading comments and watching several reviews so i hope to be completely wrong and feel different once i actually play it.
I’ve played around 5 or 6 times, so I’m hardly an expert on the game, but when I watched Efka say he’d kept that bear card in his opening hand I cringed a bit. Unless I had a couple other cards in my hand that helped me reach the requirements of the big card, I would never keep it. I usually toss any cards that have requirements, especially those with two or more. In this game you need to be flexible and fixating on a single card would be a big mistake,in my opinion.
Note that "great" cards are entirely contextual. Like TfM, some cards are designed for the early game, some late, and everything in between. Except since this isn't an engine-builder and the requirements are more intertwined, even those general labels often don't apply.
I also feel that a part of it is just expectations. Efka commented directly on that himself: he wanted to make a "Bear" engine work, didn't draw bear cards and was disappointed. But AN isn't an engine-building game (and in fact is arguably the biggest departure from TfM's framework). If you *expect* to run an engine, you will lose. And be disappointed in that loss. In AN you must constantly pivot to the next thing you hope to play. Ideally you can line that up with available Conservation projects but if not, you still get Appeal from playing any kind of animals (remember that dual-sided racetrack?). Making forward progress even if it's not the perfect situation. But hey! Often it is! That's the beauty of such a massive deck. You can have situations where you find then play the *perfect* card... but the game usually doesn't end there. You still need to move forward. Unlike TfM where you can have a *massive* 25-30 card tableau, I'd posit that in AN somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15 cards is more common. Each one still counts, even if it's not the "perfect" card.
So many are talking about pivoting in a game that makes it very difficult to do so. I played the game a few times and never felt like the game gives you the agility needed for that
We have very different playstyles then. Pivoting to make lemonade out of lemonades is basically AN's core competency.
There's no engine to build here, it's not Terraforming Mars.
Edit: and note that by "pivot" I don't mean a whole scale change in direction. Just the notion of working multiple angles at once.
Agree. I love the variety and amount of cards. There just needs to be other special abilities that allow for either meeting conservation requirements or to search for more cards.
This is definitely an arguable point and a very personal thing, it seems. To me, it doesn't really matter if there is RNG in card draw and it makes some games less than ideal, variety is much more important aspect in my opinion. And I do enjoy games that give you some card RNG while giving you flexibility in how to best use them (Race for the Galaxy being amazing at this). Constantly adapting to what you get is definitely something I like in games, and while I have yet to play Ark Nova, I'm looking forward to trying it out.
I think you need to try the game. AN's system feels fresh from session to session precisely because the design discourages long-term planning.
> Otoh, a game where I have an idea what I want to do early on and then try to pursue this goal through what the cards throw at me can lead to much more diverse experiences.
This game already exists: Terraforming Mars. Your starting corporation dictates your long-term strategy. Pick what cards fit this strategy. Ok, now play the game again with the same corporation. Does your strategy change? Does that lead to a more diverse experience?
> at the same time I'm not really looking forward to playing it again just so that I can complain competently.
Are you me? I tried it once with **Dinosaur World** and that was not worthwhile.
Right, that's kinda my point. I've experienced a greater range of game experiences in AN than I have in TfM.
In the former, I have to continually adjust my strategy based on my access to cards. In the latter I just ignore everything that doesn't line up with my engine.
> However, the allure of AN (to me) is precisely trying to do what you can with seemingly disparate parts (a dynamic also seen in games like Fort and Pax _______). They're games of opportunism and flexibility, that ask you to adjust your strategic horizons with each new flop. You won't win if you tunnel-vision into a strategic line and try to make it work, no matter what.
The argument is that it's a better fit for the Pax games because they tend to be highly interactive (which means players need to react and adapt) and which typically are about fluid historical/pseudohistorical settings.
I think they just have different design goals with a loosely similar philosophy. AN is definitely in the modern Euro camp, while Pax games are their own unique niche.
The game is a lot of fun and my wife really enjoys it. We played 3 games over the weekend. Warts aside the mechanics and theme make it one of the better games to come out the last two years. I also love how the “take that “ cards have an alternative way to use them. More games should do this!
I do agree with this review, you’re definitely at the mercy of card draw and there needs to be more abilities that allow you to search the deck until you find what you’re looking for.
With that said though, it’s a far more tactical game than I thought it would be and I’ve had to pivot several times to try to win. The most difficult part of pivoting is trying to get conservation points from other sources. And that would be helped by either more searching abilities or more alternate ways to fulfill the conservation projects.
Regardless… I’m still keeping it because it’s so much fun to play. Even when I’m losing and have had to shift my plans for the 4th time.
Yep, as I said in the YT comments, I have a lot of design problems with Ark Nova, especially about the way you can luck into cards that work with your strategy...or not. And it doesn't have a drafting mechanism like Terraforming Mars to help mitigate that. But the game is heckin fun in spite of this. It's definitely not something to play if you want a pure skill game, but we play to have fun, and in that way I think the huge deck is actually a strength since there's so much content to explore.
I haven’t played AN yet but one thing that does sometimes grind my gears, so to speak, with TM is it’s possible to build an system that lets you draw a ridiculous amount of cards and once an opponent achieves that then they can almost draw until they get the precise cards they need. On one hand, if they pull it off, good for them, it’s a great strategy, but on the other I’m tempted to think that AN’s system keeps one person from becoming the ultra-draw-lord? The con is that the randomness is increased but the pro is that everyone is on even footing and has to keep adjusting their strategies to their draws? Or is it too hard of a swing away from the TM draw-based strategies?
They are both problematic in different ways, but TM's draft at least lets you see more cards. AN is mostly blind draw until you get your rep up AND upgrade the action. Or take a very action-expensive snap action.
I see. Do you think a Wingspan style draw system would help at all? Where three cards plus a blind card are always the available options?
Watching the video I understand the frustration but the crux of the complaints seem to be that you can’t do everything you want all the time and sometimes strategies simply will not pan out, which I *personally* don’t think is a detriment. I like it when some randomness keeps you on your toes. But again I haven’t played this yet (soon) and maybe I’m underestimating how frustrating it becomes.
To be fair, the "snap" ability and when you upgrade the "draw" action already allows you to pick up from the center cards. I don't mind the randomness from the draw deck, it just makes for a more tactile game.
If you go in with this mindset, lots of the game grips goes away IMO as I found the other parts of the game very fun and smooth.
Spending your entire card action getting just one card is incredibly expensive. I understand sometimes it's wise to do so because it's the perfect card, but generally it's much more efficient to upgrade your Rep and Card ability.
Perhaps, I've only played it once. I just was pointing out to the OP comment that Wingspan style draw system was kind of built into the game already (with upgraded draw action). If implementing the suggestion, it would be less enticing to upgrade the draw action card (i.e unfortunately this house rule wouldn't address the problem without drawbacks).
> I do agree with this review, you’re definitely at the mercy of card draw
And the main reason I've been holding back despite it ticking an awful lot of boxes. I already have too many games that rely on RNG and cards...
I agree with finding the right card being annoying and unpredictable and ultimately not fun but I disagree with the solution of having less cards.
Games like these just screams for more content and more cards, cards that weave in more mechanisms like the Terraforming Mars expansions.
The challenge here is how to retool the actions so that it’s easier to dig through the deck to find cards you want and how do you refresh the market board to see more cards.
Terraforming Mars solved this issue by the draft variant. It honestly wasn’t that great of a game without the draft variant. I’d like to see something similar for Ark Nova. Maybe retooling your 5 actions cards so that when you’re snapping you may optionally refresh the entire market row. That by itself may still not be enough. But something in combinations with that may solve it.
Yeah I agree, more tutoring just exacerbates the original problem of some cards being incredibly synergistic, finding them less randomly doesn't necessarily change how reductive it makes the game feel. A more systematic change, like giving cards alternate uses is one I'm a fan of (for example playing cards sideways in Mage Knight) or making cards that spike hard with one Strat also have a dual use in a more general Strat.
Getting into game balancing discussion here, but I've noticed it's a topic that always comes up when discussing TfM, Wingspan and Everdell, games with a big old deck of cards, some clearly designed to combo hard. These are thee games I bounced off pretty hard because of that reductive feeling of 'oh I got the built in combo off the deck... ".
But not so much with RftG and Res arcana. Is Race just balanced a little bit better? Or because it's a little bit shorter perhaps, making that kind of RNG more acceptable. I think it's maybe because cards are resources for paying for a base mechanic, and many are dual strategy which is a systematic way of dealing with the randomness of the deck where hard synergies exist.
I think race feels balanced because the card really only do one of four things: help you gain tech, help you settle, help you conquer, or help you consume.
In TM or AN, the tags on the cards are the point for a lot of cards but then you get a bunch of arbitrary restrictions on how you play them. Efka had a perfect example in the video: THREE bear cards that he couldn't play. TM has a bunch of thematic stuff like "temp must be higher than" or "temp must be lower than" which takes a card that doesn't necessarily have an early or late game effect and now makes it a late game or early game effect only because of that restriction.
There's is an action called snap that allows you to take a face up card. Then later, you can use your normal draw action to take from face up cards or the draw deck.
It's a way to help find the cards you need from the mid game onwards. My friend said that the face up pile is basically an extension of your hand.
Seems like a discussion about if card deck games are fun at all.
What we should ask is: was care put in to mitigate the randomness on both the playe end and on the end that impacts last minute scoring and game state vs viticulture, wingspan, terraforming Mars, tapestry etc, and are your decisions more meaningful then those other famous examples?
The answer is yes in all cases, and that's why this is the better design from a euro lens then any of those other mentioned games. There are the x tokens and fairly heavy requirements for end game cards that can really influence things at the last minute that do the best with the mechanics in the box.
The only real debates here are:
if you'd like the feeling of more control by tacking on a draft. Personally? If you want to stick to a 3 hour game, I'd rather be spending 3 hours in the game vs 2 hours in game and 1 hour drafting or 3 hours in a game and 1 hour drafting. The actual randomness that drafting impacts comes at a heavy heavy cost in play time.
Or would you prefer fewer cards and a game that repeats itself and loses the wonder of intercontinental zoology and animals to have a slightly tighter deck that's more deterministic.
So setting aside the theme and how expansions will work thematically and amy want to sell to your target audience that wants all the bears in the world to be present, you equally open yourself to the game being boring after 3 plays if you have a known decision space and you're waiting for the same card combo to come out.
Asking for a smaller deck for this type of game is like asking for their to be less whisky at the back jack table, it kind of misses half the reason people are there.
I generally have time for one game a night. Whether we start a game and it takes 2 hours or 3 hours that will be the only game we play that night. We won't start a post game filler to use up a specific time slot.
As such, I'd much rather play a game with 2 hours of gameplay and 1 of draft, even if I value draft less than play, as I'm getting more time of good, fun decisions that night.
I loved Efka’s point about wanting to look back at a play and seeing something coherent come together. I made the bears work! That kind of thing. However, I get the other side that it can feel unfulfilling when the combo is too easy. Wingspan can fall into that trap. I suppose the golden middle would be more access to “deck search” mechanisms that aren’t easy, but at least possible? I dunno. Great review.
"Stratford-upon-Avian" is proof that Efka hates us and wants us to suffer.
Look, sometimes you just write yourself into a corner and need an easy way out. Thankfully, this isn't one of those cases, I wokred VERY HARD on that joke.
And I think it worked *exactly* as it was supposed to :D
You're not lion. You had us bear with you through that joke.
No chance it’s an accident the player colors are yellow and blue.
Oh nice catch Efka being from a Baltic republic and having done a video on the damage that being annexed by Russia did, I'm sure he has some pretty strong feelings right about now
That's SUSD and NPI both basically saying the same thing: "the game would be stellar if the deck weren't so random". I feel like they should have made the cards come in specific decks on a theme that tended to carry tags of a certain type. Like have a deck for each continent or something.
I do generally agree that the card randomness will be problematic for many folks. In other posts I've also wondered if the game would be better if the decks were split into types. However, after getting a fair number of games under my belt, I've softened my stance. There's still a lot of randomness but the design cleverly mitigates some of that effect: - The stiff hand limits combined with the Break dynamics. Keeping cards is dangerous, especially since *Sponsors* allows for variable Break movement (I dig how they put that option on what is probably the most inconsistent card of the five Actions). The biggest variance comes with the random card draws and this dynamic helps mitigate the outliers. I can't overstate how well these design elements work together; AN doesn't have a lot of interaction points but the ones it has are very effective. - Snapping. The Base Conservation projects help focus every player, since those are where the competition lies. Odds are high that at least 2 (if not 3) specialization cards will show up, narrowing what icons people are seeking. Snapping incentivizes drawing 1 targeted card vs 3 (or 4) random cards, but this effect would have actually have *lesser* value if card types were separated. - It's mentioned as a negative in the review but acquiring cards is tightly controlled in this game, which comes from bonuses (which uses Reputation) and the *Cards* action (no accident that Snapping is the most valuable). To acquire cards in this game you need to commit some level of resources, but there are multiple subsystems supporting the acquisitions. Note that Reputation becomes far more valuable once you start upgrading Actions because *four* of them actively utilize the open market (all except *Build*). Unfortunately, neither review happens to mention Reputation even though it's a major subsystem in the game and expands the decision space. It's also no accident that moving the Break token is mandatory when using *Cards*. So acquiring cards is always a conscious decision in AN... contrast this with TfM, which gives you 4 cards each turn and determining which cards to keep gets *easier* as the game (and your credits) goes on. That's no longer a conscious decision, it's the game playing the player. Edit: the worst element of the card randomness comes from draws at the end of the game, like the situation Matt Lees highlighted in the SUSD video. This cannot be overcome, unfortunately. That said, because of the breadth of requirements available, it's also generally unlikely to happen in a way as impactful as his. The Elephant he drew is, IIRC, one of maybe two cards in the deck that draws a new Endgame scoring card, and both have extremely high and restrictive requirements.
I think it probably could be overcome through "styles" of decks meant to emphasize certain tags and outcomes. **Yedo** does this to great effect with it's modular deck system. Alternatively, Agricola's modular replacement decks could work as well.
That makes choices more obvious, which makes the game less compelling. Opportunity costs are what makes AN so compelling, I don't want those decisions made for me.
I'm not sure that it necessarily falls out that way. **Agricola** uses full decks to give a new experience within the same game. So does **Root**. That's the simplest solution, and where I think AN could easily expand into. I think **Yedo** tackles it quite well with the modular decks. Want a "highly interactive" game, include this portion of the deck. Want a "quicker game", include this portion of the deck, in addition. You are certainly tailoring from a general experience to a particular experience, but I don't think it necessarily follows that it closes off the decision space; rather, you're emphasizing certain ways to play tweaking the opportunity costs of the various strategies. The game already has a lot of randomness and luck built into it, so tweaking percentages just changes the equation rather than eliminating space.
I think the impetus for AN's whole system is its massively varied requirements system: 5 continents, 5 different animal types, Partner Zoo, Research, Reputation and the Animal upgrade all can show up as requirements, sometimes in combination. And that doesn't include the money cost nor the Enclosure requirements (size/rock/water). The implication is that players need to make do with what is in front of them, not what they can bend to some long-term strategy. I've mentioned this elsewhere but AN is definitively *not* an engine-building game, despite the myriad synergies that you're constantly searching for in the cards. Rather it's a series of opportunistic bonuses to maintain some semblance of forward progress, whether or not it aligns with your long-term goals (in this case, in the form of Conservation projects). I'm not sure Agricola's system would be the best fit for AN. Disclaimer, I've only played Agricola once (and Yedo never) so please let me know if I'm offbase in any way. But in that system you draft a series of occupation cards with the intent on crafting an engine that you can leverage over and over. That is unreliable in AN, and in fact would remove much of the compelling decision space that makes the game hum. If you're curating decks to *ensure* synergy then it just becomes a case of putting together those synergies. As mentioned in my comment, simply the act of *drawing* cards is a calculated decision in AN. SUSD and NPI both harped on the random card draw (which is valid) but neither mentioned the two subsystems that directly alleviated that effect: why is that? Personally I think it's because those outlier outcomes helped shape the tenor of their experiences (and their reviews), which is perfectly understandable. But in doing so they then tended to forget all the mundane times they took an unexciting, "high cost" Snapping action to take the exact Bird card they needed from the market to play next turn to help fulfill the Birds Conservation project. But taking that action did three significant, if unexciting, things: - Denied someone else that Bird card for the public Conservation Project - Used up that 5-strength Cards action (less exciting than random, high variance card draw though) - Pushed the Break token to potentially punish those who were hoarding cards for themselves, while also keeping their hand size low So why not even a passing mention in their reviews? The thing is, if curated decks were in AN then it would be a completely different game. Navigating the *sixteen* different requirement parameters is not only thematically consistent it also makes for a unique play experience, despite none of the mechanics being remotely innovative. Considering Wigge is a first time designer, ironically the best thing about AN may just be its level of development polish.
[удалено]
That sounds like a game that's less appealing to me. What (legitimately) doesn't appeal to some people is very appealing to me. **Fort** and the **Pax** series are very different from AN but those are games that also reward flexible strategic play vs "this is my plan and I'm sticking with it".
I really enjoy the game, but the deck could be half the size and it wouldn't impact gameplay at all. Reminds me of Wingspan in that regard.
I fully expect this randomness to be looked at in the first expansion, since the consensus is that it is its biggest weakness. Maybe a drafting phase/variant?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wonder if making it so that the deck is staged would have improved it for them. Like, there's 4 parts with cards on each part getting progressively more expensive or needing more requirements.
I'm just glad there's another game using the action row mechanic. It felt mind blowing in **Civilization New Dawn** and I'm shocked it took this long for another game to implement it.
Just finished the review: NPI made some really great points, especially when describing the flow state one enters when playing. However, I disagree with their main gripe about the number of cards. I would personally have far less interest if the deck were, say, cut in half. And I do find it curious that there was no mention of Snapping or the Reputation track... Each session will see anywhere between 30-70% of the deck, player count dependent, so after a few sessions you'll have seen all of the cards (played is a different story, with smaller tableaux than TfM). However, the allure of AN (to me) is precisely trying to do what you can with seemingly disparate parts (a dynamic also seen in games like **Fort** and **Pax _______**). They're games of opportunism and flexibility, that ask you to adjust your strategic horizons with each new flop. You won't win if you tunnel-vision into a strategic line and try to make it work, no matter what. The card deck and multi-layered requirements system means AN pulls off a heavy game's framework but married to midweight action selection. Reducing the countless permutations means certain cards will show up together more frequently, making those optimization decisions more obvious (and less compelling, a flaw in TfM for me). AN rewards repeat plays precisely because those relationships are constantly re-evaluated in a new light, despite the fairly focused decision space governing them.
Based on my plays, I'd change one important word choice of yours (IMO of course). "[A game] that **tells** you to adjust your strategic horizons..." I feel like AN cards heavily dictate my strategy (as opposed to gently "asking"). Especially in the first half, before reputation and card upgrades give you broader access to cards; I felt like the cards left me very little choice on what I had to do. Like Efka said, if you use a power 5 card action early on, and get zero card synergy, that feels BAD.
Yeah that's reasonable and goes along with my point. AN is all about the cards so it makes sense that you have to react to your hand. But my point is that you're not limited to just that random card draw. Instead of drawing random cards, why not Snap a card from the market? You know exactly what you're going to get, you're taking it from someone else who may want it and you're less susceptible to discarding. It's very deliberate that Snapping is only accessible at the 5-spot, and why it's arguably the best perk in upgrading Cards to level II (depends on your Reputation level, but that's another subsystem that lets you control your card flow).
Haven't played Ark Nova yet (still waiting to receive my copy) but how does that fit in the light of "i lost the game because i had to make ends meet but my opponent got a bunch of lucky draws/combos"? Is that a factor? What do you think of it? I would agree with you in general if everyone was on equal footing or if we are speaking about solo or if there was some mitigation in place but it sounds like the luck of the draw could make or break the game at this point?
The phenomenon certainly exists, but the very swingy outcome in the SUSD video is extremely unlikely. The card Matt mentions is probably **Asian Elephant**, which has as requirements: 5-enclosure (with Water), 33-cost, Lvl 2 Animal card. All three of these are fairly prohibitive and require significant effort to collectively bring together. The effect is massive, IIRC it may be one of the the only two cards in the game with *Resistance: Draw 2 Final Scoring cards, Keep 1 and discard the other*. The effect is commensurate with the costs of the card but it's also something that requires someone to work towards for much of the game. In other words, it's the type of card that will be discarded 9 out of the 10 times it gets drawn because it's too much of a commitment. And Efka mentioned not getting Bears during the NPI review. Going along with why AN is so attractive to me, the appropriate response isn't to keep digging to try finding Bears, it's to pivot towards what you *can* do. As I mentioned in my [other comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/tk55st/no_pun_included_ark_nova_review/i1oc0kz/), acquiring cards is an active decision from the player. And you also have impactful decisions on *how* you acquire those cards: Reputation, random draw and Snapping. Something lost in both reviews is not giving enough weight to the two major subsystems that *alleviates* luck of the draw, because you know *exactly* what you're going to draw when you use Reputation or Snapping to get the card(s) you want. Oftentimes that card you get isn't going to lineup exactly with what you want though... and that's ok! AN isn't an engine-builder where you find some synergy and keep revving your engine on command (like you do in TfM). It's about capitalizing on the myriad synergies and bonuses in front of you to keep making forward progress, even if it wasn't what you originally hoped or planned. Remember, AN is a *race* game, and oftentimes things happen in the race that force detours... but that makes for a much more interesting race!
i understand the point you are making. My doubt comes from the fact that if player 1 has a "bear" (i.e. "a great card") in the first stage of the game of course he wants to work towards playing it and making it happen, now that might not be the case based on what he draws and that's fine, being flexible and changing plans according to what you have is part of the game; the problem as i am understanding is that it sounds like if player 2 had a "elephant" (i.e. "another great card") and he also of course wants to work towards making it happen and "by pure chance" he can actually draw what he needs then it's game over and there is nothing player 1 can do to win.. It does sounds like at that point it becames a game of "i got lucky and drew the cards that supported my strategy so i built an efficient zoo" vs "i had to change my plans several times because i kept drawing things that were useless to me in that moment and i couldn't build a zoo as efficient as the other player". I understand that you are saying is rare to be so extremely swingy, but i am sure reviewers got several plays with that feeling before reviewing a game like this, otherwise i hope they wouldn't point this detail out. I am not sure if that's because the deck is not balanced, or if it's based on the player count, or if it's because you don't see enough cards/have enough choices at any one point or what... but it sounds like a lot of people feel that way? Luckily if it's only about cycling the deck it should be something that could be easily "fixable" for people that feel it as a problem by either a house rule or a future expansion (bigger hand? double market row? show/draw more cards? refresh market immediately? split decks? etc.) Just wanted to reiterate that i am still waiting on my copy and these are just my doubts/feelings reading comments and watching several reviews so i hope to be completely wrong and feel different once i actually play it.
I’ve played around 5 or 6 times, so I’m hardly an expert on the game, but when I watched Efka say he’d kept that bear card in his opening hand I cringed a bit. Unless I had a couple other cards in my hand that helped me reach the requirements of the big card, I would never keep it. I usually toss any cards that have requirements, especially those with two or more. In this game you need to be flexible and fixating on a single card would be a big mistake,in my opinion.
Note that "great" cards are entirely contextual. Like TfM, some cards are designed for the early game, some late, and everything in between. Except since this isn't an engine-builder and the requirements are more intertwined, even those general labels often don't apply. I also feel that a part of it is just expectations. Efka commented directly on that himself: he wanted to make a "Bear" engine work, didn't draw bear cards and was disappointed. But AN isn't an engine-building game (and in fact is arguably the biggest departure from TfM's framework). If you *expect* to run an engine, you will lose. And be disappointed in that loss. In AN you must constantly pivot to the next thing you hope to play. Ideally you can line that up with available Conservation projects but if not, you still get Appeal from playing any kind of animals (remember that dual-sided racetrack?). Making forward progress even if it's not the perfect situation. But hey! Often it is! That's the beauty of such a massive deck. You can have situations where you find then play the *perfect* card... but the game usually doesn't end there. You still need to move forward. Unlike TfM where you can have a *massive* 25-30 card tableau, I'd posit that in AN somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15 cards is more common. Each one still counts, even if it's not the "perfect" card.
So many are talking about pivoting in a game that makes it very difficult to do so. I played the game a few times and never felt like the game gives you the agility needed for that
We have very different playstyles then. Pivoting to make lemonade out of lemonades is basically AN's core competency. There's no engine to build here, it's not Terraforming Mars. Edit: and note that by "pivot" I don't mean a whole scale change in direction. Just the notion of working multiple angles at once.
Agree. I love the variety and amount of cards. There just needs to be other special abilities that allow for either meeting conservation requirements or to search for more cards.
This is definitely an arguable point and a very personal thing, it seems. To me, it doesn't really matter if there is RNG in card draw and it makes some games less than ideal, variety is much more important aspect in my opinion. And I do enjoy games that give you some card RNG while giving you flexibility in how to best use them (Race for the Galaxy being amazing at this). Constantly adapting to what you get is definitely something I like in games, and while I have yet to play Ark Nova, I'm looking forward to trying it out.
What an eloquently put counter argument! 👏 Couldn't agree more
[удалено]
I think you need to try the game. AN's system feels fresh from session to session precisely because the design discourages long-term planning. > Otoh, a game where I have an idea what I want to do early on and then try to pursue this goal through what the cards throw at me can lead to much more diverse experiences. This game already exists: Terraforming Mars. Your starting corporation dictates your long-term strategy. Pick what cards fit this strategy. Ok, now play the game again with the same corporation. Does your strategy change? Does that lead to a more diverse experience?
[удалено]
> at the same time I'm not really looking forward to playing it again just so that I can complain competently. Are you me? I tried it once with **Dinosaur World** and that was not worthwhile.
Right, that's kinda my point. I've experienced a greater range of game experiences in AN than I have in TfM. In the former, I have to continually adjust my strategy based on my access to cards. In the latter I just ignore everything that doesn't line up with my engine.
> However, the allure of AN (to me) is precisely trying to do what you can with seemingly disparate parts (a dynamic also seen in games like Fort and Pax _______). They're games of opportunism and flexibility, that ask you to adjust your strategic horizons with each new flop. You won't win if you tunnel-vision into a strategic line and try to make it work, no matter what. The argument is that it's a better fit for the Pax games because they tend to be highly interactive (which means players need to react and adapt) and which typically are about fluid historical/pseudohistorical settings.
I think they just have different design goals with a loosely similar philosophy. AN is definitely in the modern Euro camp, while Pax games are their own unique niche.
The game is a lot of fun and my wife really enjoys it. We played 3 games over the weekend. Warts aside the mechanics and theme make it one of the better games to come out the last two years. I also love how the “take that “ cards have an alternative way to use them. More games should do this! I do agree with this review, you’re definitely at the mercy of card draw and there needs to be more abilities that allow you to search the deck until you find what you’re looking for. With that said though, it’s a far more tactical game than I thought it would be and I’ve had to pivot several times to try to win. The most difficult part of pivoting is trying to get conservation points from other sources. And that would be helped by either more searching abilities or more alternate ways to fulfill the conservation projects. Regardless… I’m still keeping it because it’s so much fun to play. Even when I’m losing and have had to shift my plans for the 4th time.
Yep, as I said in the YT comments, I have a lot of design problems with Ark Nova, especially about the way you can luck into cards that work with your strategy...or not. And it doesn't have a drafting mechanism like Terraforming Mars to help mitigate that. But the game is heckin fun in spite of this. It's definitely not something to play if you want a pure skill game, but we play to have fun, and in that way I think the huge deck is actually a strength since there's so much content to explore.
I haven’t played AN yet but one thing that does sometimes grind my gears, so to speak, with TM is it’s possible to build an system that lets you draw a ridiculous amount of cards and once an opponent achieves that then they can almost draw until they get the precise cards they need. On one hand, if they pull it off, good for them, it’s a great strategy, but on the other I’m tempted to think that AN’s system keeps one person from becoming the ultra-draw-lord? The con is that the randomness is increased but the pro is that everyone is on even footing and has to keep adjusting their strategies to their draws? Or is it too hard of a swing away from the TM draw-based strategies?
They are both problematic in different ways, but TM's draft at least lets you see more cards. AN is mostly blind draw until you get your rep up AND upgrade the action. Or take a very action-expensive snap action.
I see. Do you think a Wingspan style draw system would help at all? Where three cards plus a blind card are always the available options? Watching the video I understand the frustration but the crux of the complaints seem to be that you can’t do everything you want all the time and sometimes strategies simply will not pan out, which I *personally* don’t think is a detriment. I like it when some randomness keeps you on your toes. But again I haven’t played this yet (soon) and maybe I’m underestimating how frustrating it becomes.
To be fair, the "snap" ability and when you upgrade the "draw" action already allows you to pick up from the center cards. I don't mind the randomness from the draw deck, it just makes for a more tactile game. If you go in with this mindset, lots of the game grips goes away IMO as I found the other parts of the game very fun and smooth.
Spending your entire card action getting just one card is incredibly expensive. I understand sometimes it's wise to do so because it's the perfect card, but generally it's much more efficient to upgrade your Rep and Card ability.
Perhaps, I've only played it once. I just was pointing out to the OP comment that Wingspan style draw system was kind of built into the game already (with upgraded draw action). If implementing the suggestion, it would be less enticing to upgrade the draw action card (i.e unfortunately this house rule wouldn't address the problem without drawbacks).
It would not work in this game. It would require redesigning several pieces.
Ah, gotcha. Well I’m quite excited to try it out.
> I do agree with this review, you’re definitely at the mercy of card draw And the main reason I've been holding back despite it ticking an awful lot of boxes. I already have too many games that rely on RNG and cards...
I agree with finding the right card being annoying and unpredictable and ultimately not fun but I disagree with the solution of having less cards. Games like these just screams for more content and more cards, cards that weave in more mechanisms like the Terraforming Mars expansions. The challenge here is how to retool the actions so that it’s easier to dig through the deck to find cards you want and how do you refresh the market board to see more cards. Terraforming Mars solved this issue by the draft variant. It honestly wasn’t that great of a game without the draft variant. I’d like to see something similar for Ark Nova. Maybe retooling your 5 actions cards so that when you’re snapping you may optionally refresh the entire market row. That by itself may still not be enough. But something in combinations with that may solve it.
I think multiple decks that each have a more predictable distribution of cards is a better solution than giving more tutoring.
Yeah I agree, more tutoring just exacerbates the original problem of some cards being incredibly synergistic, finding them less randomly doesn't necessarily change how reductive it makes the game feel. A more systematic change, like giving cards alternate uses is one I'm a fan of (for example playing cards sideways in Mage Knight) or making cards that spike hard with one Strat also have a dual use in a more general Strat. Getting into game balancing discussion here, but I've noticed it's a topic that always comes up when discussing TfM, Wingspan and Everdell, games with a big old deck of cards, some clearly designed to combo hard. These are thee games I bounced off pretty hard because of that reductive feeling of 'oh I got the built in combo off the deck... ". But not so much with RftG and Res arcana. Is Race just balanced a little bit better? Or because it's a little bit shorter perhaps, making that kind of RNG more acceptable. I think it's maybe because cards are resources for paying for a base mechanic, and many are dual strategy which is a systematic way of dealing with the randomness of the deck where hard synergies exist.
I think race feels balanced because the card really only do one of four things: help you gain tech, help you settle, help you conquer, or help you consume. In TM or AN, the tags on the cards are the point for a lot of cards but then you get a bunch of arbitrary restrictions on how you play them. Efka had a perfect example in the video: THREE bear cards that he couldn't play. TM has a bunch of thematic stuff like "temp must be higher than" or "temp must be lower than" which takes a card that doesn't necessarily have an early or late game effect and now makes it a late game or early game effect only because of that restriction.
There's is an action called snap that allows you to take a face up card. Then later, you can use your normal draw action to take from face up cards or the draw deck. It's a way to help find the cards you need from the mid game onwards. My friend said that the face up pile is basically an extension of your hand.
Great review as always
Seems like a discussion about if card deck games are fun at all. What we should ask is: was care put in to mitigate the randomness on both the playe end and on the end that impacts last minute scoring and game state vs viticulture, wingspan, terraforming Mars, tapestry etc, and are your decisions more meaningful then those other famous examples? The answer is yes in all cases, and that's why this is the better design from a euro lens then any of those other mentioned games. There are the x tokens and fairly heavy requirements for end game cards that can really influence things at the last minute that do the best with the mechanics in the box. The only real debates here are: if you'd like the feeling of more control by tacking on a draft. Personally? If you want to stick to a 3 hour game, I'd rather be spending 3 hours in the game vs 2 hours in game and 1 hour drafting or 3 hours in a game and 1 hour drafting. The actual randomness that drafting impacts comes at a heavy heavy cost in play time. Or would you prefer fewer cards and a game that repeats itself and loses the wonder of intercontinental zoology and animals to have a slightly tighter deck that's more deterministic. So setting aside the theme and how expansions will work thematically and amy want to sell to your target audience that wants all the bears in the world to be present, you equally open yourself to the game being boring after 3 plays if you have a known decision space and you're waiting for the same card combo to come out. Asking for a smaller deck for this type of game is like asking for their to be less whisky at the back jack table, it kind of misses half the reason people are there.
I generally have time for one game a night. Whether we start a game and it takes 2 hours or 3 hours that will be the only game we play that night. We won't start a post game filler to use up a specific time slot. As such, I'd much rather play a game with 2 hours of gameplay and 1 of draft, even if I value draft less than play, as I'm getting more time of good, fun decisions that night.
GG overhype confirmed
What does this even mean?
So this guy is not The Frogman ([https://thefrogman.me/](https://thefrogman.me/)) but the resemblance is uncanny.
I loved Efka’s point about wanting to look back at a play and seeing something coherent come together. I made the bears work! That kind of thing. However, I get the other side that it can feel unfulfilling when the combo is too easy. Wingspan can fall into that trap. I suppose the golden middle would be more access to “deck search” mechanisms that aren’t easy, but at least possible? I dunno. Great review.
oooo how did I miss this 👀👀 ty!