Recommend
9 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Inis» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Quick review after 1st play of Inis rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
raist anient
Singapore
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
*QUICK INIS REVIEW*

Pros:
1. simple rules. accessible.
2. beautiful artwork

Neutral:
1. potentially plays fast so some of the negatives can be somewhat overlooked
2. zero engine building. some people like it, some people don't. you are basically doing the same thing over and over again each round (this becomes a negative when combined with negative #2)

Negatives:
1. it suffers from the usual direct conflict-area control game problem - once someone is winning, people gang up. this usually leads to someone else leading and so on. eventually, the person who ends up winning is the 2nd or 3rd person to surge. to a certain extent, this is inevitable in direct conflict-area control games, but some games (BR, Kemet) mitigate this problem while inis exacerbates it in a few ways:-
(a) lots of take that
(b) limited actions per round so after actions are spent by players taking down the leader, the 2nd/3rd person will win

2. 30%-40% of the game is the start-of-round draft. the problem is that the draft pool is made up of 4x+1 cards (where X is the number of players). you remove 1 card before you draft. so you basically see 90+% of the possible cards in the whole game. *EVERY ROUND*. this can be good because you become very famliar but it gets boring doing the same thing over and over. especially when there is no engine building.

3. quite unbalanced advanced cards that you can draw.

4. quite unbalanced region powers that are given to the player who "controls" a region

5. the game setup itself is problematic. the starting player (Brenn) is randomly determined and he then determines where the capital is AND he starts placing troops on the board first. so he will put the capital where the best region yes (see #4) and occupy it. and which other player is going to sacrifice control of aother region to challenge the Brenn? if he does, the other players will gain.

6. combat resolution requires players to be very reasonable. can potentially lead to ruin for both sides if neither wants to "truce". if 7 units attack 5 units, can end up with 1 unit left if nobody wants to be reasonable about it. then both players are fucked.

conclusion:
compares poorly with modern area control games like kemet and blood rage.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Webb
United States
Edmonds
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Most of your complaints appear to be because you wanted a strategic game instead of a tactical game. It is not the fault of the game, but rather it didn't meet what you want out of an area control game.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tyler DeLisle
United States
Richardson
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
galagaew wrote:
Most of your complaints appear to be because you wanted a strategic game instead of a tactical game. It is not the fault of the game, but rather it didn't meet what you want out of an area control game.


I have some "issues" with the game, but I agree with that completely. No engine building, drafting the same cards every round, and varying power level of locations and epic cards are by design. They are not faults with the game at all, rather not what you expected?

I think Inis is very cool for what it is, it plays much more like an abstract, or a card game. It's kind of a battle of wits and I love that it feels different for that.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nisses Clan Skryre
Belgium
Sint-Lievens-Houtem
flag msg tools
mbmb
galagaew wrote:
Most of your complaints appear to be because you wanted a strategic game instead of a tactical game. It is not the fault of the game, but rather it didn't meet what you want out of an area control game.


And so he lists up what he likes and didn't like about it.
Sounds like something you'd do in a review whistle

14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
Norway
Oslo
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nisses wrote:
And so he lists up what he likes and didn't like about it.
Sounds like something you'd do in a review whistle

And gets questioned by people who have played it more than once. Especially the complaint that the number of possible actions is limited is strange since that is common to 99% of games out there.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stefaan Henderickx
Belgium
Kallo
Antwerp
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the review. With my limited experience (also 1 play) I would say the engine building you are looking for are the unbalanced region cards you mention in negative 4.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Ferguson
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kemet doesn't mitigate the issues of bash the leader. It's one of the main elements of the game, and why a lot of people don't like Kemet.

It does appear you want an engine builder mixed with area control. Probably why you like blood rage and not Inis.
3 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Raph Moimoi
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
anient wrote:
*QUICK INIS REVIEW*

Pros:
1. simple rules. accessible.
2. beautiful artwork

Neutral:
1. potentially plays fast so some of the negatives can be somewhat overlooked
2. zero engine building. some people like it, some people don't. you are basically doing the same thing over and over again each round (this becomes a negative when combined with negative #2)

Negatives:
1. it suffers from the usual direct conflict-area control game problem - once someone is winning, people gang up. this usually leads to someone else leading and so on. eventually, the person who ends up winning is the 2nd or 3rd person to surge. to a certain extent, this is inevitable in direct conflict-area control games, but some games (BR, Kemet) mitigate this problem while inis exacerbates it in a few ways:-
(a) lots of take that
(b) limited actions per round so after actions are spent by players taking down the leader, the 2nd/3rd person will win

2. 30%-40% of the game is the start-of-round draft. the problem is that the draft pool is made up of 4x+1 cards (where X is the number of players). you remove 1 card before you draft. so you basically see 90+% of the possible cards in the whole game. *EVERY ROUND*. this can be good because you become very famliar but it gets boring doing the same thing over and over. especially when there is no engine building.

3. quite unbalanced advanced cards that you can draw.

4. quite unbalanced region powers that are given to the player who "controls" a region

5. the game setup itself is problematic. the starting player (Brenn) is randomly determined and he then determines where the capital is AND he starts placing troops on the board first. so he will put the capital where the best region yes (see #4) and occupy it. and which other player is going to sacrifice control of aother region to challenge the Brenn? if he does, the other players will gain.

6. combat resolution requires players to be very reasonable. can potentially lead to ruin for both sides if neither wants to "truce". if 7 units attack 5 units, can end up with 1 unit left if nobody wants to be reasonable about it. then both players are fucked.

conclusion:
compares poorly with modern area control games like kemet and blood rage.


Maybe you should play more than once and take the game for what it is laugh

Inis has a good learning curve, you discover new combos and ways to use your cards game after game.
Players have to look at the board and think about who can potentially win, you can't play at random or just by trying things on your side, you won't win. So what you think is unbalanced is done on purpose to make players attack who's taking benefit from a Territory that has a big power.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Sanders
United States
Henderson
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
DNA results:Scottish, Dutch, English, Irish, German, French, Iberian Peninsula = 100% American!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I drew some of the same conclusions after my one play last night. But, I realized that I didn't really play very smart, as I spent too many of my actions attacking after getting into a duel with another player over a territory - like I would in Kemet shake This weakened me considerably, and I lost badly. Now I want to play again, and use more measured tactical play.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Rupp
United States
Chicago
IL
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
anient wrote:
1. it suffers from the usual direct conflict-area control game problem - once someone is winning, people gang up. this usually leads to someone else leading and so on. eventually, the person who ends up winning is the 2nd or 3rd person to surge. to a certain extent, this is inevitable in direct conflict-area control games, but some games (BR, Kemet) mitigate this problem while inis exacerbates it in a few ways:-
(a) lots of take that
(b) limited actions per round so after actions are spent by players taking down the leader, the 2nd/3rd person will win


I had a very similar experience last night after playing Inis for the first time. Clashes are bad for everyone involved. Clashes are necessary to stop someone from winning. The player who sits around and lets other people do the 'stopping' will win. I recognize that there is a game there, but it's not for me. Our 3.5 hour game ended with me literally picking which of my opponents would win.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tyler DeLisle
United States
Richardson
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
itmo wrote:
Kemet doesn't mitigate the issues of bash the leader. It's one of the main elements of the game, and why a lot of people don't like Kemet.


Hm, well I will say that both Kemet and Inis do actually have a mechanic that sort of "mitigates" the bash the leader, the permanent victory points, and the harp things in Inis (forgot the name). These both are essential to ramping up a definite end point rather than constant beating down.

I do feel that it's harder to stop a winner in Kemet, you can block someone for a round or two, but if they can keep winning battles, it's inevitable. This seems less the case for Inis since it's easier to just completely wipe a person off the board.

I feel like in Kemet, once someone gets in range of winning, the game is going to be over in a round or two, I've seen Inis go for multiple hours after someone first hits a win condition.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Rupp
United States
Chicago
IL
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TyDeL wrote:
I feel like in Kemet, once someone gets in range of winning, the game is going to be over in a round or two, I've seen Inis go for multiple hours after someone first hits a win condition.


Maybe that's the difference, and why I (much) prefer Kemet.

In Kemet, I felt like I was trying to win. In Inis, I felt like I was trying to not lose.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig B
Australia
Mount Hawthorn
Western Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
pjr86 wrote:
Our 3.5 hour game


Surely something went wrong. Did anyone get any deeds?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.