Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Kemet» Forums » Sessions

Subject: Not sure Kemet is for my group rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mister Dragonier
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just played for the first time. I think I will or would like the game but I had to kinda throw it to try and make it fun for the group.

My friends thought that attacking was too punishing so noone was attacking and all movement happened with full troops for empty spaces. They were afraid that even if they won they would be attacked afterwards so they didn't attacked and the game was falling into an engine builder of tiles with everyone with their temples.

For a game of constant struggle I felt that they weren't seeing the potential of the game and were turning it into another Cyclades were (at least with our group) the battles are really scarce because once again people only attack when they feel safe, noone risks it and when you fall behind its really hard to fight back.

I kinda threw my game and all chances of winning because I started attacking everyone, no matter their forces or tiles power I kept pushing fights, suddenly because I mostly focused on killing and not winning the other guys started attacking aswell because there were smaller forces scattered. In the end the guy who won wasn't sure he liked the game because in his eyes he had no power on the turn order and could not plan ahead because of it. Played most of the game besides the last round in the last place, which I felt was really the best spot to control one last attack.

The other 2 guys ended liking the game while I enjoyed it a bit but more from the potential than from the actual session were I had to play badly to try and spice the game up.

Im afraid if in the future I will keep having to do this or give up on full on metal kemet.

Has anyone here have a group that plays it so safely that you get like 1 battle in 3 rounds of Kemet? It didn't felt right.


Sorry for the ramble. Love in theory the game, playing I really liked the mechanics but felt forced to change for the worse my plays to try and get people excited for the game.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TeleVezeOn
Netherlands
Utrecht
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wait!

Did you notice the rule that after the battle BOTH players can recall their troops? Something tells me that not...

This means that even if you get a lof of casualties, you cannot leave your opponents an easy VP... and you simply recall!
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mister Dragonier
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes we played with that rule. They would rather keep VP from temples than gain VP from battles so they occupied an empty Temple and just sat there with full force.

The rule we missed was that points from LVL 4 pyramids were temporary and could be stolen.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ronaldo Fatecha
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Basic question: They do realize you don´t get permanent VP for just sitting inside a temple right? You need to occupy at least 2. If every one sits in a single temple best you can hope for in a 3 player game is 4 temporary VP (pyramids + temple) + 1 permanent VP (power tile). Someone would get to 6 buying to Sphynx but the only way to get more VP would be the Sanctuary of all Gods and you would have to fight for it otherwise the first to take it would win the game...

Perhaps Cyclades is more suited to your group? I have both games exactly because they play so different in terms of mechanics and pacing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tyler G
United States
Kentwood
MI
flag msg tools
mb
Kasshern wrote:
My friends thought that attacking was too punishing so noone was attacking and all movement happened with full troops for empty spaces. They were afraid that even if they won they would be attacked afterwards so they didn't attacked and the game was falling into an engine builder of tiles with everyone with their temples.


This is where I think you're half right and half wrong.

First, to think that attacking is too punishing is where you're way off in your interpretation of Kemet. There's only a few ways to get permanent VPs in Kemet, and the easiest and most consistent is winning a battle in which you were the attacker. For this reason alone you and your group should be thinking offensively from the first turn. You don't get VPs by moving troops into the desert and sitting around - you get them from being aggressive, and that's Kemet's real MO.

Even if they attacked and won the battle but were left with too few troops to hold off, even the attacker may recall their troops as noted above. This is highly advantageous as it means opponent's can't simply attack a weak force for easy VPs, and you get some economic gain in terms of prayer points at the cost of board position. Later in the game if you get some blue power tiles or monsters it may be useful to not recall, but there's nothing wrong with winning a battle and recalling your own troops.

However, you are correct in your assertion that Kemet can feel like an engine builder, but it's a game where engines can be disrupted! Don't be afraid to march into an opponent's city and take one of their level 3 or 4 temples, depriving them of their power tile purchasing options (and maybe giving you some extra to boot). This is what makes Kemet unique for me, the balance between building your own engine and choosing when, and which opponent, to disrupt.

All that being said, maybe it's not for your group, and that's okay! If your group would rather sit in their cities and temples and build engines, then come out swinging during the last few pivotal turns, there are many dudes on a map games that would better suit your needs. Kemet shines when everyone is aggressive right out of the gate.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Base Jester
msg tools
If one player attacks and wins a battle and then the defeated player attacks the remnants and wins, BOTH players have gained victory points. Units are expendable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ronaldo Fatecha
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
basejester wrote:
If one player attacks and wins a battle and then the defeated player attacks the remnants and wins, BOTH players have gained victory points. Units are expendable.


That´s assuming the victor did not recall the surviving troops. What is the standard procedure exactly to avoid giving opponents an easy VP.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alejandro Magno
Argentina
flag msg tools
i don't know how much is too little attacking or too much for you but a player would be involved in an average of 5-7 combats by the end of the game.

There are different strategies though, for some strats it makes sense to avoid combat as much as possible, and for others you should engage into combat as much as you can.

With that said the turn order is broken and you should play with a variant, there are many proposed in the variant forum and there is the official variant in the expansion. The original turn order rule is broken and there is no way around it.

Quote:
Has anyone here have a group that plays it so safely that you get like 1 battle in 3 rounds of Kemet? It didn't felt right.


If you mean a full round (5 turns for each player), i would say no. here is the reason.
If a player is getting ahead on the economic race, the only way to beat him is to lure him out or go after him.
If you are winning the economic race, you should be happy sitting in your city and do nothing but then everybody that is not trying to lure you out by camping temples or attacking is just playing wrong.

If someone invested in economy and not combat, then you should send troops to his edge temple to gain free ankhs and threat for a 1 point temple win with a last turn move.

If someone is not investing in combat tiles you have many technologies to hold temples (+1 Defense, Blades of Neith, divine wound, etc) and if you are able to hold 2 temples you will out eco them anyway.

If you thkink you can do that because there are OTHER players with combat tiles that you will get into attrition war, then you have tiles to just go for him, like open gates, phoenix, scarab.

It's common that maybe the first round or two, there is zero o 1 combat, but once tech trees start to develop combat become way more frequent.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ronaldo Fatecha
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Waterd wrote:
With that said the turn order is broken and you should play with a variant, there are many proposed in the variant forum and there is the official variant in the expansion. The original turn order rule is broken and there is no way around it.


I agree that the original rule for turn order gives a lot of power to one player, but the Ta-Seti variant (fighting for initiative) sounds like a major drag. Can someone that played with that rule give an opinion on how much time and book keeping it adds to the game?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastian Elliker
Switzerland
flag msg tools
Legonian wrote:
I agree that the original rule for turn order gives a lot of power to one player, but the Ta-Seti variant (fighting for initiative) sounds like a major drag. Can someone that played with that rule give an opinion on how much time and book keeping it adds to the game?

It is not a drag. When using it for the first time perhaps, but after that it works really well, especially since you have to commit two battle cards (one face up, one face down). Sometimes this is an advantage, i.e. you use the last battle cards, or a disadvantage, i.e. you still have 2 or more cards left and thus, your opponents now know more about your battle capabilities.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Stearns
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Next time encourage them to play to win instead of playing not to lose. This is classic example of the problem being the players not the game.
 
 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.