Game: Ark of the Covenant, The

Thread: Re: Carcassonne Newbie Tries Ark of the Covenant

offseid — 2008-11-08T09:40:03+00:00

ColtsFan76 wrote:
Now the Ark says, once a feature is complete, the ark is placed. That should follow on the heals of step 4 - call it step 4.5. So you still place a tile (obviously) and have the opportunity to place a meeple. Step 3 is ignored because the Ark isn't out and then you score the completed city. THEN the Ark should come out. But to illustrate clearly that the active player can't do anything with the Ark this turn, his turn is now over (Step 5).
Well the rules say, "The Ark of the Covenant is placed on the board immediately when the first city is completed. The player who completed that city, decides on which tile of the city he wishes to place The Ark. He places The Ark on one of the completed city segments and his turn is now over."

I suppose you could interpret "a completed city" as one that has the follower you just placed on it.

House rule perhaps?

Thread: Re: Carcassonne Newbie Tries Ark of the Covenant

ColtsFan76 — 2008-11-07T11:43:19+00:00

Combined with the bolder tile graphics and the cleaner farm rules, I think AotC is the best base game Carc out there. As you mentioned, most Christian games are Christian-themed with a cheesy game attached. This is a solid game with a cheesy Christian theme attached, which makes it work better.

Three comments. The first one is about the names of the meeples. We don't really pay attention to the names in Carc so we just call all these meeples as well. But if you wanted to, you could probably come up with names on your own and still have your sound effects. "Farmers" would be Shepards for sure. Not sure of a good name for those in the City or Roads. But these would be the last 2 names you need since there is no special meeple tied to the temple.

Second, either we played wrong all these times or you have misunderstood the Ark placement rules. The rule is meant to just bring out the Ark and should have no bearing on the current player, his meeple placement, or scoring. This is the order of the rules (summarized):

1. Draw a tile and place it
2. Place a meeple on the just placed tile
3. If you can't/don't want to place a meeple, move the Ark
4. If completed, score
5. Next player's turn

Now the Ark says, once a feature is complete, the ark is placed. That should follow on the heals of step 4 - call it step 4.5. So you still place a tile (obviously) and have the opportunity to place a meeple. Step 3 is ignored because the Ark isn't out and then you score the completed city. THEN the Ark should come out. But to illustrate clearly that the active player can't do anything with the Ark this turn, his turn is now over (Step 5).

More to the point, the rule is in for this reason. It is possible for the current player to complete a city he does not control. This still triggers the Ark being placed. And let's say when he placed the tile, he didn't have an opportunity to place a meeple as well. This rule specifically states that he can't place the Ark on the board and then move it in the same turn.

That's what this rule is in for and not meant to punish the player who might complete the first city.

Finally, I do agree the Ark movement is a bit annoying. It reminds me of the fairy in Princess and Dragon. It's a nice option to score some points but we tend to forget it more than we use it.

Thread: Carcassonne Newbie Tries Ark of the Covenant

offseid — 2008-11-07T04:54:39+00:00

So about a week after I played Carcassonne for the first time, I borrowed Ark of the Covenant (from here on out, AotC) from a friend. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a relative newcomer to board games; I've never played any of the Carcassonne variants, nor do I know the differences between them. I just know that [at least] one has sheep and wolves like AotC, and one involves flinging things around the room (unlike AotC, unless you're having a bad game).

My first impression was that hey, this looks like a real game! So often when I view/read/play a "Christian" version of a "secular" product, the "Christian" version ends up being a cheesy half-baked two-bit affair. This one, which if I'm not mistaken was designed by the Carcassonne man himself, looks and feels like a quality game.

So the obvious difference is the ark gamepiece itself. I didn't much care for the rule that stated that the ark is placed in the first completed city, turn over. It doesn't necessarily encourage one to complete a city first, does it? And I guess it would be a real bummer if that city was a big one because everyone keeps expanding cities rather than give up a move completing one and having to place the ark. But in our first game, I went ahead and completed the first city I could and got the ark into play.

Another difference is that all of the meeples are called "followers" in this version. To me, I liked that the meeples are called different things in Carcassonne, depending on their function. In fact, when playing Carcassonne with my kids, each one has its own sound effect/song which we sing as it's played.

The element of the ark is a good one in that it gives you something to do if you can't or don't want to deploy a follower. It does, however, become a little overly tit-for-tatish when players continuously move it around, single point by single point (or more, okay). Playing with my non-cutthroat wife, I had to at times decide NOT to move the ark, just because I was starting to dog her, and what's a point or two at that stage?

The prophet piece is another big difference in the game. It's a good one, too. Do you hold out for the perfect city? Or go ahead and place it in that sure thing 8-pointer? I will tell you that a prophet hurts more than a regular follower when thrown at you by a 5-year-old who wanted to complete the 22-point city you just put your own prophet in.

As for playing with children (mine are 5 and 3.5), I'd say that Ark of the Covenant was a little less fun than Carcassonne. The kids didn't really have any desire to play with the ark piece at all, so we leave it in the box. Then we're pretty much just playing Carcassonne with the sheep variant. And often, the 3-year-old doesn't play at all; she just takes all the meeples that we're not using and makes meeple pyramids. So she gives both Carcassonne and AotC two big thumbs-ups.

Thread: Re: Perhaps the best version for children

Great_Mazinga — 2008-08-20T16:20:43+00:00

Better yet, make some little altars from natural mixed colored fish gravel and epoxy. I'll have to toy with that idea, should I decide to pick AoC up.

Image

kilroy_locke — 2008-08-14T18:04:11+00:00

Interestingly enough, three meeples can form a Star of David with their legs!

Image

olavf — 2008-06-20T14:00:29+00:00

German Cover

Image

Gibbo — 2008-06-14T04:37:29+00:00

"IT IS BEAUTIFUL!!!"

Thread: Re: Place Prophet on Field?

ilta — 2008-05-28T06:39:39+00:00

I think that's a physical, rather than a gameplay-based, description. As in: "Hey, neat Carc variation, Prudence, but what's with these extra-large meeple? Did they mess up the die-cuts?" "Why Enoch, it would appear those are prophets."

Thread: Re: Place Prophet on Field?

GamesOnTheBrain — 2008-05-28T03:32:14+00:00

I agree... I just thought it was strange that they called Prophets "extralarge followers" in the content section.

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Place Prophet on Field?

ColtsFan76 — 2008-05-28T02:56:29+00:00

It is just the city. It is pretty explicit and not much room to wriggle: place in a city; place in a city segment; when the city is completed; score... points for the city. They repeat it 4 times!

"Placement rules" should be read as "placement restrictions" in that you can only place it on the just-laid tile, can't be in a city with other meeples, etc. But where you can place it is still in cities only - no roads, no fields, no temples.

Thread: Re: Place Prophet on Field?

Drew1365 — 2008-05-28T02:47:28+00:00

Pretty sure the Prophet Meeple can only go in a city.

Thread: Re: Place Prophet on Field?

rgmnetid — 2008-05-28T02:46:33+00:00

I've always played it as city-only.

Thread: Place Prophet on Field?

GamesOnTheBrain — 2008-05-28T02:39:24+00:00

If you chose to, could you place a prophet in a field? The rules are a bit vague about this.

The rulebook states the following...

"5 Prophets - Extralarge followers"

In the Prophet section it says:

"During the game, you may use your Prophet one time in a city. Instead of placing a follower in a city segment, you would instead place your Prophet. When the city is completed, you score double the amount of points for that city. Your Prophet is then removed from the game and placed into the box. All normal placement rules for followers apply to the Prophets.

In the Playing the Game section, it says:

"The player may place one of his followers from his supply to the land tile he just placed or the Prophet from his supply to a city portion of that land tile (if applicable)."

A situation came up where my wife wanted to play her prophet (all of her normal followers were already on the board) in a field because she was desperate to try to get another follower into a large point field nearby.

After reviewing the rules, we agreed that she could not do that, but I just want to make sure since she otherwise would almost certainly have won.

Image

Gibbo — 2008-05-25T01:44:19+00:00

We have our top meeples working on it...

Image

Gibbo — 2008-05-23T21:08:52+00:00

Side of the Box

Image

Gibbo — 2008-05-18T22:48:11+00:00

Don't look Marion...

Image

Jormi_Boced — 2008-04-13T20:10:57+00:00

Farmer by the Ark

Thread: Re: Can the Ark move diagonally?

ilta — 2008-02-21T20:18:39+00:00

That would my instinct as well: orthogonal only.

Thread: Re: Can the Ark move diagonally?

Aldaron — 2008-02-21T04:38:33+00:00

ColtsFan76 wrote:
Aldaron wrote:
Through connected tiles. Tiles are only connected along edges. Ego: movement is orthogonal only.
Actually, the rules don't state that either. "Connected" is assumed, as is "orthoganal."
Correct. I didn't mean to imply otherwise (no quotes around "connected").

My point is that the the only concept of adjacency that Carcassonne has (for this, for features, for the Dragon, for the Tower, etc.) is based on being connected along an edge. So the only possible moves (for anything) are orthogonal.

Thread: Re: Can the Ark move diagonally?

ColtsFan76 — 2008-02-21T04:29:49+00:00

Aldaron wrote:
ltux wrote:
Maybe I missed something in the rules, but is the Ark supposed to move only orthogonally, or can it move diagonally, too?
Through connected tiles. Tiles are only connected along edges. Ego: movement is orthogonal only.
Actually, the rules don't state that either. "Connected" is assumed, as is "orthoganal."

Thread: Re: Can the Ark move diagonally?

Aldaron — 2008-02-21T04:17:57+00:00

ltux wrote:
Maybe I missed something in the rules, but is the Ark supposed to move only orthogonally, or can it move diagonally, too?
Through connected tiles. Tiles are only connected along edges. Ego: movement is orthogonal only.

Thread: Re: Can the Ark move diagonally?

ColtsFan76 — 2008-02-21T02:52:32+00:00

I don't think the rules state either way. But I have always played orthogonally - which is the same as what the dragon can do in Ark (the only Carc piece off the top of my head that moves in similar fashion).

Thread: Can the Ark move diagonally?

ltux — 2008-02-21T02:33:49+00:00

Maybe I missed something in the rules, but is the Ark supposed to move only orthogonally, or can it move diagonally, too?

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

Arcadious — 2008-02-16T01:05:44+00:00

tada wrote:
This brings up an interesting discussion on Tanga a little while back.

http://www.tanga.com/products/935-Ark-of-the-Covenant-the-Bo...
(Warning: It brings up some Religion stuff & so does the following.)

Which brought up my Geekmail response to a fellow christian BGGer.

"I totally agree with you that "Ark of the Covenant" is riddled with Biblical inaccuracies. I don't have this game and after reading your geekmail & the BGG rules entry for it I have to say the game designer doesn't have a clue.

But...I still think the encampment of Israel formed a cross. In order to maintain three tribes (150,000 people x 3 = 450,000 min.) on each of the four sides of the tabernacle with Levi surrounding it, it would have to look like a cross.

The 3 diagrams on http://www.ldolphin.org/camp.html show the logical progression of thought on how the arrangement of the tribes would end up looking like the bottom drawing.

I think your diagram would better fit 2 million people as in Numbers Chapter 2 (per the legalistic mindset of Israel) like this:

. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
X.X.X.X.X . . . . . . . X.X.X.X.X
X.X.X.X.X . . . . . . . X.X.X.X.X
X.X.X.X.X . . . . . . . X.X.X.X.X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X

This also is consistant with God always trying to show Messiah in everything He does, whether it be obvious or sneaky. There are many hidden messianic symbolisms in the Old Testament that have to be diligently uncovered. I love those "Aha" moments! I think God likes creating good puzzles for us to solve. Not only this "cross" puzzle, but thousands (maybe millions) more, just hiding in the bible for us to discover. It's like "Hide & Seek" with your father. For some reason that is my daughter's favorite thing to play, as it was for me when I was a kid and still is as an adult with a child. I also love Tanga puzzles - solving & creating. It is one of the ways we are created in His image."

Just some thoughts on the loosely related religious ties this game might have.I just wasted a significant part of my life reading the entire Tanga thread, and I was only reading this thread to see how it was different then standard carc.

Thread: Re: Do Phrophets double points in incomplete cities?

Zodgrod — 2008-01-12T03:44:49+00:00

Good call, Joe X. I just played it wrong against my. (she beat me anyway ).

Thread: Re: Moving the Ark in a Circle

Zodgrod — 2008-01-12T03:41:59+00:00

ya, we play that the Ark can't ever enter a square it has already been in during a given player turn.

Image

fractaloon — 2007-12-13T12:36:16+00:00

Inside the box.

Thread: Re: They should have called it Arkassonne

Drew1365 — 2007-11-28T18:46:54+00:00

Ark is very similar to Carc, with simpler "field" scoring, but more tactical "temple" scoring. Ark is a nice shorter Carcassonne that provides the same experience as Carcassonne with some expansions (that necessarily make Carc a longer game).

If you aren't interested in expansions, I think Ark is better than original recipe Carc. If you like expansions, go with Carc and start expanding.

Thread: Re: They should have called it Arkassonne

Grimwold — 2007-11-28T18:32:05+00:00

The ark cities do have the scroll symbols, so you could do it based on those... and basic carc has the shield symbols within cities. There's no equivalent to these in H&G if I remember correctly.

Thread: Re: They should have called it Arkassonne

BagpipeDan — 2007-11-28T17:25:51+00:00

Hm, that's a shame. It's a cool idea but I wouldn't want to mark up my cities. I'll have to see if there's any distinguishing mark I can find.

Ark is a good enough Carc for me, not a huge fan, but that's a neat variant.

Thread: Re: They should have called it Arkassonne

Grimwold — 2007-11-28T12:13:05+00:00

BagpipeDan wrote:
What bonus do you get in H&G for completing somebody's city? Could it possibly work for Ark?
On certain tiles in H&G is a gold nugget symbol.. if you play the last tile in a meadow that has a gold nugget, you take a tile from the stack of bonus tiles, and place it immediately... not sure you'd be able to replicate that in Ark, without the extra tiles.

A loosely similar mechanic was used in the Traders and Builders Carc expansion, where players earnt 3 types of commodities, that scored points at the end for the player with the most of each type.

Thread: Re: They should have called it Arkassonne

BagpipeDan — 2007-11-28T11:35:14+00:00

What bonus do you get in H&G for completing somebody's city? Could it possibly work for Ark?

Thread: Re: They should have called it Arkassonne

Grimwold — 2007-11-28T11:24:49+00:00

Ark is VERY similar to Hunters and Gatherers, with the following few notes:

The field scoring works the same as H&G (which is different from basic carc).
Roads score differently from rivers in H&G (because of the fish), but it's still very similar.
Cities score the same as meadows, but there's no reward for finishing someone else's city.

There is the addition of the ark piece which is different, and allows an extra option for scoring.
There's the prophet meeple which is a one-shot double on a city scoring, provided you finish the city.
Temples also score differently in Ark than basic Carc, as there's more of a battle for control, which is kinda nice.
There's no bonus tiles, and no fishing huts like in H&G

I haven't played Discovery, but if you own Carc and Carc:H&G and don't want another game that's similar, you probably want to give this one a miss. (even though this is personally my favourite of the stand alone versions)

Thread: Re: They should have called it Arkassonne

ZiggyZambo — 2007-11-28T11:20:22+00:00

Ark is actually very similar to H&G, even more I think than H&G is to original Carc. If you want a new Carcassonne version that really differs from the ones you have, I'd go with Carcassonne: the Castle.

Thread: They should have called it Arkassonne

paulvonscott — 2007-11-28T11:00:35+00:00

Just saying

I want to try this game, but hope I won't end up wanting to buy it!

How does it compare to Carcassonne, Discovery and Hunters & Gatherers (which I own). For me Hunters and Gatherers is a bit too much like Carcassonne, I wouldn't want another game that similar. but discovery does feel like a different game.

Thread: Re: Illegal placement?

ColtsFan76 — 2007-11-26T13:48:54+00:00

His question isn't about how the scoring for temples work, his question is about how this particular example came about.

The problem is, if either red or green was the first one in the field, the other couldn't be legally placed no matter what. With the two pieces being adjacent, there was really no way one could have snuck in even under the most clever of tile placments.

So yes, it appears in their haste to show how the temple scores, they set up a situation that would never occur in the game. It would have been better to put green in the other field or the road. Or the same could have been done for red.

Thread: Re: Illegal placement?

Grimwold — 2007-11-26T13:47:30+00:00

pables wrote:
I know through careful placement followers can be in the same field, but I can't see how this example is possible. What am I missing?

Nope, I can't imagine how meeples on two directly adjacent tiles can be in the same field... even with really careful placement, you couldn't get this situation... as there's no way for both tiles to be in play and the field not yet linked!!!

I think it's just poetic licence for the sake of the example.

Thread: Re: Illegal placement?

Phytoman — 2007-11-26T13:34:48+00:00

For this example, red must have played the temple tile and placed their meeple in the field on the temple tile (Strategically, if they had placed it on one of the roads on the temple tile it probably could have been removed if someone had finished the road off on the adjacent tile). Green and black then played the adjacent tiles with one of the green meeples in the field that happens to be the same field as the one red is in. The seven points is given to the player who has the most meeples in the tiles (regardless if they are on the road, in a field, or in a castle) around or in the temple tile. I hope this helps.

Thread: Illegal placement?

pables — 2007-11-26T12:47:13+00:00

I've just been reading through the rules for my newly acquired Ark and I think I have it right, but the picture in the rules regarding the temple scoring is puzzling me.
It shows 2 followers (green and red) in adjacent tiles in the same field.
]]>
It states that "Green has the most followers and scores the full 7 points for the completed temple."
I know through careful placement followers can be in the same field, but I can't see how this example is possible. What am I missing?

Image

pables — 2007-11-26T12:35:07+00:00

Correct placement?

Thread: Re: Would this work with 6?

ilta — 2007-11-02T20:29:59+00:00

If you have the meeple for it; I think it would be a bit quick and crazy, but it could totally work.

Thread: Re: Would this work with 6?

ColtsFan76 — 2007-11-02T15:03:31+00:00

Probably would be a little quick. When Carc added a 6th player through Inns & Cathedrals, they also added 18 more tiles. So that's, what, 90 tiles, or about 15 per person. it should work.

Thread: Would this work with 6?

ebridge — 2007-11-02T14:32:02+00:00

Or are there not enough tiles for a quick 6 player game? I figure with 6 that would be 12 tiles per person, but I'm not sure if that's enough turns to accomplish much. Your thoughts?

Thread: Re: Review: Ark of the Covenant - with comparisons to Carcassonn

slozano622 — 2007-10-07T18:41:49+00:00

Christians also use the Old Testament. Besides, the Old Testament is where it all began. Jesus knew the Old Testament, since the New Testament wasn't even written yet! The Old Testament is about history, which is what makes this game so much fun.

Image

stormseeker75 — 2007-09-30T21:36:21+00:00

4-player game 4 turns in

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

stormseeker75 — 2007-09-25T13:32:43+00:00

Thanks everyone for the kind words and nice debate. I'm a Carc super-fan and for me, Ark is something that I neither love nor hate. My girlfriend really liked it, so I'm sure it will see a lot more play.

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

Pz V — 2007-09-25T04:42:35+00:00

Nice review.

For myself after playing Ark, I sold Carc + all expansions. Why? Ark is so much cleaner and as stated previously takes some of the best from the other expansions while still playing in about the same time as standard Carc. The religious theme doens't turn me on but it doesn't turn me off either - it really is a non-issue.

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

The Schaef — 2007-09-25T03:58:08+00:00

Do you need this if you already own Carcassonne? Maybe.

Do you need this if you own Carcassonne plus several expansions? Probably not.

Do you need this if you DON'T own Carcassonne? Probably more than the original. This is a great "stand-alone" adaptation, which is how I've explained the difference to most people. Certainly no harm in getting the base game and expansions, either. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

tada — 2007-09-25T01:27:03+00:00

This brings up an interesting discussion on Tanga a little while back.

http://www.tanga.com/products/935-Ark-of-the-Covenant-the-Bo...
(Warning: It brings up some Religion stuff & so does the following.)

Which brought up my Geekmail response to a fellow christian BGGer.

"I totally agree with you that "Ark of the Covenant" is riddled with Biblical inaccuracies. I don't have this game and after reading your geekmail & the BGG rules entry for it I have to say the game designer doesn't have a clue.

But...I still think the encampment of Israel formed a cross. In order to maintain three tribes (150,000 people x 3 = 450,000 min.) on each of the four sides of the tabernacle with Levi surrounding it, it would have to look like a cross.

The 3 diagrams on http://www.ldolphin.org/camp.html show the logical progression of thought on how the arrangement of the tribes would end up looking like the bottom drawing.

I think your diagram would better fit 2 million people as in Numbers Chapter 2 (per the legalistic mindset of Israel) like this:

. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
X.X.X.X.X . . . . . . . X.X.X.X.X
X.X.X.X.X . . . . . . . X.X.X.X.X
X.X.X.X.X . . . . . . . X.X.X.X.X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X
. . . . . . . . X . X . X

This also is consistant with God always trying to show Messiah in everything He does, whether it be obvious or sneaky. There are many hidden messianic symbolisms in the Old Testament that have to be diligently uncovered. I love those "Aha" moments! I think God likes creating good puzzles for us to solve. Not only this "cross" puzzle, but thousands (maybe millions) more, just hiding in the bible for us to discover. It's like "Hide & Seek" with your father. For some reason that is my daughter's favorite thing to play, as it was for me when I was a kid and still is as an adult with a child. I also love Tanga puzzles - solving & creating. It is one of the ways we are created in His image."

Just some thoughts on the loosely related religious ties this game might have.

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

Drew1365 — 2007-09-25T01:03:09+00:00

Isamoor wrote:
Hrm, you get 5 meeples and a hut right?

Two huts. Which adds up to seven figures, so I guess they're about equal. Huts go down for the duration of the game, but so do your farmers . . . or whatever they're called in H&G, and I think I'm always coming up short of meeples.

What I think is, I just haven't yet figured out the key to H&G. And I think it's to score small features as often as possible.

How about this, we didn't fully appreciate the direction Carc:the Castle took the game. Does H&G go in the same direction? It seemed that Carc: the City definitely went in the same direction as Carc:the Castle.

I've only played The Castle twice, and so far I like it. Haven't tried The City, but that seems like a really fiddly version. The Discovery is just . . . odd. Only played it once and it took half the game wrap my head around the scoring. (It's the only Carc game I know of that includes player aids for scoring.) I like that you either place a meeple on your turn, or take back a meeple and score. And it's probably the least confrontational Carc of any of them. But it's very, very different.

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

Isamoor — 2007-09-25T00:22:23+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
Arguably, so did the original farmer rules for Carcassonne. With the third edition ruleset, farms are now a feature to be scored, but originally it was the cities that scored for those who had the most control in the farms around them. In that sense, the Temple scoring in Ark is similar to the original farmer scoring.

Yup, that's pretty much exactly why I use the 3rd edition Carc scoring. It just ties in so well with the other scoring mechanics.

Drew1365 wrote:
H&G may be my least favorite of the Carcs. The tactics in H&G come more from tile placement than meeple placement, and you only get five meeples, making for a much tighter game. But it also feels a lot more claustrophobic. I do not find H&G a relaxing game at all.

Hrm, you get 5 meeples and a hut right? Still, that is a bit less than the other Carcs for sure.

How about this, we didn't fully appreciate the direction Carc:the Castle took the game. Does H&G go in the same direction? It seemed that Carc: the City definitely went in the same direction as Carc:the Castle.

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

Drew1365 — 2007-09-25T00:16:55+00:00

Isamoor wrote:
And yes, I stated elsewhere I thought the cloisters were a little unbalanced in the original, but the way the temples are handled in AoC just sounds so screwy. It completely breaks the "place a meeple on a feature" paradigm.

Arguably, so did the original farmer rules for Carcassonne. With the third edition ruleset, farms are now a feature to be scored, but originally it was the cities that scored for those who had the most control in the farms around them. In that sense, the Temple scoring in Ark is similar to the original farmer scoring.

H&G may be my least favorite of the Carcs. The tactics in H&G come more from tile placement than meeple placement, and you only get five meeples, making for a much tighter game. But it also feels a lot more claustrophobic. I do not find H&G a relaxing game at all.

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

garry_rice — 2007-09-24T23:58:37+00:00

I don't own Carc but do own Ark...and I see no reason to buy Carc and its many expansions. My wife and I much prefer Ark to Carc the few times we've played the original game. Just seems like a good blend, although I will say that I groan inwardly when I draw a temple tile...I'd rather try to score roads, fields, or cities instead. That said, the way the temple is scored does allow for some player interaction and allows other players to remove another players meeple from near the temple if they force completion of an adjacent road or city.

Personally, I think the religous theme is a bit overblown, but that's been hashed out too many times and you can say whatever you want about that...

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

Isamoor — 2007-09-24T22:29:41+00:00

And yes, I stated elsewhere I thought the cloisters were a little unbalanced in the original, but the way the temples are handled in AoC just sounds so screwy. It completely breaks the "place a meeple on a feature" paradigm.

I've gotten a chance to do the castle recently. It was very nice, but it just didn't quite work for us. It seems my wife and I really do miss the "multi-player jigsaw", at least as far as watching the landscape unfold. We understood the "only line up roads" just fine, we just didn't appreciate the illogical and not very cute castle that resulted.

I want to try the city too, but I worry it would be more of the same. At least in the city you don't have the layer of target scores to detract from laying out the city. Instead, you have people basing when to complete a feature on how it will help their wall building. Still, if I had it I'd try it.

Anyway, thanks again for the review.

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

Isamoor — 2007-09-24T22:24:16+00:00

Nice review!

I think I'm going to pick this up if it hits Tanga again just because. We may have different ways of enjoying Carcassonne at times, but I do agree it's a great game.

Personally, I'm more excited about trying out the Hunters & Gatherer's version sometime soon. I really like the sound of the streams and water systems compared to roads.

Am I the only one that notices silly little quirks like this though:

In most carcs, cities score 2ish points per tile. In H&G, forests score 2 points per segment. How screwy is that?

Also, I don't believe that the fields go negative in Ark of the Covenant. The exact wording is:

1. Each wolf eats a sheep.
2. Any sheep remaining scores 2 points.

So it says nothing about a wolf being negative 2 points. I believe in the H&G rules, it is very explicit about tigers not being negative.

Thread: Re: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

Drew1365 — 2007-09-24T22:23:13+00:00

Nice review. A couple thoughts . . .

While they fixed the fields, they ruined the Temple/Cloister idea by making it really hard to score. Maybe that was the point, but it just seems to difficult to bother with.

It occurs to me that you don't actually commit meeples to Temples the way you commit them to Cloisters. You stick a meeple on a Cloister and that's all it's good for, and it might actually be stuck there the whole game if the Cloister isn't completed. But with Temples, you commit your meeples to the features around the temples, and even if you don't score the Temple points, you still have an opportunity to score for the features you stuck your meeples on. So rather than being a feature that you shouldn't bother with, a Temple is an easy risk, since one meeple can essentially help score two features. (Temple and Road, or Temple and Field.) Given that, it seems nutty not to bother with the Temples.

Also, . . . one of the selling points for Ark of the Covenant is that it takes the best of the expansions and wraps them up in a shorter game. If you like the expansion stuff for Carc, but you don't like the way it lengthens the game, Ark is a great compromise.

Thread: Do I need this if I already own Carcassonne?

stormseeker75 — 2007-09-24T20:55:00+00:00

Ark of the Covenant is a stand-alone game in the Carcassonne series. Based on Klaus Jurgen-Wrede's famous game, Ark attempts to change some rules to make the game more intuitive and also slightly changes the theme. As Carcassonne is widely accepted as a standard part of most gamers' collections, you need to ask yourself "If I own Carc, do I need to get this?"

Rules

This game is a Carcassonne variant, so if you know how to play Carc, you'll know how to to play this. That said, every version of Carc adds or changes some rules and this game is no exception.

The first and most significant change is the Temple tiles. Since we're now in Jerusalem instead of France, the Cloisters are gone in favor of Temples. The Temples work differently than their French cousins. You cannot put a meeple directly on the Temple itself. Instead, you may put one on any of the 4 roads or field segments on the Temple tile. Temples are completed when 4 tiles surround the 4 sides of the Temple, making the shape of a + or cross. Any roads are then scored and the meeples removed. The player with the most meeples on the 4 tiles surrounding the Temple scores 7 points for it. At the end of the game, 3 points are awarded to the player with the most meeples around a Temple if it is uncompleted. Many players feel that Cloisters are overpowered in Carc so this is an attempt to fix it.

Another difference is the addition of oasis points to the roads. Again, we're now in the desert so we have oasis points which grant 1 additional point per oasis when the road is complete, or at the end of the game. This is a hybrid of the Inns & Cathedral rules and helps to make roads more worthwhile without making them as powerful as cities.

Ark borrows its field scoring mechaninc from the Hunters and Gatherers version of Carcassonne. Fields will contain sheep which are worth +2 points and wolves that are worth -2. The player with the most meeples in a field scores the points for that field based on the total number of sheep and wolves. Its possible that a field could be worth 0 or even negative points which provides an interesting option when placing tiles.

This game again borrows an idea from I&C by including a giant meeple. The giganteeple is called a Prophet and works very different from his predecessor. The Prophet can be placed in a city instead of a meeple. Once the city is finished, the Prophet doubles the score of the city. Once used however, the Prophet is removed from the game. Each player has their own Prophet so maximizing the effectiveness of it is key.

The most obvious change is what the game is named after: The Ark of the Covenant. Once the first city is completed, the Ark is placed there. On a player's turn, instead of placing a meeple, that player can move the Ark 5 spaces making sure to never backtrack or touch a tile that has already been touched. 1 point is awarded to the player controlling a meeple that is passed over or stopped on. This can be a significant way to gain points if you have no meeple placement options.

Components

If you're familiar with Carc, you can expect the same high quality here. I feel as though the tiles in Ark may actually be a tiny bit thicker and better coated. They seem slightly different to my hand which may just be because these are new and my Carc tiles are slightly used. Still, the tiles look and feel nice.

As previously mentioned, the game has moved from the French countryside to the deserts of Israel and as such, the artwork has changed. Gone are the lush green fields and verdant meadows. In their place is dry desert sand. The sand is a bright yellow color and shows some minor detail of the surface. The city walls have also changed slightly, going from smooth curves of Carcassonne to sharp angles of Ark. There are oasis spots on the road which serve to really bring home the idea of being in the desert. Lastly, the Temples are completely different looking from the Cloisters. I really like the new visual presentation the tile art offers but it doesn't really offer anything different. This is not a bad thing, just an observations.

The meeples are identical to other games in this series, but I feel like they too are glossed more. Its a slight difference, but they appear to have more shine to them. The new piece in this game is the Ark. There are 2 different versions of this game with one containing a wooden ark and the other containing a cardboard version. My copy had the wooden Ark which is built well and covered in a thick glossy coat. I'm sure this is substantially more durable than its cardboard counterpart and as such I'm happy my copy came with wood instead of cardboard.

Gameplay

I said it earlier in this review and I'll say it again: If you have ever played Carcassonne, then you know how to play this game. The gameplay is exactly the same in almost every way. One notable difference is the scoring of the Temples. Its very difficult to keep your meeples on the tiles around the Temple. Most people will put their meeples on the roads around the temple so that they can get them back later. This seems to be a dangerous choice because you then give your opponent the opportunity to finish your road and remove your meeple. If a player can finish another player's road and only give that player a few points, its a better play than letting them score 7 for the Temple.

Another important thing to remember is moving the Ark when you have no other options. You can really gain a lot of points for moving the Ark if you place it and your meeples appropriately. You should generally be able to score 2 points on most occassions with more being a distinct possibility. However, you must also try to keep the Ark away from your opponent's meeples and try to minimize their scoring opportunities. The Ark may not seem like it can change a game, but if a player scores 1 point a turn for 15 turns of the game, that's the equivalent of a 7 tile city plus one point. Thats a lot of points to give away for free.

Compare it to....

This game is a potpourri of Carcassonne ideas. The field scoring is taken from Hunters and Gatherers. The oasis bonuses are reminiscent of the inns from the Inns and Cathedrals expansion for the base game. Even though the Ark sounds new, its really quite similar, at least in it's impact on the scoring, of the Fairy from The Princess and The Dragon expansion. The Temples are unique to this game, but other than that, you've probably seen most of this game in other Carc spin-offs.

Overall

"If I own Carc, do I need to get this?" Thats the question we're trying to answer with this review. Based on the facts stated above, I'd like to present you with two different schools of thought representing what I believe are the pros and cons of this game.

You should buy this game, even if you own Carc because:
1. The field scoring is much easier
2. It has a strong religious tone, which may appeal to some people
3. You are a Carc completist

You don't need this if you already own Carc because:
1. Its just another rehashing of the same game
2. The Ark is an unnecessary idea, tacked on to create a different theme
3. While field scoring is easier, the Temples more difficult than they should be
4. You're a Carc purist and only like the base game, and only for 2 players

I don't like to ride the fence on a review, but I can see merits to both sides of the argument. The field scoring is much easier to grasp shortening the learning curve for new players. While they fixed the fields, they ruined the Temple/Cloister idea by making it really hard to score. Maybe that was the point, but it just seems to difficult to bother with. I also believe that roads are not underpowered in the basic game and therefore need no correction, making the oasis tiles irrelevant to me. The Ark is a neat addition which forces you to think a bit more when you have nowhere to put a meeple and allows you to have more options on your turn. I actually really like the Prophet rule because if used properly, the Prophet can be a gamebreaker.

This review was really difficult for me to write because as a Carc purist, I don't like to see anything changed. While I love the field scoring, especially for casual games, I hate the Temples. I like the Ark and the Prophet, so I guess I lean towards saying that this is a good version of Carc. Still, I don't think a Carc owner needs this unless he/she is a completist or has a desire for a game with a religious theme. I can't review this game based on its own merits because its a Carc clone, so therefore I must review it based against its predecessor and say that regular Carc is a better game, plain and simple. I own this because my girlfriend wanted it to play with her family (they are Jewish). Otherwise, I surely would have skipped this one, and I'll recommend you do the same thing.

Thread: Re: Moving the Ark in a Circle

Lou-Dawg — 2007-09-22T20:22:52+00:00

Yes it is very difficult to define a nebulous term like 'backtrack'. If they had said the Ark cannot be moved to any square that it has occupied this turn the rule would be very easy to interpret. Here is another example of maybe legal, maybe not legal movement:

123X4

1-4 are meeples. X is meeple and arc. The best scoring option would be X->4->X->3->2->1 (scoring 5 points). Even thought it uses the same method as the circle example above, it is even less acceptable based on the 'backtrack' language.

Thread: Re: Moving the Ark in a Circle

Hustle Kong — 2007-09-20T20:48:22+00:00

EvanMinn wrote:
It depends on how you interpret 'backtrack'.

Backtrack means to return over the same course or route.

My first instinct would be that the first square is part of your course and you are returning to it so it wouldn't be allowed but I don't think it is possible to say that definitively.

That's pretty much my thought on it, as well.

Thread: Re: Moving the Ark in a Circle

EvanMinn — 2007-09-20T20:30:11+00:00

It depends on how you interpret 'backtrack'.

Backtrack means to return over the same course or route.

My first instinct would be that the first square is part of your course and you are returning to it so it wouldn't be allowed but I don't think it is possible to say that definitively.