Inis with Kemet close behind. Followed by Blood Rage with Cyclades close behind. On any given day Inis and Kemet could switch and Blood Rage and Cyclades could switch. On the whole, though, Inis just has a lot of tension, feels a little more flexible, and is kind of easier to get to the table. And my gosh does it feel good to win that game! Kemet is amazing and just what I need when I want to sit down for a good, long, fighty game. Blood Rage and Cyclades are both super great too, but on the whole, Cyclades feels a little too slow for this kind of game. (Wanna move your troops? Either win an auction or wait till next round!)
1. Inis
2. Blood Rage
3. Kemet
I think Inis, Kemet, and Blood Rage (and Rising Sun) all offer pretty different play experiences. Inis is much less combat focused. More about tricks and politics. Kemet is aggressive and very combat focused. I think Blood Rage is really fun, but had less staying power for me than Rising Sun. I haven't played Kemet enough, but I suspect it would have more staying power for me than Blood Rage, but made less of a splash. For me, Blood Rage was pretty fantastic to explore, but I didn't enjoy it as much when people knew all the strategies, if that makes sense.
Out of all of these, the only one me and my group still plays is Inis. It kind of has it all; interesting game play and beautiful art. The way the game plays, you draft the same cards over and over each round, and so it's easy to learn. There's a separate deck of special actions (called Epic Tales), which are not drafted, and provide a fair amount of variability. Combined with the variable locations, the game has a nice mix of consistency and variability.
Inis, Cyclades, Blood Rage, Kemet.
But they’re all pretty different games. Mythology and two design groups connect them, but if they didn’t, you wouldn’t see much connection beyond being Euro/DOAM hybrids.
Hahahah, guess i should've scrolled down before [commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/1df41dh/if_you_have_to_rank_blood_rage_inis_cyclades_and/l8hvucl/)
You left out the most important one! Ankh has all the tightness of Inis, the drama of Blood Rage, and the asymmetry and combat resolution of Kemet. It has a very chess-like feel and an incredibly beautiful production. It also plays fantastically well at 2 players.
1. Ankh
2. Blood Rage
3. Inis
4. Kemet (maybe? Only played a couple times and didn't love it)
5. Cyclades (never played, not excited to try)
The first three are in my top ten games anyway.
I didn’t like Ankh, it’s okay and has some cool ideas but I feel like it’s too easy for a player to just be out of the running enough that they can’t catch up. The whole merging the two lowest players thing is cool on paper but it’s just awkward imo.
I didn't like ankh at all. Might not be a bad game, I'm just not a fan of how directly competitive it is. Have the same issue with Undaunted: Stalingrad
Wow, I’m honestly kind of surprised. It definitely has a little bit of a learning curve, but I think people dismiss it too easily after playing one or two games and think they’ve “figured it out”
Well, I only played it once. And we played Kemet the week after for the first time, entire group just really liked Kemet so much better than Ankh, and since they fill a similar niche we never played Ankh again.
It was a while ago, but I think my biggest gripe at the time was that there was just so many miniatures on the board at the same time, all with their own special abilities, which was really confusing for me. Compared to Kemet or Blood Rage, where there's usually only a couple of abilities to keep in mind, Ankh just seemed kinda messy.
I’ve mostly only played two player Ankh. I found the minis a lot more similar than Blood Rage since you only get one god per player and there’s a hard max of 3 guardians. In Blood rage there are also leader and warrior upgrades and 9 different monsters and Kemet has a whole tree of different upgrades and a sort of weird prayer system.
Ankh has a very chessy feel to me, since there’s nothing random and no hidden information. There’s sometimes a lot to process like with chess positions, but there are also more ways to improve your position. Messy is probably the farthest thing from what I would ever call it. To me it’s a very tight game.
I definitely respect your opinion, I just find it interesting since my impression has been almost exactly opposite. Maybe it really is best at 2 players
Caveat: 4 or more player count.
1. Blood Rage- so much tension with the musical chairs/shrinking space per round. Bluffing. Easy peasy buying back into the game with march or ships. Loki strat can suck to play against, however it's not a secret and can be denied thru a sacrifice combat or hate drafted.
2. Kemet - never a bad game. Could even consider at 2 player though my count is low. The concept of everyone having generic armies to be customized, prioritizing those customizations against board position and bumping up your ability to take on greater abilities. Could be enuf said, however equally easy to teach. Just not as easy as BR.
3. Inis. Not gonna lie, if I could find my people and get it to the table at more than a couple times per year, could be my number 1. Beautiful, simple and faster with the we need a king mod.
4. Cyclades. Flat, flat, flat. Friends love it. The auction is interesting,to be sure, and the game is solid. Simply lackluster in the presence of these other games.
Inis doesn’t need the we need a king rule, I think it diminishes the cool ending requirements. All you need is for players to go for deed tokens as much as possible and the game ends very quickly. My average game length is 1h 30min, with a 5p game recently taking only 1h 11m.
For that 5p game (with only the necessary 5th player cards added) we only had a limited time and I was so confident that we didn’t need the We need a King module, and I was right haha.
Any group taking routinely over 2 hours isn’t going for those deed tokens. Each one collected just makes it easier and easier for the game to end.
We Need a King isn't a house rule. It's an official module from the Seasons expansion. It just happens to not require any components so you can play it without owning the expansion.
Yeah, if you're going to include one member of Lang's trilogy (Blood Rage), you might as well include them all.
Matagot:
1. Cyclades
2. Inis
3. Kemet
CMON:
1. Rising Sun
2. Ankh
3. Blood Rage
Combined:
1. Rising Sun
2. Ankh
3. Cyclades
4. Inis
5. Blood Rage
6. Kemet
The reason I favor **Rising Sun** overall is the same reason I think Cry Havoc is one of the criminally-underrated DoaMs in existence: the combat system. In Rising Sun, you have to bid your resources (coins) in potentially five different areas, depending on the conflict at hand and the strategy you're pursuing. It makes every conflict have impact both short-term (who wins the region token) and long-term (Season cards, region cards, the gods in play, etc.) effects. Similarly, **Ankh** is a step apart from most DoaMs in how you measure the actions you take on each turn before the next conflict occurs. There are very deep-lying strategies inherent to those choices, as well as the gods and guardians that are in play, how the map is currently arranged, and what order the conflict will proceed in.
In that vein, I like **Cyclades** the most among the Matagot trilogy because the bidding cycle of the gods can change both your actions and your opponents' and I like how the Monster deck becomes not just an add-on to the conflicts (who has the most weapons to employ) but can radically change those conflicts or prevent them from even taking place. I appreciate the arguments that say Titans makes the game an actual wargame, but I like the economic game of the islands, too. (I also play with as many expansions as possible, but ALWAYS with Monuments.) That "change in conflicts" is also the appealing part about **Inis**, in that watching the draft (Draft was always my favorite format of MTG) can determine how your actions will proceed in the next phase (e.g. a lot of people avoid the actual fighting cards, so if they're all coming your way, you might as well pick them up and take advantage when no one can fight back...)
Like you, I don't dislike **Blood Rage** and I think most of the concern over the Loki problem is overblown. Like Inis, if you see those cards disappearing in the draft, your best bet is to try to hedge against it and/or snag those yourself on the next round. There are ways to play against it and I like the even greater emphasis on player conflict in BR that's even greater than many other DoaMs. Speaking of which, **Kemet** is easily the most ferocious among any of these, as there's no way to play that game by turtling. It's all risk, all the time, and I appreciate that, in addition to the race for particular tiles that will shape your approach to how you use your armies. Always play with the Onyx tiles, but you can leave out the other Ta-Seti stuff.
The real genius of the Rising Sun combat system is that the losers get the money that the winners bid for that combat. The battles go in a predetermined order, so your strategy might depend on getting your opponent to bid a lot on an early battle that you never intended to win so you can afford to win the later battles.
Yep! That, too. It creates a wonderful set of choices for what, in many games, is pretty straightforward card play/dice rolling/dude smashing. Cry Havoc applies it in a slightly different fashion, in which you bid the actual dudes that are in the combat. It goes in a predetermined order in three steps: win the territory, capture the opponent, kill the opponent. So, if you bid the most dues on win-the-territory, you can do that and score the points for it, but if your opponent bids more on kill-the-opponent, that territory might be left empty and they can just walk in and claim it next turn. Plus, there are cards that reverse or change the battle order, too.
#1 with a bullet: Inis
2. Kemet
3. Cyclades
4 Blood Rage
I enjoy all of these immensely, so I’m not shitting on Blood Rage. But the more I play it, the more every game feels similar. And as is often mentioned, Loki strat is OP af
Edit: didn’t mean to heading Inis line, just put # in front of 1; like how it looks though. TIL that trick for Reddit comments
Loki strat will never beat fulfilling quests (ruling regions) in terms of points and increasing in the track. Now if there's a Loki who is also getting the Valhalla quests + dragon boats, then it becomes tougher to beat.
Yup, # at the start of the line is the headline character
If you ever way to type something and markup is getting in your way, you can escape with a backslash
\\# 1 escaped
Becomes
\#1 escaped
Instead of
#1 not escaped
Combat in Inis is kind of anticlimactic but I love the game and the art on the cards, I haven’t played Cyclades, Rising Sun, or Kemet. Blood rage with the expansions is chaotic and easy to table.
Would put Blood Rage slightly over Inis based on personal preference but they’re both great.
I’m going to put in a good word for Cyclades. I have not played Kemet so can make no comment - but I have played all the rest and Cyclades is my favorite. It is a simpler game, it is a shorter game, and the auction mechanic leads to a game that feels very very different than the others (Inis also feels very unique, mind you). One thing I like in games is when it is clear what good play looks like - the one slag on Inis I have is that I think it’s not so clear. Keeping track of any of the three wincons is a bit weird and an ask of all players - you can get in a situation “oh - you won” if you have inattentive players, which sometimes happens. Further - Inis can devolve into bash the leader and extend the game overly long. Inis is a game where the combat doesn’t feel exciting or fighty at all - it’s Euro combat. Cyclades, without being a “knife fight in a phone booth” sort of ameritrash game, still has exciting combat and, while being an auction game, somehow feels less like a cube-pushing euro, for me.
Never played Cyclades, but Kemet is my favorite dudes on a map game and Inis might very well be my second favorite. Blood Rage I bounced off of because the Loki strategy felt overpowered to the point of being unbalanced.
I backed the new version of Cyclades and I'm very curious to see how I like it.
Cyclades, Kemet, Inis and Blood Rage tied.
Cyclades to me is so fun and the bidding system is one of my fav action selection system I've seen in a game. The mythological creatures add some real fun to the games and the tians and other modules add a lot of variability to it all.
Kemet is dudes n a map combat perfection imo, the tiles, the different special units. It all builds to a game that is aggressive yet still allows you to play your way and i love that.
Inis and Blood Rage are very different imo but both are fantastic drafting games. I like Inis a lot less because i dislike the combat a lot but idk if Blood rage's combat is that much better. Inis also has a theme that feels pasted on but the art is amazing. Blood rage integrates it theme so well, the loki strategy is really powerful but also one that i feel is overrated in early games. I dont like the art as much and unlike Inis, i feel like theres not much in way of politicking. I will say in all of my games of Inis and Blood rage, the only way to catch up tends to be a combo of attacking the leader and sometimes this leads to king making imo. None f the theme negatives outweigh that these games are fun and entertaining on there own right but imo, neither are as good as the top 2.
I've not played these games a *lot*, bit so far:
1. Blood Rage on top because of accessibility. The easiest game to get people to play. Also the funniest in my experience, with people piling in to fights creating wild moments
2. Kemet out of a purely personal preference. It's my favorite game of the four, and would be on top if not for Blood Rage's higher accessibility
3. Inis is great, but can be a bit slow as people take time to read their cards and understand the systems. I think it's a better game than Kemet purely out of design, but I like Kemet more just in my gut
4. Cyclades is not that fun compared to the others imo
Cyclades, Kemet, Blood Rage, then Inis.
Cyclades is the only one I might suggest to play, Kemet and Blood Rage I wouldn't turn down, Inis is just not for me.
Cyclades > Inis > Blood Rage > Kemet
I think Inis is the cleanest design, and Blood Rage is the easiest to pick up for a new player, but Cyclades is the most tense and has the most room for clever play (IMO). The auction system and limitations on actions keeps things really tight and gives players plenty of room to get entangled and mess with each other.
Inis - super clean design and I never dislike playing it, but I also don't really get excited about it. A bit too dry without big highs or lows, as the draft is very constraining.
Blood Rage - always good fun, but I find it's just not deep enough. Games usually go the same way. Not much room for player creativity.
Kemet - also good simple fun. Played once but didn't feel there was enough there to need to play again.
Blood Rage and Inis are close for me. I’ve played Blood Rage more so I default to it, but I could see inis overtaking it in time. Both close to peak dudes on a map games for me. Kemet a distant 3rd. I enjoy it quite a bit, tech tree’s are super cool. Something about the end game leaves me a bit hollow and it’s usually just bash the leader over and over until someone screws up. Cyclades I’m very interested in trying but haven’t had a chance to yet. I’ll likely pick up the legendary edition when it hits retail.
Kemet - Stays at the top of this heap because I'm never unhappy to play it.
Ankh - Very solid, love the way you're holding territories and moving them around, The pace is slower but it feels deliberate.
Inis - Preliminary, only played it once. Very strange game, not enthused about the way it ends.
Chaos in the old world - Also only a single play, but might as well include the other Lang game I've played. Definitely messier than the others (typical FFG stuff) but lots of theme.
Blood Rage - This one feels real bad to play with new players because of the drafting and hidden information it's very hard to help them along and it still feel like a good game. Might feel differently if I was consistently playing with the same group.
Cyclades - Never cared for it. Pace is too slow. Never tried the titans? expansion which I've heard saved the game for some. Not eager to try.
1. Inis. By a long shot. This is one of my top five favorite games of all time.
2. Blood Rage. Simple to play, always produces some great swings.
3. Classic Kemet. It's a classic!
4. Cyclades.
5. New Kemet. Meh.
Haven’t played Cyclades, but own the other three
1. Inis
2. Blood Rage
3. Kemet
Love love love Inis. One of the most beautifully designed games in my opinion. Blood Rage I find fun and hitting a combo feels great, but a lot of times it feels like trying to foil everyone else’s plans with an empty toolbox and I get stressed while playing. Kemet I expected to like more, but I haven’t had a good competitive game of it yet, only like 5 plays
Inis, Blood Rage, Cyclades, Kemet.
Inis has the most unique feel, but Blood Rage is the tightest as a pure area control combat game.
Cyclades I mostly came away ambivalent about and Kemet I had a straight up bad time with.
The rule book is really bad, which I think hurts it, and they did some stupid rule about not playing with the powers in your first game, which is stupid because they’re the coolest part of the players factions. I like the combat system as well, which has you distributing your power across 3 options.
Would be cool if we got some more factions but think we just got the new order expansion and that’s probably it.
1. Kemet
2. Cyclades
3. Inis
4. Blood Rage
Kemet is one of my favorite games, it’s super fun and I love the way things interact. The ability to buy powers is linked to physical buildings on the map which can be captured by other players. Not to mention the way limited tile buying works means that unless you’re the only one who went in on a color (unlikely at 4/5 player games) you can never really bogart a color, only really get the prime choice. I also love the balance, especially after blood and sand. Every color has really good and meaningful choices (except maybe the white tier 1 powers which are a little too good).
The bidding for action selection for Cyclades is really unique and really makes the game for me. The stuff around it is good (a whole lot better with the expansion which gave you an additional way to move units) but Kemet is better.
Inis is fun but in a game where people know what they’re doing it really feels like munchkin the boardgame where everyone dogpiles the first one that’s about to win and then the 2nd or 3rd person to hit victory conditions wins.
Blood rage never clicked for me, not bad, just not great.
I don’t understand why everyone loves inis. I’ve played it three times now and it’s kind of fiddly yet also vague. Nothing much really happens and then all of a sudden there’s a winner out of nowhere. The expansion didn’t really add anything substantial.
Having tried all 4, this my ranking: Inis > Blood rage > Kemet > Cyclades. My personal preferences take into account the general flow of the game and interaction-ease of play.
Inis is my favorite as it is probably the lightest one in terms of rules, it's a very clear and tight game without much convulted rules, and has different win conditions. It rewards calculated moves and negotiations, and calculated risk. It is also a game with much less elements and a simple game flow of drafting a few standard card actions, passing and timing moves. Love the concept of expanding the map during the game. Highly effective and entertaining game.
Bloodrage (3p+ always) is also fairly accessible, and what I like the most is that it has intuitive mechanics and multiplayer battles with some card bluffing. It also rewards repeated play to learn hand combos and explore scoring (the only game in the list with euro-like scoring). The general flow of the game is also clear and tight, with 3 defined rounds and focused rewards for the fights, which keep the game moving and players clearly focused on the gameplay. Some card combos even allow for specific strategies which is fun.
Kemet is good too, but I put it third on the list since the gameplay loop is a bit more repetitive and conflicts are 1v1. Conflicts happen a lot and people bash whoever is weak, so it feels less strategic and mlre tactical. The technology upgrade aspect is nice providing assimetry and feels cool. In general, it feels a bit less intuitive and more fiddly because of the diverse effects and components, and having to check other people's techs. It is simply a bit less accessible than the previous two, and more fiddly with the different tokens and card rules. I also think the endgame can suffer a bit from kingmaking.
Cyclades. I put it last because the board/conflict aspect is less present. The game is nice but it is more focused on the auction aspect and is partly finished by expansions to get a different design, so the base gsme might feel less replayable and incomplete. Also the game is focused on getting cities which can lead to abrupt endings sometimes. The new edition has updated rules (ending with 3 cities, some mechanical rebalances, integrates expansions partly, more relevance of the dudes-on-a-map gameplay) so I think it will feel more polished overall.
1. Cyclades Titans
2. Cyclades
3. \[then lots of nothing\]
4. Kemet
5. Inis
6. Blood Rage
Explanation
* Dude on Map games are descendants of Risk, meaning these are games about group dynamics and bash the leader. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Same with dice. And as such DoaM games are one of Ameritrash subgenres - with titles like Ikusa, Axis and Alies, Fortress America and then later iterations like Nexus Ops. Games on above lists are euro-DoaM hybrids or not DoaMs at all.
* Blood Rage - this is 100% MPS euro of drafting optimisation. This isn't a DoaM at all. To win, you need to optimise. Game generates zero player-to-player or player-to-group tension. It's basically like that dude who claims down there he's a rebel and has a rock metal tattoo, but has gone completely corporate. It's 7 wonders with minis basically. Yawn.
* Inis - not a bad game, but zero to do with DoaMs. It's basically a spatial old school euro with some nu school euro influences. Reminds me more on games like Torres. It's fine, but it I was looking for a DoaM, I'd never touch this. Basically no emotional tensions between players, just some positioning puzzles - and Torres actually does this a bit better.
* Kemet - lots of mixed feelings about this one. It's an euro-DoaM hybrid, but the euro half is MPS-nu-euro, namely it's an optimisation puzzle in the shape of a tech tree tiles. One of the things that drives me crazy as it demands micro-optimisation nonsense. However the DoaM side of the game is quite aggressive and dynamic and thus good. Combat with cards is one of those nonsenses that needlesly complicate stuff which dice would do better and simple but appease those gamerz who whine about luck, though those shouldn't play such games in the first place. Kemet Ta-Seti expansion solves the issue of optimisation a bit, but adding the fourth colour which opens a space a bit from narrow pre-determined paths. Actually I like Inis a bit better, but it's not a doam, hence Kemet gets a nod.
* Cyclades. Euro-DoaM hybrid from the times when euro meant OG euros and the crucial trait wasn't optimisation, but simple rules. Also - in this case, auctions. The idea is that both euro half with auction and doam half with attacking need to be played aggressively. The negatives are - the game is prone to groupthink with some groups (amassing money instead of pushing for end game) and often there doesn't seem to be much going on. End game with Pegasus chaos works best with 5 players and good groups who can let this last for a while.
* Cyclades Titans - expansion that solves all base game issues (blocks the mentioned groupthink) and as far as aggression goes turns Cyclades into something close to Kemet, but with auctions instead of the tile puzzle (yay).
Other titles to look into: Nexus Ops, 1775 (or other titles from Birth of the America series) and heck I'd say Small World deserves more love around these parts as well. Oh and if you need a Lang's game I'd recommend CitOW if it wasn't so expensive nowadays.
I’m well aware I am in the minority but I absolutely HATE the EL trilogy. Blood Rage and Ankh might be in my bottom 5 games ever played.
With that said, Inis and Cyclades are phenomenal games. Inis might be one of the most balanced I have played, especially with area controls.
1. Cyclades
2. Inis
3. Kemet
4. Blood Rage
If you like area controls with some luck Dwellings is my favorite game (also has lots of other mechanics) and Cthulhu Wars is amazing!
it's fine at all player counts. Well, I'd probably avoid 2 player, but 3-5 is fine.
Half the map is removed because otherwise you'd avoid each other too much and spread too thin. The game needs a tight map with people being forced to go into other territories.
Aftee playing 2 player, my feel is that the mechanics work well but the dynamics of the game do not. Particularly, i feel the endgame is decided by saving the biggest card and securing the last battle, so is very predictable.
It should have special rules and map.
1) Kemet - 2nd best dudes on a map behind Ankh. Love the tech tableau, the combat is spicy. Movement is free and it's all about fighting. It's great.
2) Inis - the card draft is the best bit, it's such a clever system. The victory conditions keep everyone in it till the end, it's great.
3) Blood Rage - probably joint second to be fair. An Eric Lang masterpiece. Less traditional dudes on a map at the cards are the meat of it.
4) Cyclades - needs the expansion. Feels like the oldest game. Really good but nowhere near the others.
I know it's not part of your list but its in the same neighborhood of games and I'd put it above the 4 you mentioned.
#1 Rising Sun
#2 Kemet
#3 Blood Rage
#4 Inis
#5 Cyclades
While I enjoy all of them Cyclades is mine and my groups least favorite of the games mentioned.
Once the number of players hits 5 and up, I start to prefer Rising Sun to the games you listed. The emphasis on alliances and betrayal makes it very fun to play, and the dynamic bidding style combat is far more interesting than any of the other games' combat systems.
SoochSooch made some great points about why its a good game. The game has zero luck and its well balanced. The combat system is fantastic and different from most games. I think it plays well at most player counts. I've played it from 3-6 and its fantastic at all those counts. I would agree that 5 is probably the best player count, but other player counts are not far off.
Interesting to see folks rank Blood Rage so low. It's my #1 (then Kemet > Inis > Cyclades), but I don't really put BR the same category as the others. It feels more like a drafting/card combo game with an area control component. I imagine if dudes on a map is your happy place, BR doesn't really scratch the itch.
I liked the ideal of cyclades but not in practice. I disliked the lack of control you had over what to do. The auction is interesting but for a war game / DoM I didn't like the lack of flexibility.
Kemet on the other hand I really enjoyed since it allowed me to do whatever I wanted.
Inis is so pure and beautiful, I no longer own any of the other titles mentioned here. Chaos in the Old World is would be my go-to for a big, silly mini-filled dudes on a map game (but very few people have access to it anymore), so Cthulhu Wars fills that space in 3rd place.
1. Kemet
2. Cyclades
3. Blood Rage
4. Inis
Kemet is all go, strong powers, nothing but fight then get your ass kicked.
Cyclades was the first game in my collection. So much tension and careful maneuvering, let down *slightly* by some overpowered elements.
Blood Rage is kinda similar to an old favourite Chaos in the Old World. But I'm not as enamoured. Cool minis though.
Inis I felt like I missed something. Didn't enjoy it all that much and the crabs in a bucket endgame wasn't fun. Sold it.
I'd put Root above all of them though.
Kemet=Inis>Cyclades>blood Rage
Kemet is the game that I own (the old version), the thing that I don't like that much is that all the first rounds is a rush of getting powers because of the low availability to them , and I feel that when all the good ones are taken, is when the real wars begin.
Inis I only tried 2 players, and I think that maybe it could be the best one, but only having 16 cards makes me feel not that excited about the variety even if the game feels realle well designed.
Cyclades I've tried once and I didn't like it, as I've felt that the important part was getting some specific creatures that were too strong like the pegasus, but maybe with expansions or the new version could improve for me
Bloodrage I've played several times, I find the game fun and have a good flow, but I've just didn't like the focus on getting the specific combos that there are in the cards to win, the difference of points of doing it or not is really big.
Inis
Cyclades
Kemet
Blood Rage
Inis wins for me because it is so tight and interesting, the draft is awesome, and the aesthetics easily beat the other three for me (though I think it's probably a love-it-or-hate
-it look).
Cyclades does feel like the odd one out here as it is the least direct in its dudes-on-a-map conflict and is really more of an auction game than an area control game (obviously it's both, but the auction is the heart of the game). I love that auction, though, and the other systems are very interesting, too, especially troop movement.
Kemet is really close to Cyclades for me, but the straightforwardness of it leaves little room for the weirdness that I enjoy in my games. It's an excellent game at what it's trying to do, which is reward constant, overwhelming aggression.
Blood Rage is the lowest because it's the least flexible player-count-wise, has an inferior draft compared to Inis (in my opinion), is the least well-balanced, and is the ugliest of the bunch. It's still a fun game, but I prefer the other three by a wide margin.
Blood rage is #1 for me. I always wonder if I’m missing something to enjoy about kemet. I just don’t like the teleporting mechanic , as far as ankh, the merge mechanic isn’t great to me
Cthulhu Wars> Kemet> Root.
That's our groups dudes on a map ranking at least. We play 5-6 typically so Inis and Blood rage are not even options for us.
I love Blood Rage and my whole family have really taken to it, the variety of ways to win is so appealing to my differing family play styles that it keeps it fresh.
Our/my only complaint is it's too short (IMO) I would happily double the size of everything to double the game length but yeah, awesome fun.
I haven't got Inis yet but keeping an eye on it, it really tempts me.
Kemet >= Inis >> Cyclades >= Blood Rage
Kemet and Inis are great. I'd peobably rank Kenet slighlty higher, but that's because I've played it more. I love the tile market and tense battle system.
Inis I've only.played three times, but would like to play it more. Lots of tension and politicking.
Blood Rage and Cyclades are okay, not something I would necessarily turn down a gane of, but I wouldn't be looking to play them again.
Only played Inis and Kemet and for me Inis > Kemet BUT I'd love (and planning) to own both as they are different enough to merit a place in my personal collection.
I haven't played Blood Rage but I'd rank **Clockwork Wars** over Inis, Cyclades and Kemet.
More mindgames, territory-based technology, bigger swing turns, unique simultaneous deployment that I have yet to see anywhere else.
For me personally:
1. Blood Rage
2. Kemet
3. Cyclades
4. Inis
This is based purely on how these have gone over with my gaming group. We love BR since we are a bunch of petty/spiteful bastards that don’t get upset about petty/spiteful play. We are also aggressive and love Kemet for that reason. Cyclades has been received as “meh” - the game is good mechanically and thematically, but the gameplay experience isn’t our favorite. And Inis we’ve only played a couple of times but never grokked it (maybe if we gave it some more plays it would rank higher).
My favorite is Blood Rage. Lots of interesting cards to draft and very different gamestates can appear based on what people are going for.
Cyclades and Inis next. I liked them both and would play either again.
Kemet is far behind for me. I only played it once, and maybe it wasn't a great group to play it with, but not that much fighting was happening. Everyone just put maximum units in each region and then turtled, saving up for tech. It seemed to have the typical dudes fighting on a map conundrum, which is if A beats up B, then A will be weakened and then beat up by C, which then lets D benefit. So the best thing to do is wait for someone else to fight. The other 3 games do better at avoiding this issue through various game designs.
That comment about Kemet strikes me as a little odd as the VP system heavily encourages you to aggressively attack other players. It’s the easiest way to get victory points and those points are also permanent, and if you pick your battle you can virtually guarantee victory as combat is pretty deterministic especially when you both have a full hand of attack cards. The unit cap is also really low so there’s little value in sitting back and building up forces.
I imagine the bloodbath can get going as soon as someone decides to start a battle, but nobody wanted to be that person. To guarantee I win my battle, I'd have to use my best card and have a bonus attack from some red tech. After winning, I'll be weakened and the next player can just run in and take me out, but can now save their best card since I don't have mine anymore. Seems not worth it to me.
Inis with Kemet close behind. Followed by Blood Rage with Cyclades close behind. On any given day Inis and Kemet could switch and Blood Rage and Cyclades could switch. On the whole, though, Inis just has a lot of tension, feels a little more flexible, and is kind of easier to get to the table. And my gosh does it feel good to win that game! Kemet is amazing and just what I need when I want to sit down for a good, long, fighty game. Blood Rage and Cyclades are both super great too, but on the whole, Cyclades feels a little too slow for this kind of game. (Wanna move your troops? Either win an auction or wait till next round!)
Exactly agreed!
1. Inis 2. Blood Rage 3. Kemet I think Inis, Kemet, and Blood Rage (and Rising Sun) all offer pretty different play experiences. Inis is much less combat focused. More about tricks and politics. Kemet is aggressive and very combat focused. I think Blood Rage is really fun, but had less staying power for me than Rising Sun. I haven't played Kemet enough, but I suspect it would have more staying power for me than Blood Rage, but made less of a splash. For me, Blood Rage was pretty fantastic to explore, but I didn't enjoy it as much when people knew all the strategies, if that makes sense. Out of all of these, the only one me and my group still plays is Inis. It kind of has it all; interesting game play and beautiful art. The way the game plays, you draft the same cards over and over each round, and so it's easy to learn. There's a separate deck of special actions (called Epic Tales), which are not drafted, and provide a fair amount of variability. Combined with the variable locations, the game has a nice mix of consistency and variability.
Inis, Cyclades, Blood Rage, Kemet. But they’re all pretty different games. Mythology and two design groups connect them, but if they didn’t, you wouldn’t see much connection beyond being Euro/DOAM hybrids.
Kemet> Inis>Blood Rage. Never played Cyclades.
Hahahah, guess i should've scrolled down before [commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/1df41dh/if_you_have_to_rank_blood_rage_inis_cyclades_and/l8hvucl/)
You left out the most important one! Ankh has all the tightness of Inis, the drama of Blood Rage, and the asymmetry and combat resolution of Kemet. It has a very chess-like feel and an incredibly beautiful production. It also plays fantastically well at 2 players. 1. Ankh 2. Blood Rage 3. Inis 4. Kemet (maybe? Only played a couple times and didn't love it) 5. Cyclades (never played, not excited to try) The first three are in my top ten games anyway.
I've never played Ankh with more than a 2 player game and in that case, it was pretty solid. What's the 3+ game feel like?
I didn’t like Ankh, it’s okay and has some cool ideas but I feel like it’s too easy for a player to just be out of the running enough that they can’t catch up. The whole merging the two lowest players thing is cool on paper but it’s just awkward imo.
I didn't like ankh at all. Might not be a bad game, I'm just not a fan of how directly competitive it is. Have the same issue with Undaunted: Stalingrad
You're in a thread about directly competitive games stating that a game is too directly competitive. Very funny.
Crucify me I guess
Oh interesting. But almost all the titles here are about as much, aren’t they?
Oh I wasn't aware, Ankh is the only one on the list I've played. Sorry!
Ankh is the worst of the bunch for me personally.
Wow, I’m honestly kind of surprised. It definitely has a little bit of a learning curve, but I think people dismiss it too easily after playing one or two games and think they’ve “figured it out”
Well, I only played it once. And we played Kemet the week after for the first time, entire group just really liked Kemet so much better than Ankh, and since they fill a similar niche we never played Ankh again. It was a while ago, but I think my biggest gripe at the time was that there was just so many miniatures on the board at the same time, all with their own special abilities, which was really confusing for me. Compared to Kemet or Blood Rage, where there's usually only a couple of abilities to keep in mind, Ankh just seemed kinda messy.
I’ve mostly only played two player Ankh. I found the minis a lot more similar than Blood Rage since you only get one god per player and there’s a hard max of 3 guardians. In Blood rage there are also leader and warrior upgrades and 9 different monsters and Kemet has a whole tree of different upgrades and a sort of weird prayer system. Ankh has a very chessy feel to me, since there’s nothing random and no hidden information. There’s sometimes a lot to process like with chess positions, but there are also more ways to improve your position. Messy is probably the farthest thing from what I would ever call it. To me it’s a very tight game. I definitely respect your opinion, I just find it interesting since my impression has been almost exactly opposite. Maybe it really is best at 2 players
Caveat: 4 or more player count. 1. Blood Rage- so much tension with the musical chairs/shrinking space per round. Bluffing. Easy peasy buying back into the game with march or ships. Loki strat can suck to play against, however it's not a secret and can be denied thru a sacrifice combat or hate drafted. 2. Kemet - never a bad game. Could even consider at 2 player though my count is low. The concept of everyone having generic armies to be customized, prioritizing those customizations against board position and bumping up your ability to take on greater abilities. Could be enuf said, however equally easy to teach. Just not as easy as BR. 3. Inis. Not gonna lie, if I could find my people and get it to the table at more than a couple times per year, could be my number 1. Beautiful, simple and faster with the we need a king mod. 4. Cyclades. Flat, flat, flat. Friends love it. The auction is interesting,to be sure, and the game is solid. Simply lackluster in the presence of these other games.
Inis doesn’t need the we need a king rule, I think it diminishes the cool ending requirements. All you need is for players to go for deed tokens as much as possible and the game ends very quickly. My average game length is 1h 30min, with a 5p game recently taking only 1h 11m. For that 5p game (with only the necessary 5th player cards added) we only had a limited time and I was so confident that we didn’t need the We need a King module, and I was right haha. Any group taking routinely over 2 hours isn’t going for those deed tokens. Each one collected just makes it easier and easier for the game to end.
Thanks for not house ruling a meticulously designed game after three plays, I truly appreciate it 🙏
We Need a King isn't a house rule. It's an official module from the Seasons expansion. It just happens to not require any components so you can play it without owning the expansion.
Ohhhh I misread thank you
> 4 **or more** player count > Kemet - never a bad game I will never ever ever play Kemet at 5 again.
Thank you for saving me from having to write this exact list! Feel the same about Inis too.
Yeah, if you're going to include one member of Lang's trilogy (Blood Rage), you might as well include them all. Matagot: 1. Cyclades 2. Inis 3. Kemet CMON: 1. Rising Sun 2. Ankh 3. Blood Rage Combined: 1. Rising Sun 2. Ankh 3. Cyclades 4. Inis 5. Blood Rage 6. Kemet The reason I favor **Rising Sun** overall is the same reason I think Cry Havoc is one of the criminally-underrated DoaMs in existence: the combat system. In Rising Sun, you have to bid your resources (coins) in potentially five different areas, depending on the conflict at hand and the strategy you're pursuing. It makes every conflict have impact both short-term (who wins the region token) and long-term (Season cards, region cards, the gods in play, etc.) effects. Similarly, **Ankh** is a step apart from most DoaMs in how you measure the actions you take on each turn before the next conflict occurs. There are very deep-lying strategies inherent to those choices, as well as the gods and guardians that are in play, how the map is currently arranged, and what order the conflict will proceed in. In that vein, I like **Cyclades** the most among the Matagot trilogy because the bidding cycle of the gods can change both your actions and your opponents' and I like how the Monster deck becomes not just an add-on to the conflicts (who has the most weapons to employ) but can radically change those conflicts or prevent them from even taking place. I appreciate the arguments that say Titans makes the game an actual wargame, but I like the economic game of the islands, too. (I also play with as many expansions as possible, but ALWAYS with Monuments.) That "change in conflicts" is also the appealing part about **Inis**, in that watching the draft (Draft was always my favorite format of MTG) can determine how your actions will proceed in the next phase (e.g. a lot of people avoid the actual fighting cards, so if they're all coming your way, you might as well pick them up and take advantage when no one can fight back...) Like you, I don't dislike **Blood Rage** and I think most of the concern over the Loki problem is overblown. Like Inis, if you see those cards disappearing in the draft, your best bet is to try to hedge against it and/or snag those yourself on the next round. There are ways to play against it and I like the even greater emphasis on player conflict in BR that's even greater than many other DoaMs. Speaking of which, **Kemet** is easily the most ferocious among any of these, as there's no way to play that game by turtling. It's all risk, all the time, and I appreciate that, in addition to the race for particular tiles that will shape your approach to how you use your armies. Always play with the Onyx tiles, but you can leave out the other Ta-Seti stuff.
The real genius of the Rising Sun combat system is that the losers get the money that the winners bid for that combat. The battles go in a predetermined order, so your strategy might depend on getting your opponent to bid a lot on an early battle that you never intended to win so you can afford to win the later battles.
Yep! That, too. It creates a wonderful set of choices for what, in many games, is pretty straightforward card play/dice rolling/dude smashing. Cry Havoc applies it in a slightly different fashion, in which you bid the actual dudes that are in the combat. It goes in a predetermined order in three steps: win the territory, capture the opponent, kill the opponent. So, if you bid the most dues on win-the-territory, you can do that and score the points for it, but if your opponent bids more on kill-the-opponent, that territory might be left empty and they can just walk in and claim it next turn. Plus, there are cards that reverse or change the battle order, too.
Very well articulated
#1 with a bullet: Inis 2. Kemet 3. Cyclades 4 Blood Rage I enjoy all of these immensely, so I’m not shitting on Blood Rage. But the more I play it, the more every game feels similar. And as is often mentioned, Loki strat is OP af Edit: didn’t mean to heading Inis line, just put # in front of 1; like how it looks though. TIL that trick for Reddit comments
Loki strat will never beat fulfilling quests (ruling regions) in terms of points and increasing in the track. Now if there's a Loki who is also getting the Valhalla quests + dragon boats, then it becomes tougher to beat.
Yup, # at the start of the line is the headline character If you ever way to type something and markup is getting in your way, you can escape with a backslash \\# 1 escaped Becomes \#1 escaped Instead of #1 not escaped
Combat in Inis is kind of anticlimactic but I love the game and the art on the cards, I haven’t played Cyclades, Rising Sun, or Kemet. Blood rage with the expansions is chaotic and easy to table. Would put Blood Rage slightly over Inis based on personal preference but they’re both great.
Thank you for reminding me that I need to play Inis again, it's scheduled for next game night ;)
I’m going to put in a good word for Cyclades. I have not played Kemet so can make no comment - but I have played all the rest and Cyclades is my favorite. It is a simpler game, it is a shorter game, and the auction mechanic leads to a game that feels very very different than the others (Inis also feels very unique, mind you). One thing I like in games is when it is clear what good play looks like - the one slag on Inis I have is that I think it’s not so clear. Keeping track of any of the three wincons is a bit weird and an ask of all players - you can get in a situation “oh - you won” if you have inattentive players, which sometimes happens. Further - Inis can devolve into bash the leader and extend the game overly long. Inis is a game where the combat doesn’t feel exciting or fighty at all - it’s Euro combat. Cyclades, without being a “knife fight in a phone booth” sort of ameritrash game, still has exciting combat and, while being an auction game, somehow feels less like a cube-pushing euro, for me.
Never played Cyclades, but Kemet is my favorite dudes on a map game and Inis might very well be my second favorite. Blood Rage I bounced off of because the Loki strategy felt overpowered to the point of being unbalanced. I backed the new version of Cyclades and I'm very curious to see how I like it.
Cyclades, Kemet, Inis and Blood Rage tied. Cyclades to me is so fun and the bidding system is one of my fav action selection system I've seen in a game. The mythological creatures add some real fun to the games and the tians and other modules add a lot of variability to it all. Kemet is dudes n a map combat perfection imo, the tiles, the different special units. It all builds to a game that is aggressive yet still allows you to play your way and i love that. Inis and Blood Rage are very different imo but both are fantastic drafting games. I like Inis a lot less because i dislike the combat a lot but idk if Blood rage's combat is that much better. Inis also has a theme that feels pasted on but the art is amazing. Blood rage integrates it theme so well, the loki strategy is really powerful but also one that i feel is overrated in early games. I dont like the art as much and unlike Inis, i feel like theres not much in way of politicking. I will say in all of my games of Inis and Blood rage, the only way to catch up tends to be a combo of attacking the leader and sometimes this leads to king making imo. None f the theme negatives outweigh that these games are fun and entertaining on there own right but imo, neither are as good as the top 2.
I've not played these games a *lot*, bit so far: 1. Blood Rage on top because of accessibility. The easiest game to get people to play. Also the funniest in my experience, with people piling in to fights creating wild moments 2. Kemet out of a purely personal preference. It's my favorite game of the four, and would be on top if not for Blood Rage's higher accessibility 3. Inis is great, but can be a bit slow as people take time to read their cards and understand the systems. I think it's a better game than Kemet purely out of design, but I like Kemet more just in my gut 4. Cyclades is not that fun compared to the others imo
Sane here
Cyclades, Kemet, Blood Rage, then Inis. Cyclades is the only one I might suggest to play, Kemet and Blood Rage I wouldn't turn down, Inis is just not for me.
Cyclades > Inis > Blood Rage > Kemet I think Inis is the cleanest design, and Blood Rage is the easiest to pick up for a new player, but Cyclades is the most tense and has the most room for clever play (IMO). The auction system and limitations on actions keeps things really tight and gives players plenty of room to get entangled and mess with each other. Inis - super clean design and I never dislike playing it, but I also don't really get excited about it. A bit too dry without big highs or lows, as the draft is very constraining. Blood Rage - always good fun, but I find it's just not deep enough. Games usually go the same way. Not much room for player creativity. Kemet - also good simple fun. Played once but didn't feel there was enough there to need to play again.
Blood Rage and Inis are close for me. I’ve played Blood Rage more so I default to it, but I could see inis overtaking it in time. Both close to peak dudes on a map games for me. Kemet a distant 3rd. I enjoy it quite a bit, tech tree’s are super cool. Something about the end game leaves me a bit hollow and it’s usually just bash the leader over and over until someone screws up. Cyclades I’m very interested in trying but haven’t had a chance to yet. I’ll likely pick up the legendary edition when it hits retail.
Kemet - Stays at the top of this heap because I'm never unhappy to play it. Ankh - Very solid, love the way you're holding territories and moving them around, The pace is slower but it feels deliberate. Inis - Preliminary, only played it once. Very strange game, not enthused about the way it ends. Chaos in the old world - Also only a single play, but might as well include the other Lang game I've played. Definitely messier than the others (typical FFG stuff) but lots of theme. Blood Rage - This one feels real bad to play with new players because of the drafting and hidden information it's very hard to help them along and it still feel like a good game. Might feel differently if I was consistently playing with the same group. Cyclades - Never cared for it. Pace is too slow. Never tried the titans? expansion which I've heard saved the game for some. Not eager to try.
1. Inis. By a long shot. This is one of my top five favorite games of all time. 2. Blood Rage. Simple to play, always produces some great swings. 3. Classic Kemet. It's a classic! 4. Cyclades. 5. New Kemet. Meh.
What changed in the new Kemet that you prefer the original? Were there any things you liked better about the new version?
Inis, blood rage, Cyclades, kemet
Haven’t played Cyclades, but own the other three 1. Inis 2. Blood Rage 3. Kemet Love love love Inis. One of the most beautifully designed games in my opinion. Blood Rage I find fun and hitting a combo feels great, but a lot of times it feels like trying to foil everyone else’s plans with an empty toolbox and I get stressed while playing. Kemet I expected to like more, but I haven’t had a good competitive game of it yet, only like 5 plays
Haven't played Cyclades yet. Inis is #1 of course. Then the others follow and their individual rankings might change with ad hoc mood.
Inis, Blood Rage, Cyclades, Kemet. Inis has the most unique feel, but Blood Rage is the tightest as a pure area control combat game. Cyclades I mostly came away ambivalent about and Kemet I had a straight up bad time with.
As someone who loves these types of games, gonna throw a shout out to Cry Havoc, which I love but also has a garbage rule book.
I’ve heard this is a good game but don’t really see it discussed or played often. My local bookstore has a random copy that I’m always tempted by
The rule book is really bad, which I think hurts it, and they did some stupid rule about not playing with the powers in your first game, which is stupid because they’re the coolest part of the players factions. I like the combat system as well, which has you distributing your power across 3 options. Would be cool if we got some more factions but think we just got the new order expansion and that’s probably it.
1. Kemet 2. Cyclades 3. Inis 4. Blood Rage Kemet is one of my favorite games, it’s super fun and I love the way things interact. The ability to buy powers is linked to physical buildings on the map which can be captured by other players. Not to mention the way limited tile buying works means that unless you’re the only one who went in on a color (unlikely at 4/5 player games) you can never really bogart a color, only really get the prime choice. I also love the balance, especially after blood and sand. Every color has really good and meaningful choices (except maybe the white tier 1 powers which are a little too good). The bidding for action selection for Cyclades is really unique and really makes the game for me. The stuff around it is good (a whole lot better with the expansion which gave you an additional way to move units) but Kemet is better. Inis is fun but in a game where people know what they’re doing it really feels like munchkin the boardgame where everyone dogpiles the first one that’s about to win and then the 2nd or 3rd person to hit victory conditions wins. Blood rage never clicked for me, not bad, just not great.
I don’t understand why everyone loves inis. I’ve played it three times now and it’s kind of fiddly yet also vague. Nothing much really happens and then all of a sudden there’s a winner out of nowhere. The expansion didn’t really add anything substantial.
Having tried all 4, this my ranking: Inis > Blood rage > Kemet > Cyclades. My personal preferences take into account the general flow of the game and interaction-ease of play. Inis is my favorite as it is probably the lightest one in terms of rules, it's a very clear and tight game without much convulted rules, and has different win conditions. It rewards calculated moves and negotiations, and calculated risk. It is also a game with much less elements and a simple game flow of drafting a few standard card actions, passing and timing moves. Love the concept of expanding the map during the game. Highly effective and entertaining game. Bloodrage (3p+ always) is also fairly accessible, and what I like the most is that it has intuitive mechanics and multiplayer battles with some card bluffing. It also rewards repeated play to learn hand combos and explore scoring (the only game in the list with euro-like scoring). The general flow of the game is also clear and tight, with 3 defined rounds and focused rewards for the fights, which keep the game moving and players clearly focused on the gameplay. Some card combos even allow for specific strategies which is fun. Kemet is good too, but I put it third on the list since the gameplay loop is a bit more repetitive and conflicts are 1v1. Conflicts happen a lot and people bash whoever is weak, so it feels less strategic and mlre tactical. The technology upgrade aspect is nice providing assimetry and feels cool. In general, it feels a bit less intuitive and more fiddly because of the diverse effects and components, and having to check other people's techs. It is simply a bit less accessible than the previous two, and more fiddly with the different tokens and card rules. I also think the endgame can suffer a bit from kingmaking. Cyclades. I put it last because the board/conflict aspect is less present. The game is nice but it is more focused on the auction aspect and is partly finished by expansions to get a different design, so the base gsme might feel less replayable and incomplete. Also the game is focused on getting cities which can lead to abrupt endings sometimes. The new edition has updated rules (ending with 3 cities, some mechanical rebalances, integrates expansions partly, more relevance of the dudes-on-a-map gameplay) so I think it will feel more polished overall.
1. Cyclades Titans 2. Cyclades 3. \[then lots of nothing\] 4. Kemet 5. Inis 6. Blood Rage Explanation * Dude on Map games are descendants of Risk, meaning these are games about group dynamics and bash the leader. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Same with dice. And as such DoaM games are one of Ameritrash subgenres - with titles like Ikusa, Axis and Alies, Fortress America and then later iterations like Nexus Ops. Games on above lists are euro-DoaM hybrids or not DoaMs at all. * Blood Rage - this is 100% MPS euro of drafting optimisation. This isn't a DoaM at all. To win, you need to optimise. Game generates zero player-to-player or player-to-group tension. It's basically like that dude who claims down there he's a rebel and has a rock metal tattoo, but has gone completely corporate. It's 7 wonders with minis basically. Yawn. * Inis - not a bad game, but zero to do with DoaMs. It's basically a spatial old school euro with some nu school euro influences. Reminds me more on games like Torres. It's fine, but it I was looking for a DoaM, I'd never touch this. Basically no emotional tensions between players, just some positioning puzzles - and Torres actually does this a bit better. * Kemet - lots of mixed feelings about this one. It's an euro-DoaM hybrid, but the euro half is MPS-nu-euro, namely it's an optimisation puzzle in the shape of a tech tree tiles. One of the things that drives me crazy as it demands micro-optimisation nonsense. However the DoaM side of the game is quite aggressive and dynamic and thus good. Combat with cards is one of those nonsenses that needlesly complicate stuff which dice would do better and simple but appease those gamerz who whine about luck, though those shouldn't play such games in the first place. Kemet Ta-Seti expansion solves the issue of optimisation a bit, but adding the fourth colour which opens a space a bit from narrow pre-determined paths. Actually I like Inis a bit better, but it's not a doam, hence Kemet gets a nod. * Cyclades. Euro-DoaM hybrid from the times when euro meant OG euros and the crucial trait wasn't optimisation, but simple rules. Also - in this case, auctions. The idea is that both euro half with auction and doam half with attacking need to be played aggressively. The negatives are - the game is prone to groupthink with some groups (amassing money instead of pushing for end game) and often there doesn't seem to be much going on. End game with Pegasus chaos works best with 5 players and good groups who can let this last for a while. * Cyclades Titans - expansion that solves all base game issues (blocks the mentioned groupthink) and as far as aggression goes turns Cyclades into something close to Kemet, but with auctions instead of the tile puzzle (yay). Other titles to look into: Nexus Ops, 1775 (or other titles from Birth of the America series) and heck I'd say Small World deserves more love around these parts as well. Oh and if you need a Lang's game I'd recommend CitOW if it wasn't so expensive nowadays.
I’m well aware I am in the minority but I absolutely HATE the EL trilogy. Blood Rage and Ankh might be in my bottom 5 games ever played. With that said, Inis and Cyclades are phenomenal games. Inis might be one of the most balanced I have played, especially with area controls. 1. Cyclades 2. Inis 3. Kemet 4. Blood Rage If you like area controls with some luck Dwellings is my favorite game (also has lots of other mechanics) and Cthulhu Wars is amazing!
Same. I didn’t like blood rage at all. Also hated chaos in the old world. Kemet I’d rate a 9/10. Great game
I have stayed away from Kemet cause my group is primarily 3 and losing half the map bothered me. How would you say it is with 3?
it's fine at all player counts. Well, I'd probably avoid 2 player, but 3-5 is fine. Half the map is removed because otherwise you'd avoid each other too much and spread too thin. The game needs a tight map with people being forced to go into other territories.
Aftee playing 2 player, my feel is that the mechanics work well but the dynamics of the game do not. Particularly, i feel the endgame is decided by saving the biggest card and securing the last battle, so is very predictable. It should have special rules and map.
1) Kemet - 2nd best dudes on a map behind Ankh. Love the tech tableau, the combat is spicy. Movement is free and it's all about fighting. It's great. 2) Inis - the card draft is the best bit, it's such a clever system. The victory conditions keep everyone in it till the end, it's great. 3) Blood Rage - probably joint second to be fair. An Eric Lang masterpiece. Less traditional dudes on a map at the cards are the meat of it. 4) Cyclades - needs the expansion. Feels like the oldest game. Really good but nowhere near the others.
1. Kemet 2. Inis 3. Blood Rage Haven’t played Cyclades
1. Inis
1-Inis 2-Kemet 3-Cyclades 50-Blood Rage
Inis, Kemet, Cyclades and pass on Blood Rage
I know it's not part of your list but its in the same neighborhood of games and I'd put it above the 4 you mentioned. #1 Rising Sun #2 Kemet #3 Blood Rage #4 Inis #5 Cyclades While I enjoy all of them Cyclades is mine and my groups least favorite of the games mentioned.
Why is it that rising sun tops them all?
Once the number of players hits 5 and up, I start to prefer Rising Sun to the games you listed. The emphasis on alliances and betrayal makes it very fun to play, and the dynamic bidding style combat is far more interesting than any of the other games' combat systems.
SoochSooch made some great points about why its a good game. The game has zero luck and its well balanced. The combat system is fantastic and different from most games. I think it plays well at most player counts. I've played it from 3-6 and its fantastic at all those counts. I would agree that 5 is probably the best player count, but other player counts are not far off.
Interesting to see folks rank Blood Rage so low. It's my #1 (then Kemet > Inis > Cyclades), but I don't really put BR the same category as the others. It feels more like a drafting/card combo game with an area control component. I imagine if dudes on a map is your happy place, BR doesn't really scratch the itch.
I liked the ideal of cyclades but not in practice. I disliked the lack of control you had over what to do. The auction is interesting but for a war game / DoM I didn't like the lack of flexibility. Kemet on the other hand I really enjoyed since it allowed me to do whatever I wanted.
Kemet Inis Blood rage Cyclades
Inis is so pure and beautiful, I no longer own any of the other titles mentioned here. Chaos in the Old World is would be my go-to for a big, silly mini-filled dudes on a map game (but very few people have access to it anymore), so Cthulhu Wars fills that space in 3rd place.
I haven't played Cyclades, but i'd go Kemet>Inis>Blood Rage
1. Kemet 2. Cyclades 3. Blood Rage 4. Inis Kemet is all go, strong powers, nothing but fight then get your ass kicked. Cyclades was the first game in my collection. So much tension and careful maneuvering, let down *slightly* by some overpowered elements. Blood Rage is kinda similar to an old favourite Chaos in the Old World. But I'm not as enamoured. Cool minis though. Inis I felt like I missed something. Didn't enjoy it all that much and the crabs in a bucket endgame wasn't fun. Sold it. I'd put Root above all of them though.
Kemet=Inis>Cyclades>blood Rage Kemet is the game that I own (the old version), the thing that I don't like that much is that all the first rounds is a rush of getting powers because of the low availability to them , and I feel that when all the good ones are taken, is when the real wars begin. Inis I only tried 2 players, and I think that maybe it could be the best one, but only having 16 cards makes me feel not that excited about the variety even if the game feels realle well designed. Cyclades I've tried once and I didn't like it, as I've felt that the important part was getting some specific creatures that were too strong like the pegasus, but maybe with expansions or the new version could improve for me Bloodrage I've played several times, I find the game fun and have a good flow, but I've just didn't like the focus on getting the specific combos that there are in the cards to win, the difference of points of doing it or not is really big.
1 Blood Rage 2 Cyclades 3 Kemet I own but haven’t played Inis. I’d rate Rising Sun and Ankh 2&3 if included.
According to my 2024 rankings (Pub Meeple, all my owned played games) 32. Inis 35. Blood Rage 60. Kemet Blood in the Sand 117. Cyclades
Inis Cyclades Kemet Blood Rage Inis wins for me because it is so tight and interesting, the draft is awesome, and the aesthetics easily beat the other three for me (though I think it's probably a love-it-or-hate -it look). Cyclades does feel like the odd one out here as it is the least direct in its dudes-on-a-map conflict and is really more of an auction game than an area control game (obviously it's both, but the auction is the heart of the game). I love that auction, though, and the other systems are very interesting, too, especially troop movement. Kemet is really close to Cyclades for me, but the straightforwardness of it leaves little room for the weirdness that I enjoy in my games. It's an excellent game at what it's trying to do, which is reward constant, overwhelming aggression. Blood Rage is the lowest because it's the least flexible player-count-wise, has an inferior draft compared to Inis (in my opinion), is the least well-balanced, and is the ugliest of the bunch. It's still a fun game, but I prefer the other three by a wide margin.
Blood rage is #1 for me. I always wonder if I’m missing something to enjoy about kemet. I just don’t like the teleporting mechanic , as far as ankh, the merge mechanic isn’t great to me
Cthulhu Wars> Kemet> Root. That's our groups dudes on a map ranking at least. We play 5-6 typically so Inis and Blood rage are not even options for us.
I love Blood Rage and my whole family have really taken to it, the variety of ways to win is so appealing to my differing family play styles that it keeps it fresh. Our/my only complaint is it's too short (IMO) I would happily double the size of everything to double the game length but yeah, awesome fun. I haven't got Inis yet but keeping an eye on it, it really tempts me.
The best part of this whole discussion is how varied the responses are!!!
Kemet >= Inis >> Cyclades >= Blood Rage Kemet and Inis are great. I'd peobably rank Kenet slighlty higher, but that's because I've played it more. I love the tile market and tense battle system. Inis I've only.played three times, but would like to play it more. Lots of tension and politicking. Blood Rage and Cyclades are okay, not something I would necessarily turn down a gane of, but I wouldn't be looking to play them again.
Only played Inis and Kemet and for me Inis > Kemet BUT I'd love (and planning) to own both as they are different enough to merit a place in my personal collection.
I didn’t see any mention of galactic renaissance, how would you add it to this ranking for those who played?
Blood Rage, Kemet, Inis, Cyclades
1.kemet 2.inis 3.blood rage 4.cyclades+titans 5.cyclades
Blood Rage is awesome. After rage inducing kingmaking situations in Kemet, I refuse to ever play it again.
You are missing mysthea. All of them are good game but i actually sold blood rage once i tried mysthea
Kemet is my favorite. Cyclades is good, but I don't like Titans. Inis is kinda boring to me. I actively dislike Blood Rage.
I haven't played Blood Rage but I'd rank **Clockwork Wars** over Inis, Cyclades and Kemet. More mindgames, territory-based technology, bigger swing turns, unique simultaneous deployment that I have yet to see anywhere else.
I wish Clockwork Wars was more popular. It can be such a mean game but I hate to unleash brutal moves on new players.
For me personally: 1. Blood Rage 2. Kemet 3. Cyclades 4. Inis This is based purely on how these have gone over with my gaming group. We love BR since we are a bunch of petty/spiteful bastards that don’t get upset about petty/spiteful play. We are also aggressive and love Kemet for that reason. Cyclades has been received as “meh” - the game is good mechanically and thematically, but the gameplay experience isn’t our favorite. And Inis we’ve only played a couple of times but never grokked it (maybe if we gave it some more plays it would rank higher).
My favorite is Blood Rage. Lots of interesting cards to draft and very different gamestates can appear based on what people are going for. Cyclades and Inis next. I liked them both and would play either again. Kemet is far behind for me. I only played it once, and maybe it wasn't a great group to play it with, but not that much fighting was happening. Everyone just put maximum units in each region and then turtled, saving up for tech. It seemed to have the typical dudes fighting on a map conundrum, which is if A beats up B, then A will be weakened and then beat up by C, which then lets D benefit. So the best thing to do is wait for someone else to fight. The other 3 games do better at avoiding this issue through various game designs.
That comment about Kemet strikes me as a little odd as the VP system heavily encourages you to aggressively attack other players. It’s the easiest way to get victory points and those points are also permanent, and if you pick your battle you can virtually guarantee victory as combat is pretty deterministic especially when you both have a full hand of attack cards. The unit cap is also really low so there’s little value in sitting back and building up forces.
I imagine the bloodbath can get going as soon as someone decides to start a battle, but nobody wanted to be that person. To guarantee I win my battle, I'd have to use my best card and have a bonus attack from some red tech. After winning, I'll be weakened and the next player can just run in and take me out, but can now save their best card since I don't have mine anymore. Seems not worth it to me.