Lost Ruins of Arnak

Welcome to Replayable, where we go into depth on our favorite tabletop games that keep us coming back again and again. I'm the start player Todd, and today I'm joined by David and Paul for our 18th episode we'll be excavating the Lost Ruins of Arnak. It is designed by Mikhail Elwin-Shtak and Mikhaila Mnstakova. It was originally released in 2020 by Czech Games Edition, and it won the Deutscher Spielepries in 2021. How are you two guys doing today? You ready to get this adventure started?

Why did it have to be snakes? Yeah, I'm ready. Let's dig in. Pun intended. Right? Well, I'll throw you the whip. Lost Ruins of Arnak blends deck building, multi-use cards, and worker placement mechanisms. Players explore an uncharted island, excavate ruins, and discover artifacts to gain victory points. They manage resources, defeat guardians, and advance along a research track, all amidst an adventurous theme of archaeology and mystery. I think this game has an underrepresented theme.

I mean, there aren't a lot of games out there that have that archaeology, Indiana Jones style theme. Where do you think this one fits? Has the theme gotten enough representation? Does it need more? What are your thoughts here? There's not a lot of games with this theme, but I feel like most of the games with this theme are very good, at least all the ones I can think of. Yeah, that's so true.

I mean, if we're making a Mount Rushmore of these themed games, kind of all of them go on Mount Rushmore because there's just a handful of them, surprisingly. It's potentially a problematic theme, right? Because it's the potential of cultural appropriation, which I think this game actually deals with fairly well. But I was really surprised to see how few games are actually in that theme. I feel like I got a bunch of them. I was looking through my shelves and I saw like Karuba. Oh, right.

But Karuba, that's an abstract. It could be anything, really. It's just they put some jungle plants on the perimeter of the board and called it an exploring game. Exactly. I haven't played Thebes often as well as Diamant or Ican Gold and Lost Cities. Right. So if we're talking about Mount Rushmore, I would definitely say Lost Cities is probably one of the first ones you put on there. I mean, from 1999, it's one of the older games, but right next to it same year would have to be Tikal.

I don't think we can argue either one of those. Okay, let's hear it. I do not enjoy Tikal at all. For me, it's just exercise and analysis paralysis. It is. Yes. Yeah. It shows its age that way. But thematically, it's very strong. And I think it's a fun game. It actually I used to play it online and it played very well online because I didn't have to sit and wait for you to do eight of your action points and then take back two and then try to do another thing and then take back three.

But yeah, whether it's AP or just trying to chart your way forward, there's a lot of downtime between turns. So Async, it played really well. I think it's a good game. Just nobody ever wants to play it because it takes forever. Okay. If you're going to replace that, which game do you throw in there instead? I put Thebes up there or the similar Mycorrhinos. I mean, it is an archaeological game, but instead of adventure, it takes players through the research and learning required.

I guess it's more realistic that way. Okay. I don't get the same adventurer vibe from Thebes, though. 100%. It's not about that. Well, I think the difference is Thebes is about actual archaeology and these other games are about movie archaeology. I mean, you got dig time. Well, yes. I'm going to be in Istanbul digging for the next six weeks. That's part of the game. Yes. That timing. So then let's move on to a third option. I think you got to throw Diamant slash Incan Gold up there.

Yeah. Don't you have a special name for it for your kids? My kids call it In or Out. But usually we talked about it before, the way kids play, it's basically just in, in, in. Yeah. In till you die. Yeah. Yeah. And then complain that you have bad luck. Yep. No arguments there. I think Lost Ruins of Arnak is the fourth head on the mountain here. I think it's a fantastic entry in this genre. Yes, I agree. Well, Quest for El Dorado has its following.

I haven't played it enough, but it certainly has a following. It does. And it does deck building as well. So it is a simul- it is a definitely a contemporary fact. I think it preceded Lost Ruins by a couple of years, but I think Lost Ruins is the better game. What is it about Lost Ruins that works so well? Well, going back to, to Call, I think Lost Ruins has a very similar try to solve the puzzle of how efficient can I be in my turn?

However, Lost Ruins breaks it up and says, oh, you can only do one thing and then it's everybody else's time to go. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Maybe to Call would be better. It was kind of blowing my mind a little bit. Maybe to Call would be better if we just gave it the, you know, the Lost Ruins treatment and we took one turn at a time, rather than you get 10 actions before I get to go.

What if we applied the Thebes time track idea to the action points into Call and then did one action around, you know, like Lost Ruins? Off the rails. Off the rails. Right? I mean, to get to the question though, it's, we talked about this when we talked about Dune Imperium, which you can't talk about Lost Ruins of Arnak. So I mean, mark your bingo card.

I'm the first one to bring up Dune Imperium is that multi-use cards, the deck building, the worker placement and the worker placement dependent on your cards. There are so many similarities there, but that alchemy of those mechanisms coming together and working together like that is what makes this and Dune Imperium just so much fun that you've got your personal puzzle you're trying to solve and then also dealing with the other, you know, pesky players getting in your way. Yeah, I'm fascinated.

You guys feel so strongly about their similarities because mechanically, while I agree after playing both of these games dozens of times, I just think they feel completely different. To me, Lost Ruins is more of a puzzle solving game. I liken it to Mage Knight by Vlad A. Zhvatil. And Dune Imperium is more of a, well, we had another episode about it. It starts out being a deck building game and then it turns into a worker placement game. I don't get that puzzle aspect when I play Dune Imperium.

Interesting. I think because those three core mechanics that Dave mentioned, so the multi-use cards, deck building and worker placement, if you do an advanced search on Board Game Geek for games that contain all three, it's a really small result set. And it's easy to look at those and say, these feel similar. Even if the theme is different and there's no comparable mechanism in Lost Ruins to the conflict from Dune Imperium. I guess what I'm saying is it's about the goal.

The goal of Lost Ruins, in my opinion, is to collect all these things and transform them. And when I say things, I mean the items that you collect, the gold compasses, tablets, arrows, and rubies. You're trying to figure out a puzzle of how to collect and spend these to advance. Versus Dune Imperium, it's only got spice and water. You're collecting spice and water and influence and garrison. And so you're using these things to gain influence to have combat.

Whereas I feel like, I don't know, to me they're completely different. I don't know about completely different. There are plenty of similarities. I feel like, you know, I have the same feeling about Turn and Taxis and Ticket to Ride. That everybody talks about how they're similar. But to me, they don't feel similar at all. And then when I sit down and break down the mechanics, like, well, you're drafting cards, you're building routes. It's a set collection kind of thing.

Like I guess you're collecting runs instead of sets in Turn and Taxis. But they're very similar. But because I'm so close to the games that I love them, well, particularly Turn and Taxis so much, I don't feel those similarities while I'm playing it. I feel like it's the same here with Dune Imperium. I mean, when you break down those mechanics, it's very similar. This deck building, you place your workers based on your card. You need your cards to place your workers.

It's just they take them in different directions. Now what if we had a battle arena in the middle of the island in Lost Ruins? Hold your horses. Maybe there's a boss guardian. There's a boss guardian that we all have to fight and we all contribute to it. And you get rewards based on that, kind of like the champions of Midgard. The people are coming from the north. No, but really though, the mechanisms are similar.

But in Lost Ruins of Arnak, I'm really competing with the puzzle of the game, which is what I'm hearing Paul saying. Whereas in Dune Imperium, I am in some ways competing directly with the other players. You are. I agree with that. But I think there's a scale issue, right, because Dune Imperium is a race to 10 and a winning score in Lost Ruins is 70, 80. Dependent. I mean, yeah, it's really swingy.

It depends on a lot of things, especially the expansions you're playing with or what side of the board you're using. Yeah. But either way, it's more than 10. A lot more. Yeah, it better be. Let's talk about some of the things that you do to acquire all of those points.

First off, I'm really interested to hear your thoughts on Guardians versus the Temple Track, because in the base game, when you're doing the exploration and of course you uncover, you explore a new space, it's being defended by a guardian. When you defeat that guardian, if you're able to, it's five points, right? Six points, because you don't have to take it for your card. Don't forget that the guardian helps you after overcoming it. Six points and a resource.

So let's talk about, are they comparable? What's a good mix? I don't understand the versus. Can you help me out? Like, why are you framing it as either or? Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. So are you thinking of say a guardian strategy versus a Temple Track strategy like you might have in Great Western Trail or something like that, where you're pursuing one of three specific paths or something like that? Is that what you have in mind? Absolutely.

Yes. So if we talk in the base game, we're not using the leaders from the first expansion. I think you have to have a blend of both of them. You have to explore and deal with guardians and you have to move up the Temple Track. I don't think you can ignore one for the other. I don't know. It depends, I guess, on how many players there are. I think what you cannot do is allow one person to get all of the bonuses.

If you allow somebody to collect, say, research bonuses with their notebook, I think you've just let them won the game. You have to compete for those. Oh, you mean like the spaces up the research track where you get something for taking it first? The first to get there, right? Right. Yeah, I think that's a great point, Paul, because what I was thinking about why these aren't path-dependent trajectories that you can go on is because there aren't really limited resources.

But I think you bring up a good point with those Temple Track rewards. But when you look at all of the different spaces that you can explore on the board, it's not really limited. It's not like if I don't explore them, I'm leaving them for the rest of the players to explore. Or if I don't go all the way up the Temple Track, then somebody else gets to go up the Temple Track.

There's not really much competition there because there aren't limited resources except for, as you say, those Temple Track bonuses, which even just a compass here and a piece of gold there, that really adds up. And one compass can make a huge difference in your turn. Yes. Sure can. And with exploration, I think there's going to be certain sites that give juicier bonuses for people. Would you rather just get an extra gold or a tablet or even un-tap an assistant?

Some are going to be much more valuable than others. I totally agree. I've tried to do a Guardian strategy and I could not ignore the research track entirely, but I gave up the thought of getting to the top of the research track. And that's what I was trying to understand is, is it viable or do you think it is to focus more on Guardians? I think I had the pistol, right? So every time that item came up, it allowed me to insta-kill a Guardian if I played it as an action.

But I wasn't able to keep up with the point earning that I yielded by not trying to get to the top of the Temple Track, at least not in the base game. But that could change based on expansions. Well, I think if other players are making sure nobody gets most of those research bonuses, then yes, you could be competitive with a lot of Guardians. I feel like exploring and visiting sites and that all of that really, to me, feels like it's in service to the Temple Track.

That the game is getting up that Temple Track and getting to the top and buying those Temple Prizes at the top and then how far you can get your notebook up. I think that's in the base game, I think that's really how you need to get 70, 80 plus points to win the game. You can't ignore the Temple Track and there's so many juicy rewards as you go, even if you're not getting the Prizes. Every spot you go, you're getting something for it. And points, especially at the top.

The net points for jumping one more layer is huge. Or assistance, which I think we found are pretty darn important. Yeah. I mean, it's a five turn game, right? So if you can get two assistants by the end of turn two, you're looking pretty good. Yeah. I mean, really, is this an engine builder? I mean, I think we had this discussion before thinking of a deck as an engine, but really, your assistants are your only engine. Why use the word only?

Well, it's not like you have a tableau of cards where you have an engine that you've made. Every turn, you're kind of starting at square one and the only engine you have or what your assistants can give you, after that, it's the cards that you draw. You could draw a handful of fear or you could draw all your good cards at once or something. You have to use those cards for travel or something like that. I mean, obviously, that's the game. Well, that's why you buy the right assistants, right?

Like the ones with travel icons. Right. And that's why I'm saying that that's your engine, just those two assistants and that's it. Everything else is very chaotic and managing those. And those are the only things that are reliable from turn to turn, is what I'm saying. Sure. They're the most reliable thing, but I think it's a balance.

I guess when I play, I try to buy cards that balance with the assistance I have or take assistance to balance with the cards I was able to get on round one or two. So what do you mean by balance? Like synergies? Right. So if you get cards that give you goods such as compasses, gold, tablets, then get assistants that either give you a different kind or that allow you to upgrade one.

Also if you are purchasing really good cards, then I think you want assistance that allow you to move without spending your cards. Okay. That's interesting. Yeah. Because in the past, I've also tried to go just all one way, right? If I'm going to go for an artifact strategy, then I want lots of compasses.

And so if I have assistants that give me compasses and I buy items that help me get more compasses and that's helping me get more artifacts, then the last thing I need is going to be something to get tablets so I can activate those artifacts when I draw them again. It's a little bit of the can't try to do everything. And I have experienced success focusing on one element of the game. My point of view is everything has diminishing returns.

At the beginning of the game, gold and compasses are amazing. Gold because you want to add better cards to your deck. Compasses because you want to explore and exploring is better for you since the temple icons are only covering up one and two point spaces. But later on, you have to start covering up your three and four point space. And so the return's not as high to do an exploration. Right.

I think compasses are as valuable throughout the game because you use them to explore early and then you use them for artifacts late. Because generally with artifacts, it's great if you can see it a second time and trigger it with a tablet. But really when I buy an artifact, especially, you know, turns four and five, I'm buying it to use it right now and I'll never see it again.

So those compasses that I was exploring with is now just straight up giving me resources based on the artifacts I'm picking up. Or points. The points is a very important factor if you're only going to use it that one time. Right. Yeah. Those artifact points range from one to three. Okay. And on items, something similar, right? Yeah. You know, it comes down to how do you want to play the game? What kind of deck do you want?

Do you want a really thick deck with 20 cards in it or were you able to get some excellent cards in the first couple of rounds? And so you want to keep your deck super thin so you can play those cards over and over and over again. I think the game tells you how to balance items and artifacts because in the beginning of the game, there's a bunch of items available, only one artifact available.

So early game is about picking up those items that you're going to see multiple times and trigger for free. And then later in the game, it's all artifacts available that you're going to buy, use once and then just store it in your deck for points at the end of the game. And so that sliding moon staff as it moves along is giving you a subtle hint that here's the balance between items and artifacts as to where we are in the game. Right.

And along that train of thought, how do you feel about managing your fear cards? I think it depends on your deck. If you have a really thick deck with tons of items and some artifacts, then you don't mind having a bunch of fear cards. Right. Versus if you're trying to play the same item over and over again, like let's say you get binoculars or a lantern early, I think you want to keep your fear cards out of your deck. Yeah. And what it's such a great element of the game is those fear cards.

Like it's negative one point. So what? I'll make up for that somewhere. That's no big deal. But when the fear cards are 30%, 40% of my deck, well now it's a problem. Yes. Great balance. And it's also dependent on what phase of the game you're in. I think the first half of the game, everybody still wants to go to the campsite sites, which you can go to with a fear card. But later on, after a bunch of explorations happened, then you really don't want to see those fear cards anymore. Yeah. Right.

They're useless. Unless you have an assistant that turns a boot into something good. Or you want to spend a plane to go to a campsite. Ouch. Yeah. Yeah. Don't do this. But let's talk about that. So this is one of those things. And this is a similarity to Dune Imperium, right? In that those symbols, whether we're talking about the boots, the ships, the cars, or the planes dictate where you are able to place a worker on the board. Right. And even more so on the snake side. Right.

What are your thoughts about keeping in mind your symbols as you are building your deck? I never have. Other than the fear discussion we had. Yeah, I'm the same way and I'm wondering if that I just haven't hit that level of play in the game. But usually there's a way to mitigate it. Like I can always charter a flight. Like I got to get some gold to do it, of course. But yeah, how does that work? And somebody has to remember to tell you the rule when they're teaching you the game.

This is when I first taught Todd the game. I totally, my strategy when teaching people a game is they have to earn all of the rules. I don't give them all the rules up front and I failed to tell Todd that you could at any time pay two gold to charter a flight. So he, I know you mired out somewhere where you couldn't make a move that you wanted to make and you had two gold just sitting there that I didn't bother to tell you that you could use. Exactly. But did you win the game? Actually, I did.

Yeah. So that's why I don't give you all the rules. I need, I need a chance. Usually chartering a flight is a bad idea. Well yeah. But what I mean is like, I like to play with slim decks when I can and get those great cards that you're going to be able to reuse. And suddenly when you are calling cards out of your deck, you're starting to think, wait a minute, I just called all my ships and what am I going to be able to explore?

Do I need to still get back to spaces that require ships or do I have a plane ready now, whether it be a guardian bonus that I can use once or do I have the gold or whatever to be able to get back to a ship space if I need it? And especially those spaces at the top of the board when you explain them, you know, they require two symbols to get to the level two spaces or whatever we want to call them. Right. So I think it's important that you keep track of which symbols you have in your deck.

Interesting. I guess so. But if I'm looking at the row of items and I'm going to buy an item, I'm going to buy the best item kind of regardless of the symbols that it's giving me. And if I end up with a deck full of boats, then I'll just zag accordingly. I don't think it's you paint yourself into a corner if you don't do that, but you might miss out on opportunities like I'm going to go explore and I'd really like to go get that idol, but I need cars to get to that idol and I only have boats.

So instead I'll take this idol. It's just a little zag, but I don't think you painted yourself. That's happened to me many times actually. Yes. Right. All right. We're talking about the advantages of coins early and compasses maybe throughout. And then we've got all of these other items, right? We've got the tablets and oh, we've got arrows and we've got rubies. Is there a chart here? I see that you guys wrote this. I'm not sure I agree that a coin equals a compass equals a tablet.

Well that's just how it's designed. If you look at all the camp sites, they're all equal value. So you can either get two coins or two compasses or two tablets or one arrow, or you can pay a card for Ruby. And then if you look at the level one sites, they're all at three value except for the one that gives you free item.

And then if you look at the level two sites, they're all at four value according to coin compass tablet are equal arrows worth two of them and rubies kind of worth three of them. So the upgrade mechanism and I guess we could put upgrade and I don't know how you do air quotes on a podcast, but the upgrade mechanism suggests that the tablet can be upgraded to an arrowhead and an arrowhead can be upgraded to a Ruby. So it kind of gives some hierarchy there.

But really when you're playing the game, the value is what you need. Like I might have two rubies and I need a tablet to advance my magnifying glass or something like that. I don't care that rubies are more valuable, what I need right now is a tablet. So it's very situational as to the value of these things. And I don't necessarily think that a Ruby is X factor better than a tablet. Well, like Todd said, it's just an equivalence that I think the design put into the game.

And if you look at the research track, it's the same way the side by side steps are equivalent in air quotes, as you said. One side might have a Ruby and then the other side has an arrowhead and a gold coin. And so those are intended to be equivalent. Right, right. But because a coin cannot be upgraded to a compass, a compass cannot be upgraded to a tablet.

I think of those as being less, even if value wise, they are equivalent to a tablet, they're still less than because there's no upgrade path for them. Yeah, but those are what you use to add better cards to your deck. Yeah, compasses are the bomb. I mean, you can turn compasses into the other resources by buying the artifacts. They're amazing. Or by exploring. Yes, that's true. Yeah, coins, you can either move with coins or you can add items to your deck.

What I think we're getting at is I think it's a fine balance. And I mean, there is a suggested hierarchy in there. But when you're in the muck, when you're in the jungle swatting your machete, like you need an arrowhead, you need an arrowhead. Because value is what you need right now. That's absolutely true. And how many times you get to the end of the game and you're like just staring at the board and you're trying to generate an arrowhead or... Oh yeah.

And you're like, there's got to be a way some here and it's not there. How right now is right now though, Dave. Yes, good point. When you start your turn, you got five cards and two archaeologists and you can try and map out everything you're going to do, although other people are certainly going to get in your way. So how right now is right now and when do you want to save up on all these artifacts and goodies that you can collect? That's so true.

The game amazes me every time I play the differential between what you can accomplish on turn one versus what you can accomplish on turn five, even though you still only have two archaeologists. Okay, now you do have two assistants, but you still only draw five cards. But on turn five, I might move one of my items halfway up that temple track or more and discover a new site and defeat a guardian. And just all of this in turn five, it's like you're super powered.

You're Batman showing up with the utility belt and taking everything down. Right. Yeah, I agree. The game scales wonderfully. And by the end you feel like you've really solved... I agree it's a puzzle, but you've done a good job of making some headway that you could not see how to get there to start with unless you have experience with the game, of course. Yeah. And like Paul says, I need an arrowhead. Well, let me figure out how to get an arrowhead.

First I'm going to do this and then I'm going to do that and then I'm going to go here and then four turns later, finally I got the arrowhead that I needed. So I think you're right, Paul. How immediate is it? Just find a way. Well, I was thinking the reverse. I was thinking, okay, if everything goes right, I'm going to need an arrowhead four moves from now. So maybe I should get it right now before anybody else does.

Yeah. Yes. How far can you push your luck to get something you want versus what you need? Right. Right. The tension of other people getting it before you. Is this game fiddly? Is it fidgety? Sometimes I think yes and sometimes I think no. I haven't decided. I think it's not entirely because of the production value. I love all the little bits and bobs and handling them and listening to them. So that just makes me completely forgive the fiddliness. Yeah. The production's beautiful.

I mean, I tend to think it's not fiddly, but at the same time, if your rule book has a page of rules that you may have forgotten, then I think that means you know you're a little fiddly. Remember to freshen your assistant after an upgrade. Right. Yes. One thing I wanted to add is the importance of tracking who is going first next turn because that clock going around the table, I think of it as like a timer for when I want to explore a level two site.

If I'm going to get it next, then that's when I want to go explore a level two site for six compasses. I think that's a great point. Do you think that the moving clock is a flaw in the game? Do you think there should be some way on the board where I can manipulate turn order rather than just looking at in a three player game, we're going five rounds, two people get to go first twice and one person doesn't. Like is that a flaw in the game? I don't know.

I mean, if we're talking about three player, I think it's interesting because even though the starting player in round one gets to go first twice, they get to go first on the worst rounds. Yeah, the person going last, even though they're going last, they can set themselves up to explore a level two site on round two and then use it again as a start player on round three. And I think that's way better than going first on turn one, if that makes sense.

If you were to put in a go here to go first, what tempo do you drop to add that in or do you layer it in on top of say the coins campsite? Double track position, last goes first. Maybe whoever's notebook is lowest goes first. I haven't thought it through. I don't know how crazy that is. Notebook wouldn't really work, I think, but yeah, I hear you. That's interesting. Maybe the magnifying glass and then ties or stay in the same order or something like that.

But notebook's interesting because it's incentive to move that notebook up, which is a tempo. Okay. You know what? We've got a house rule section. We've got something. Yeah, we've got something to talk about later. That would make the game a lot more fiddly though. I mean, Dune Imperium doesn't have that kind of thing either. I think it's fine without it. It is fine without it. But it is interesting that it's specifically going to be five rounds and it doesn't play five players.

So there's no divisible by where everybody gets the same amount of turns going first. Right. That's interesting. I think there is a timing element and it's not one that you can exploit. It's just luck with the assistance and the reveals. That's true. Yeah. It's so good assistant that you're really excited about. You want other people to go ahead of you to reveal the one that maybe you do want. How long do you avoid removing your notebook? Right. And the same is true for the card row.

Yes. One thing I love about the base game is the card row can become stagnant. And especially on the last turn, it's like, okay, who has enough tempo moves, research moves left to wait out everybody else on the card track? Because somebody's got to spend their gold coins first because they're going to be worth zero points unless they buy something. Right. Yeah. Well, and that moon staff kind of cleans it up a little bit from round around. We need to bring that moon staff to do an Imperium.

Right. They're called family atomics, by the way. What I'm saying is, no, I think the stagnation in the card row is something you can strategize around. So I don't want to add more chaos. I don't like how the expansion gives you a red staff that wipes two things every turn. Is that what it is? It's two things. I don't know what that rule is, but I know it has a symbol on that. Yeah. So the red staff. Oh, the blue staff isn't good enough. Here's the red staff. Just remove two on both sides.

Right. Yeah. No, thank you. Right. All right. So then let's move on to the prompts. Weight and complexity on board game geek scale of one to five. No decimals here, please. How would you rate the complexity of Lost Ruins of Arnak, Dave? You know, I think it's a three.

It's a three, but it's a lot better if you have a rules lawyer who can manage you for the first couple of turns, you know, to kind of help out and go, oh, yeah, don't forget this or, you know, you got to do that to have somebody who really knows the rules to kind of help along because there can be some edge cases and a little bit of fiddliness there.

But I think in the end, I was really thinking about this because there is something that feels a little overwhelming about the game when I get it set up and it takes my whole table. No table shaming comments here. I do have a mid-sized table, but it takes up my whole table. There's bits everywhere and it is a little overwhelming. But then when I sit and think about it, I think it's all really straightforward.

The symbol, the iconography is easy to follow and there's, you know, only five different actions you can take and those are really easy to understand. And you know, there's not a lot going on with it, but there's a lot going on with it. So I'm just going to settle in at a three. Yeah, I think it's right in the middle as well. I've took all the words out of my mouth. And I agree. I had it down as a three.

That's what I rated Dune Imperium when we had our pod about that game and I feel that they are of comparable complexity. So I had it down as a three. Now, how about strategy? How much strategy is there to Lost Ruins of Arnak? Same scale, one to five. I'm not too sure. I ended up putting it at a four. I think the game gives you so much choice. You can try to plan things out, although depending on the cards you get and what other people do, you're certainly steered a certain way.

So I could be convinced otherwise, but I'm saying a four. Yeah, I think it's a three because it doesn't really have these super nuanced path dependency strategy. You know, when I think of strategy, for some reason, like a poster child would be Great Western Trail is there are some defined strategies and then you try to walk that tight rope to execute that strategy to go that way. And in this way, I think if we're not playing with the leaders, we all kind of have the same strategy.

We're all trying to do the same thing. But like Paul saying is, you know, how you're going to chart your path there and be and be able to move as the game moves and people take your resources or your positions.

It does start to get a little difficult when you're thinking, you know, you start planning your moves in your head like I'm going to go here and get this and then I'm going to use that to move up the track here and then I'm going to use what I get there to do this and then, oh wait, I don't have that arrowhead. Hold on. Let me start over. Now I'm going to do this first and then do that. Like in between turns, I'm doing those calculations over and over and over.

And then it comes to my turn and somebody took the spot I want to do like, oh, I got to start over. So it does have that trying to plan three turns ahead. But still in the end, we're all trying to do the same thing. I think the strategy is on the surface. I don't think there's a lot of deep nuance to it. And I'm going to put it at a three. I agree that there's room for strategy. I can say that I want to do more guardians or more exploration and try to focus on that.

I still need to climb the temple track to some extent. But then it does become tactical, right? Because the things that I want to do may not be available. Or you took the assistant that I wanted and revealed either a better one or a lesser one. Same thing with the cards. So there are going to be times where you need to be opportunistic and strategy is going to yield the tactics. And so I also had it down as a three.

And you even said something that I'd like to come back to and talk about, you said, without the leader's expansion. Maybe we just do it now. If we talk about the expansions, does your answer for strategy change from a three if you include leaders? I don't know if it changes because the leader gives you a set strategy. So this leader means you go for artifacts. Or if you get this leader, it means you're going to race that temple track or you're going to go fight guardians more.

So the leader gives you a path that you're going to follow. So is that more or less strategy? I think it depends because it's a little bit less because you're told exactly what you're supposed to do. It's also a little bit more because now how do I win the game when I'm super strong at beating guardians, but I don't really have any help going up the temple track, whereas maybe you've got something that helps you up the temple track.

I don't remember all the details on the different leaders, but how am I going to turn this leader into more points than your leader is going to turn for you? So that might increase it a little bit is that learning how to maximize this leader that I get, but at the same time, it puts you on training wheels a little bit. So I'm not allowed to use decimals, but just for fun, I'll say it moves it up to a four. Paul, did you have thoughts on strategy incorporating the leaders expansion?

If I was playing with the leaders expansion, I would definitely lower strategy to a three. No question. Because of those training wheels? Well, yeah, it takes away your agency. Agency. Agency. Exactly. Yeah. And it reduces competition. That's true. It does tend to put players into their own swim lanes to focus on what each of their leaders can do. I feel like it decreases strategy because it provides one to me.

So you might say, well, no, that's more strategy because now you have something to follow, but like I didn't choose it. And whenever I get to a point in the game where I need to make a decision, I have experienced the most success when I default to doing what is best for exploiting my leaders capabilities. Even if there's something that I, as a player, might think, oh, I really want to do this other thing, I think that might be good. It may or may not.

Doing what my leader does well has just about always been the better decision to make in the long run. For me, that would reduce strategy. So if strategy is a three for me in the base game, I would not get down to a two for playing with leaders. Yeah, you guys convinced me. It does. It decreases the strategy. I agree. Well, that was lucky. So let's talk about luck. So on a scale of one to five, I'll jump in here. I think that it is a two.

I think there are a lot of ways to mitigate the luck of the draw, whether you are looking for items or assistance that allow you to draw additional cards. You can thin the deck if you want. There are those temple tiles that allow you to exchange them if you absolutely need to have something. And yet you're not going to escape luck, right? There is going to be a time where you just didn't see the assistant you wanted or your hand got stuck with fear cards. So I have it down as a two for luck.

What do you guys think? I rated a three. It's a deck builder. I think most deck builders have a fair amount of luck. I might lower it, although often we play with all of the components from the expansion. So our artifact and item decks are double the size and there's just so much more randomness. I think that factored into my rating, a three. All right.

Yeah, I think it's a two as well because you don't know what guardian it's going to throw at you or when you go to a dig site, you have no idea what you're going to find when you're exploring. But you can always mitigate that. And especially when you get into the end game and you think, oh, I really need this to defeat that guardian and I just happen to draw this guardian that I can't defeat.

Well, then you just think, oh, I'll just move up the temple track a little bit more so I won't get that five points, but I'll get this other five points. So I wouldn't call it a salad. I wouldn't besmirch the game by calling it a salad. But towards the end of the game, there does start to become those tradeoffs where I can't get this, but I can get this, which is the same or maybe one less point.

You can usually find a different way to go when you feel like you're being unlucky by what you're drawing. Yeah. Theme. How well do you think the theme has been integrated with the game, Dave? Well, we touched on this a little bit. I mean, I'm going to put it at a four. I mean, I maybe could put it at a five. I guess I don't know why I'm being stingy with a four. What else do I want out of life? I mean, it's such a beautiful game. The art is great.

The components, like Paul was saying, these big chunky arrowheads and these big tablets, and it's such a wonderful game. And it really evokes this exploration and danger and all of that. I think it just does really, really well. And you know, base camps and oh, and the integration of the theme with the mechanisms. You know, I've got travel costs. I've got to take a boat if I'm going to go up there. Of course, I've got to take a car if I'm going there.

Of course, or, you know, an airdrop or whatever I'm going to do or stay at base camp. And I've got assistance to help me. Like all of those things aren't just random elements in the game. They integrate very well theme and mechanisms. So I'm going to go with a five. I'm going to move it up. I'm going to call an audible right here. Did you just talk yourself into a five? I did. Yeah. Well, yeah, Paul. So I think the theme's a four. However, when I play solo with the app, it increases to a five.

So tell me more about that. Yeah. So there's an app with two different campaigns. There's the missing expedition, which is an expansion that integrates with the base game, but there's also a free campaign to play with the base game that you can get from the publisher with their app and it gives you a story. It helps you perform all of the solo automata that you have to do. And it's really fun.

And every time you do an exploration and some of the campaigns, it gives you additional story with a little bonus you have to pick. And I just found myself really getting immersed. Got it. Okay. I had it down as a five even before Dave convinced me it was a five. And I just want to say, I love all the components that we talked about, but I especially love the wooden meeples.

Can we at least say that, thank goodness, here's a game that doesn't have needless plastic sculpts for every little component. Yeah. It's really smart. Also the compasses and gold being cardboard, I don't mind at all because those are kind of the things you have to constantly collect and throw away. And if they were shinier or more appealing, you might not want to do that. Right?

I've seen some people have, you can buy on Amazon these kits of little, I don't know, half inch diameter compasses, you know, a package of 20 of them or something like that. And I've seen people using those, but... Like real compasses that have moving needles? Yes. Yes. And they're little tiny compasses and people have replaced them out in their game.

It seems, you know, the same reason I don't like metal coins and there's a certain level of chrome that I think starts to get in the way of playing the game. But I'm happy with the cardboard ones too. But I've seen people, you know, kind of spruce it up a bit. I will say that I have been tempted to give the tablets a little light wash just so that the recessed... They look aged. And the recessed carving that they have in them, you know, pops just a little bit more. I may still end up doing that.

You just said you're glad it doesn't have minis and you're like, well, but I'm going to paint what's here. That's right. Yes. And? Yeah, right. All right. So what's your favorite player count? I don't know. Most of my plays have been three player and it's great. I've also loved four player. So I guess I will guess that four is the best, but I really don't know. I think three player only because four starts to get a little long.

In some games, games that fourth player, you feel like it's a richer experience, but I don't feel much of a difference between the third and fourth player. And part of that is there isn't a ton of competition on the board. Maybe somebody else will get the site that I want, but like I said, I can mitigate that and try to find another way to get those resources that I want. So I don't feel like somebody's going to get left out in a four player game or something like that as much.

So really my only differentiator between the two, because they feel very similar to me, is that that four player games getting into the two hour mark. So I'm going to pick three. Okay. I had three for the same reason, time versus tension. And as we'll get to our games run a little bit long anyway.

And so I would rather play with three and get the enjoyment of the game and be done than potentially have more tension with a fourth player, but then have it take another 45 to 50 minutes beyond what the three player game is taking. So least favorite player count. So staying within the published range, which is one to four on the base game, what's your least favorite number? And by the way, the game can still be good at this number. I'm not saying it's going to be a bad experience.

For me, it's two player. I don't like the head to head in this game, but as you said, I think the game is great at all player counts. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to agree there a hundred percent. Two, to say it's the worst. That means I just, I prefer three and four a little bit more. And then like Paul was just saying with that campaign, one player is right up there with three now, the one player, the solo game is a lot of fun. So I would definitely say two, but I'll play it at two.

I'm happy with that. Right. We've had some good two player games, you and I. Yeah. And I'm going to take my answer and I'm going to steal a page out of your book, Dave, and say that there's that zero sum issue where in a two player game, if I'm going to get the points, you're not and vice versa. And I realized that the starting campsites get throttled down, right? You put the wave tokens over the certain ones that you're not going to use, but still it feels spacious.

So for me, two is not as enjoyable, but I still really enjoy the game. And calling back to something we talked about earlier, I don't mind playing leaders with two player, but I'd rather not use leaders on a three or four player play of Lost Ruins. Interesting. I hadn't thought about that. We're coming up on talking about expansions, but I hadn't thought of, so I have a few minutes that before we get there to think about that comment, but that's interesting. I like that.

So let's talk about minutes. So what's the actual playing time? Because the box says 30 minutes per player. I think your data is better than mine, Todd. I've experienced about 30 minutes per player and the data I've taken. Okay. Well, mine's close. Two players for me is an hour, but I guess one player is almost like two players because you're playing a widow hand or a dirt can.

My experience, especially with the campaign, because there's some extra reading and some extra fiddly stuff you got to do. It's taking me about an hour to play a campaign scenario. I think the second one is a little shorter. So I got that done in 45 minutes, but then after that I would add 30 minutes per player. Okay. So you're saying that a three player game is 90 minutes. Is that what the data shows? Because that's my guess. No, our data shows we're close to three hours.

I mean, we're like over two and a half. Are you counting set up? Because set up is 45 minutes. I was not a part of those games, Todd. Well, my experience has been it's closer to 45, 50 minutes a player in those three player games. And I think at that point, it's why I say I don't want to play for or prefer not to because I don't want to add another 50 minutes to an already two and a half, three hour game. But if we could get down to 30 minutes per player, absolutely, let's do it. Right.

Well, we played a couple of weeks ago when you were out and it was a four player game that took exactly two hours. So then I'm the problem. That's what I do. You're the problem. No, no, it was without leaders and I think everybody was familiar with it. So okay. Yeah. The teach can go a little bit long, although it is an easy teach actually, but having a new player, there's a lot to think about and that can really slow us down. And we've had new players on most of, well, many of our plays.

Okay. Expansions. Let's talk about it. There are two published expansions. Let's talk about them both. I know we've covered leaders so far and we've touched on the Lost Expedition. What are your thoughts here? The Missing Expedition. Yeah. That's it. Well, I think leaders is worse and it's more fun. Both of these truths exist. So worse than what? Worse than base game. This is Schrodinger's expansion. Yeah. Worse than just playing the base game. I think they're both amazing for solo play.

Okay. Yeah. That's a good point. I'm thinking for the three or four player game, but this is what comes up every time we talk about expansions that our group likes a tight competition. And some people just like to get out on the Autobahn and open it up and see what it can do. And the leaders really do that. We've seen, our scores are 20 points higher when we're playing the leaders because it's high octane. This is the game on steroids. And what I've seen leaders is a very popular expansion.

People love it because I think a lot of people like to play the game and they want to excel. They want to just dominate and maybe not dominate as far as beating the other players. Of course, people want to do that, but you want to get in there and feel like you're just Indiana Jones out there just accomplishing everything that you want to accomplish. Where I think we as a group, we like a tighter competition.

We're as happy with a low scoring game if it was a fun fight than if just everybody got to their maximum score and one person happened to win. And just in general on games. So that's my experience with the leaders is that everything's easier and you're able to accomplish everything you set out to accomplish. Except the research tracks. Yeah, Paul hit it. Okay. We could play base game rules on different research tracks. I love using the new research tracks.

Just taking one out and adding it to the base game. Love it. Oh yeah. That variability is great. And I do like how the different temple tracks focus on a different part of the game. Like assistants are going to be more important here or guardians are going to be more important here depending on what that temple track has. Yeah. About the leaders, Dave, you said that we like the tight competition and if it's a low scoring game, that's fine. That's true.

But another way of looking at it is we like our competition during the game, but by the end of the game, it may no longer be competitive. We've had games where the leader is way ahead and you could kind of see it coming just based on the fact that he competed better during the earlier rounds. But I think one of the benefits to the expansion and yes, sure, it's going to put people in their swim lanes or it might make you focus on other areas and it's all high octane.

People are going to be more competitive at the end of the game. I've been thinking about it more that it's, when is that perception of competition? Do you want it every round? Do you want it every turn or do you want it at the final scoring? How are you defining competitive? Yeah, that's the thing. So leaders, it makes the game even more heads down. Like you almost don't have to care what anybody else is doing. You just focus on yourself and how efficient you can be.

Exactly. And yeah, I think what Dave and now me are saying is we want our games to make us lift our head, look around and try and get in other people's way. Right. And there's still some of that that happens, right? Like if I want to explore a level two temple space, I'm going to need six compasses to get there. I look around at your boards and I see, do any of them have six compasses in reserve ready to do that or can they feasibly get there?

And sometimes I don't think you can and then you surprise me. But that does factor into my decision as to when I go for it. Yeah, it's not multiplayer solitaire, but the leaders, I think, whoever said it, it makes it a little more heads down. Yeah. Which we like to, you know, we like to drink each other's milkshake. I like the leaders and I agree with Paul. I like the added temple tracks. I think that's great variability.

Yeah. And I think the cards and the new assistants and new idols add to the theme. I especially recall the last game we played where I think I was second on turn one and I got a dog. And then on round two, the cat came out and somebody else got the cat. And it was just fun to see how they were completely opposite. Like the dog gives you a compass and helps you collect resources from an unoccupied site. But the cat gives you gold and only helps you collect resources from an occupied site.

Yeah, it only helps you when it wants to. Very thematic. Yes. Well, and but how I led this off with though, as much as I complain about that, I found the leaders to be very fun. Yes. I really enjoyed playing with the leaders, but I did not enjoy scoring 90 points and losing or however it went. I didn't like being that high octane. Got it. The missing expedition. So that I've been having a lot of fun with.

So like Paul was saying, that really dials up the theme because there's a story that integrates really well and you move through the different temple tracks and you start with various things on the board that you need to go out and explore. It does a really great job. I haven't played with that one yet. I'm hoping that it shows up under the Christmas tree. So most recognizable comparison. What's the highest ranking game that reminds you of Lost Ruins of Arnak?

And I'm going to go ahead and right now let's just squash, do an Imperium. Disqualified. Paul? I already mentioned Mage Knight, but another game, it's very similar to me is Anno 1800. Players are trying to solve a puzzle of how to get the right resources and the right sequence. And in Mage Knight, you're doing it all at once, but in Anno 1800, which is a newer game that we bring to the table still, you only get to do one thing and then it's everybody else's turn and they could get in your way.

Right. That's a good one. We need to play Anno 1800 more. Dave, what'd you have? I'm going to go with Res Arcana. It has a very similar feel in that you're dealing with this very small deck and it's a cube exchange. You're trying to manipulate the, I mean, you have an engine in Res Arcana, but you're trying to manipulate everything through this cube to get the cubes that you want to accomplish the things that you want. And that economy of doing those exchanges feels very similar in Lost Ruins.

Okay. I can see that. I had the quest for El Dorado. So Dave, you mentioned this one earlier because it does have the deck building. It's really more of a race, right? But you do have to make sure that you've got the right cards in your hand to manage the different terrains over which you will be traveling from board piece to board piece. Like you have to be mindful of the travel options in Arnak. Less recognizable comparison. One that doesn't rate as highly that's still reminiscent of it.

I went the same route focusing on puzzle solving. My pick is Oh My Goods. Okay. I think it has the same puzzle solving. It has assistance, it has buildings that you build instead of buying cards. And I guess the reason it's not as good for me is because in my opinion, Oh My Goods has no tension. Oh, that's a great call. I didn't think about that one. I like it. I kind of went with that puzzle solving part too. And I'm thinking something like airships or to court the king.

You have a certain set of resources that you're trying to get to. So you have these steps that you need to get to, to get there. So you're manipulating. And like in to court the king where you have these different elements that help you manipulate the dice to let you get to the die number that you're trying to get to. And you know, Lost Ruins is like that sometimes. Like I need a Ruby in order to get a Ruby. I need first, I bet I can turn this into that and then I can turn those into this.

And then over here I can turn into that. And then now I've got the Ruby that I need. So you have to kind of plan this route to get there. And that's how something like airships feels to me. Okay. So I went with that because I stayed in theme and I went with Tobago because it has the same discover theme, only it's like clue in reverse with each card that you play as you move around and you're making your guesses.

You're reducing the problem space of where the treasure lies until there can only be one solution. And so you are discovering that location as you go. It's not determined ahead of time. You're not putting three cards in an envelope and then trying to figure out what's out there. So I had to beg for that one. House rules. So how would you improve the game? And I think, Dave, you may have already started us off on this discussion.

Well, we don't know if it's an improvement, but using some sort of information from the temple track to set the turn order. In a worker placement game, you almost have to have turn order manipulation because it's so important who goes first in these cases, especially when you get laid into the game and there's these really good sites to go. The Guardian's gone and you can just go there with two cars and get all this stuff. Going first is fantastic.

So I would like to see some way to manipulate that. I don't know if I'm ready to house rule it. I would like to see other people play test. You go first. And is that going to be old Amon Ray style or new Amon Ray style? Yeah. Is that going to be the state where the person who qualifies first and then clockwise from there, or the new version, which is descending order based on how you're doing? I don't know. Yeah. I would say add a timer to it, but that's just me because of my apparently.

You need it. I need a timer. I don't like that though, because it's really hard to figure out. Like I was saying earlier, I'm going to plan these three moves ahead and like, oh, I need a tablet to do that. Hold on. Let me undo that. I have to think about, and I try to do it between turns, but when it comes to my turn, like, I can't get that compass now. Dang it. Okay. So now what am I going to do? Yeah. But everybody needs something where they just say, you know what? It's too much.

I'm just going to do this. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. Okay. Chest timer, Dave, you get 30 minutes. Yeah. Usually it's internalized, but if you externalize it, I'm fine with that. My house rule would be to just buy the expansions and then cherry pick what you want out of them and add them to the base game. Yep. Okay. When this game is being played a game night, what do you want to play afterwards? What's the double feature game that goes along with it? Paul?

I would love to have a theme night where we would just play Lost Ruins, Thebes, Ink and Gold and you know, maybe Lost Cities, but that's only two player. There's Lost Cities, the board game, right? Would use, it was also Celtis. Right. Good call. We have all of those and we could also put in Quest for Aldorado. We could. I like it. I love it. So A, done. B, I went with, I did go with something quick staying in theme, but I wanted it to be more cooperative.

So I went with escape, the Curse of the Temple where we're just all rolling like mad trying to escape from the temple. So Dave, what did you have? Dune Imperium, because you've already probably got three to four players at that level of play and they're similar enough to where I'm in that mode, but they're different enough to where it's a completely different game. So I'd love to play those two back to back. So my vote right now is Paul's suggestion. I like the theme night, but.

Oh, I'm switching mine to a mechanics night. Well, I'm sticking to theme night, but hey, let's do both. We're going to have to schedule a second game night. What feature of the game still stands out to you? You know, one of the things that I find super interesting about the game is how you go from zero to hero that on that first turn you pick up two compasses and maybe explore one or two spots on the temple track. And like, that was all I could do.

I did everything I could, you know, bought an item. But by turn five, just how much you're able to accomplish. And it's almost like the bread and the loaves, how it just multiplies on what you're able to do on one turn. And I really like seeing that, even though I was saying I don't like to be super high octane where it's just you're going crazy.

But it's really interesting to see what I'm able to turn this humble beginning into and just buying 11 temple tokens or whatever at the end left and right and defeating guardians and all in one turn. It's just, it's really satisfying. I like that. Absolutely. I really appreciate the intentional design choices that put tension into this game.

And specifically, I'm talking about the card row for purchase that slowly shifts from item to artifact, as well as all of the bonus tokens on the temple track and at the exploration sites and how both of these things really pressure players to race against each other. Right. That's a good point. I had the combination of deck building and multi-use cards. I mean, that is just chef's kiss for me.

We need more games that have that combination of mechanisms in them because I really enjoy several of them that we've tried already. I was going to comment on that. So, I mean, there's really two games that are doing that well, Dune Imperium and Lost Ruins of Marnac, and we happen to love those games. So I'm wondering if we're going to see more of that, just like the big deck energy games that, you know, Wingspan, Terraforming Mars, Arc Nova, that it's like they created this new genre of game.

And so we're starting to see more and more fun games that are in that similar genre. And I wonder if we'll start to see more along this based on the success of these because I really enjoy that combination of mechanisms. I think we will. I don't know if we will because, I mean, it's been around for a while. Like Mage Knight, I think, was the first one that I fell in love with. And that's from the 2000s. Yes, that's true.

But there is a game in the side of the universe that just released called Expeditions, and it has a lot of these same mechanisms. It has these two key ones for deck building and multi-use cards, and it's doing well. I think there's growing recognition that these two have good marketing power. Do you put Gloom and or Frosthaven in that same bucket? If you combine those two, the answer is going to be yes.

Like if you say it's deck building and multi-use cards, and you do that search, you will get Gloom and Frosthaven back. But Gloomhaven has deck construction. It doesn't really have the deck building that through the course of one play of the game where you're building and then it doesn't have work replacement. I see.

Okay. This is like, you know, we were going along for a long time where after Dominion, we've got this concept of deck building where you're building the deck throughout the course of the game. And then we had work replacement starting from wherever that started. And then it was like, you got your chocolate and my peanut butter. Like you got your deck building in my work replacement game. Like no, you got your work replacement in my deck building game.

And they married so well together in these two games that I feel like I'm hoping we're going to see an explosion, but a few more just great games with this mechanism combination. Got it. Not a lot of games with that specific combination. You throw a work replace on it, it gets even smaller. So what feature of the game now disappoints, if any? I wish the temple track was detached from the board in the base game. Interesting.

Okay. I'm disappointed now, especially that I have these new temples that I cannot play the snake temple with the bird exploration side or the bird temple with the snake exploration side. Oh, I see. In the base game? Yeah. The snake side has a level one site that you need a plane to get to. It has level two sites that require multiple boots. There's totally different travel costs on each side of the board. So there are combinations that you can't play together. Right.

I mean, it's just a nitpick. It's not a big deal, but yeah. Yeah. I'm sure you could print one of them out and use it. If I really wanted to. Right? Yeah. But the other four tracks are overlays that you get from the expansions. That works out well. But yeah, so there's really only two combinations that you can't do. Correct. Yeah. Okay. The other game that disappoints me is it's really daunting to set up.

I mean, there have been times for the solo game where it's not too late into the night and I'm thinking, you know what, I might play some Lost Ruins. And I think about getting it out, setting it up, taking up the entire table and I'm like, you know, I'm just going to go read a book instead. It's really daunting. And I've got a pretty good organizer in there, you know, holding my bits together. So I've done a good job making it easy to set up, but it's still kind of a bear. Right.

In the table space. I mean, that's a little distraction. But what's it set up? I love it. Interesting. Yeah. I've even thought about getting an organizer for this game because I have my stuff in bags and there are bags upon bags of components in there. So I agree with that. For me, it was how the Temple Track dominates the play. And I think that the lack of variability there in the base game is a little unfortunate. However, I think the expansion solves it.

I think the leaders expansion and what it brings with additional Temple Tracks solves my only nitpick. Did Lost Ruins replace a previous game for you? I'm going to go ahead and say no. And that Lost Ruins and Dune Imperium can definitely coexist. So that was the candidate? No, that's just my opinion. Yeah, Lost Ruins for me is almost replaced Mage Knight. It really scratches the same itch. But the reason it's slowly replacing it is because Mage Knight is twice as overwhelming to set up and play.

Yeah. Right. So Lost Ruins is just far more approachable and I can play it online. That's the big one. My initial thought is that this is just replacing the traditional work replacement game for me. You know, Agricola, Kalis, Village or something like that. That I like having this marriage of mechanisms that we talked about. But I wasn't playing those games as much these days anyways. So it's hard to say this replaced it.

But I think it's a direct replacement on some level just as far as weight and the group that you might play it with is that it's kind of been replacing Wingspan. It's kind of the same level of setting it up. It's the same depth, maybe a little deeper than Wingspan. Wingspan might lean a little more family oriented. But if we brought both of those out, I would probably vote for Lost Ruins right now. Whereas a few years ago, Wingspan would fit that a little bit better, I think. Right.

Okay. So has this game since been replaced? And if so, by what, Dave? Well, I mean, not really. I don't really have anything that is this kind of experience there. Like we've talked about Dune Imperium's kind of, you know, set up shop on the same corner. But there's room in my heart for both of them. So it hasn't been replaced, especially with the missing expansion just coming out that it's pretty hot on my list right now. Right. Paul? Yeah, definitely not. Yeah, I agree. Nope, not at all.

So soundtrack, what music would you like to listen to while playing? Honestly, I wouldn't mind listening to some ambient nature sounds. Like a jungle or some other soundscape, but I can't think of another game that fits better with John Williams' Indiana Jones scores. Right. Scoop of vanilla, scoop of chocolate. Don't waste my time. Well I agree with that. But at the same time, when you get outside of the, you know, the famous hook, it's a movie soundtrack.

So there's a lot of discordant noises and screams and adventure sound. I mean, it's a little intense to try to have that playing while you listen. I mean, think of the ride, the Indiana Jones ride in Disneyland, if you've been on that. Like it's, there's a lot going on to try to play a game too. So my answer is actually the same as Paul's. I want some ambient jungle noises. Some you know, monkeys making noises in the background and bird noises and whatnot. I think that's perfect for this.

Okay, interesting. Well, I'm sticking to Raiders of the Lost Ark. And by the way, it is Raiders of the Lost Ark, not Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Showing your age, Dave. I know, I know. Another rating on board game Geeks scale of one to 10, no decimals. How do you rate Lost Ruins of Arnak? I have it rated as a seven. It used to be at a five, but several plays have made me realize how interactive it can be, which I like. Excellent.

Yeah. I remember when we first played it, you were a little underwhelmed and it actually makes me happy to see you kind of coming around to it. I rated it a little bit higher. To me, it's an eight and that might just be recency bias as kind of I settle down after going through the campaign a few times, I might move it down. But right now it's an eight just because I'm excited to play it and I'm really having fun with it.

Well, it's interesting that we picked this order because I had it as a nine. I love this theme. This was one of my favorite themes in games. This along with Alchemists. I don't know why these two just, if there's ever an adventuring Alchemist, I think I'm probably going to be done. That'll be the last game I buy. I really enjoy it. And the tactile sensation of dealing with those bits and everything. I think the game is great. It's a nine.

If the playing time comes down to where it should be, it could even deep into the pantheon of 10 games for me. Wow. That's high praise. So last question, is it replayable? And if so, how soon would you want to revisit this game, Dave?

I mean, obviously it's highly replayable, you know, and frequently for me right now because of the missing expedition expansion, but also with the multiple temple tracks and all of the add ons that they're bringing to it with the expansions, it's getting so much variability of setup that that's really helping the replayability as well as you are getting unique experiences. You know, throw in the leaders on top of that. You're getting these fun, unique experiences every time you play.

So it's fresh. I agree. This is actually my favorite game to play on board game arena. I think it's perfect for an asynchronous board game. And so I am always in a game of Lost Ruins of Arnek right now. Wow. Okay. I think it's completely replayable and I would play it often. The one challenge I have with asynchronous games just in general is I lose my train of thought as to where I am in the game. And so oftentimes I find myself having missed a play that I wanted to take.

That's just my challenge. So I definitely prefer the in-person version of the game more, but I think it's an exquisite implementation online. Yeah, I share your challenge. That's why I've learned to leave notes for myself. Okay. Yeah. I'm trying to do that now to find out where I left my wallet. I'm kidding. I've got an Apple tag on that thing. I can find it. Throw me the whip. I'll throw you the wallet. I think we explored it well. Yeah. Just keep researching that temple.

So with that, you know, the final tablet's been uncovered for our next episode. We'll be getting the whole crew together for a Howling Good New Year celebration. Thanks for being here today, guys. I really enjoyed this conversation. It was a lot of fun. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. Thank you for listening to Replayable. Our podcast comes from listeners like you. You can find us online at Replayable.fm, on Twitter as Replayable FM, and on Instagram as Replayable FM.

You can also join our team at patreon.com slash Replayable. Thank you for your support. We welcome your feedback, which is the only way that we are going to get better. You can get in touch with us via email at feedback at Replayable.fm. And if you're interested in sponsoring us, then please contact us at sponsors at Replayable.fm.