Some somewhat subjective thoughts on #ArkNova after three plays. Overall I quite enjoyed the game, but I don’t quite think it lives up to the hype. Good enough to stay in my collection though.

The good:

✅ Solid rulebook with examples.

✅ Smooth rules. Doesn’t suffer the problem a lot of modern euros currently do where a load of extra ‘stuff’ is bolted on to the core mechanisms. So no need to teach or remember a load of edge case rules.

✅ Mostly clear iconography.

✅ Challenging decision space. Crunch comes from what you need to do, not remembering the rules.

✅ Visually appealing.

✅ Variable end game adds tension.

✅ Seems colourblind friendly to me

The neutral:

➡️ The central board is too big. It could easily be made smaller without sacrificing usability.

➡️ No text alternate for requirements one of the best things about Terraforming Mars is it clearly SAYS the requirements. The ‘partner zoo’ requirement, for example, isn’t obvious.

➡️ The scoring. Negative points after 2-3 hours doesn’t make you feel good about how you played.

➡️ End game scoring cards feel a little situational.

➡️ Upgrading some action cards feels like a waste of the upgrade action.

The bad:

❎ Some of the Sponsor cards are just too wordy and obtuse. Others just aren’t worth the space they take in your zoo. They’re far too situational.

❎ Because they’re only a small part of the massive deck that makes the above situational nature worse.

❎ Animals. Some have requirements that simply make them not worth playing unless you happen to be lucky and have the requirements.

❎ If you have a hand of naff cards you can be screwed out of a few rounds whilst you try to cycle them out. You can’t just sell cards from your hand.

❎ Massive central player board yet why the tiny icons on the reputation track?

Not played enough but I’m not sure the distribution of cards is quite right. Feels short on sponsors to me. However I get it, there has to be a lot of animals as the game is about buying a zoo. Your opening hand can have a rather large impact on how the game goes. Maybe ten would have been better than eight? I had a hand of cards that had nothing to do with the end game goals. My wife’s had a opening hand of animals with tough requirements.

‘Snapping’ is much more important than we gave it credit though. One good card is better than 2-4 bad ones.

Anyway if you’ve read this far and have played the game, let me know if I’m barking up the wrong tree. If you haven’t played the game and have ordered a copy, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it. We did but play three was a tad rough (a lot of the ‘issues’ above showed up in that play)