Board Game Strategy: Grand Evaluation Theory & Lost Ruins of Arnak

This video introduces a broader method for approaching board game strategy. Specifically, I discuss evaluating the strength of actions and rewards based on the structure of those systems proposed by the game designer. I use Lost Ruins of Arnak as my first example of applying this and how you can consider different action choices.

[@Rofflemywaffle]

Just wanted to say every time I want to learn a new game on BGA, your page always has something super helpful on it. I've used your videos soooo much across so many different games. Appreciate it so much and keep it up!

[@phoenicksgaming]

That's wonderful! I'm so glad to hear that and thank you for the positive comment

[@boardgametotears]

This is excellent! I'm always impressed with the strategies you come up with.

[@phoenicksgaming]

Thank you!

[@dannyverbraeken3829]

Loved to watch your explanation. Also the first time someone explains something more about actual (possible) strategy.

[@phoenicksgaming]

Thank you! Much more to come :)

[@monkeyunit4533]

Love this breakdown. I have a similar thing in games where I am quick to understand the value of things and see the bottlenecks that need to be adressed. Great to haveit explained so well.

[@phoenicksgaming]

Thanks for the positive feedback! What are some of your favorite games?

[@monkeyunit4533]

@@phoenicksgaming Dune Imperium and Ark Nova take the top spots last couple of years. I really like Arnak as well, but my regular playgroups don't seem to like it as much. btw, at the end of the video you talk about certain guardians but they don't appear on screen while it sounds like they should have,

[@donriddle6392]

KZbin’s algorithm put this video on my feed and I’m glad it did! There’s plenty of board game review/tutorial content out there but this type of in-depth strategy discussion is what interests me. Looking forward to digging into your other videos. As far as other games to do this type of analysis on, Brass: Birmingham and Ark Nova would seem like great choices. Keep up the great work!

[@phoenicksgaming]

I've got several ark nova videos out there - not specifically about this theory but strategic content still - welcome to the channel! If you haven't already I'd appreciate a subscribe :)

[@donriddle6392]

Definitely subscribed & sent a link to my friends. Now to watch those Ark Nova videos. :)

[@WeAteThem]

Love this way of thinking through gameplay. Wish more game reviewers went about using this point of view.

[@phoenicksgaming]

I think some folks do, but not many have articulated it!

[@adaml8827]

This is an excellent series. It's high quality strategic board game content, which has actually been surprisingly lacking on KZbin. Would be very interesting to see more game breakdowns. Perhaps you could work through breakdowns of the top 10 most popular strategy games on boardgame geek? My personal favorite games are feast for odin, splendor and caylus which I am sure you could apply this concept to.

[@phoenicksgaming]

Thank you kindly! I've been meaning to return to theory discussions, but I also like this idea of deep diving a specific game - thanks for the concept!

[@admscotty704]

Please do Grand Evaluation Theory on Great Western Trail 2E with and without RTTN. Maybe also Lorenzo Il Magnifico.

[@phoenicksgaming]

I could certainly apply to GWT, but my RTTN limit is very limited. Lorenzo is good euro fun as well!

[@mfabruno]

Hi @Phoenicks, is it true that coins are worse? because you can also use coins to travel (2 coins 1 airplane) so I wouldn't say it gets it value devalued as the game progress, or??

[@phoenicksgaming]

This is a good point in that there is always an outlet for coins, but 2 coins for 1 travel is kinda like a 0.5 value per coin (since the game largely equates a travel icon with a single compass or coin)

[@yannisguerra]

I wish there were more "philosophy" of playing games videos or to be fair any media. The fact that you are a proven "omniwinner" gives your videos more weight too, so I hope they become the inspiration for others to follow your lead. I think part of the problem is the feeling of impostor syndrome, where you are afraid of the internet hitting you back if your strategy video is not the best or it is wrong. This is the wrong approach to it, as there is no perfect strategy, and all have caveats and limitations. You did great at stablishing from the get-go the limitations of your postulates. Again, thanks for doing this!

[@phoenicksgaming]

Wow, very kind words. I'm glad this landed well with you. You're right that the "flop factor" is real, but I've been thinking about this video series for awhile and hoped I had something of value to say. More to come!

[@thiagodonascimento7926]

Great video. Does this mean, overcoming a guardian is the action with the best vp/resource ratio? You pay resources with a value of 3, get a boon of value 1, thus net value 2, and they're worth 5 victory points. When you climb up the research track, you get less vp per resources, except for the last two steps.

[@phoenicksgaming]

I think the guardians often cost 4 (there are some exceptions like the tablet owl), so net cost of 3 for 5 victory points. I agree that this is a very good victory point ratio and killing monsters is a great value. Ofc, like all things, you'd prefer to kill monsters at the end rather than the beginning because they don't give recurring benefits, but realistically you kill them over the course of the game. Either way, yes, killing thrn is great value!

[@AndreasBolor]

Card draws are also valued two on the Idol turn ins on the player boards... as a late game choice where the decks are more powerful this makes sense.

[@phoenicksgaming]

Good point! I find myself almost never choosing that option for the idols unless I know for a fact what I'm drawing next.

[@seanconner2169]

Just a +1 to this series so far. Curious how you value things of indirect value… e.g. Arnak is full of interesting opportunity costs and tempo considerations. Should I take that valuable placement spot now, or snag a card, or grab that research track bonus?

[@phoenicksgaming]

Wonderful question, and I think probably something that is a clearly related but different main topic. You hit the nail on the head though - what is the opportunity cost? Oftentimes you can identify what you're giving up. Let's take arnak - the tempo of grabbing a single arrowhead or a single gem. The gem is naturally the obvious option, but maybe the arrowhead will let me immediately advance on the research track. If that advancement gets me to a location first where I get a bonus reward just before my opponent does, then I've created parity between the efficient gem and the inefficient arrowhead by gaining the bonus AND have prevented my opponent from gaining this bonus. That's a pretty basic example, I could open a whole can of worms with this question!

[@Jaredwilsonphotography]

I'm probably missing something... But how come you don't take into consideration the 3 compasses at lvl 1 and 6 compasses at lvl 2 into the cost?

[@AndreasBolor]

The exploration cost is covered by the idols which are 3 victory points and one resource and allow conversion of victory points into 2 resources each.

[@billtodd2194]

Huh, this is interesting to me. I have a similar rep in my group, I'm the guy who walks in to the first play of whatever and probably wins and then said edge diminishes over repeated plays. The difference being, beyond a bit of obvious valuation (2 coins vs 1 arrowhead etc) I don't do that kind of deep evaluation. I've probably played Arnak 25 times now and never noticed that the value of all I spaces were 3 and IIs were 5. I mean, I figured they were all similar, but didn't realize they were identical. I'd say instead my 2 strengths on game 1 are more about rule internalization. Usually I can remember the ruleset so while everyone else is burning brainpower remembering legal play I can be evaluating the gamestate. Tied to that is better intuitive grasp of what the game rewards doing. I'm not the kind of guy who builds 20 bridges to realize that bridges are only 10% of a score. For a game like Arnak with unlimited (and evenly balanced) actions, clearly the idea is to do more actions than your opponent. Knowing that, then I can work backwards to see how to pay for chaining things together and what that whole chain nets me. Meanwhile, a lot of newer players tend to spend everything on some single goal, like a track spot, then go, oh, oops, now I can't afford to do anything else, pass.

[@phoenicksgaming]

Makes a lot of sense. A term I came up with a while back to describe this is "vector of victory" - you're able to quickly identify what needs to be done to maximize your score!