Ancient Knowledge

• Designer: Remi Mathieu
• Publisher: IELLO
• Players: 2-4
• Age: 12+
• TIme: 30 min/player
• Played with review copy provided by Flat River Group

Heirs to an exceptional knowledge that has survived the ages, it is now up to you to preserve the vestige of your civilization.  Ancient Knowledge is a strategic card game in which you erect monuments and build artifacts to pass on your knowledge. Time will make your constructions ephemeral,so make the right decision and combine the many cards at your disposal, because all knowledge is doomed to disappear…

It’s up to you to find the best synergy so that you can pass down knowledge before the decline of the emblematic monuments you have constructed, monuments we still find nowadays in the four corners of the globe. From Mexican pyramids to the Sphinx of Giza, passing through the famous cities of Tiwanaku and Babylon, only the cleverest builder will shine through the ages and seize victory. In this game, your only enemy is time. Prove to your opponents that you are the worthy representative of your Legacy! Will your monuments withstand the trial of time?

To set up the game, each player gets a player board – with room on the board for artifacts.  Players will need room around their board, as space to the left will hold lost knowledge, space above it will be used by active monuments, and space to the right used for Technology cards.  Each player gets a starting hand: either a 6-card predetermined starting deck, or 10 randomly dealt of which 6 are kept.  The technology tiles are placed on the table and 3 cards of matching level are placed on each.

The game is played in a number of rounds until at least one player has 14 monuments in their Past (to the left of the player board).  Play rotates around the board, with each player taking a 3 phase turn: Action, Timeline, Decline.

In the Action phase, the player takes 2 actions from this list; possibly doing the same one twice:

A] Create A Monument or Artifact.  For Monuments, play a Monument card from your hand, paying the cost in cards as stated. Put it on the designated starting space, though many cards will allow you to discard cards to change the starting space. Put knowledge tokens on the card as directed.  If there is an immediate (lightning bolt) effect, resolve it.  When you place cards, you can only have 2 cards per space, always placing as close to the board as possible.  For Artifacts, play an Artifact card to one of the empty spots on your board.

B] Learn. Choose an available Level I or II Technology card; you must be able to meet the requirements on the card.  Place the card in the appropriate slot to the right of your board.  After your draw, if there is only one Technology card left in a row, discard the remaining one and then draw three new cards.

C] Excavate. Rotate any number of upright cards in your Past and draw 2 Builder cards for each.   You cannot ever have more than 10 cards in your hand.

D] Archive. Discard knowledge tokens from monuments in your timeline.  To do this, you must discard one card from your hand for each token discarded.

E] Search. Draw a single card from the deck.  You cannot ever have more than 10 cards in your hand.  The rules explicitly say that only fools will do this often.

In the Timeline phase, apply the effects of each card in your play area that has a Timeline phase icon on it.  You can choose the order in which you resolve these cards.

The turn ends in the Decline phase.  First take care of the cards in the #1 space of the timeline, then going to #2 and so on until #5.  When you decline cards, first resolve any Decline effects they might have. Then, move the card one space to the left (into the Past if from space #1, and any knowledge on the card goes into the Lost Knowledge pile).  If there are 2 cards in this space, you can choose the order in which to Decline them.  Check to see if you are the first player to have 7 or 14 cards in the Past, this will trigger a Technology change or the end of the game.  Now decline space #2, moving the cards all to Space #1, etc.

The next player now takes their turn.  At the end of the round (when all players have played the same number of turns), check to see if the game ends – if at least one player has 14+ cards in their Past.  If so, the game moves into final scoring:

• VPs for each Monument card in your past
• VPs from endgame card effects in your past
• VPs on your Level II Technology cards
• 1VP per each Monument card in your active Timeline
• -1VP for each Lost Knowledge

The player with the most points wins.  Ties broken in favor of the player with fewer lost Knowledge tokens.

My thoughts on the game

If you like games that let you discover and implement all sorts of card action combinations – this is the game for you!  I generally like that sort of game, and I was very interested in trying this one out.   There are so many cards in the game, and after a few plays, I still discover new cards and combos in each game.  I love that part of the game – and it does keep me looking forward to the next one.

The technology cards provide some interesting strategies – often giving end-game bonuses which then help you direct your later decisions.  As with many games, I do like getting a few of these early on so that I can try to achieve the endgame scoring bonuses.  Beware – I feel that some of them are better than others, so with some experience, you’ll figure out which ones provide more points for the effort.  As the technologies are available to all players in an open tableau though, this perceived imbalance doesn’t bother me at all – if everyone thinks it is a bad card, it will eventually be discarded when it is the last card left in the row.

For similar reasons, the Artifact cards often interest me early on as many of them give you more strategic options either in helping you play monuments or giving bonuses.  That being said, if you concentrate too much on artifacts and technologies, you’ll not get as many Monuments played, and that is really the name of the game.

The game has an interesting balance of figuring out where to place your cards to get the best effect.  To the right – you may get more actions out of it – or give yourself more time to remove the knowledge tokens from them.  To the left, the card falls into the Past faster (and, you might be trying to accelerate the end of the game).  Cards in the past are also very useful for drawing new cards.  You might want it in a specific slot due to adjacencies that trigger bonuses.  You will constantly be assessing where you want to play the cards (and, of course, your hand size may also dictate what you are able to do…)

The artwork in the game is pleasing to me, with individual art for each card.  The icons are easy to follow as well.  There is a one-card player aid that sums up the game; and really, the rule structure is pretty simple, so you likely won’t need to refer to this much at all.  

Game length though is the one area that I wonder about.  For me, the game lasts a bit on the long side, and I admit that some of this may be due to the fact that I have had at least one new player in every game that I’ve played..   Even for people who don’t suffer from AP, there are turns where there is just a LOT to be considered. You might have a hand of 10 cards, there are 9 possible technologies to consider, there are monuments and artifacts on the player board – all of these have interactions that you might need to consider.  While the game says it plays up to four players, I think that I’ll personally stick to a max of 3 to limit the downtime, especially near the end of the game.  Of course, YMMV.  (FWIW, the designer has said that he feels the game shines at 2p – https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3191072/article/43291240#43291240 )

That aside, I do really enjoy the challenge of trying to figure out what I want to do on my turn.  It is fun (for me, at least) to have to synthesize the different actions/abilities and come up with a plan.  There are so many cards that I’ve been pleasantly surprised by at least one combo in every game that I hadn’t seen before – and I am guessing that with more experience, I’ll be able to find more ways to make some of the cards work together.  I plan to play this more in the months to come.

Thoughts from other Opinionated Gamers

Mark Jackson (1 play): If you like card combos, have I got a game for you. There are oodles of ways to create combinations in Ancient Knowledge… enough that it becomes a sequencing puzzle in addition to figuring out what to put together. There’s been some noise/irritation online about the “take that” elements of the game… and while those are present, I don’t mind them because (a) they aren’t game-destroying, and (b) without them, it would be multiplayer solitaire. The decline mechanic at the heart of the game is really neat. (Note: they have already announced an expansion with more cards – some which will replace the “take that” cards that have bothered others – and a solo mode.)

I do share Dale’s concern about potential downtime (though our 3 player game of all newbies kept a decent pace)… and I think that two-player is probably the sweet spot for the design.

Nathan Beeler: To be fair to the game, I’ve played it once with 4 players, which sounds like a suboptimal number. Indeed, it was a suboptimal experience. Publishers: if a game is crappy at a certain number, remove that as a possibility. You’re doing yourselves no favors. I’m not sure the game is for me, anyway, despite Dale’s claim (I do generally love games that let me implement card action combinations–which is why I sought this out). My main complaint was that the range of possible activities was completely uninspiring. A few weeks removed now, all I remember doing was gaining or losing knowledge from cards. It needed a few more vectors, even for a fairly simple card game. It was also highly tactical, which I think led to all the down time. Forget planning for a special power, since it likely would get taken or flushed before your next turn. Oh, and Mark reminded me of the take-that aspect, which also was not fun. Bah! This was not the worst game I played at Messen, but it was the most disappointing.

Dan B. (2 plays): I agree it’s best with two players, primarily because of the downtime but also because it obviously limits the number of take-that cards that can affect you. Even with two I don’t like it all that much; while I like puzzly games, this is basically just the same puzzle over and over with small variations. Both times I played I got rather bored of it before it ended. It would presumably go faster if everyone had played before, but there’s a limit to how fast it can be played because of the inherent complexity of the card combinations.

Alan H: I’ve played Ancient Knowledge 4 times with different groups.  Each game has been 2 or 3 players. I prefer 2 players as the interaction is cleaner – you don’t have to decide between other players – and it’s quicker.  I like the options that are presented, but you may not get combinations to create so the way forward is to gather more cards. This will present you with far more ways to make progress.  Opinions of people I’ve played with have been sharply divided. Some love it and others don’t want to play again. I think this is highly linked to how the cards come out and if it’s your first game, it really influences your opinion.  My own view is that after 4 games I’m happy to play again, though ideally in 2 player games. Scores can vary considerably as the pace of the game changes if one person wants to get 14 monument cards in the past as quickly as possible. I think there are many ways to play but you have to recognise that the way the cards come out can dictate how you play depending on your decisions. Only experience of several games may yield these options.

Tery:  I do like card combo games, but this one fell flat for me. I didn’t feel like I had enough time or control to create any combos in my 4 player game, and the game took a really long time. I mostly just felt frustrated. I will perhaps try it again with 2 or 3 to see if that improves my experience.

Ratings from the Opinionated Gamers

• I love it!
• I like it. Dale, Mark Jackson, John P, Eric M, Steph H, Alan H, Ryan P
• Neutral. Craig M., Dan B. (2 players), Simon W, Tery
• Not for me…Nathan Beeler, Dan B. (3-4 players)