This is definitely a game that rewards multiple, multiple plays (as are all of Cole Wehrle's games). Having restrictions on the card plays gives a fun puzzle to work around - if you got to always use all of the pips on all of your cards then sure you get more actions, but then it literally is just luck of the draw with your hand. Having the cardplay and ability to control the initiative and lead suit means that even if you draw a hand with fewer pips then you can still influence what other people can do, instead of just falling behind on actions. It's way less lucky this way, even if it feels like you are "doing less" - which is only relative to the other players so isn't actually true. In a 3 player game, it's actually mathematically impossible to go a full chapter without having at least 1 chance to seize the initiative, and in 4 player it's probably technically possible with the right court cards that show up at the exact right time for one person to not have a chance, but that would be at most 1 chapter out of the game, and is so unlikely that it's not worth basing an evaluation of the game on. So you always have a chance to seize and if you choose not to then that's your call. Arcs rewards good play and punishes bad play, and is a different enough action system that it definitely takes time to wrap your head around and to grasp what constitutes "good" gameplay. This means that some people will play once or twice and bounce off, but to me the idea that I can actually get better at a game by playing it more, and that it uses mechanics that no other game I own does, makes it so much better and more interesting to me. What value is there in a game that is shallow enough that the first time you play it you can master it? What value is there in a game that has such familiar mechanics that you might as well just play a different game you are already familiar with that does the same thing? Arcs is weird and different and it can lead to some feel-bads in the first couple games as players figure out what they're doing, but in my opinion it gets better every time you play, and allows for some of the most satisfying moments as you get better and have lightbulbs go off when you discover a way to work around a problem you previously thought was impossible due to "bad luck". Sure there's luck in the game, but literally all instances of it is able to be mitigated and/or worked around, and the player that plays the best game will win 95% of the time regardless of their luck in the game. To me that's the sign of a great game. Not everyone will agree though, of course. There's so much more I could go into with this game but I'll stop myself here.
Great video. Sounds like your friend sort of gave up. No dig on them, but I think the game can feel unwinnable when it’s really not. Especially because every hand feels bad. I had a 4 player game where I had 1 ship on the board early chapter 2 and managed to eek out a victory through other means (I never had more than 2/3 ships the rest of the game beyond that. A couple select raids and focusing on influencing the court cards and of course some blind luck with the ambitions got me the win). Definitely agree, the actions in this game are tight. And I think really that’s the key factor making this game a miss for some people versus praise from others. Almost like Agricola is tight while something like Caverna which is much less so.
I have played it twice and enjoyed both my plays. Is it the best game ever, not to me, but it is a good solid game that brings a very unique and different way to play an area control game. I have talked to many people that say the game truly shines in the campaign. I liked it, and more than happy to play it, but do not feel compelled to own it currently. I currently still enjoy Root better.
Agree 100% played twices and thiught it was a good game but definitely felt over hyped . also a very beautiful game but Leder games always delivers in that aspect . Definitely don't think it's on same level of Root
@@MrXmancruz3056 I loved both so idk. I'd be happy to play either. But if you're looking for asymmetry out your ears, politicking, and negotiation, campaigns where it's at. But at the cost of way more rules, and obviously 3 games length. So that's why I still am hesitant to advise it
So I've had a brilliant time with it. So far my casual gamers that I've put it in front of get frustrated with it because of how mean it can be. I'm hoping to put it in front of some more series gamers to see their take. I'm hoping it's fun for them because I really like it so far. I really love turning a pivot into an amazing play by dumping a ton of resource tokens on it. I like the really cool things that lore cards do to break the rules of the base game. I would love to break into the campaign but need to get someone to sit down and play it with me. I can totally see how it will turn people off since it is designed to be a high conflict game and is very zero sum.
Really great coverage Bryan. I got to play this at GenCon and had the same reservations on the trick taking but you touched on a few other aspects that I didn't even consider and I was like "whoa... that really could happen". On the other hand, Leder games do generally reward player groups with repeated plays, so maybe the deathball situation would be avoided by experienced players because of how risky it is. I think my general thoughts on the game is, I had fun, but it has a bit too much randomness with the cards + dice rolling to justify the length of the game. A game is 5 chapters and it was taking us about 30-40 minutes per chapter for our first game. We wrapped it up midway through though. Do you recall how long it took for you plays?
Our 3 player games felt good at 1hr30~ 4 player dragged and was closer to 2hr30. I think the game played best at 3 for us, but I enjoy the larger galaxy and feeling of being cramped together on the 4p set up.
All fans of Arcs are listening to the critiques and shaking their head. The hook of the game is brainstorming creative workarounds to staying competitive with what everyone else is doing in spite of what your cards give you. If it didn't have those trick taking mechanics it would feel like so many other games.
Best thumbnail yet!😂 It's so convincing, i felt like i didn't even need to watch the video! I'm glad i did, though. The fact that this is a game that you continue to think about, even when it's not in front of you, speaks volumes about the quality of it's construction. Those are the types of games that usually last in my collection. P.S. it sounds like "Dave" did it to himself with his wrecking ball tactic (yes, I use people's names...even if it means i have to make them up)
@@jeisenmann1I don’t know that “elevates” is the correct term. It mutates it, evolves it? The base game is snappier and to-the-point, where as the Campaign is more experimental.
I think this a simple case of try to forget that first game you were playing the rules wrong. Sometimes their are rules in games to simply balance the game out, and in this case (though I never played the game myself), the way you were playing in the first game completely breaks the point of the trick-taking mechanic. When I first played Gloomhaven, my group would pick up gold piles whenever we moved through a space with the gold. Then we found out we were playing wrong, and the person who ended their turn on the gold got the gold. This completely bummed out everyone in my game group because for them the game was less fun because they were getting less gold to buy items. However the mechanic is in place to balance the game, and not make the game too easy by having everyone fully equipped with the best gear.
Long story short: yes it is. If you are looking for a good mind puzzle, with often-narrow room for manoeuvre and high interaction among players, that's what Arcs is. If you are instead searching for a full immersion in a lore, or for a full emotional engagement in a space opera, you might get disappointed. This because the rules at the base of the game system are just abstract mechanical shenanigans that make everything work, but that don't represent/evoke much the setting. While playing, most of the time you will find yourself worried about card suits (or the number/ pips printed on them), rather than being immersed in the game setting. For me, when looking for that kind of experience, the "briscola" card game is more than enough.
Thanks for this great coverage! Arcs is a complex game and it might take a while for folks to understand its nuance. And even then, it may not work for everyone. Regarding your concerns on the trick taking and initiative, remember that you can play an extra card to seize the initiative. You don't have to surpass.
High highs and low lows I think is fairly accurate. It's not a feel good game all the time. The decisions really matter, and there can be dire consequences to them. If you're not sold on the base game I'm not sure the campaign will save it for you. It is very different and cool but it's still Arcs. I'd say only buy the campaign if you love Arcs cause it's harder to table due to complexity and length.
"At it's core...ARCs is a trick-taking game." This drives me nuts. Only if you have zero understanding of what trick-taking is. Nobody is collecting the cards when you "win" the "trick". I just played El Grande the other night and we all played a power card to start the round. That's all this is -- playing a card to see how your turn will go and in what order, then discarding that card or cards. No trick taken. Sure, the suit/color is factored, but still...nope. That said, I'm not big fan of this game. It's decent for sure, but my group was pretty bored with the whole thing.
You probably won't. It's way overhyped. I kickstartered it and wish I hadn't now. I've played perhaps 10 games now, most online because my entire RL game group hates it. It's long, usually taking us about double the estimates, and generally at least one player is eliminated every game (or virtually so) no matter what, because the game incentivizes picking on the same player rather than spreading it out. It was a better game prior to some questionable design decisions. I caveat this with the fact that I haven't played the campaign because no one will play it IRL with me anymore, because "It just doesn't feel like fun."
@@chrisedwards6573How does it incentivize picking on the same person? That could be said for just about any game with interaction. If you’re talking about the person that winning, would that not also be the case in another game-keep the lead player from winning so someone else (you) have a chance at victory?
@@johnharder9925 I don't think he is talking about the winner getting attacked but the problem that arise in every area control where there is no guardrail to prevent players to keep on attacking the weakest player to get all of his/her stuff.
@@Exozik the guard rail is... Its a waste of actions. You shouldnt be wasting your time picking the near carcass of an already beaten horse. The good stuff is gone, shift course. The person who *just* took the stuff from the weaker player now looks pretty freaking juicy. And theyre ships had to leave in order to take said stuff, this juicy person should be easier to attack now. Why pick on the weak? They have nothing left to offer? I have found this true through multiple plays. If people are just picking on the weak one a victor is usually pretty obvious.
The game does not have any sort of catch up mechanism, and a bad play is punished more than once. For example you try to influence a card, you spend some action points, and then another player, influences that card even more. Next round, the card is taken by that player, so he has a cool power, and you don't, so your precious action points are used for nothing, and that's not the only punishment you should take, your tokens on the card are now prisoners, and now you are also behind on a potential scoring parameter! Most newer designs don't do that, they give the loser something in return to catch up. But I had very epic moments with settlers of catan, which also wanted players to balance the game. So I am waiting for the game, and I hope it doesn't disappoint.
"Hey guys do you mind if I just leave?" Because he's losing? Nah. That guy should never be played with again until he learns to not be a sore loser. He wasn't raised correctly.
There is more context to this than just this. he wakes up at 5am for work and it was pushing 11pm and he felt that it was over for him. I agree that I don't like someone leaving but I give him grace in that respect. The bigger issue is that this experience wasn't something that is rare and could easily occur to anyone and why I wanted to share it.
@@GameBrigade it is, games that give a broad range of options and ways to win will have exploits for sure. I just think there were probably other and better options to win that would have not completely cut someone out of the game. 1 trophy a turn seems low value anyway
The camping situation seems rare to me, in that all rolled hits must be assigned, so you're likely to eventually destroy the starport. You could roll just a single skirmish die each battle with a 50/50 of hitting the ship, but that's a pretty wasteful action in a game so defined by making efficient and smart use of the action economy.
That player, did it to himself. I had the same moment in Oros. And that player also softlock himself. Thats what happens, when you play with low complexity players.
It seems to me that your friend played badly by putting all his eggs (ships) in one basket (armada). A bad strategy through out history. A good board game shouldn´t reward bad play. No fault of the game.
This is definitely a game that rewards multiple, multiple plays (as are all of Cole Wehrle's games). Having restrictions on the card plays gives a fun puzzle to work around - if you got to always use all of the pips on all of your cards then sure you get more actions, but then it literally is just luck of the draw with your hand. Having the cardplay and ability to control the initiative and lead suit means that even if you draw a hand with fewer pips then you can still influence what other people can do, instead of just falling behind on actions. It's way less lucky this way, even if it feels like you are "doing less" - which is only relative to the other players so isn't actually true.
In a 3 player game, it's actually mathematically impossible to go a full chapter without having at least 1 chance to seize the initiative, and in 4 player it's probably technically possible with the right court cards that show up at the exact right time for one person to not have a chance, but that would be at most 1 chapter out of the game, and is so unlikely that it's not worth basing an evaluation of the game on. So you always have a chance to seize and if you choose not to then that's your call.
Arcs rewards good play and punishes bad play, and is a different enough action system that it definitely takes time to wrap your head around and to grasp what constitutes "good" gameplay. This means that some people will play once or twice and bounce off, but to me the idea that I can actually get better at a game by playing it more, and that it uses mechanics that no other game I own does, makes it so much better and more interesting to me. What value is there in a game that is shallow enough that the first time you play it you can master it? What value is there in a game that has such familiar mechanics that you might as well just play a different game you are already familiar with that does the same thing? Arcs is weird and different and it can lead to some feel-bads in the first couple games as players figure out what they're doing, but in my opinion it gets better every time you play, and allows for some of the most satisfying moments as you get better and have lightbulbs go off when you discover a way to work around a problem you previously thought was impossible due to "bad luck".
Sure there's luck in the game, but literally all instances of it is able to be mitigated and/or worked around, and the player that plays the best game will win 95% of the time regardless of their luck in the game. To me that's the sign of a great game. Not everyone will agree though, of course. There's so much more I could go into with this game but I'll stop myself here.
Great video. Sounds like your friend sort of gave up. No dig on them, but I think the game can feel unwinnable when it’s really not. Especially because every hand feels bad. I had a 4 player game where I had 1 ship on the board early chapter 2 and managed to eek out a victory through other means (I never had more than 2/3 ships the rest of the game beyond that. A couple select raids and focusing on influencing the court cards and of course some blind luck with the ambitions got me the win). Definitely agree, the actions in this game are tight. And I think really that’s the key factor making this game a miss for some people versus praise from others. Almost like Agricola is tight while something like Caverna which is much less so.
I have played it twice and enjoyed both my plays. Is it the best game ever, not to me, but it is a good solid game that brings a very unique and different way to play an area control game. I have talked to many people that say the game truly shines in the campaign. I liked it, and more than happy to play it, but do not feel compelled to own it currently. I currently still enjoy Root better.
Agree 100% played twices and thiught it was a good game but definitely felt over hyped . also a very beautiful game but Leder games always delivers in that aspect . Definitely don't think it's on same level of Root
@@MrXmancruz3056it only reaches the levels of Root/Oath in the campaign. But it's still Arcs for sure, so don't go for a campaign unless you love it.
@@analog_arnie haven't tried the campaign . But if that's where it really shines I gotta give that a shot
@@MrXmancruz3056 I loved both so idk. I'd be happy to play either. But if you're looking for asymmetry out your ears, politicking, and negotiation, campaigns where it's at. But at the cost of way more rules, and obviously 3 games length. So that's why I still am hesitant to advise it
So I've had a brilliant time with it. So far my casual gamers that I've put it in front of get frustrated with it because of how mean it can be. I'm hoping to put it in front of some more series gamers to see their take. I'm hoping it's fun for them because I really like it so far. I really love turning a pivot into an amazing play by dumping a ton of resource tokens on it. I like the really cool things that lore cards do to break the rules of the base game. I would love to break into the campaign but need to get someone to sit down and play it with me. I can totally see how it will turn people off since it is designed to be a high conflict game and is very zero sum.
Really great coverage Bryan. I got to play this at GenCon and had the same reservations on the trick taking but you touched on a few other aspects that I didn't even consider and I was like "whoa... that really could happen". On the other hand, Leder games do generally reward player groups with repeated plays, so maybe the deathball situation would be avoided by experienced players because of how risky it is. I think my general thoughts on the game is, I had fun, but it has a bit too much randomness with the cards + dice rolling to justify the length of the game.
A game is 5 chapters and it was taking us about 30-40 minutes per chapter for our first game. We wrapped it up midway through though. Do you recall how long it took for you plays?
Our 3 player games felt good at 1hr30~ 4 player dragged and was closer to 2hr30.
I think the game played best at 3 for us, but I enjoy the larger galaxy and feeling of being cramped together on the 4p set up.
All fans of Arcs are listening to the critiques and shaking their head. The hook of the game is brainstorming creative workarounds to staying competitive with what everyone else is doing in spite of what your cards give you. If it didn't have those trick taking mechanics it would feel like so many other games.
Best thumbnail yet!😂 It's so convincing, i felt like i didn't even need to watch the video! I'm glad i did, though. The fact that this is a game that you continue to think about, even when it's not in front of you, speaks volumes about the quality of it's construction. Those are the types of games that usually last in my collection. P.S. it sounds like "Dave" did it to himself with his wrecking ball tactic (yes, I use people's names...even if it means i have to make them up)
I think he was playing like a standard 4x game and this doesn't work the same
Campaign 11/10, base 8/10
What does the campaign do that elevates it from the base? I ordered just the base game.
@@jeisenmann1I don’t know that “elevates” is the correct term. It mutates it, evolves it? The base game is snappier and to-the-point, where as the Campaign is more experimental.
@@jeisenmann1It is less vicious due to the Blight and Empire and just so many more options to explore!
I think this a simple case of try to forget that first game you were playing the rules wrong. Sometimes their are rules in games to simply balance the game out, and in this case (though I never played the game myself), the way you were playing in the first game completely breaks the point of the trick-taking mechanic.
When I first played Gloomhaven, my group would pick up gold piles whenever we moved through a space with the gold. Then we found out we were playing wrong, and the person who ended their turn on the gold got the gold. This completely bummed out everyone in my game group because for them the game was less fun because they were getting less gold to buy items. However the mechanic is in place to balance the game, and not make the game too easy by having everyone fully equipped with the best gear.
this also destroyed gloomhaven for me, along with the slow pace of the upgrades and the setup
nice video!
Thank you 🙏
Arcs is out or did the store back the Kickstarter?
Store backed it. My other LGS said October for their retail release.
Long story short:
yes it is.
If you are looking for a good mind puzzle, with often-narrow room for manoeuvre and high interaction among players, that's what Arcs is.
If you are instead searching for a full immersion in a lore, or for a full emotional engagement in a space opera, you might get disappointed.
This because the rules at the base of the game system are just abstract mechanical shenanigans that make everything work, but that don't represent/evoke much the setting.
While playing, most of the time you will find yourself worried about card suits (or the number/ pips printed on them), rather than being immersed in the game setting.
For me, when looking for that kind of experience, the "briscola" card game is more than enough.
Thanks for this great coverage! Arcs is a complex game and it might take a while for folks to understand its nuance. And even then, it may not work for everyone. Regarding your concerns on the trick taking and initiative, remember that you can play an extra card to seize the initiative. You don't have to surpass.
High highs and low lows I think is fairly accurate. It's not a feel good game all the time. The decisions really matter, and there can be dire consequences to them.
If you're not sold on the base game I'm not sure the campaign will save it for you. It is very different and cool but it's still Arcs. I'd say only buy the campaign if you love Arcs cause it's harder to table due to complexity and length.
"At it's core...ARCs is a trick-taking game." This drives me nuts. Only if you have zero understanding of what trick-taking is. Nobody is collecting the cards when you "win" the "trick". I just played El Grande the other night and we all played a power card to start the round. That's all this is -- playing a card to see how your turn will go and in what order, then discarding that card or cards. No trick taken. Sure, the suit/color is factored, but still...nope. That said, I'm not big fan of this game. It's decent for sure, but my group was pretty bored with the whole thing.
the only thing more annoying than hearing “it’s a trick taking game, kind of” is people saying “it’s not a trick taking game”
we get it
I didn't liked Root and I was wondering if I would like this one better. I am not certain after your review. I'll still try it and find out by myself.
You probably won't. It's way overhyped. I kickstartered it and wish I hadn't now. I've played perhaps 10 games now, most online because my entire RL game group hates it. It's long, usually taking us about double the estimates, and generally at least one player is eliminated every game (or virtually so) no matter what, because the game incentivizes picking on the same player rather than spreading it out. It was a better game prior to some questionable design decisions. I caveat this with the fact that I haven't played the campaign because no one will play it IRL with me anymore, because "It just doesn't feel like fun."
@@chrisedwards6573How does it incentivize picking on the same person? That could be said for just about any game with interaction. If you’re talking about the person that winning, would that not also be the case in another game-keep the lead player from winning so someone else (you) have a chance at victory?
@@johnharder9925 I don't think he is talking about the winner getting attacked but the problem that arise in every area control where there is no guardrail to prevent players to keep on attacking the weakest player to get all of his/her stuff.
@@Exozik the guard rail is... Its a waste of actions. You shouldnt be wasting your time picking the near carcass of an already beaten horse. The good stuff is gone, shift course. The person who *just* took the stuff from the weaker player now looks pretty freaking juicy. And theyre ships had to leave in order to take said stuff, this juicy person should be easier to attack now. Why pick on the weak? They have nothing left to offer? I have found this true through multiple plays. If people are just picking on the weak one a victor is usually pretty obvious.
The game does not have any sort of catch up mechanism, and a bad play is punished more than once. For example you try to influence a card, you spend some action points, and then another player, influences that card even more. Next round, the card is taken by that player, so he has a cool power, and you don't, so your precious action points are used for nothing, and that's not the only punishment you should take, your tokens on the card are now prisoners, and now you are also behind on a potential scoring parameter! Most newer designs don't do that, they give the loser something in return to catch up. But I had very epic moments with settlers of catan, which also wanted players to balance the game. So I am waiting for the game, and I hope it doesn't disappoint.
Excellent point. We had several instances of situations just like this.
"Hey guys do you mind if I just leave?" Because he's losing? Nah. That guy should never be played with again until he learns to not be a sore loser. He wasn't raised correctly.
There is more context to this than just this. he wakes up at 5am for work and it was pushing 11pm and he felt that it was over for him. I agree that I don't like someone leaving but I give him grace in that respect. The bigger issue is that this experience wasn't something that is rare and could easily occur to anyone and why I wanted to share it.
Spawn camping another player is a sure way to ensure they have a terrible time
@@gregorythomasfraser it's part of the games mechanics
@@GameBrigade it is, games that give a broad range of options and ways to win will have exploits for sure.
I just think there were probably other and better options to win that would have not completely cut someone out of the game. 1 trophy a turn seems low value anyway
The camping situation seems rare to me, in that all rolled hits must be assigned, so you're likely to eventually destroy the starport. You could roll just a single skirmish die each battle with a 50/50 of hitting the ship, but that's a pretty wasteful action in a game so defined by making efficient and smart use of the action economy.
Nice review Brian. I think this thing is so overrated prolly a fine game for some peeps but not for me.
That player, did it to himself. I had the same moment in Oros. And that player also softlock himself. Thats what happens, when you play with low complexity players.
Just don’t brutalise your mate 🙄 favorite game for me the hype is real ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
It's part of the game and it isn't even an unheard if situation. Has happened in two games
Is Arcs overhyped? Yes. Next topic.
... I guess this is why I can't have a UA-cam channel.
Haha. But how do you feel about it?
@GameBrigade Not a big fan. I don't think it's garbage or anything like that, but I'd be lying if I said the game did a lot for me.
It seems to me that your friend played badly by putting all his eggs (ships) in one basket (armada). A bad strategy through out history. A good board game shouldn´t reward bad play. No fault of the game.
Deathballs work in many different war games. This one isn't that type of games even though it might appear to be
YES it is... and ugly
What makes it ugly?
Ugly???? What?????