Rules Correction: As has been pointed out, I explained Outrage improperly at the 11 minute mark. I tried to explain outrage briefly but misspoke when I said you cannot gain that resource type again in the future. You must lose all resources and guild cards of that type and are not able to use the prelude action of the outraged resource type, but you are able to collect both the resource and guild cards. My apologies to Cole and Leder Games for the improper explanation there.
You also left out the benefit you get when you destroy a city. You get to claim one court card with at least one of the defenders agents on it and take all the agents on it as trophies. Also, you stated multiple times that to Secure a court card, you need a majority of the agents on the card. You actually just need more than any other player.
Good review because I think Roy's lower score touches on what will put some people off the game. If you enjoy just making the best of the hand you are dealt, you're going to love this. Trying to figure out how to get the most out of a "bad" hand is a lot of fun. You get to feel extremely clever when you pull things off. But If you want to engage in long-range planning and have some master strategy, I just don't think this game is going to work as well for you.
I think that this is an extremely fair criticism of arcs. I think it’s a bit inconsistent for Roy because he really likes War of the Ring and recently gave Dune War for Arrakis a 10 when they use a dice action system.
@@thepudgyninja The other thing is, any game which features deep, constant player interaction is - by its nature - a tactical game. The board state is in constant flux, not by random events, but by player choice.
@@josephanderson3026 I would say that this can feel different when it's a subset of a deck (where your "bad" hand means someone else has a "good" hand) versus a set of dice (where a "bad" roll has no impact on the other person's roll). Also, there is something to be said on how different this can feel in a 2p head-to-head rather than a 3-4p scrum.
This is not a game of long term planning (primarily), it’s a game played on the edge. Bouncing off what the players around you are doing and finding the small advantages you can when the cards aren’t what you might want. I love this. A lot of people won’t and that’s fine. This game was made to be more accessible than other Leder games but it is no less (and honestly more) niche in appeal. It’s the best (for me) game that I have played in a very long time. But it’s like artificial banana flavoring. Some people will hate it and no fault to them for that.
You can play for the long term. Obviously you can't predict everything but you can work to set up a better position for later if you don't like your cards.
@@Hey_Fab you can work to open your options, for sure. But that’s VERY different than the kind of strategic planning in most euro games. It’s much more war game than it is Agricola or Trickerion and that’s something a lot of people will bounce off of.
The new audio setup in the Studio is great, but difference between it and Mike is somewhat painful. The Studio's voice sounds in really low volume compared to Mike's. Perhaps the volume level between them is similar in the console but ease of hearing their language is different.
And they could also "call out" to each person after they are done talking so as to prompt the next person to talk and they are not stepping over each other.
One thing you need to know about this game is that there are huge reversals of fortune. In the last game I won I didn’t get any points in the first two chapters. I was getting weird combinations of cards that were not getting me ambitions but it was letting me set some things up and get my cities out. At the end of the third chapter I lurched out of the gates into first place and had the lead card going into the fourth chapter. I declared an ambition that no one else had been building to and just cruised into the win.
That does not sound good. I mean, I am sure there are a lot of people who like those sort of thing in a game, but a long game like this should not have the end point depend so much on randomness, but more on planning and preparation. I am also against games where a $hitty first turn or two completely locks you out of the game, but to go from last to first simply because of luck, in long games, kinda makes it suck for everyone else who had more planning and preparation. Quite OK for shorter games where you have a good laugh when it happens, and you can run a few games in a row. But longer ones should focus more on planning than on fortune. Currently I am spending a lot of time on High Frontier (I love longer and more complex games) and I love how fortune plays a role there. In short, if you prepare well (basically, you have a slower start than others) then the fortune part is diminished. You can still roll bad, but your actions diminish the bad result. Or, you can be a daredevil and test your luck... with appropriate penalties and rewards for your "f it, we ball!" approach. But if you tell me that a game where you do everything right, you are still not getting appropriate response, and your outcome depends a lot on fortune, to the point where it can completely reverse the outcome... I can't say I like it a lot in the longer games that are, by default, more about planning and less about fortune/luck. I haven't played Arcs yet. I hear nice things about it, but I am actually not liking what I see so far.
@@Wustenfuchs109 it wasn’t luck, it was preparation. I had the card I used in chapter 2 and I had put out all of my cities. It’s more a game about scheming than luck. You prepare and wait for your opportunity. That doesn’t mean you would like it but I can tell you that there are plenty of ways to mitigate luck and the entire game I feel like my mind is glowing as a search for my way to victory. What it is not is an engine building game where you slowly grind your way to victory and once you are out in front there is no stopping you. To clarify, if you get 4 of your cities out you get +2 vp when you take 1st place in an ambition, if you have all 5 out you get +5. I created a situation where I won two ambitions in the same chapter that was 9 points on one and 10 points on the other. At any time people could have attacked and destroyed my cities but they didn’t want to outrage resources and they didn’t see it as a priority to stop me.
Great reviews! On Roy’s example of having a combat centric leader but ending up with a lack of aggression cards, prioritizing a weapons planet early can help mitigate a lot of that “bad luck” giving you weapons resources to attack regardless.
That would mitigate one very specific example, sure. People's complaints aren't so much that that example exists, but how easily many situations like that can pop up during a game. Without factoring in leaders, every chapter there's a 13% chance of not getting ANY cards of a given suit, and a 31% chance of not getting the easily played cards (4 or higher) of any given suit. That's big. That's chaotic. Whatever action you might really need, there's a 1/3rd chance that you just can't do it without extra steps and sacrifices. I understand that this is what the game is going for, but that is not something players can reliably mitigate.
@@thijsschipper6406 I would argue that not getting the action you “really need” kinda just means you left yourself in an inflexible position. Relying on getting a certain card next chapter is gonna lead to issues. Unless it’s Chapter 5 and your whole hand is construction cards, the cards in your hand (+ the resources) provide enough options for you to do OK. Just might not be what you did last chapter and might not be super obvious
@@leavemydogalone This is undoubtedly true, but it does essentially confirm the complaint: you can't even plan 1 chapter ahead, because doing so makes you too inflexible for a game like this. In my playthroughs I've seen situations like: - Get a hand that leads to combat opportunities -> do combat and clear some planets -> be completely unable to actually build anything on those empty spaces, opponents just take them back. - Build an army advantage -> be unable to actually attack with them, opponents match your army and reposition. When even a two-step plan is too many steps, there is no planning IMO. That's not wrong per se. But it is important to keep in mind I am arguing about what kind of game Arcs is, not what playing Arcs well requires.
@@joeferreti9442 It works quite well actually, my only plays have been 2-player so far. Seems a bit more aggressive, since you have, I assume, more control over the trick-taking section of the game.
If I had a hand that was just one suit I would know that I could either surpass when the suit came up or seize and then keep it until someone else seized even if I declared an ambition. Having a hand that is one suit is not a problem.
I only played once and it was around 4 hours. It felt like a long walk for a small drink of water. Too long for me to play again at a public board game night but i would try again if a friend invited me over to play this game specifically. It definitely takes multiple plays to really grasp some strategy. Having played Last Light the previous week, I couldn't help but compare the two. With Last light being easier to teach and play i would always strongly prefer it, although the games clearly offer different experiences. I don't think Leder games are for me. We all end the 4 hour game still unaware of a good strategy. Perhaps we lack the brain power necessary lol.
No shame in knowing your preference is not with the visible majority. I appreciate your comment as I do feel other comments are discouraging or even dismissive of not 'getting' the game I do admit the good Leders game bring to the hobby, but that doesn't mean we all need to force ourselves to enjoy them.
Nice review and good discussion. I disagree with a lot of what Roy said and I sort of wish Chris/Mike pushed back not to argue but rather discuss how seizing the initiative, copying and prelude actions address it. Tricktaking techniques aside the weapon prelude action allows you to battle with all of your pips, it specifically works differently from all the other resources precisely to allay what Roy was saying (interestingly, Roy himself didn't run into the problem he just coopted the complaint from the other players). Small correction that Mike says Leaders are an expansion, but the base box does come with leaders and lore there is a small expansion that adds more but there are leaders playable from game 1 (though the rulebook suggests a game without them first.) I hope you get a chance to review blighted reach and I hope Roy comes back for it because I'd love his thoughts on the added narrative almost roleplaying like elements it adds as I think his love for space games will give him a ton to talk about there regardless of my disagreement with his review here :)
I'm surprised so many first impressions come out of it thinking this is only adjacent to trick taking. I agree that mechanically, yes the trick taking is MUCH looser to alleviate how restrictive your decisions on the board will actually be. But I can't shake off the FEELING that comes from trick taking games. The twists and turns of unexpected tempo, wrong hand reads and having to make the best of what's given. Yes, it's mechanically adjacent, but the game hits the same beats nonetheless in the context of the board and the player actions.
I don't typically like trick taking, but there have been exceptions (Skull King & Tidal Blades Banner Festival). I'll have to give this one a try before I buy, even with the glowing reviews.
@@taxidriver45 It use the design language of trick taking to do something different than trick taking. That said, some trick taking skills, like the ability to count cards, are really helpful.
I think Roy brings up some very valid points - this is definitely not a game for everyone. It's funny because I typically don't like PvP fighting and area control games, but somehow this game uses these mechanics differently. The reason is because the goal isn't to obliterate your opponents from the map like Risk. Instead, you're aiming for the ambitions, so you use PvP and area control as a tool to achieve them. Like you guys, I really enjoy the card play, the battle dice, and I especially enjoy the fast pacing of the game. Even though this is a very different game from what I'm used to, I just love it and can see it becoming my favorite game of 2024 - maybe my favorite game of all time. So much fun.
Good, focused review. Arcs does reward players for being adaptable to the evolving board state and abandoning a preliminary strategy that's failing in favor of a plan that does. A player's tempo is irregular at best, and while the prelude actions can compensate for this to a degree, other players will use their prelude actions to frustrate your plans. It's an excellent game, but not one that will appeal to everyone who will not/cannot invest the time in strengthening their mental flexibility to whatever circumstance supports a scoring opportunity.
@@thijsschipper6406 I think you have misinterpreted my observation. What I wrote was an acknowledgment that our "leisure time" is limited and some players will actively choose a different game that doesn't require a significant investment to navigate their own path of gameplay optimization.
@@Mahler1988 Roguelites don't really do it for me. I gave the game a full Steam refund period to wow but I struggled to get through two hours of rinse repeat.
complaints about this for "its luck base" is kinda sad, theres a lot of mitigation in the game and i dont understand how they come up to that conclusion, just won a game with more copy action than lead and the options i have is a lot.
Especially how often I've heard reviewers like Roy mention not being able to fight because of being dealt the "wrong" cards when the weapons resource is specifically designed to work differently from every other resource's prelude action to allow for this.
@@lainvohndyrec962 Plus with a game that has so few guard rails between players, luck doesn’t matter a whole lot. Much like Root, Oath, and John Company; you’re playing the players around the table as much as you are playing the hand you’re dealt.
This game has so many ways of mitigating luck its crazy. I understand that not everyone will love this game but as soon as I hear that during a review it makes me question their whole opinion
I feel like all three of us talk about the mitigation mechanisms throughout the review, the resources, seizing initiative, copying actions, etc. But there's still undoubtedly luck in the deal of the cards; to not bring that up would be silly.
Disagree. These mics are supposed to sound better than lavs, but this setup doesn't. I know the previous setup with the lavs was picking up way too much background noise (sometimes it was so bad I'd just end the video), but at least everything sounded better when people weren't laughing in the next room. I'm not enough of an audio expert to know exactly what's wrong here, but something is off.
Ahh. I think I figured it out. Listening more I wondered, why does Chris sound so much better than Roy. So I watched them talk and Chris is talking into the mic as he should whereas Roy keeps moving his head around mostly not talking into the mic. Maybe there's something else wrong too, but if they train Roy to talk into the mic then it'll probably sound better.
Chris, it’s commendable that you managed to give such a comprehensive walkthrough of this game is such a short time, but I’m afraid it did a disservice to both the game and to you as a games teacher, because you got quite a few things wrong - including a MASSIVE one at 11:14, when you were explaining Outraging. When a player destroys a city, they Outrage the resource type of the planet that city was in, which means they immediately discard all resources and guild cards of that type, and also lose access to the prelude action associated with that resource type for the rest of the game. But, *crucially*, they are *not* prevented from later getting more of that same resource, or securing other guild cards of that resource type. This may sound like a minor oversight, but it would completely break the game if it worked as you described: a player who Outraged any resource other than weapons would be _completely unable_ to compete on the associated ambition for the entirety of the game, very likely taking them out of the running to win. It would have been a horribly designed mechanic. - I could mention other rules mistakes you made in your teach, but I guess a more useful piece of feedback would be: if you’re doing simple game overview, do not get into the weeds of the rules. Just saying “outraging a planet type sets you back on competing for that resource and causes you to not be able to discard that resource for its action” would have been more than enough.
I appreciate the feedback. I did explain that wrong while trying to be fairly brief, so I'll note the correction in the video description and in a pinned comment. __ Trying not to fall into the weeds is one of the hardest parts of doing an overview like this, and there are times I walk that line better. I'll note this one as I do hate misrepresenting games.
@@thedicetower Thank you for taking the feedback so gracefully. :) I was very happy to see you enjoyed the game so much. I know you were less struck by Root and Oath, and I’ve been saying Arcs is the most accessible and approachable of all his games. I think it will find a very strong audience, perhaps even more so than Root (which is kind of insane to think about). Root tricks into thinking it’s an approachable game due to the art, then reveals it’s an extremely dense game. Arcs does the opposite: it won’t attract as many people on visuals and theme alone, but will do a much better job on hooking up most players who try it. I believe it will take a longer time than Root did to attract as many fans as Root has, but will eventually surpass Root as Leder’s most popular game into the future. And this is coming from someone for whom Root has been their absolute favorite game of all time for the past 4 or 5 years!
All the reviews that complain about how "random" your hand is seem to forget about or downplay the ability to seize the initiative. I think people are too into the idea of it being "trick-taking" and only being able to win the hand with the highest lead suit card. Without seizing as an option, then yes there would be lots more rough hands. But since you can always have the choice to seize (you lose 1 card but usually go positive on actions), then you can control a hand and declare ambitions. Being able to declare means you can always declare something that your hand allows you to compete on. Its only if you let others dictate the chapter and you get fixated on one way to score/win that you can have hands that dont work for you. Forcing something that you dont have the means to do seems like a player issue.
Complains that "hey I gat all the same suit, I can't do what I want" seem to miss the point that you can now absolutely control the game and lead all rounds unless somebody accept to lose a round by seizing the initiative. It's a really strong position to be in, as long as you accept that the hand tells you what you need to do to score this round.
eh i thought in outrage you can still collect the resource ( 11:38 ) you just arent able to use the prelude action? yeah i was right: pg16 "Outrage: You cannot spend Outraged resources for their normal Prelude action (page 17)." "You can still tax Outraged resources and add them to your ambitions."
I like Arcs and it's the easiest Leader game to get into. However it's still a leader game and it takes a few games to understand how to really play. Bad hands can be mitigated but it's not obvious at first. And I hope they cover the expansion because while it's built on the base game it is VERY different.
@@garypkc I felt similar early on. However after teaching this 5 times to die-hard gamers and doing my best to explain these tactics and strategies I have come to the realization that this is just one of those games that becomes easier to truly understand the more you play it.
At the risk of sounding stupid and being fully aware how this suggestion could totally backfire: I would love to see either in the video description or shown discreetly on screen how many plays each reviewer had with the game. While I know it will lead to some elitists arguing that you have no right to review a game if you haven’t played it at least 35times, it could also help some more reasonable people see where the reviewer comes from and how his experience might have influenced his view. Maybe I’m wrong (again), but I feel like Roy might have gotten more « extreme » cases which lead to his opinion on how your dealt hand can determine a huge chunk of how the game plays out. II Anecdote: It reminds me a bit of how I felt frustrated and slightly annoyed at « For Northwood ». A game I would have rated a 7 after my 5th play. I was annoyed how I would use the abilities and maximize my chances and be in situations where only 1/15 cards could lose me the game, and that exact one card gets topdecked and makes me lose a round. That literally happened in my 4/5 of my games. I have since played the game 15 times and that has balanced out a lot. I had games where the exact opposite happened, and I messed ip and the right card showed up, allowing me to win a near impossible game, and others where my strategizing lead me to victory. With these additional plays, I can easily recommend the game and rate it an 8.5/10. Absolute great travel solo game. II BUT maybe I’m wrong, and Roy did play it 10+ times or even just through his experience can correctly determine how this game hits for him. I’m not undermining his opinion in any way and respect his opinion a lot in general, so in case you read this Roy, don’t be mad🙏.
I think arcs almost requires a good 3-5 games to start to really grasp the inner workings. Not to say someone should be forced to play 5 times if they really don’t like the game, however I think I’m with you there a lot of the issues I have heard come in reviews that “seem” like they could become non-issues had that person played more games. That sounds snobby and elitist and dismissive but for this game it seems to be oddly true, at least I would suspect it might be a for a lot of folks. I could also be wrong !
Just from the way he spoke in that review, it seems really clear that he hasn't played a lot. Honestly, it almost sounds as if he only played one game, with Leaders & Lore added in, which is a terrible idea for a first game (the rulebook recommends against it explicitly).
I love how everyone is agreeing with the high ratings but even a 7.5 (which is basically an 8) which is a ranking of "great game" is getting slammed as misguided or wrong. I foresee this Arcs being one of those games with die-hard fanatic fans. All expectations will be tempered given the designer's list of games from experience. When it comes to luck and mitigation however, remember there are essentially 3 tier's of players during a game that has a heavy luck element. 1 - those who get lucky 2 - those who aren't lucky but have a degree of mitigation 3 - those who aren't lucky and have no mitigation This in itself creates a tier system of who's doing well in the game at any one time. Someone in Tier 1 who doesn't have to spend extra effect to deal with a bad draw or bad "anything else" is in a natural better position than someone in Tier 2 who has to spend time/resources, etc to bring themselves back up to Tier 1's level.
@@TheBrokenMeeplebut the fact it’s hyped sounds like it means you are far less open to it actually being a good game. It really is ok to like a game that is receiving a lot of buzz….you are not obligated to be a dissenting voice just to be different
@@TheBrokenMeeple I'll be interested in what you think about it after playing. Based on watching playthroughs and knowing the rules (note, I haven't yet played) it doesn't really feel like trick-taking at all. It's a card based action selection system where you gain some knowledge / benefit from knowing what has been played (except not all cards are in play and some are face down). But other than the terminology of "following suit" or not there's really nothing that feels trick-taking about it. I suppose you can consider discarding an extra card to Seize the Initiative as being similar to the idea of playing a trump card but the mechanism (playing an extra card) and impacts (losing one of your turns in the chapter) are completely different than anything you'd find in trick-taking. I'm definitely interested in playing and thinking there's a good chance I'll find it challenging and fun but for reasons other than it having a "trick-taking" element. I think putting emphasis on that mechanic will end up putting people off when they see how the card play actually works. That's why I'll be interested in seeing how you feel about it.
I don’t see anything bad about hype over a good game. Hype might even improve the experience of a great game or movie or whatever because there’s the buzz of the zeitgeist while engaging in the activity. It emphasizes the social aspect that’s present in any media. This is why hype over things you dislike can feel alienating. The hype over Arcs before it released came from the two cults (Cole Cult & Cult Leeder). Today, the hype is from that plus its largely positive reviews. These reviews, hopefully, contain reasons for why the game is good or not. The reasons given can be affirmed or countered by other people, but the hype is the hype and to understand it is to understand the social-causal chain that lead to it. One can’t stare at a piece of media and divine the source of the hype. It’s a sign of poor criticism if the reviewer “can’t see/understand the hype,” in something, because they ought to know it’s not right there in the first place. If there’s hype around a bad game, usually there’s no mystery why there’s hype. But what makes that game good or bad is something a critic is well equipped to deduce and articulate.
Roy- It feels super unfair needing to play the hand you are dealt. Also Roy- I'm really good at playing the hand I'm dealt and crushed everyone I played against...ok bro... -_-
I found "Root" pretty bad, but "Oath" relatively good despite its extreme King Slaying/Making nature. "Arcs" seems pretty weak to me because the trick-taking structure is too limiting and luck-dependent. Additionally "Arcs" has less moving parts and variability than "Oath" which is a step in the wrong direction.
To be clear, we give games the score we want to in our reviews. We've given high and low scores that people have grumbled about but we give our opinion on it. A score of a 7 is a recommendation, and Roy stated this is a game he can recommend to people.
@@thedicetower On BGG there is a clear scale of what each rating means. Does DT have a similar thing, I know 7-8 is approval and 8.5-10 is excellent. What about other scores
Our group felt this game came down to who got the cards and who didn’t. (Much like most classic trick taking games) This is also what lends the game towards being so swingy with the point system that’s in place. Totally get that a lot of people love this one, but not for us at all.
@@mahuloq7562 completely agree. But the player who doesn’t HAVE to do that has almost always been the person to win (especially in rounds 3/4 since points are rear loaded).
To be honest…this game is an easy teach…? Even teaching a trick taking game some people don’t really get it (or don’t get the hook of it). This can’t be an easier teach than root. May be to clarify. What I mean is for the game to function, root is not a difficult game if you focus on what you are doing for your character. Then in subsequent games they can learn how other fractions work. But oh my this game so many little rules. It sure is a tough one to teach
Played once and really did not like how easy it was for other players to steal my stuff. Went from scoring 9 points in one round to scoring 3 and my fleets were dessimated and it is very hard to rebuild. This game rewards mediocrity because any runaway leader can be easily ganged up on. Another problem is every round can be anti climactic with the cards dealt. Too often you can get stuck with cards which don't help at all, especially at the end of the game. A pet peeve of mine is in the last two rounds a good design would allow a wide variety of options but in this game it falls flat. Plus in games where you feel ok losing if you built a lot of stuff or made accomplishments or built a strong engine or had cascading actions makes for a nice consolation. This has little to none of that. I once took a very cool guild card and before I had the chance to trigger it, someone else took it on the next turn, so the effort before was a waste. Those kinds of games are not for me.
If it's that easy for someone to steal your stuff then it should be just as easy for you to steal it back, no? And you should have ways more options in the last rounds. If you've been collecting any resources or guild cards then you are basically no longer limited by your action cards. Or if you have a strong position then you can work to limit your opponents options by forcing a specific suit. Idk
Couldn't you just draft the cards and fix this issue? Maybe it takes what, a few minutes longer? I mean if I played Brian Boru without the draft, I would be pissed too
For this game it’s not an issue to be fixed, it’s the core design of the game. That would be like asking if you could bid points for meeple placements in Carcasonne. Sure, you could, but then it’s really a different game.
Basically, the primary idea is to continually work towards setting yourself up to be able to take different types of actions (be sure that you have buildings to tax, you have starports to move, you have resources for flexibility). Of course if you're dealt cards that allow for you to make big moves, go for it. If you have a bunch of low cards, be prepared to be able to take those actions. Seize initiative if it's worth while to declare ambition or even try to set yourself up to piggyback off someone who looks like they're moving towards a certain ambition. Sometimes you will be blindsided, and sometimes your hands might truly be tied, but I think there's just enough wiggle room and options (if you focus on maintaining those options) to make most hands work for you. You do have to keep a keen eye on your opponents to figure out their ever-changing strengths and weaknesses, and you need to continually identify and rectify any of your weaknesses as well. I don't know if my assessments of strategies are correct, after just one play. But, Arcs is definitely one of those games that has me thinking about it even when I'm away from the table.
I still think you guys are fanboying over it. Like maybe it isn't a core design and just a symptom of trying to shorten the game. Drafting will also not guarantee that you always get the cards that you need, but it mitigates a hand of crap that Roy is talking about. It's not like the gamestate wouldn't change enough to the point where some of your cards would become crap anyway, even if you drafted. So it's definitely a houserule, when I get it to the table
The hype around this game is just unreal. Its crazy to see commentors wanting the reviewer with the most experience in this type of game replaced for not giving a 9+ The shills in the comments section are getting way to defensive with the slightest critique, even good ones. 7,5 is a good score. If its not, the scale is way too inflated. Replace it with a binear "GOTY / NOT GOTY"-scale then. I would argue bringing a wide array of differing opinions is more helpful for gamers (ie consumers), and TDT should get credit for it.
If the campaign counts towards the games ranking it has a very real shot. Root is top 25 and the general consensus is that this is a better game than Root.
@@justinvamp15 Root I don't think was as divisive though. And honestly root probably shouldn't be that high as it's a much more niche game. But then BGG rankings are the most broken statistic in history anyway.
I think that Tom should have been in on this one instead of Roy. I love Roy but he def has a dog in the space game race and his score being a lot lower is not a good look in my opinion.
Arcs is just very subtle and if you notice his primary complaint wasn't about his own experience (he weirdly gloated about that?) but about the experience of people he played with. All that notwithstanding I think its good for them to "try" and find a member of the team with a diff't opinion. No game is a 9-10 for everyone regardless of how good it is and I think its a strength of the Dice Tower in general that they have a studio full of reviewers.
The graphic design on this game is incredible? What don’t you like about it? I think the wood point may be a fair one but I’m not sure what you would replace it with. Plastic is the only reasonable alternative that’s slightly more on theme and in that case I’d rather have wood.
Rules Correction: As has been pointed out, I explained Outrage improperly at the 11 minute mark. I tried to explain outrage briefly but misspoke when I said you cannot gain that resource type again in the future. You must lose all resources and guild cards of that type and are not able to use the prelude action of the outraged resource type, but you are able to collect both the resource and guild cards. My apologies to Cole and Leder Games for the improper explanation there.
@@thedicetower
that is an outrage
:-P
You also left out the benefit you get when you destroy a city. You get to claim one court card with at least one of the defenders agents on it and take all the agents on it as trophies.
Also, you stated multiple times that to Secure a court card, you need a majority of the agents on the card. You actually just need more than any other player.
Good review because I think Roy's lower score touches on what will put some people off the game. If you enjoy just making the best of the hand you are dealt, you're going to love this. Trying to figure out how to get the most out of a "bad" hand is a lot of fun. You get to feel extremely clever when you pull things off. But If you want to engage in long-range planning and have some master strategy, I just don't think this game is going to work as well for you.
I think that this is an extremely fair criticism of arcs. I think it’s a bit inconsistent for Roy because he really likes War of the Ring and recently gave Dune War for Arrakis a 10 when they use a dice action system.
Which to be clear, the point I’m making is that it is hard to have long term planning when the dice dictate what actions you take
@@thepudgyninja The other thing is, any game which features deep, constant player interaction is - by its nature - a tactical game. The board state is in constant flux, not by random events, but by player choice.
@@josephanderson3026 I would say that this can feel different when it's a subset of a deck (where your "bad" hand means someone else has a "good" hand) versus a set of dice (where a "bad" roll has no impact on the other person's roll).
Also, there is something to be said on how different this can feel in a 2p head-to-head rather than a 3-4p scrum.
Thankfully Roy brings some realism to these ridiculously inflated ratings for a game with bad graphic design.
This is not a game of long term planning (primarily), it’s a game played on the edge. Bouncing off what the players around you are doing and finding the small advantages you can when the cards aren’t what you might want.
I love this. A lot of people won’t and that’s fine. This game was made to be more accessible than other Leder games but it is no less (and honestly more) niche in appeal.
It’s the best (for me) game that I have played in a very long time. But it’s like artificial banana flavoring. Some people will hate it and no fault to them for that.
You can play for the long term. Obviously you can't predict everything but you can work to set up a better position for later if you don't like your cards.
@@Hey_Fab you can work to open your options, for sure. But that’s VERY different than the kind of strategic planning in most euro games. It’s much more war game than it is Agricola or Trickerion and that’s something a lot of people will bounce off of.
The new audio setup in the Studio is great, but difference between it and Mike is somewhat painful. The Studio's voice sounds in really low volume compared to Mike's. Perhaps the volume level between them is similar in the console but ease of hearing their language is different.
And they could also "call out" to each person after they are done talking so as to prompt the next person to talk and they are not stepping over each other.
One thing you need to know about this game is that there are huge reversals of fortune. In the last game I won I didn’t get any points in the first two chapters. I was getting weird combinations of cards that were not getting me ambitions but it was letting me set some things up and get my cities out. At the end of the third chapter I lurched out of the gates into first place and had the lead card going into the fourth chapter. I declared an ambition that no one else had been building to and just cruised into the win.
That does not sound good. I mean, I am sure there are a lot of people who like those sort of thing in a game, but a long game like this should not have the end point depend so much on randomness, but more on planning and preparation. I am also against games where a $hitty first turn or two completely locks you out of the game, but to go from last to first simply because of luck, in long games, kinda makes it suck for everyone else who had more planning and preparation.
Quite OK for shorter games where you have a good laugh when it happens, and you can run a few games in a row. But longer ones should focus more on planning than on fortune.
Currently I am spending a lot of time on High Frontier (I love longer and more complex games) and I love how fortune plays a role there. In short, if you prepare well (basically, you have a slower start than others) then the fortune part is diminished. You can still roll bad, but your actions diminish the bad result. Or, you can be a daredevil and test your luck... with appropriate penalties and rewards for your "f it, we ball!" approach.
But if you tell me that a game where you do everything right, you are still not getting appropriate response, and your outcome depends a lot on fortune, to the point where it can completely reverse the outcome... I can't say I like it a lot in the longer games that are, by default, more about planning and less about fortune/luck.
I haven't played Arcs yet. I hear nice things about it, but I am actually not liking what I see so far.
Yeah. I have one gaming friend that would absolutely hate that.
@@Wustenfuchs109 it wasn’t luck, it was preparation. I had the card I used in chapter 2 and I had put out all of my cities. It’s more a game about scheming than luck. You prepare and wait for your opportunity. That doesn’t mean you would like it but I can tell you that there are plenty of ways to mitigate luck and the entire game I feel like my mind is glowing as a search for my way to victory. What it is not is an engine building game where you slowly grind your way to victory and once you are out in front there is no stopping you.
To clarify, if you get 4 of your cities out you get +2 vp when you take 1st place in an ambition, if you have all 5 out you get +5. I created a situation where I won two ambitions in the same chapter that was 9 points on one and 10 points on the other. At any time people could have attacked and destroyed my cities but they didn’t want to outrage resources and they didn’t see it as a priority to stop me.
32:14 There is quite a selection of leaders and lores cards included in the base game, the mini expansion just adds more. Great review guys.
Totally agree that the wooden pieces are more functional than the miniatures!
That and the minis are kinda ass
Will you be reviewing the campaign separately? Sorry if I missed that detail.
Well, it's a separate expansion ...
Great reviews! On Roy’s example of having a combat centric leader but ending up with a lack of aggression cards, prioritizing a weapons planet early can help mitigate a lot of that “bad luck” giving you weapons resources to attack regardless.
a 100% this. Feels like resource-actions are being underestimated in a lot of the critique of the action selection system
That would mitigate one very specific example, sure. People's complaints aren't so much that that example exists, but how easily many situations like that can pop up during a game.
Without factoring in leaders, every chapter there's a 13% chance of not getting ANY cards of a given suit, and a 31% chance of not getting the easily played cards (4 or higher) of any given suit. That's big. That's chaotic. Whatever action you might really need, there's a 1/3rd chance that you just can't do it without extra steps and sacrifices.
I understand that this is what the game is going for, but that is not something players can reliably mitigate.
@@thijsschipper6406 I would argue that not getting the action you “really need” kinda just means you left yourself in an inflexible position. Relying on getting a certain card next chapter is gonna lead to issues.
Unless it’s Chapter 5 and your whole hand is construction cards, the cards in your hand (+ the resources) provide enough options for you to do OK. Just might not be what you did last chapter and might not be super obvious
@@leavemydogalone This is undoubtedly true, but it does essentially confirm the complaint: you can't even plan 1 chapter ahead, because doing so makes you too inflexible for a game like this.
In my playthroughs I've seen situations like:
- Get a hand that leads to combat opportunities -> do combat and clear some planets -> be completely unable to actually build anything on those empty spaces, opponents just take them back.
- Build an army advantage -> be unable to actually attack with them, opponents match your army and reposition.
When even a two-step plan is too many steps, there is no planning IMO. That's not wrong per se. But it is important to keep in mind I am arguing about what kind of game Arcs is, not what playing Arcs well requires.
Mike is always so precise in his reviewing! Wish this could be played solo, but see why not!
I was hoping/wishing Chris could talk about his experience of the game when playing the 2-player mode.....
I'd say it's not the kind of game that can work well with 2 players.
Same here!
@@joeferreti9442 It works quite well actually, my only plays have been 2-player so far. Seems a bit more aggressive, since you have, I assume, more control over the trick-taking section of the game.
Arcs is 2024 goty so far here. Been playing for a couple weeks and always a hit with new stories and experiences built off a solid core system.
One of the clearest play through videos I've seen on Arcs. Excellent overview.
If I had a hand that was just one suit I would know that I could either surpass when the suit came up or seize and then keep it until someone else seized even if I declared an ambition. Having a hand that is one suit is not a problem.
Would love to see how much Roy changes his mind if he did that campaign version!
Switching the cameras to full screen was a good move. 🎉🎉🎉🎉
I only played once and it was around 4 hours. It felt like a long walk for a small drink of water. Too long for me to play again at a public board game night but i would try again if a friend invited me over to play this game specifically. It definitely takes multiple plays to really grasp some strategy. Having played Last Light the previous week, I couldn't help but compare the two. With Last light being easier to teach and play i would always strongly prefer it, although the games clearly offer different experiences. I don't think Leder games are for me. We all end the 4 hour game still unaware of a good strategy. Perhaps we lack the brain power necessary lol.
No shame in knowing your preference is not with the visible majority.
I appreciate your comment as I do feel other comments are discouraging or even dismissive of not 'getting' the game
I do admit the good Leders game bring to the hobby,
but that doesn't mean we all need to force ourselves to enjoy them.
Wait... Roy said he is a fan of space conflict games? That's shocking! If he likes them so much maybe he should make his own game in that genre. :)
Excited to check this one out. Looking forward to a review on the campaign expansion!
OMG, Brian Boru went to space!
(And I'm a Joraku guy...)
Joraku is so weird and fun. Love playing it!
Nice review and good discussion. I disagree with a lot of what Roy said and I sort of wish Chris/Mike pushed back not to argue but rather discuss how seizing the initiative, copying and prelude actions address it. Tricktaking techniques aside the weapon prelude action allows you to battle with all of your pips, it specifically works differently from all the other resources precisely to allay what Roy was saying (interestingly, Roy himself didn't run into the problem he just coopted the complaint from the other players).
Small correction that Mike says Leaders are an expansion, but the base box does come with leaders and lore there is a small expansion that adds more but there are leaders playable from game 1 (though the rulebook suggests a game without them first.)
I hope you get a chance to review blighted reach and I hope Roy comes back for it because I'd love his thoughts on the added narrative almost roleplaying like elements it adds as I think his love for space games will give him a ton to talk about there regardless of my disagreement with his review here :)
I'm surprised so many first impressions come out of it thinking this is only adjacent to trick taking. I agree that mechanically, yes the trick taking is MUCH looser to alleviate how restrictive your decisions on the board will actually be. But I can't shake off the FEELING that comes from trick taking games. The twists and turns of unexpected tempo, wrong hand reads and having to make the best of what's given. Yes, it's mechanically adjacent, but the game hits the same beats nonetheless in the context of the board and the player actions.
Lining up a "perfect" turn also feels a lot like Shooting the Moon.
I feel Mike's comments on how getting this to the table will be easier than Root so much. Very excited about that aspect of it.
I don't typically like trick taking, but there have been exceptions (Skull King & Tidal Blades Banner Festival). I'll have to give this one a try before I buy, even with the glowing reviews.
Trick-taking is a stretch. Mike’s not kidding when he says adjacent. It’s more just an action system with weird limits.
@@taxidriver45 It use the design language of trick taking to do something different than trick taking. That said, some trick taking skills, like the ability to count cards, are really helpful.
I think Roy brings up some very valid points - this is definitely not a game for everyone. It's funny because I typically don't like PvP fighting and area control games, but somehow this game uses these mechanics differently. The reason is because the goal isn't to obliterate your opponents from the map like Risk. Instead, you're aiming for the ambitions, so you use PvP and area control as a tool to achieve them. Like you guys, I really enjoy the card play, the battle dice, and I especially enjoy the fast pacing of the game. Even though this is a very different game from what I'm used to, I just love it and can see it becoming my favorite game of 2024 - maybe my favorite game of all time. So much fun.
Good, focused review. Arcs does reward players for being adaptable to the evolving board state and abandoning a preliminary strategy that's failing in favor of a plan that does. A player's tempo is irregular at best, and while the prelude actions can compensate for this to a degree, other players will use their prelude actions to frustrate your plans. It's an excellent game, but not one that will appeal to everyone who will not/cannot invest the time in strengthening their mental flexibility to whatever circumstance supports a scoring opportunity.
Or who just don't particularly enjoy that.
Not liking Arcs doesn't mean someone is unwilling or mentally inflexible.
@@thijsschipper6406 I think you have misinterpreted my observation.
What I wrote was an acknowledgment that our "leisure time" is limited and some players will actively choose a different game that doesn't require a significant investment to navigate their own path of gameplay optimization.
I can't wait for this game to be on sale, used, on Amazon.
Mikes the 🐐
I have had an incredible time playing in table top simulator while waiting for the physical copy
I want to try and demo arcs at Gen Con, but I anticipate it'll be the busiest booth possible.
Can the reviewers talk about the two player experience of this game?
I feel like the Dice Tower logo on the front panels of that desk would look nice but then again, it’s a very nice desk… I’m torn.
Arcs is right behind Slay the Spire for Game of the Year. Such a tremendous and inventive design.
Arcs, StS and Leviathan Wilds are all games likely to crack my top 10 all time. What a year.
Is StS in board game form better than the video game, which turned out to be really boring?
@@TheBrokenMeeple you are in the very small minority to call StS boring but yeah if you don't like the video game you won't like the board game.
@@Mahler1988 Roguelites don't really do it for me. I gave the game a full Steam refund period to wow but I struggled to get through two hours of rinse repeat.
complaints about this for "its luck base" is kinda sad, theres a lot of mitigation in the game and i dont understand how they come up to that conclusion, just won a game with more copy action than lead and the options i have is a lot.
Especially how often I've heard reviewers like Roy mention not being able to fight because of being dealt the "wrong" cards when the weapons resource is specifically designed to work differently from every other resource's prelude action to allow for this.
@@lainvohndyrec962 Plus with a game that has so few guard rails between players, luck doesn’t matter a whole lot. Much like Root, Oath, and John Company; you’re playing the players around the table as much as you are playing the hand you’re dealt.
This game has so many ways of mitigating luck its crazy. I understand that not everyone will love this game but as soon as I hear that during a review it makes me question their whole opinion
I feel like all three of us talk about the mitigation mechanisms throughout the review, the resources, seizing initiative, copying actions, etc. But there's still undoubtedly luck in the deal of the cards; to not bring that up would be silly.
I like the new mics for the studio! Sounds great in my naive opinion.
Disagree. These mics are supposed to sound better than lavs, but this setup doesn't. I know the previous setup with the lavs was picking up way too much background noise (sometimes it was so bad I'd just end the video), but at least everything sounded better when people weren't laughing in the next room. I'm not enough of an audio expert to know exactly what's wrong here, but something is off.
I did say it was a naive opinion. Congrats on being so smart
Ahh. I think I figured it out. Listening more I wondered, why does Chris sound so much better than Roy. So I watched them talk and Chris is talking into the mic as he should whereas Roy keeps moving his head around mostly not talking into the mic. Maybe there's something else wrong too, but if they train Roy to talk into the mic then it'll probably sound better.
@@timlorow2679 in general, yes, but they need to "eat the mic" more to prevent inconsistent volume.
Mike, you were as clever as you thought when you said “trick taking adjacent”
I'm still baffled that I didn't Kickstart this after I have everything for Root and Oath. I think I was asleep the entire month it was up.
I agree there is a bash the leader dynamic here, like so many games, but it is possible to pull yourself back from a mid game pile on.
Looking forward!!
preordered!
Chris, it’s commendable that you managed to give such a comprehensive walkthrough of this game is such a short time, but I’m afraid it did a disservice to both the game and to you as a games teacher, because you got quite a few things wrong - including a MASSIVE one at 11:14, when you were explaining Outraging.
When a player destroys a city, they Outrage the resource type of the planet that city was in, which means they immediately discard all resources and guild cards of that type, and also lose access to the prelude action associated with that resource type for the rest of the game. But, *crucially*, they are *not* prevented from later getting more of that same resource, or securing other guild cards of that resource type.
This may sound like a minor oversight, but it would completely break the game if it worked as you described: a player who Outraged any resource other than weapons would be _completely unable_ to compete on the associated ambition for the entirety of the game, very likely taking them out of the running to win. It would have been a horribly designed mechanic.
-
I could mention other rules mistakes you made in your teach, but I guess a more useful piece of feedback would be: if you’re doing simple game overview, do not get into the weeds of the rules. Just saying “outraging a planet type sets you back on competing for that resource and causes you to not be able to discard that resource for its action” would have been more than enough.
I appreciate the feedback. I did explain that wrong while trying to be fairly brief, so I'll note the correction in the video description and in a pinned comment.
__
Trying not to fall into the weeds is one of the hardest parts of doing an overview like this, and there are times I walk that line better. I'll note this one as I do hate misrepresenting games.
@@thedicetower Thank you for taking the feedback so gracefully. :)
I was very happy to see you enjoyed the game so much. I know you were less struck by Root and Oath, and I’ve been saying Arcs is the most accessible and approachable of all his games. I think it will find a very strong audience, perhaps even more so than Root (which is kind of insane to think about).
Root tricks into thinking it’s an approachable game due to the art, then reveals it’s an extremely dense game. Arcs does the opposite: it won’t attract as many people on visuals and theme alone, but will do a much better job on hooking up most players who try it.
I believe it will take a longer time than Root did to attract as many fans as Root has, but will eventually surpass Root as Leder’s most popular game into the future.
And this is coming from someone for whom Root has been their absolute favorite game of all time for the past 4 or 5 years!
All the reviews that complain about how "random" your hand is seem to forget about or downplay the ability to seize the initiative. I think people are too into the idea of it being "trick-taking" and only being able to win the hand with the highest lead suit card. Without seizing as an option, then yes there would be lots more rough hands. But since you can always have the choice to seize (you lose 1 card but usually go positive on actions), then you can control a hand and declare ambitions. Being able to declare means you can always declare something that your hand allows you to compete on. Its only if you let others dictate the chapter and you get fixated on one way to score/win that you can have hands that dont work for you. Forcing something that you dont have the means to do seems like a player issue.
Complains that "hey I gat all the same suit, I can't do what I want" seem to miss the point that you can now absolutely control the game and lead all rounds unless somebody accept to lose a round by seizing the initiative. It's a really strong position to be in, as long as you accept that the hand tells you what you need to do to score this round.
@pierreolivierlepage664 yep. Not something you'll notice first game but very very strong
eh i thought in outrage you can still collect the resource ( 11:38 ) you just arent able to use the prelude action?
yeah i was right: pg16
"Outrage: You cannot spend Outraged resources for their
normal Prelude action (page 17)."
"You can still tax Outraged
resources and add them
to your ambitions."
You're correct, I misspoke there!
I like Arcs and it's the easiest Leader game to get into. However it's still a leader game and it takes a few games to understand how to really play. Bad hands can be mitigated but it's not obvious at first. And I hope they cover the expansion because while it's built on the base game it is VERY different.
Like "bad hands can be mitigated". Would be great if they did a strategy FAQ that covers things like this.
@@garypkc I felt similar early on. However after teaching this 5 times to die-hard gamers and doing my best to explain these tactics and strategies I have come to the realization that this is just one of those games that becomes easier to truly understand the more you play it.
At the risk of sounding stupid and being fully aware how this suggestion could totally backfire:
I would love to see either in the video description or shown discreetly on screen how many plays each reviewer had with the game. While I know it will lead to some elitists arguing that you have no right to review a game if you haven’t played it at least 35times, it could also help some more reasonable people see where the reviewer comes from and how his experience might have influenced his view.
Maybe I’m wrong (again), but I feel like Roy might have gotten more « extreme » cases which lead to his opinion on how your dealt hand can determine a huge chunk of how the game plays out.
II Anecdote: It reminds me a bit of how I felt frustrated and slightly annoyed at « For Northwood ». A game I would have rated a 7 after my 5th play. I was annoyed how I would use the abilities and maximize my chances and be in situations where only 1/15 cards could lose me the game, and that exact one card gets topdecked and makes me lose a round. That literally happened in my 4/5 of my games.
I have since played the game 15 times and that has balanced out a lot. I had games where the exact opposite happened, and I messed ip and the right card showed up, allowing me to win a near impossible game, and others where my strategizing lead me to victory. With these additional plays, I can easily recommend the game and rate it an 8.5/10. Absolute great travel solo game. II
BUT maybe I’m wrong, and Roy did play it 10+ times or even just through his experience can correctly determine how this game hits for him. I’m not undermining his opinion in any way and respect his opinion a lot in general, so in case you read this Roy, don’t be mad🙏.
I think arcs almost requires a good 3-5 games to start to really grasp the inner workings. Not to say someone should be forced to play 5 times if they really don’t like the game, however I think I’m with you there a lot of the issues I have heard come in reviews that “seem” like they could become non-issues had that person played more games. That sounds snobby and elitist and dismissive but for this game it seems to be oddly true, at least I would suspect it might be a for a lot of folks. I could also be wrong !
Just from the way he spoke in that review, it seems really clear that he hasn't played a lot. Honestly, it almost sounds as if he only played one game, with Leaders & Lore added in, which is a terrible idea for a first game (the rulebook recommends against it explicitly).
@@Bloodstonersay “incompetent reviewer, don’t listen to him” without saying it.
@@mm-si3qi Very perceptive!
That adds nothing to a review other than giving fanbois a reason to dismiss anything less than a glowing review. And they do that anyway.
What does Tom think... lol
i wonder why tom didn't join in on reviewing this. it seems like his kind of game, no?
I haven't played it yet, is all.
I love how everyone is agreeing with the high ratings but even a 7.5 (which is basically an 8) which is a ranking of "great game" is getting slammed as misguided or wrong. I foresee this Arcs being one of those games with die-hard fanatic fans. All expectations will be tempered given the designer's list of games from experience.
When it comes to luck and mitigation however, remember there are essentially 3 tier's of players during a game that has a heavy luck element.
1 - those who get lucky
2 - those who aren't lucky but have a degree of mitigation
3 - those who aren't lucky and have no mitigation
This in itself creates a tier system of who's doing well in the game at any one time. Someone in Tier 1 who doesn't have to spend extra effect to deal with a bad draw or bad "anything else" is in a natural better position than someone in Tier 2 who has to spend time/resources, etc to bring themselves back up to Tier 1's level.
You are so predisposed to hate this one Luke I think everyone knows already where you’ll land on this.
@@elqord.1118 Except I love trick taking games. 😏 I'm open to a good game. I'm opposed to hype. 😉
@@TheBrokenMeeplebut the fact it’s hyped sounds like it means you are far less open to it actually being a good game. It really is ok to like a game that is receiving a lot of buzz….you are not obligated to be a dissenting voice just to be different
@@TheBrokenMeeple I'll be interested in what you think about it after playing. Based on watching playthroughs and knowing the rules (note, I haven't yet played) it doesn't really feel like trick-taking at all. It's a card based action selection system where you gain some knowledge / benefit from knowing what has been played (except not all cards are in play and some are face down). But other than the terminology of "following suit" or not there's really nothing that feels trick-taking about it. I suppose you can consider discarding an extra card to Seize the Initiative as being similar to the idea of playing a trump card but the mechanism (playing an extra card) and impacts (losing one of your turns in the chapter) are completely different than anything you'd find in trick-taking.
I'm definitely interested in playing and thinking there's a good chance I'll find it challenging and fun but for reasons other than it having a "trick-taking" element. I think putting emphasis on that mechanic will end up putting people off when they see how the card play actually works. That's why I'll be interested in seeing how you feel about it.
I don’t see anything bad about hype over a good game. Hype might even improve the experience of a great game or movie or whatever because there’s the buzz of the zeitgeist while engaging in the activity. It emphasizes the social aspect that’s present in any media. This is why hype over things you dislike can feel alienating.
The hype over Arcs before it released came from the two cults (Cole Cult & Cult Leeder). Today, the hype is from that plus its largely positive reviews. These reviews, hopefully, contain reasons for why the game is good or not. The reasons given can be affirmed or countered by other people, but the hype is the hype and to understand it is to understand the social-causal chain that lead to it.
One can’t stare at a piece of media and divine the source of the hype. It’s a sign of poor criticism if the reviewer “can’t see/understand the hype,” in something, because they ought to know it’s not right there in the first place. If there’s hype around a bad game, usually there’s no mystery why there’s hype. But what makes that game good or bad is something a critic is well equipped to deduce and articulate.
This game looks fire.
Metroplex in the house!!!!
I liked the older mics better!
Why does it bother me that he used a 4-player board set up for two players?
I gave it 9.5 too I thought this game was incredible
Roy- It feels super unfair needing to play the hand you are dealt. Also Roy- I'm really good at playing the hand I'm dealt and crushed everyone I played against...ok bro... -_-
I found "Root" pretty bad, but "Oath" relatively good despite its extreme King Slaying/Making nature.
"Arcs" seems pretty weak to me because the trick-taking structure is too limiting and luck-dependent. Additionally "Arcs" has less moving parts and variability than "Oath" which is a step in the wrong direction.
I have a crazy idea for their next game; a 3-player game
Kinda felt like Roy wanted to give lower than 7.5 and chickened out 😂. Bgg reviews are very mixed on Arcs so a lower rating is perfectly fair
Its currently at a solid 8.4, I'm not sure how that's mixed.
@@connorthinks Read the comments, don't just look at the score
@@Valcurdra I've read the comments and looked at the score. People don't rate it a 9 and then give it a mixed text review.
To be clear, we give games the score we want to in our reviews. We've given high and low scores that people have grumbled about but we give our opinion on it. A score of a 7 is a recommendation, and Roy stated this is a game he can recommend to people.
@@thedicetower On BGG there is a clear scale of what each rating means. Does DT have a similar thing, I know 7-8 is approval and 8.5-10 is excellent. What about other scores
Wow 9.5 this is an almost perfect game! I’ll have to buy it!
Time Will Tell…
Why 9.5 instead of 10 for Mike ?
Seems convoluted.
It's very convoluted, but that's a feature, not a bug.
That is synonymous with Cole Wehrle
Our group felt this game came down to who got the cards and who didn’t. (Much like most classic trick taking games)
This is also what lends the game towards being so swingy with the point system that’s in place.
Totally get that a lot of people love this one, but not for us at all.
You dont need the right cards, you need to change your focus, and steal initiative.
@@mahuloq7562 completely agree. But the player who doesn’t HAVE to do that has almost always been the person to win (especially in rounds 3/4 since points are rear loaded).
To be honest…this game is an easy teach…? Even teaching a trick taking game some people don’t really get it (or don’t get the hook of it). This can’t be an easier teach than root.
May be to clarify. What I mean is for the game to function, root is not a difficult game if you focus on what you are doing for your character. Then in subsequent games they can learn how other fractions work. But oh my this game so many little rules. It sure is a tough one to teach
Played once and really did not like how easy it was for other players to steal my stuff. Went from scoring 9 points in one round to scoring 3 and my fleets were dessimated and it is very hard to rebuild. This game rewards mediocrity because any runaway leader can be easily ganged up on. Another problem is every round can be anti climactic with the cards dealt. Too often you can get stuck with cards which don't help at all, especially at the end of the game. A pet peeve of mine is in the last two rounds a good design would allow a wide variety of options but in this game it falls flat. Plus in games where you feel ok losing if you built a lot of stuff or made accomplishments or built a strong engine or had cascading actions makes for a nice consolation. This has little to none of that.
I once took a very cool guild card and before I had the chance to trigger it, someone else took it on the next turn, so the effort before was a waste.
Those kinds of games are not for me.
If it's that easy for someone to steal your stuff then it should be just as easy for you to steal it back, no? And you should have ways more options in the last rounds. If you've been collecting any resources or guild cards then you are basically no longer limited by your action cards. Or if you have a strong position then you can work to limit your opponents options by forcing a specific suit. Idk
You cannot just steal. It requires certain cards.
@@MrGainify I imagine he means raiding
Items are stolen by raiding
Couldn't you just draft the cards and fix this issue? Maybe it takes what, a few minutes longer? I mean if I played Brian Boru without the draft, I would be pissed too
So much of the fun is making your hand of cards work. The resources mitigate the cards so much, all you need is more than 2 plays to see this.
For this game it’s not an issue to be fixed, it’s the core design of the game. That would be like asking if you could bid points for meeple placements in Carcasonne. Sure, you could, but then it’s really a different game.
Basically, the primary idea is to continually work towards setting yourself up to be able to take different types of actions (be sure that you have buildings to tax, you have starports to move, you have resources for flexibility).
Of course if you're dealt cards that allow for you to make big moves, go for it.
If you have a bunch of low cards, be prepared to be able to take those actions. Seize initiative if it's worth while to declare ambition or even try to set yourself up to piggyback off someone who looks like they're moving towards a certain ambition.
Sometimes you will be blindsided, and sometimes your hands might truly be tied, but I think there's just enough wiggle room and options (if you focus on maintaining those options) to make most hands work for you.
You do have to keep a keen eye on your opponents to figure out their ever-changing strengths and weaknesses, and you need to continually identify and rectify any of your weaknesses as well.
I don't know if my assessments of strategies are correct, after just one play. But, Arcs is definitely one of those games that has me thinking about it even when I'm away from the table.
I still think you guys are fanboying over it. Like maybe it isn't a core design and just a symptom of trying to shorten the game. Drafting will also not guarantee that you always get the cards that you need, but it mitigates a hand of crap that Roy is talking about. It's not like the gamestate wouldn't change enough to the point where some of your cards would become crap anyway, even if you drafted. So it's definitely a houserule, when I get it to the table
@@krisztiancsillag2426 have you played the game yet with the rules as written?
I wish there was a solo mode so bad!
The hype around this game is just unreal. Its crazy to see commentors wanting the reviewer with the most experience in this type of game replaced for not giving a 9+
The shills in the comments section are getting way to defensive with the slightest critique, even good ones. 7,5 is a good score. If its not, the scale is way too inflated. Replace it with a binear "GOTY / NOT GOTY"-scale then. I would argue bringing a wide array of differing opinions is more helpful for gamers (ie consumers), and TDT should get credit for it.
Arcs ist 55€ + Campaign 90€ = 145 € !
Lol, so basically one Twilight Imperium. That's a no thanks for me. Maybe the base game, we'll see in a year.
Arcs is game of the decade so far. It's gonna be in the BGG top ten in three years.
Game of the decade is a hell of a bold claim
Yeah that's going a bit far. And i seriously doubt it will hit BGG Top 10 given that the mechanics have a very divisive impact on players.
If the campaign counts towards the games ranking it has a very real shot. Root is top 25 and the general consensus is that this is a better game than Root.
That's a silly statement!
@@justinvamp15 Root I don't think was as divisive though. And honestly root probably shouldn't be that high as it's a much more niche game. But then BGG rankings are the most broken statistic in history anyway.
I think that Tom should have been in on this one instead of Roy. I love Roy but he def has a dog in the space game race and his score being a lot lower is not a good look in my opinion.
Arcs is just very subtle and if you notice his primary complaint wasn't about his own experience (he weirdly gloated about that?) but about the experience of people he played with.
All that notwithstanding I think its good for them to "try" and find a member of the team with a diff't opinion. No game is a 9-10 for everyone regardless of how good it is and I think its a strength of the Dice Tower in general that they have a studio full of reviewers.
Quite an assumption. Highly doubt this is the case.
Weird that you think giving a game below an 8 isn't a "good look"
Huh? I don't think he's like that.
7 out of 10 is a good score, or at least it should be. There are too many dickheads on the internet throwing around 9's and 10's for everything.
Roy just needs a simple space game.
Perhaps one about light? And maybe the last of it?
@@jokerES2Sol: Last Days of a Star?
@@PowrThruLast Light - the game Roy designed. Was being cheeky.
@@jokerES2 lol so was I, Sol is the same theme and a favorite of mine I feel gets overlooked.
The only kid here is you :)
Roy is WRONG
Graphic design is poor and wood pieces make no sense on a Sci Fi game.
found the moron
The graphic design on this game is incredible? What don’t you like about it? I think the wood point may be a fair one but I’m not sure what you would replace it with. Plastic is the only reasonable alternative that’s slightly more on theme and in that case I’d rather have wood.
@@merrilin1999 It looks like someone scribbled on the sidewalk with chalk and wood pieces make it look so dated.
The more we get away from plastic the better.