The 4 Squares Review Oath: Chronicles of Empire and Exile

Mike, Zee, Chris, & Roy take a look at Oath!
Intro 0:00
Overview 0:47
Our Thoughts 13:24
Scores 41:03
Support The Dice Tower at www.dicetowerkickstarter.com
Support the channel by becoming a member!
/ @thedicetower
Subscribe to our newsletter, "The Dice Tower Digest": dicetowerdigest.com
Check out the friendliest conventions on Earth!
Dice Tower Cruise - www.dicetowercruise.com (February 13-19, 2022)
Dice Tower West - www.dicetowerwest.com (March 2-6, 2022)
Dice Tower East - www.dicetowereast.com (July 5-9,2023)
Dice Tower Retreat - www.dicetowerretreat.com (September 8-12, 2021)
Buy great games at www.GameNerdz.com
Find more reviews and videos at www.dicetower.com
Get a great game table here! www.rathskellers.com/
BGG Link: boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2...

[@robertaustin6302]

Man, I just want so say how much I’ve been enjoying Chris Yi’s contributions to the channel over the past few months. Super solid addition to the group and feels natural.

[@dukephoenix]

Best part of this review: "This is going to be someone's 10, but many people's 6 or 7." You're going to love how different the experience is or yearn for games that are cleaner systems and much easier to get to the table. (And this is coming from someone who rates it closer to 10 than 6 or 7.)

[@thecornerkid402]

Four men integrate obtuse into their vocabulary. Also, a board game review.

[@whatsabandicoot]

It may look like Root, but it shares far more with Wehrle's Infamous Traffic, John Company, and Pax Pamir in terms of mechanisms and message. I have a feeling that people coming from those games will find more they love in Oath than those coming from Root (anecdotally - I bounced off Root, but am really enjoying Oath). Great content guys, thanks for sharing.

[@boardgames9950]

Agreed. Huge Cole fan.

[@ormhaxan]

After five games, I'm really glad of the way Oath doesn't try to appeal to everyone but instead focuses on being its own unique and innovative thing.

[@gasa5251]

I agree, its refreshing and full of fantastic ideas. I feel the mechanisms run really smoothly while playing, the game is easier than many heavy Euros, it seems like anachrony to me, in that is has a heavy reputation, but actually runs quite easily.

[@boardgames9950]

@@gasa5251 After internalization, you can just live in the world you've created and start pulling levers. The engine is magic.

[@ItsMe_G]

@@gasa5251 sad OATH only give "good Ideas" done dramatically wrong. the game need a strong redone

[@VictorKolbe]

yup!!

[@benmecfslc2506]

A good balanced review. I do think Oath could do more to make it easier to teach players other than through the tutorial and also do more to have a rulebook that was easier to work with. I think this game owes a debt to the Pax system of games and if you have played any of those then you kind of know what you are in for with non-obvious game play, needing to adapt to what comes out of the deck and also balancing your own attacks with defending and stopping others from winning. I do wish it was easier to re-set to introduce new players in. I think it is hard for most reviewers to review this game because reviewers by their nature need to be moving onwards to the next game and this is one for a group to stick with. Indeed much of the rewards from this game with the right group are how the players change or sustain roles game to get and how the world changes or stays and if you play a single game you get none of that. I think the pax games work better for irregular play although other than Werles Pamir 2nd edition they are all more complex than Oath to learn and play. I can see a lot of people in the first few games kind of ignoring the citizenship mechanic and it is a pretty key mechanic to utlise when you need to stop someone winning, improve your position etc.

[@FragRevel]

Well said. Nobody realizes that Oath is actually a Pax game with a fantasy lore

[@Straddllw]

You know what, I see this review and I am like, good job leder games! Genuinely, good job. In this hobby, too many games are just middle of the road, trying to appeal to everybody and streamline everything and make it a nice experience. People want to make the next Ticket to Ride or the next Azul. The result is that they make good games that most people would enjoy playing once or twice and then its off to the next hotness. I want to see more games that delights their core fanbase and makes it one of the kind. Twilight Imperium and Kingdom Death Monsters are my examples of these. They're not for everyone, they are unique, and for their core fans, they're their number 1 irreplaceable games. I want more well positioned niche games that does the niche extremely well. There's plenty of worker placements or deck building or dungeon crawl games out there, that are a dime a dozen. But there's not many Ti4 or KDM.

[@jameswoodard4304]

Both strategies are necessary for the hobby to continue to thrive. There is a danger of either diluting the rich potential of gaming with too much mass-market fluff on one hand, or of gamers retreating into the isolation of their niche fortresses of "serious gaming" on the other. It's not a bad thing that complex "niche" games like this exist, and it's not a bad thing that family, welcoming, midweight, and other games exist that appeal to broader groups. There is enough room in the modern boardgame market for more of both ends, and that's a good thing. Also, many serious "niche" players wouldn't be in the hobby at all without the existence of broader appeal games getting then hooked. The last thing the hobby needs is a "real gamer" vs "noob" or "normal" vs "nerd" gatekeeping bias. I'm not accusing you of anything, btw. You brought up what's good for the hooby on a meta level, so I just added my general opinion on the matter. I don't really disagree, I'm just adding further thoughts.

[@atomiccritter6492]

remind everyone of the cost of KDM

[@atomiccritter6492]

@@jameswoodard4304 the gaming industry can ONLY effectively expand by dealing with casual gamers and NON gamers. Core gamers need to get off their high horse and stop being idiots about "their" games. One of the worst aspects is gamers attitudes toward mass appeal games or classic games - just take your comment --- diluting the rich potential of gaming with too much mass-market fluff

[@jameswoodard4304]

@@atomiccritter6492 , Yes, we are in agreement. I said we need to avoid ignoring the core audience by making too much "fluff," but also that the hobby needs to keep appealing to new folks and the lighter end of the gaming spectrum as well. The worse thing for any hobby is that it gets full of itself and becomes locked it gate-keeping limbo where only "real" gamers are allowed or marketed towards. Like I said, all the "hardcore" gamers were newbies once and probably were introduced to gaming in the first place by games they would now probably consider far too "mass market."

[@moonshadow7064]

@@jameswoodard4304 amen

[@ShamankingZuty]

I absolutely love the art in both this and Root. The games themselves fry my brain whenever I try to learn how to play them, which is a shame became I want to own these games because of the art and not the actual gameplay.

[@gamesnstuff657]

I'm Surprised the Citizen mechanic wasn't brought up in the final thoughts. I think it is a SUPER key part of the game. Especially if you feel like you don't want to be part of the rat race for the other objectives you can convince the chancellor to make you a citizen which helps them even though you aren't FULLY on a team, and gives you the successor objective to go for. If you are an exile and feeling a bit aimless asking the Chancellor for citizenship can be a great way to get back into the game.

[@Mark-jagger]

Excellently balanced review, exactly how I like them. I like Root but play the app way more than the board game. This one doesn’t seem as accessible but looks very interesting. Unfortunately, I agree, I could see it sitting on my shelf of shame for some time. Great review guys. Dice Tower has an excellent lineup even without Tom.

[@headovmetal]

Great in-depth review. I really enjoy this format.

[@UberTastical22]

Great points and great commentary from every one. Awesome job guys!

[@Boardgametherapist]

Wow Roy looks like he’s lost a TON of weight

[@eaglesight333]

His weight loss is intentional. It was mentioned about a month ago. I think he just did a lot of walking, to get in better shape.

[@JonReid01]

Dude! Thought the same thing! 💪💪

[@wolflarson71]

Needs to follow through with some resistance weight training. Starting with something basic like 25 push-ups a day goes a long way.

[@dbbf81]

Is he ok?

[@atomiccritter6492]

TBH I wouldnt have recognised him until he was named

[@StephenAslett]

Love the format and these reviews. Really well done.

[@garyfaust6769]

I appreciate these DT 4 Square reviews and find them very helpful. Thank you all! I do find that a common element is that DT contributors prefer games that game collectors prefer i.e. having hundreds of games and can rate their top 100 games. I will only ever be able to give my top 10 as I only buy games that are very, very replayable. I only foresee having at most 50 games that I am always ready to play. I like Leder games in general as learning to play well is a process that I enjoy. Theme, art, and production quality are a must for me to give any consideration. My top three games are X-wing, Root, and Crockinole. Thanks again!!!

[@Anwar-AT]

Well said!

[@kruzhalovv]

Thanks for the review guys. I've just received my copy and it was very helpful to find out that publisher provides a simple (and actually working) dive-in system. Surely, the game isn't for everyone. In fact, at a first glance it looks like a "Pax with infinite campaign set in a non-specific medeival environment" game. In my opinion Cole Wehrle has a very unique and recognizable design style, and Oath lean towards his more mature projects more, then other Leder games. So, I think it is possible to recommend the game to the fans of East-India Company trilogy (Pamir, JoCo, Traffic), with the note, that there's no particular historical theme in here.

[@boardgameknight2791]

Really great review, team! Ya'll are naturals at not talking over each other - you're making it look easy. Though, it is a much longer review than when Tom is keeping the pace. ;)

[@runelarsen8143]

Great review. And very much agree with all comments on it. Also feel this game is for vey dedicated groups. No doubt it will reward dedicated groups. But honestly, these days with soooo many awesome games being published, not many groups will prioritise a single game for that many plays...

[@devinology7]

Yup, my thoughts exactly. I'd love to try it sometime but probably never will, and I cannot justify buying it to never get into it enough for it to be worthwhile. I've made that mistake far too many times.

[@TheEricBooth]

I have the same feeling about trying to teach Hadrian's Wall as you all are mentioning with Oath. I just couldn't imagine having to teach it to somebody.

[@mike_heller]

Thanks guys! You made my decision not to back this one a smart one. Looks cool but definitely not for me or my gaming group.

[@PatrickBrophy]

I've been waiting for this review as I slowly read through the rules manuals before playing my copy. It looks incredible. I just hope it lives up to the expectations I have of it.

[@gasa5251]

it is incredibly rewarding and a fantastic game. It flows really well after a game or two. enjoy

[@SkeeverKid]

Do you have an update? I'd love to hear how you got on!

[@JasperHayward]

Great review guys!

[@scottbollinger3980]

We’ve been playing this nonstop since it was delivered. 11 games in and making plans to play more next weekend.

[@boardgames9950]

Me too. It's taken over. And I don't even have a regular group. The stories it tells are phenomenal, right? And YOU'RE telling the story. Not a paragraph in a book, not a card you inevitably flip. It's you. Only you. My goodness, what a game. I wish it was better understood. (the rules too, :))

[@gasa5251]

totally agree here, its not for everyone and breaks the mundane mould ... excellent gameplay, you make your own stories as you play rather have them narrated to you, fantastic art and production - top marks from me.

[@gioarca6623]

this game is not for me ... but it looks amazing

[@ericfinley220]

That sums of Leder Games for me. No interest at all.

[@ReverendDrDeath]

I feel the same way. Was so close to backing the kickstarter but I knew it wasn't a fit at our table.

[@atomiccritter6492]

I dont even think it looks amazing at all

[@ewertbellingan7450]

Listening to your discussion echoing what a lot of people have to say about the combat system makes me think that few actually grasp what it quite realistically simulates. Fighting small battles, hitting single targets, taking small bites is easy. Campaigns only get punishing when you attack greedely and you start to over extend your force. The campaign system in Oath to me is less about luck and grand ways to mitigate it and more about ones ability to gauge strength.

[@gasa5251]

well said ... there's mitigation galore - if you're the attacker and you loose, then you did something very very wrong.

[@boardgames9950]

@@gasa5251 1000%

[@andreasthedude3843]

Balanced and entertaining review, well done. This is a game that allows you to influence the setup of the following match like you discribed. But there is more to it. This means you have meaningful things to do in your last turn, even if you can't prevent someone else from winning. Weakening the Realm he/she is going to rule is so much fun and your chance of winning the next game increases. This - for me - makes the game highly rewarding til the end no matter who wins. Did i ever complain about the dice? Sure! But with more experience you learn to handle it smarter and just fight smaller battles that aren't luckbased very much or use battleplans at the right time. Remember the cards in the deck from the previous game (only a few cards have changed) and maybe you find the Key to victory in the worlddeck. Anybody gotten screwed by the "charlatan" for example tries to use this card on an opponent next time. The more you play, the less it depends on luck. Still love this game after 25 plays.

[@CleaveBuscemi]

I have a question for you: I'm interested in this game, but I'm not familiar with leder games (I've never played root, though I have watched reviews so it's not a complete unknown) Everything I've watched regarding Oath makes me think of a game that has the complexity of TI4, but with different mechanics and of course a different theme. But I imagine that the type of thinking/strategy needed to win this is similar to TI4. Am I wrong here? Because I'd love a game that utilizes the same kind of strategy, but has a memory, so you can think about setting yourself up well for the next game.

[@askadoctor1262]

@@CleaveBuscemi haven't played ti4 but it's not as complex as other games I've played. Probably similar to blood rage. Root was harder to learn because you needed to know how each faction worked. All players in oath are pretty much the same. The chancellor has a couple more rules but less victory conditions. I think the key to this game is not telegraphing a vision early. Root has the alternate victory cards that if you play too early other players will easily stop you. In oath if you can set yourself up to achieve two conditions at the same time. Players can also hide vision cards in their advisors to limit how others can win. Don't have relics and draw the relic vision? Put it with your advisors and deny other players. First game players went combat heavy (main victory condition) against each other. I snuck a banner, vision and some bandit sites to achieve two at once and hid in the hinterlands. It was fun watching everyone plan how to reach me before my next turn. It pretty much burned all the board resources, like a difficult medieval campaign.

[@relativelyboard9959]

Love the T-Shirt Roy! Demon Slayer is amazing! Great review as always!

[@skylargladden2765]

I really like Cole Wehrle's designs, but obtuseness does seem to be a common theme. That doesn't bother me, but it does make his games not especially friendly to newcomers. I do think much of your summary was a good way to put the experience of this game. I normally quite dislike luck in games, but I do think that the campaign system does *encourage* certain behaviors that are not always the natural consequence (in my mind, at least) of what it *permits*. Could it be less lucky? Yes. In particular, the x2 faces can get obnoxious, almost like exploding dice. But it forces me to be especially cautious about putting my eggs in the conquest basket. Cole and the developers seem to have taken the quote from the Foundation books to heart ("Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"). As for the storytelling, if by storytelling you mean it does not *tell* a story a la Stuffed Fables or Pandemic Legacy, then no doubt you are 100% correct. But I have never before played a game with such a rich emergent story. The Chronicle was, I think, just an experiment. It won't be for everyone, even among those who greatly enjoy the game. But I have found that the more games I play, and thus write a chronicle for, the more I notice the various emergent story aspects to the game as I play it. Some of the rough edges are sanded down for me by the sheer quality and depth of the emergent story (like the occasional obnoxious dice roll).

[@CarpeGuitarrem]

The #1 thing I was thinking about RE: the luck, is that the situation described in the review where both of the forces got wiped out in a climactic battle, that sounds like such a cool narrative beat! Maybe it would feel different to me in the midst of the game, but it definitely seems to highlight the approach that Oath sounds like it's going for (and makes me a lot more curious about Oath).

[@jameswoodard4304]

The issue with luck here seems to come down to the issue of Accurate Simulation vs Fun Game. For example, that extremely risky and defence-focused combat system is actually extremely accurate, as the guys pointed out. If you look at the 100yrs War and other such drawn out dynastic wars, you would often have a king spend years putting his country into debt, risking alienating his support at home and abroad, marshalling historic amounts of men and resources in an incredibly logistically inefficient fuedal system, and managing the feat of getting such a force shipped and marched hundreds of miles to the target, only to then lose it all because of the unforseable fortunes of a single battle. So, this seems quite *realistic* ...but real war isn't fun. This is also true of historical court politics and dynastic intrigue. Lots of life-risking schemeing goes into it, but the end results generally come down to who was in the right place at the right time, and all the strategy and preparation in the world doesn't keep you from getting your head chopped off in the end (or worse) because the other guy just happened to be lucky or fall into a better strategic situation. So again, the risk/reward is thematically realistic...but is it fun? It doesn't look fun for me. When I go into a *game* I expect that (even if I lose) the amount of energy, effort, and mental currency I'm spending on the experience will be evenly repaid by a good experience. If it seems "fair," even losing a game can still be fun and reward the effort you put into it. But a punishingly lucky game that also requires a large effort-investment is not a gamble I'm interested in making for the sake of realism. I want realism in my historical movies, not in my games. While interesting to watch, historical reality generally wasn't fun for the participants.

[@cooly1234]

I had lots of fun even though I lost, I think it really depends on if the game happened to create a fun/funny narrative. The ending to my last game was hilarious, even though we all uneventfully tied and the win went to chancellor because of timeout, arguably a boring way for the game to end. Looking at the game mechanics only though, I agree it does not look that fun. But like everything, depends on your group.

[@mapanzer]

I can assure you that nothing in this game strives for simulation or realism beyond some very high-minded arguments about historiography. Cole Wehrle said at one point that the game's narrative is like history told by the Muppets. A simulation this is not.

[@jameswoodard4304]

@@mapanzer , According to the Dice Tower guys in the above video, there is no real narrative and the "whimsical" nature is basically just aesthetic.

[@jameswoodard4304]

@@cooly1234 , Yeah, but the right group can make Checkers hilarious. An "uneventful tie," and an "arguably boring ending" based on a timeout as the end result of a good chunk of investment in time, strategy, and learning a complex game doesn't sound *inherently* fun so much as something you might be able to have fun *in spite of* because you all are just a good group.

[@gasa5251]

@@jameswoodard4304 I dont think anyone will have an uneventful game, this is full of swings and huge plays, im sure the chancellor was hanging on for dear life or kicking the winner of the scrabbling exiles to get the arguably boring end... well, that from my plays of the game

[@KristoVaher]

Really surprised not to see Tom reviewing a game of this magnitude in the hobby! That being said, setting this game up (without tutorial). And learning it is a MESS.

[@PieInSkyGuy]

Love 4 Squares!

[@ArnieHorta]

We played once Friday on TTS without the tutorial. We did get a few rules wrong but now that I have gone through the rule book a bit I don’t think that the game is that difficult from a mechanical standpoint. Now, teaching someone how to play well…that is a different story. I think I like it but I will need a play or two more first.

[@JimmySquiky]

Welp I'm glad I didn't back it. Also 48 minutes of goodness :D

[@mike_heller]

My exact thoughts!

[@goncalofernandes8217]

That´s right, leave great games to people who actually deserve them :D

[@horrido666]

There are more good games than I have time, and there are certainly better games than this. Roll a 6 and win, Goncalo! That mechanic is NOT clever.

[@gasa5251]

@@horrido666 there's a bit more to it than rolling a 6 and win .... a whole lot more ... and if a game is good or not differs drastically between people ... unless you have played it (if you were tempted) ten you're probably not in a position to judge, if you arent tempted to play it then you also are probably not in a good position to judge, but thats fine if its not to your taste :-)

[@atomiccritter6492]

@@goncalofernandes8217 It looks ....not intersting at all to me...you are welcome to like a dull looking game

[@Puzzu]

Thanks for this group review! I already knew less than halfway through that this is an easy pass for me.

[@gamesnstuff657]

Yeah they hit the nail on the head with this game. Fantastic, but not for everyone and a bear to learn. I played a 6 player session of this game, and I would highly recommend NOT doing that unless everyone at the table has a pretty good grasp of the game. Other than that though I would recommend it. Highly player interactive, and a lot of scheming in the game as well. I think the fact that attacking players in very punishing is good, because if it were easier it would make the other paths of accomplishing goals not worth going for. Just my two cents, but I'm very happy with Oath. Also as far as comparing it to other games the closest I can think of is a mix between Pax Pamir and Root. Not at all a perfect comparison, but it's the best I can think of....

[@SideGameLLC]

Totally agree with your assessment. Very pleased with the game!

[@MatthewAnslow]

The game itself suggests not playing with more than four players if you’re learning.

[@gamesnstuff657]

@@MatthewAnslow yeah we were planning on only 4, but my shotgun invite to play the game brought more people than I was expecting to play. So we just rolled with it. It was still a lot of fun, but just long.

[@yuarthur455]

yes

[@petergross7235]

This reminds me a lot of Fuedum. Another game with a high difficulty level, that you and your group really have to adopt as your lifestyle game for a while to get anything out of it. I would love to try it, but I don't see it being added to my collection any time soon.

[@boardgames9950]

After the Oath dust settles, I'm super curious about how Stationfall is received. Although obviously a lot fewer ppl will be playing that one. Spoiler: I love it. It's massively stupid. And I don't think Matt would disagree. lol.

[@klapaucius7339]

I love Root, and I think I will enjoy this. The one thing that I find disappointing is it sounds like they are repeating the rulebook style from Root. I thought the Root rulebook was needlessly complicated, and the Law of Root is even worse. It really needed a once over from a professional tech writer. I find it discouraging that all of you had trouble with the rules. That is not a good sign.

[@lisamarin8836]

Agree with this! My gaming group loves Root and I think we will enjoy digging deep into Oath, but the rulebooks for Root were so obtuse that it was a running joke: Which rule will we discover we have been playing wrong today?

[@Superslemmet]

How did this work out for you? My group loves Root, one of our all-time favorites, yet we kinda bounced off Oath. The rules were much more fiddly than in Root, and whilst in Root 90% of game play is driven by player agency, in Oath it felt more like 10% player agency. Really, the similarities are mainly just in the art and the convoluted way the rules are written.

[@klapaucius7339]

@@Superslemmet I have not had the chance to play it yet--I've gotten stuck just getting my head around it. I found the rulebook disappointing similar to Root. They say they have three rulebooks for different types of learning, but to me it is just three forms of the same thing repackaged. As a comparison, I also recently picked up CO2. While there are a lot of rules and it is complex, nothing seemed particularly confusing. The rulebook was very clear. Lacerda is not known for simple games, and yet I found it easier to get my head around.

[@Superslemmet]

@@klapaucius7339 Imo the problem isn't really how the rulebook was written, but how the rules work. For example, say you want to claim the Banner of Darkest Secrets from someone. You can do that by either the campaign action, the recover action, or the conspiracy, and all have quite detailed rules with a lot of if-statements. There isn't really any way of writing those rules that will not feel jumbled. By action type? Well, the thing you wanna do will be in three different places. By goal type (how do I claim the banner?) Well, it will need to reference three different actions. So the rules will be all over the place no matter how you do it. The problem for me is that I'm pretty good at keeping track of intricate rules, exceptions, and caveats, perhaps the best in my group. And that means I'm at a distinct advantage, since being good at keeping track of a long chain of special rules that interact is what makes you good at the game. It doesn't reward strategic play nearly as much as it rewards rules-lawyering.

[@thomasromanelli2561]

Happy Father's Day to all at the DT! Appreciate the review of Oath and mostly agree with some of the conclusions. This is NOT a mass market game, and I suspect most of the people who backed it are Leder/Cole Werhle fans (like myself) or backed multiple copies for ridiculous resale values on eBay. Definitely a bear to learn, although the great tutorial series by Jean-Michel Grosjeu made a fairly layered rule system more digestible. I think the rules system is intricate but accessible after one or two plays, and the player agency is one of the strong points of Oath. Like Root, this game does give advantage to more experienced players. The solo mode Clockwork Prince is under-developed , but hopefully a "better-bot" project will address this issue in a few months. I admire the artwork, production values and ambition of this game, even if it doesn't quite achieve all it set out to do. We talk about the "renaissance of board gaming", and this is a fine implementation of a more mature design philosophy.

[@Superslemmet]

Interesting. My main gripe with Oath is the lack of player agency. It feels like the game plays you, and you are just there for the ride. I really hoped for a game that would reward cleverly laid out plans, but the way it plays feels more like a super-convoluted Munchkin to me.

[@cadiboy04]

Am I the only one who doesn’t understand what this game is???

[@Lingvar]

it's a large mouse pad and a set of post cards. could be stickers if you put some glue on.

[@ianoble]

Why does it seem like some of the mics are off?

[@dramajoe]

For a channel that regularly implies how brave they are for favoring story and setting over mechanism, it's curious to hear some of them review this game as essentially a pile of mechanics instead of as a thematically unique, procedurally generated narrative engine.

[@boardgames9950]

VERY well put.

[@nerzenjaeger]

Story games are a very different beast to something like this. You yourself said it best, it procedurally generates a story as a result of gameplay, but you don't play through a story like in Tainted Grail or similar games.

[@Superslemmet]

In our games, the mechanisms completely took over any sense of narrative experience. This in itself isn't a problem, I have no issues with the lack of deeper narrative in say Brass, Eclipse or Scythe, there the rules entirely steer the game too. But one of the main selling points of this game is the emergent narrative, which is completely lost due to how severely the rules constrict players choices. Like, draw denizen and choose one. Usually, one of them is clearly the best choice, and playing one of the others for "narrative reasons" would make no sense at all. You want to carve you own path in the cool sandbox world the game offers? Sorry, you have almost zero input on what your 'character' represents. Want to win by conquering the lands from the king? Hope you randomly draw the right vision. You can make a narrative of what story the game represented with hindsight, but you could equally well do that for any given game of Brass or Scythe too.

[@aalever]

@@Superslemmet The SU&SD review revels in the emergent story aspect, which drew me in. To clarify though, you fundamentally disagree with that on the basis that player motivations and actions are not sufficiently thematically consistent to autmatically generate that story, because clunky mechanics get in the way. If so, that seems to echo Chris Y's thoughts, and would put me off the game.

[@Superslemmet]

​@@aalever After our third game, two friends noted that none of them had spent even one moment thinking of what the narrative of the game was. The main reasons for this is the severe mental overhead the rules cause, but also due to how much room randomness has got in the design of the game combined with most abilities being really good. Many rounds you might need to keep track of 10+ different effects that interact, which leads to ap, but all this randomness of powerful abilities also means you will always have one option that is 'best'. So you are mechanically driven to do what you do, and when you play well it's almost never due to your choices, but simply you managing to keep track of lots of rules. Add to this the Vision win conditions, that should really shape the story of your character. These you are handed at random as the game progresses. "Oh, ok, I guess I'm a prophet/mage/spymaster?" It's all the same card and up to me to decide, depending on what I think fits best. The game leaves it up to you to try and stich together a story from what the randomness hands you, but it also almost entirely removes any agency the players have on shaping their own story. The players are not allowed to be part of the 'character creation' step, which is instead set to random. This causes a big disconnect for my group at least. People wanna make their own destiny. About clunky rules. I can give you an example. Three of the four win conditions involve taking control of "banners", so they usually play an important part in most games. To lay claim to the "Banner of the Darkest Secret", you can either: 1): Use the Campaign action against the player currently holding it. But when you do, you must have your own pawn on the same site as the enemy pawn to be able to target the banner. You can't target it with just your armies. 2): Use the Recover action to claim the banner through the banner claiming mechanism. To do this, you simply place more secrets on the banner than what is currently there. However, you can only do this is there is already a card at the site the current holder occupies whose suit does not match the suit of any of the current holders advisors. Note that you do not need to have your pawn at the same site as the enemy pawn. FAQ, someone without advisors can lose the banner provided the site they are at has at least one denizen. 3): Or simply, if you have a Conspiracy card, and you are at the same site as the holder of the banner, and you have two advisors that match any the enemy advisors, you may discard one secret and the Conspiracy card to claim the banner. If so, the banners loses two Favor/Secrets. Sure, these are rules one can keep track of, but almost everything in the game is like this. It requires a very particular kind of player to not feel like this is... frankly... really poorly designed. But I do love the concept and ideas, and the art behind the game. The game tries to be a simulation, not a board game, yet at the same time it doesn't even tell you what is being simulated? That is up to you to decide. However! Some people have had no problems at all looking past all this and having a fantastic time! If my group were all over the moon for this, I would have been able to look past the flaws too (I mean, I'm the owner of the rather expensive game so I hope I get to play it at least a few times more). But if you have just one player in the group who doesn't enjoy keeping track of 10-20 exceptions and caveats of the rules when playing, the whole experience will collapse because that player will simply not enjoy their turn. It will be like playing an pnp rpg with one player not wanting to play. It simply cannot work.

[@nothing3376]

I like Roy’s shirt

[@Mancupcake]

I'd be curious what they all think of Twilight Imperium. Based on what I know about Oath and the kingmaking strategies that it mostly revolves around, it isn't that different of an overall experience than TI. Obviously the mechanics aren't related in any way, but the mouthfeel of playing the players in order to win the game as opposed to simply playing the mechanics to win the game is very similar.

[@Bodyknock]

One question I have was is the solo mode worthwhile? (It's probably a question for Mike since he's the kind of the solo game guru on the channel.) If the game is worth playing solo that would significantly bump up its value for me, at least.

[@scottbollinger3980]

It is not.

[@bricelory9534]

I have only heard fairly disappointing things about solo mode. Personally I am not surprised, as so much of the life of the game is the player interaction and emergent story/situations. As those came far less frequently when fighting a flow chart, even if it does decently play like a person, it is always a predictably rational person, which isn't really what this game is about, since so many different things can become your priority at any moment.

[@FranciscoArena]

I see DT is filming some overviews with fixed camera. Fixed camera videos are hard to follow IMO: it is hard to focus where the action is, and cannot read anything on cards and so. Specially on smartphones. (I know fixed camera videos are easier to produce, but I just jumped to the thoughts part)

[@reggycide]

Surely it's okay to have a few games that you save for that core, special group. I get a King's Dilemma vibe from this, and we love playing that.

[@Woodflooralchemist]

Yes I’ve heard it compared to kings dilemma. Kings dilemma is still on my shelf unopened so I can’t say for sure but I love what I hear about both and hope to find a good group of people to play them with

[@robinmarks4771]

Respect to Tom for all he's done for board gaming as a hobby, but I have to say that I really prefer these review videos that don't include him. Y'all seem to vibe better overall and your disagreements are noticeably more respectful and less invalidating. Keep up the awesome work!

[@reylijosh45]

Cool shirt Roy! Looks like you’re representing one of the coolest new anime’s out there

[@boardgameknight2791]

+1 for Demon Slayer!

[@rawkyle9385]

This is a game that would look very pretty on my shelf and get maybe 1 play every 3 years… But if I could find a group to play I would be all about it

[@yuarthur455]

stranger in a strange land

[@Skarpo89]

I do not have a consistent enough gaming group for this, but the game itself looks very good!

[@mapanzer]

As Mike said in the review Cole Wehrle should have included explicitly how to reset the world deck to a random starting point. Both the TTS and VASSAL modules allow this easily. However, I am not sure why Mike et. al. didn't just continue with the chronicled world deck from their first game? The intention of the chronicle I to conserve parts of the game state of the previous game to minimize set up for the next. You just pull out the world box and go. There is no need to reset the world all the time, quite the opposite.

[@DTChrisYi]

One of the plays was on a different copy of the game where the cards got jumbled up. It was not a short amount of time figuring out how to set up a basic game at that point.

[@scottdirrane6360]

There's a PDF on Leder's website that give you all the cards and order for all the cards that are the first set up of the game.

[@mapanzer]

@@DTChrisYi Got it. As Scott says below, Leder Games provides a doc of the original packet order in their website. But the rules should have stated something like this more clearly: "To start over: 54 cards, 9 per suit plus 5 visions, built as instructed on p. 3 of the 'Law,' if you want to be closer to the original starting world deck, use the these specific 54 cards: ..." A general question I have always had: Wouldn't you have just been able to tweet Cole Wehrle or call Leder Games in cases like these? I bet they would not bat an eye to help out the Dice Tower at the drop of a hat.

[@jacobjslee]

This is a great review . . . but 4 Squares doesn't feel the same without Tom. I hope he makes a separate video of his thoughts.

[@ryanbrown9102]

Even if it doesn’t feel the same, yet the guys shared their honest opinions in details and they were absolutely great! Have being said that, I do wonder what Tom think of this game, and I do hope that he will get experience with it and share us with his impressions of it as well...

[@thedicetower]

Tom here! I haven't played it at all. I don't even know HOW it plays! I'll get to it at some point, but I was busy working on other games during this part. I'll play it at some point, but I think the guys did a great job without me! I'm so glad to have a fantastic team.

[@boardgames9950]

@@thedicetower You've got a great group, Tom. Keep on truckin!

[@pumpkinhead76]

Disappointing but 100% fair reviews. Well done gents!

[@ArnoVdVelde]

Was it? I thought this was rather positive.

[@tawink]

Well, I hope Roy's game is not clunky. I'm really looking forward to Last Light.

[@truegod99]

I am not going to lie. This game looks intimidating. However, I would like to try it once or twice. Don't think I would own it

[@astod7792]

I was surprised you guys neglected to discuss price point on this one

[@atomiccritter6492]

they rarely mention price. IIRC they failed to even mention it in their 10 barriers or enemies of gaming video/s. When you have a moderate game cost far more than an AAA top tier compter game theres something a little weird. Its the elephant in the room. They whinge about Monopoly selling but at least its priced reasonably!

[@DTChrisYi]

Sorry for the late reply. I won't speak for everyone, but I seldom mention price often because people have very different threshholds of price, so me saying a game seems too pricey is usually meaningless for a lotof people; they know when a game is too pricey for them. However, I will occasionally mention it if I feel like it is particularly egregious or important, sometimes even as a positive. Hope that helps!

[@borisguy1986]

First game ever of 4 people chancler took over very quick, got two of three player citizenship, and proceeded to prep an army to abuse me as the exile. Little did he know I had an lost heir and now everyone was a citizen. I proceeded to use his forces against the others and kept all flavor away from him to prevent my exile. In doing so I managed to corrupt the other citizens against him. That one match had more story than any other game I ever played. Twilight is pretty similar.

[@wingmansion]

How does it compare to Pax Transhumanity, which I was furious about the manual but it really clicked with me after the first game and I think it is genious. But also only something to play with my thinky kind of friends.

[@MrTomlette]

As far as I know, they don't play paxes, except Pax Pamir 2nd edition in the case of Mike. It feels a bit like a Pax, but less complex (equally obtuse thought). The 4 victory conditions and "moving chairs" style of bashing the leader is here too, but as others have pointed out, is more of a narrative engine than in other paxes (yesterday I played Oath and the amount of twists and turns that the game took towards the second half was just insane).

[@JonReid01]

Who needs Tom? 😂 Jk great video guys!

[@ralelunar]

Tom's the lines between the squares 💪🏼

[@sauce773]

The art and meeples remind me of root

[@TylerAndToast]

So a lifestyle game. 10 games with the same people and you really have a good game. Thats great, but not for everyone and will make it hard to get to the table.

[@bricelory9534]

From what I've read, the goodness of the game comes out of people clicking with what it's doing, since it is a unique idea and approach. Once it clicks for people to not only play for this game but maybe the next instead, I think it will come alive. Depending on the group, that could take far fewer than a ton of plays. But like everyone is saying, it doesn't have to be for everyone and isn't at all trying to be, so if the idea of choosing to do something to set up your heritage in the next game rather than focusing on the here and now isn't as interesting to you, no worries! People on BGG have described it as a sandbox, and I see why - it ends up very open-ended in how you approach situations, and it is fascinating to me to have a deep sandbox game where the plays affect future plays. For me, very very personally, that's a game I'd rather invest into with a full group than one of the plethora of campaign games that rely on their writing quality to carry it forward. It does have a bit of a paper and pencil RPG to it, since the story it tells is entirely up to the players. And I think if the group approaches the game as a story of history being created/written rather than simply winning, I think it will shine pretty quickly, but that's not a sell for everyone. Also, since there's literally nothing that matters if it's the same people, it's far more flexible than campaign/legacy games for playing with different groups or having drop-ins/-outs. You can have a core group and enjoy the same game with a few one-offs here and there, if you desire. I personally quite appreciate that! The rigidity of campaign/legacy games does make them harder to commit to I have found.

[@henryrodriguez6260]

First "4 Squares" review for me. I appreciate getting insights from the four speakers. I will bring up 2 points that hit me as I watched: 1. I do not think any of you (Chris came closest) truly spoke to the emergent narrative that is created as the players progress through this game. It is truly the pinnacle of gaming design when the act of playing creates the narrative, which is what makes for memorable experiences in my book. Other games may seek to provide a narrative rich environment in which to play the game, but these are but window dressings if the gameplay itself doesn't help to let the players create their own narrative. 2. This may be the first time I see a reviewer provide a score for a game based on his perception of what the general gaming audience is likely to feel. That is an odd approach Chris, which I would think lends itself to the great majority of modern, designer boardgames landing between 6.5- 7.5.

[@DTChrisYi]

Ahoy Henry, Chris here. I wasn't resting it on what I anticipated people to think of it. Maybe it came across wrong, but a factor in my rating is the fact that I would struggle to pull it off the shelf and actually play it. As that's the case, I made the point that a lot of people will see that struggle too. The rating is my own and it's about my experience. I am just clarifying that while the game is brilliant (as you pointed out, in part because of those emerging narratives), it is not a blanket recommendation for all people to buy it. Hope that clears it up.

[@henryrodriguez6260]

@@DTChrisYi I appreciate the clarification. The statement in the video were led me to understand you otherwise. And I understand now what caused you to rate it as you did.

[@DTChrisYi]

@@henryrodriguez6260 Thanks for watching and for your comments! And thanks for responding to a seven month late reply.

[@merccc1]

It is part competitive, but also part story building naturally type of game. The luck and strategy help do both, but naturally like in real life it is never for certain and helps build highs and lows, or unlucky or lucky events/out comes. Best layed plans don't always turn out well. kinda simulates it all. Be a little competitive, but embrace its results as fun parts of a story that your experiences from either the winning or losing perspective, instead of getting pissy. Hard to explain. The story comes from the events of play, the way the results occur, and over what locations. Sometimes even if they were doing things in secret not on the locations that can be portrayed as much as them doing things in secret while the others fought for land. Just all depends.

[@Maiv007jb]

I absolutely love this game. My group of friends love playing this game but I can see how this isn’t a game for everyone.

[@petergross7235]

A lot of leder games are all about king making it 1 versus many. I just wish there was less luck involved in those games. Bothered me in root too. If I win or lose to 3 others I want it to be because I was better or they were better...not because I rolled badly.

[@boardgames9950]

Really curious about where consensus falls via game history demographic. It's my impression that those coming directly and solely from Root see the game one way, and those who came to Root and then Oath by following Cole's designs see it differently. And I mean completely differently. I really honestly don't understand the "have to play with a dedicated group". In my eyes, that's completely contradictory to the design concept. It's a drop in drop out legacy game that has it's own internal history. Who plays it doesn't matter. It's the world you created that lives on between games. Obviously YMMV. *shrug* Grain of salt: I think Cole is the bees knees. :)

[@ImperialGit]

I think they weren't referring to the legacy aspect as much as that it's (apparently) a bitch to teach. You'd rather have a group that knows the rules to guarantee smoother playthroughs, rather than having to teach a hard to teach game each weekend.

[@Fontzig]

Have any of you guys played Pax Pamir 2nd edition?

[@michaeldilisio557]

I’ve played it. I like it a lot.

[@Fontzig]

@@michaeldilisio557 Cool, because that's one of my favourite games. It's also a game that I feel rewards multiple plays.

[@Woodsworth94]

The group I play oath with is too crunchy and we never use the citizen mechanic. No one ever gets it given by the chancellor, its annoying honestly I just want to expand the lore lol

[@jonathanrandall1783]

I've never played Root, and don't really plan to, though I wouldn't protest if it got plunked on the table at a game night. I've been in love with Oath since it showed up on kickstarter, Played the PnP and now over 20 games on TTS, getting my copy on Friday...I had no idea that I would be in such an apparently rare demographic, lol.

[@dmi3kno]

Pax Pamir is the closest resemblance

[@BravoSquid]

Their description of combat doesn't seem accurate to me (a battle the attacker lost that wiped out both sides? Not sure how that could happen). And it sounds like they only played a game or two? Anyways, they're absolutely right that this game isn't for everyone. But i will say the game definitely feels less luck based the more you play, and combat does favor favor attacker (but the cost for losing an attack is high).

[@michaeldilisio557]

When the attacker rolls dice, some of the faces have double swords and skulls. Every one of those skulls kills a warband. Also, warbands can be sacrificed by the attacker to add to total strength.

[@BravoSquid]

@@michaeldilisio557 sure but what is a situation where the defender wins and gets wiped out? That's what it sounded like they said. Right around the 29:58 timestamp unless I misunderstood the situation. Maybe the attacker won that attack, which would make more sense I suppose.

[@DTChrisYi]

@@BravoSquid Losing a battle removes all of your armies from the board (half lost, half go to available troops) which still feels like getting wiped out in one sense. Also there are battle tactics cards which do eliminate all lost units back to supply. A full Wipeout can happen.

[@BravoSquid]

@@DTChrisYi sure, but generally when a defender wins they don't lose any warbands. But maybe I misunderstood and the attacker won, which could result in both losing lots of warbands.

[@jonaskissling8343]

The Chronicle and the Journal is in no way goofy! Cmon... Its in the title: Chronicles of Empire and Exile. Its all about the Chronicle, the writing down of history!

[@colinhamilton7365]

They completely missed the meat of the game (storytelling!). It's quite astounding. (Other than maaaybe Chris's brief comment at the end of the thoughts section?)

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

"It can go verry long" and then the guy proceeds to say it can last 3 hours! To my group, 3 hours is a fast game hahahahaha

[@SideGameLLC]

I’m really impressed that this game manages to use action points, has you spend as many as you want on your turn, but has simple enough actions to where it doesn’t take forever. I think being able to save your points to your next turns helps a lot in not having to min max your turns.

[@thecrabbydice]

Start the tom conspiracy theories !

[@pokefrosch617]

Just played yesterday for the first time. I love how the Dice Tower is not just jumping on the hype train. Chris and Roy are spot on. It is clunky, sandboxy and at the same time if you wanna win you dont have to many paths to go down.

[@markwensnahan2128]

It is clear that Tom is far and away the best at Dice Tower at summarising games. This explanation was convoluted and didn't establish early some basic things. And I don't think it is the game's fault.

[@randomfist797]

D

[@miistercrayon]

You guys made oath sound like it plays like munchkin.

[@Jeff321]

Not for me. I hate games where if it's been on the shelf for a year you have to spend hours re-learning the rules. Those simply don't get played again. Also this is terrible for when 1 new player comes in and you have to spend an hour teaching them the rules.

[@mapanzer]

I personally think that they played this up too much. Yes, learning the game takes some dedication, but I don't think I will have trouble remembering them. The game is actually fairly simple, the main rules load is to get the basic flow down. I don't expect to have to relearn it like with so many Euros.

[@Superslemmet]

@@Spearca I don't agree at all. Even if we ignore all site and denizen card abilities, almost all of the basic actions have a bunch of fiddly exceptions that you will forget if you don't play regularly, and they are the reason the game is so tough to teach. New players will constantly think "Ah, ok, I got this" and then immediately get "Yeah but in this situation the rules work differently". Those situations are the bane of new players having a good time. For example: Does the Vision found marker tell me how much supply it costs to search? It depends. Yes if you wanna search the World Deck. No if you wanna search a discard pile. Do I need to stop drawing cards when I get a Vision? It depends. Yes if you drew it from the World Deck. No if you drew it from a discard deck. Can I recover something not at my site? It depends. Yes if it's a banner. No if it's a relic. Is a Vision an adviser? It depends. Yes if you play it face down, then it's a face down advisor, and does not go to your vision space. No if you play it face up, then it goes to your Vision space and cannot be an advisor. Do I need to rule a site with a Denizen card to use that card? It depends. Yes if it's a denizen that is a Battleplan. No if it's any other denizen. Can I pay for a Denizen power when there is already a resource on it? It depends. Yes if it's a battleplan and you are campaigning or being campaigned against. No if its any other denizen. Can I use the same Denizen power multiple times in a round? It depends. Yes if it's battleplan you rule and you campaign or is campaigned against multiple times in a round. No if its any other denizen. If I attack an enemy pawn, can I target their relics? It depends. Yes if the enemy pawn is at the same site as your pawn. No if their pawn is at a site that is attacked, but your pawn is not at the same site. If I attack an enemy pawn, do I have to attack the site too? It depends. Yes if they rule the site. If they do not, you instead cannot attack the site they are at in the same attack. And so on. The basic rules are nowhere near medium-weight. And then you add the exceptions and complexities of the denizen cards, sites and all other exceptions to the rules. The rules are so incredibly convoluted they totally take over and bury any narrative immersion one could have got imo.

[@nubanimator]

Did these guys forget about the citizen and usurper mechanics?

[@gasa5251]

I think this review is a little harsh, maybe as its not really in line with the reviewers tastes... The game is smooth once you get the rules, there's some things that are a little different, but once learnt they tend to stick - i got most of the game rules down after 2 plays. The closed economy, the card decks, and searches from discards, its memory and changing initial win condition from last play, the card deck balance changing from last play, it maybe unfair to say combat has little mitigation (you probably campaigned against too much) but you should know you will win the battles and have planned what to go against... i could go on and on (and maybe i am) It certainly would have its audience, that audience would be looking for something a little different, but this is a tug of war, wargame with some area control (an that is not necessarily the most area, but the right area for your strategy. Lots of thought is needed over all of those major rule breaking cards. The chronicle book can be used however if you want, if at all... i was using it to record the type of victory, how many of each card suite went in and out of the world deck .... a wee story is a good idea too but by no means a requirement, if the book wasnt included, then to write the story you would need to supply your own sticky notes :-)

[@TiagoSousa026]

If someone is looking for a similar game I suggest Armello that is a PC and mobile game. I am sure it's not for me. These types of games are also needed even if it's for a nich.

[@r.l.jeffries1091]

This is absolutely nothing like Armello. Armello is a light weight, quick, casual game. I'd dare say Armello is an entry/gateway game. Opposite of this really.

[@TiagoSousa026]

@@r.l.jeffries1091 By being an entry/gateway game that means it's "absolutely nothing like"? I didn't say it has the same complexity and the same mechanics but it shares a lot of the concepts like King of the hill, competitive (confrontation), different ways to be king, conquer villages, deck building, battles with dice,... I will say again I am not saying they are the same, but some core ideas have some similarities. And a person that likes the concept or thinks it's too complex could enjoy Armello.

[@r.l.jeffries1091]

@@TiagoSousa026 lol battles with dice. Ok man, they're similar.... A lot of games have cards and dice and boards, all similar everyone. If you like Monopoly, get Oath, they have similarities.

[@koalabrownie]

@@r.l.jeffries1091 You're being a jerk, dude.

[@r.l.jeffries1091]

@@koalabrownie my points still remain, even if you dislike the sarcasm I used. You think Oath is similar to Armello and that for someone interested in Oath that Armello is a good suggested alternative? Be honest, don't throw out your ability to think because you dislike me.

[@jackiejlw5493]

Whyyyy do I want to play this so badly? On paper it sounds awful (devastating combat consequences, King-making, lots of ‘luck’, no flavor text, bear to learn and relearn, you need a few plays to even think about strategy, uphill battle to add a new player, and obtuse!) but I can’t stop puzzling about why people love and are raving about it.

[@RadishTheFool]

Some feedback: you all agreed that the game is beautiful and well-produced. But I can't see that at all in the overview video. I appreciate that you go for a setup that allows for the easiest and fastest explanation, but looking at all those card backs does nothing to convey the game's apparent attractiveness. Maybe you could end the overview with an impression shot of what the game looks like while playing? Ideally from a side view, since that top-down view is not very flattering either.

[@LEGnewTube]

Even after the description I still don’t feel like I understand the basics of the game or what it’s even really about.

[@Alan-pn8nu]

Am I the only one that dislikes the colour palette of this game? The art is great, but if the colouring had been different then I think I would find it more appealing.

[@Lingvar]

it's easy to test - take a picture from this game and recolor it in photoshop. these colors don't let this art style fall apart. Otherwise it will look like newspaper doodles slapped into a non-existent design. Wacky animals and splashy colors - how little do we need these days.

[@drstclair]

I feel like Oath would have been a better review for one person to do instead of 4. Yes, it's one of the biggest releases of 2021. But I don't get a lot out of reviews when everyone agrees on pretty much everything. Following that, because you four played it together, the problems you have with a game are going to be shared among each other as opposed to having different experiences with different types of games. This second point isn't necessarily targeted at Oath in particular, but the format in general. In most cases, if a game session has something go awry, then it is common to have the group collectively feel the same way. I feel like most 4 Square episodes need a little more time in the oven for them to be fully fleshed out.

[@antoyal]

(Disclaimer: So far I have only played this game once.) I enjoyed the game, but it's weird to me that Munchkin gets so much flak for a feature that seems to be important to Oath and Root, which are acclaimed and beloved compared with the reviled Munchkin. I'm talking about this scenario: Player X is about to win--either due to a Vow in Oath, a Dominance card in Root, or they're Level 9 and fighting a monster in Munchkin--so everyone piles everything they can on them. Then it's Player Y who is about to win, so everyone pile on them. Definitely Oath seems like a game that will reveal more and more of its strategy as we continue to play it, but that Munchkin-style piling-on / kingmaking was part of my first impression. I would add that the game mechanics themselves gave me a very good impression too though, and I want to play more in order to learn the game better. Crucially, it is a *fun* game. Finally, I strongly dislike the art design and illustrations, but on the other hand I agree that they make the game more approachable to more players. Can't wait to play this one again so that I can figure it out more.

[@horrido666]

Roll a six and win, huh. I'll pass on this one.

[@boardgames9950]

Unfortunately, that's a gross simplification and unfair to the design. But still true!

[@cooly1234]

I don't get why people are like this but then they are totally fine with dice deciding everything else.

[@roosterchains]

It is soooo much better than it sounds! Creates great tension, plus you always can win before that.

[@LPDani123]

so I guess they kept the core of Root, similarly broken combat system, trying to keep others from winning and relying on other players to keep each other in check, making this hard because the system is pretty complex too see how far ahead someone is

[@dankelly]

Did you say, at the end of multiple rounds you role a die and of you get six you automatically win??? WTH?

[@Joshua_Tymchyn]

No, you role to see if the game automatically ends and THEN the game looks to see who is currently winning.

[@dankelly]

@@Joshua_Tymchyn Ah... That's... Not any better.. Well, it's slightly better. Still, extremely random. I'd probably house rule that right out the door.

[@Joshua_Tymchyn]

@@dankelly I'm not going to tell you how to house rule your games, but that might not be such a good idea. It's a fundamental rule to the game.

[@darryljohnson8516]

@@dankelly No, the way it works is you only roll if the Empire is currently winning, as in they are keeping the oath, the die roll determines if they win early. It's not an "automatic win" by any stretch of the imagination, the Chancellor is always the first player in a round giving the rest of the players opportunities to prevent a game winning die roll throughout the rest of the round. If the exiles don't have the tools necessary to wrest the oathkeeper title away from the Chancellor, then it's not really the Empire winning randomly (the Empire was already in a winning position), but rather the game ending early randomly. The purpose of the die roll is to create a sense of urgency. Instead of thinking "Oh, the game ends at a fixed point three turns from now, here's how I'm planning out my next three turns to put me in a better position to win then." You're thinking "the game has the danger of ending now; I need to do something about it right now to prevent that possibility." In practice, it has the effect of incentivizing the Exiles to work together to deal with a clear and present danger; otherwise you have exiles all off doing their own thing and trying to follow their own goals.

[@richardsaunders9214]

Roy’s opinion is probably closest to what I would feel. This doesn’t look for a game for me.

[@piesandhiking4943]

This game is really overly complex. It's just cosmic encounter with a ton of unnecessarily complex rules. I like complex games, they are my jam. This one has complexity that gets in the way. Not complexity that enhances the decision space of the game.

[@maxducoudray]

Not a euro. Not ameritrash. Some luck in combat. Sounds like the Four Squares need to learn about wargaming. 😉

[@TheBrokenMeeple]

Not a fan of the colour scheme with that mat and the obtuse rules with the lack of any chance of casual play and the highly lucky combat for the complexity and game length, yeah hard pass for me. Poor setup and difficulties in learning the game should dock it a fair amount.