The Best & Worst of Arcs by Leder Games | First Impressions

[@Quackalope]

Subscribe for future Arcs content!

[@BradleyLayton7]

Ordered everything for this game 1.5 years ago with no research. Played my first 2 player game last night and got decimated at 37 vs 6 points 😂 had a blast!

[@Quackalope]

XD haha - sounds like our games :)

[@lystic9392]

Not a guarantee, but having fun losing is typically a good sign that you're playing an excellent game.

[@feruspriest]

My operating hypothesis is the giant gulfs in scoring are indicative of player learning curves. Looking forward to trying it out with friends this weekend to be proven wrong/right!

[@vickh183]

Cole Wehrle best designer in modern boardgaming

[@Quackalope]

Yea, I mostly agree with you. He would be in my top 5 for sure.

[@Vesperoth]

@@Quackalope who are the other 4? 👀👀👀

[@monoludico6166]

@@vickh183 Yeah, I have John Company, Pax Pamir and everything Root. CW is his own kind of genius. I'm still considering Oath, but I'm pretty sure I'll get Arcs.

[@jjschm20]

One of Cole Wehrle’s best games. For one of the negatives, the only way to mount a defense is to build up your fleet. The only defense in this game is mutually assured destruction. Every action is important so if you decide you’d rather use all your build actions on cities and keep your fleet small, you’re going to get picked on. There are some Court cards and Lore cards that can beef up defense but you can’t rely on getting them.

[@AlgidSquid]

Personally I see that as more of a positive. It means the game won't get stagnant due to players trying to turtle up in some corner.

[@Magicman1625]

Havent finished the video yet but did you guys just pick one die type during attacks? Choosing just one die type during an attack increases potential rewards but also potential danger to yourself. Like if you have five ships and want to raid a guild card with two keys but the enemy has three fresh ships then picking only two raid die and three skirmish might be a good way to do that. The danger of enemy fresh ships with the raid die is huge considering just one intercept in that scenario would deal the attacker three damage. However if you are the lead card and have mutiple attacks you have the flexibility to skirmish a few battles to damage or destroy enemy ships then raid on the final assult so that possible intercept damage isnt nearly as damaging to the attacker. Its this kind of depth and thinking that keeps me thi king about this game all day lately. I feel as thoigh ive only scratched the surface of base game play 😁

[@andrewh5568]

A way to mitigate damage from the dice would be to allow a retreat from the dice roll. If you sacrifice a ship being attacked the other ships can retreat or if you have a spaceport in that location you can retreat into the planet free space in the sector(I think it was called the gate in the instruction manual)by sacrificing it or can only retreat when you have one. Or allowing people to convert hits into raid keys or allowing the attacker to ignore attacker damage in exchange for retreating Giving people no defence other than just having a lot of ships meant that you're always vulnerable which has advantages and limitations.

[@jpodius]

I don't recall taking any tricks. All I recall is having to take a bunch of single action pivots and copies because an entire hand of cards for multiple chapters didn't match what I needed. It was not fun.

[@user-cw4zj6kc8u]

Fair criticisms. After my first two games I understood how to pull all the levers but I don't think I understood how to properly maneuver those systems after about 4-5 games. It was when I started learning how to combo my cards with resources in the prelude actions that I started to really understand how to move around and do some damage. The dice are structured so that you should assess the risk you want to take. Sometimes if you can do multiple battles, start off with mostly skirmish dice and then do your damage and raids with assault and raid dice. So that the intercept doesn't hurt you as much. Destroy cities only if it's really going to benefit you to bank a tone of trophies and grab you some great Guild or Vox cards; Destroy their star-ports instead. I go back and forth of what's more accessible Arcs or Root or Oath. Since it seems like all of Cole Werhle games are all complex so they really are games that you should only play if you're an avid gamer. Newbie gamers tend to play it once and not get it and stop playing. Or they play them and just don't like how complex or mean they can be. Those players often like games like Moonrakers or The Grizzled or something like Catan. They tend to like less competitive games and more co-op or semi-co-op games. In some ways I feel like Root is the easiest one to understand in that the over all rules are fairly straight forward and then you just read and do what your faction board says. Oath I think is easy in the sense of everyone is doing the same thing but I found that players didn't really understand how to use their actions to reach their goal. I feel like Arcs is similar to Oath in that sense in that what you can do is fairly simple to understand it's just you need to figure out how to properly use your actions to reach your goal. Only with Arcs I feel like it's more of a game like Catan in that it's mainly just a game without a lot of lore or depth like Oath. (Then again I'm hoping to get that in the Campaign which I have yet to play.) I feel like all of Cole's games are games that you have to spend time with to really appreciate them. They really are an acquired taste kind of games. In my experience light gamers tend to not like them. As they tend to just want a simple game you play once and can understand how to play in like 5 minutes. While all of his games are games you have to play several times to really understand and then they're gold. So I think now that I've played three of his games I would say Cole Werhle is for experienced gamers who love trying to really get deep into playing games and keep discovering new strategies. And it becomes like the games they play most. Because of that I really think Cole should just put a solo mode in all of his games lol. Otherwise they would just sit on the shelf because the gamer who owns it tends to have a hard time finding players that will sit and play it with them. He's still my favorite designer right now but I think that's my biggest criticism of his games is that because they take several games to really enjoy them they are very hard to get others to sit down and play them with you. All that being said I do like Arcs. I think I like Root and Oath a little bit more but I still really like it and hope my gaming group likes it to be able to play through the Campaign.

[@nalder4x4runnerfamilyoverl93]

interesting review. I found the game very engaging and approachable. My first game with my 9 YO daughter ended up 32-28 with my kid learning the game very easily. I was surprised at how easy the ambition scoring element was. your miles may vary.

[@coratoraYT]

This is a great "mixed-good?" review. I am very much looking forward to a future review!

[@Alphan0va777]

Appreciate your coverage of this game, Jesse!!!

[@benjaminlefkowitz9463]

Sh'koiach for not falling for the hype, and giving a thorough criticism. This is what I need to know before I buy. שבת שלום!

[@MrK0812]

Great content, Jesse. I have been following you since your video release of Sam Healeys favourite games. You always appeared to be someone who loves board games and you seemed to be the first content creator who actually wanted to convey the feeling of playing great games through his videos - yes, your style was polarizing but it seemed like a holistic offering to people who were seeking good content on board games. And yes, I also understood that it was necessary to also create click baity videos for Kickstarter Previews and I also kept my calm when the alleged ATO black mailing came up - I felt compassion for the impact it had on you, your loved ones and friendships and was rather shocked what kind of fallout it created. It was not fair IMHO. Now seeing this video just showed and reminded me again what a good content creator you are in this field: great video editing, holistic game analysis incl. preparation and easy to follow structure. Really great stuff and I hope you keep on doing this kind of high quality content. All the best to you and this restart of Quackalope - which seems to go back to its roots, which I love of course. So much so, that I will forgive click baity stuff and future sponsored content :)

[@rainingsunny]

There is a lot more wheeling and dealing and a stronger emphasis on narrative with the Blighted Reach campaign expansion. However this adds a tonne of rules (mainly Summits, which introduce a phase where you can trade and negotiate most resources including ships, cities/starports and your dudes; the Imperial Forces and Blight which are sort of like NPCS that you have some control over AND finally Fates which are character-based unique goals away from the power points). The game is heavily tactical and someone who can adapt quickly (to their hand, to the board state, to potential opportunities) will do much better. There is definitely a skill curve and it'll take you a few games to get better at managing the systems (especially optimising the use of the guild/vox cards AND the prelude actions which both allow you to circumvent a "bad" hand to some degree).

[@Quackalope]

It is ruthless at 2p. Would the blight campaign work well at 2 with all the trading?

[@rainingsunny]

@@Quackalope I played a 2p game of the first act (out of 3) with my friend who was playing Magnate which is a heavy trading based Fate. It still sort of worked because you're still incentivised to score ambitions and the trades help both of you. In the campaign you want to both score ambitions AND complete your personal objectives. In a way there can be some cooperative elements depending on how the players interact with each other (vs the blight). Obviously it (the trading component) would have been better with more people but it's still ok. Some Fates are more better with 2p I feel (but you have some flexibility on how you match them up).

[@Quackalope]

Really good info to know - thank you!

[@niklasjohansson5194]

You have to keep the other players in check and not be afraid of conflict as your scores show. The players that get the game quickly will definitely be at an advantage for the first few games.

[@Quackalope]

At the moment. We are 4 games in and every game has had a runaway leader.

[@oerthling]

You get the particular thematic factions in the campaign game. Base Arcs is, well, base. It's the extracted core of the originally planned Arcs. There's a stripped down thematic asiect with leader & lore, but on the whole bqse Arcs is for people who want the the dense tactical core experience of Arcs. If you want the more thematic version, you need the campaign where you cqn ge the Stewqrd fighting for dying empire, fighting against the downfall or a pirate, etc... BTW I disagree with commenters who say you should play n games of naked core Arcs before adding Leader & Lore. Those 2 cards are simple enough to add in to your first or second game and give you a little taste of thematic asymmetry. I just played with 3 Arcs noobs and we used the L&L right away. Wasn't a problem at all. Playing a few base Arcs games before jumping into campaign Arcs is a good idea though.

[@siriactuallysara]

This isn’t a troll comment I am playing through aeons tresspass in a group of 4 and it’s a top 5 favorite game for me

[@Quackalope]

I am thrilled you are enjoying it! I think the game is a remarkable campaign game. I also think its crazy complicated and impossible to play accurately :)

[@siriactuallysara]

@@Quackalope we don’t mind house rules so that’s not an issue

[@siriactuallysara]

@@Quackalope I agree if you are a stickler for the rules. Then it’s definitely an issue. The rules are so vast and complex it’s very very difficult to get them all correct. We are at like 90% accurate.

[@Quackalope]

@@siriactuallysara Nice! So, in that case - you are 100% playing it right and I fully believe your having a blast :)

[@Magicman1625]

Im getting ready to teach the base game to a friend myself and i definitely wanna emphasize how important scoring is if you wanna achieve victory and some strategies like choosing your ambitions based on your starting resorces, knowing your influence stealing cards and cards you actually get all the pips from. While this is a simple teach it is definitely hard to see all the crazy combos just by looking at the rulebook or board and i think the best part is finding thise combos naturally through play. Once both of us feel comfortable i plan to add leaders and lore which ive heard makes the game feel slightly more similar to Root by adding the feel of factions and asymmetrical powers.

[@shingodzilla7855]

Arcs is not that complex TBH. That said, you do need to pay attention to the whole board (like other Cole Wehrle games). I always play either Campaign or if single session using Leaders and Lore, which by introducing true asymmetry ramps up the strategy element. And yes, this is a VERY good game. So are A Gest of Robin Hood and Vijayanagara.

[@jjschm20]

Vijayanagara shocked me with how good it was.

[@SmackMule]

I played the base game last week with four players. I enjoyed it. Was interesting. Decent game for sure. Nothing approaching best game of '24, though.

[@Quackalope]

Yep, no one at the table was going online to buy a copy. We were just all - interested and willing to play again. I have had game I bought immediately.

[@xicecatx]

I can totally see how a 2 player game with one person not quite grasping the mechanics being swinging. I've played this a few time with my game group now and cannot imagine a scenario where in a 4 player game someone just runs away like that. This game gives full king killing power. If your table sees someone wildly ahead of the rest and just sits there and lets it happen...that's kinda on you guys. This game requires reacting to what's happening, it's not like a terra mystica where you can just focus on yourself without the context of what the other players are doing

[@azkaulem]

The card mechanic doesn't really feel like trick taking. Is it just me?

[@IslanKleinknecht]

I like the dice, I find the choice largely dependent on the number of ships involved on either side. What does seem to concern me is the incentives for fighting can feel fairly nebulous.

[@tagtwo]

The base game without leaders and lore doesn’t have any real starting lore. Adding leaders and lore will provide some. The campaign though, that’s got your lore. Ultimately the base game is the engine for the campaign. It just turned out that the base game, particularly with leaders and lore, is pretty fantastic stand alone. EDIT: Root is more structured in building your engine and hampering your opponents. Arcs is about being able to pivot and adapt to the chaos to get ahead or stop someone, while building a from a more random and diverse set of parts.

[@zildremo7992]

- Most agree: Too reliant on memory. This is needlessly discriminating against older players and those with certain medical conditions; unless memory is a primary feature of the game, reliance on it should be avoided. Having seen my own short term memory skills fade dramatically over recent years, I didn't appreciate this element of the game at all. I like the designer's suggestion of face-up and face-down discard piles, but I'd go a step further - each player should keep their own discard pile and any player may search any discard pile, but players may only view their own face down discards. Counterpoint: Using a skill such as memory is one way to improve it, so for some people forcing themselves to remember things may actually improve their ability - but this doesn't apply to everyone. - Most disagree: The dice suck. I like dice, and I like these dice in particular. Having different sets with different strengths and weaknesses really adds some tactical options to the game, while having them inflict damage on the attacker affords a very quick and effective "strike back" mechanism without the game descending into endless dice rolling. WH40K could learn a thing or two here... As for it being too random, or too many points relying on the outcome, I'd argue players aren't using combat properly. Combat by its nature is unpredictable. Giving yourself a single hit or miss chance at lots of points is BAD STRATEGY. Instead, you should be giving yourself more chances - more battle actions. These can be used either to soften up the enemy (skirmishing) before going in for the kill (assault and/or raid) to minimise your own losses, or to give yourself a second chance should the first fail - or ideally both. Attacking with one pip is like tossing a coin; attacking with two or three really steers the outcome in your favour. Most confused: You said players always had options, always had ways to come back... but then you said you saw a player get totally steamrollered out of the game early on. Unfortunately I've definitely seen the latter...

[@zildremo7992]

I also disagree with comments about scoring. From what I have seen players either score a lot in a chapter, or score very little (if at all). As you said yourself, it is a race to victory. There are also inherent risks in trying to score big. I think the idea is players should either be trying to score big (such as multiple stacked ambitions on a single objective) or making it harder for other players who have declared ambitions to score big (splitting ambitions, or forcing players to lose or draw their ambition). I don't think you can judge skill in Arcs by saying players scored close - I expect there to be big gaps even between players who both played well. You really can be the second best player in a chapter and score nothing...

[@JayChampagne]

Interesting that the 2-player had such a large point disparity. I played a 2-player game with someone who was fairly new to the hobby, and there was less than a ten-point spread.

[@CharlesBarnister]

Wild assumption here, but based on what you said about the dice wiping out your own fleets... just wanted to check that "intercepts" only trigger once. No matter how many you roll. Coz wiping out your own fleet should not really happen unless foolishly taking on a much larger defending fleet. Also, if you want Lore and flavour text.... just wait till you play the campaign!

[@chrisedwards6573]

I played this game a few times while it was still in development on TTS, and a few times after it was complete and in production, and then my crowd-funded all-in copy a couple of times, as well. The ship miniatures are bad; they don't look bad. They're bad for gameplay; the wooden pieces stand up-right or lay down easily, but the plastic minis fall over easily on their own which is detrimental to gameplay. The starts are NOT balanced; especially in three player, often one person is either at a severe advantage or disadvantage. I think the game plays well at two players, and its pretty chaotic at 4, but at 3, someone is going to get picked on the whole game and virtually eliminated, and that isn't likely to be the person winning but rather the person who the winner picked on first. There's very little disincentive to attack and often few consequences, and depending on your hands you can just get screwed after someone does this to you; I've seen the 'rare' circumstance of player elimination in all of my three player games and about half of the four player games since the board changed and the game was redeveloped; this was something that didn't happen in the earlier versions which were, IMO, a much better game. The game is slow; the box says it takes 120 minutes, but that isn't even accurate for a two-player game with people who know how to play. In my experience a two-player game takes about 3 to 3.5 hours, and a 4 player game will take you closer to 5 or 6, which puts it at how long it takes to play Twilight Imperium, and that's ridiculous. The earlier versions were not like this; a 3 or 4 player game took about 60 to 90 minutes. The dice didn't change; so what did? Well, a lot. The core mechanics of scoring went from a more root-like system to the ambitions, which more closely resemble TI and don't necessarily reward good management of your 'empire'. The resources changed in what they did and how they worked. Its really just not the same game, and I don't think I would have crowdfunded this version. I will say that I'm never crowdfunding anything from Leder games again, and likely never buying another Leder games product after this. For some people this game will be great; it has a lot of interesting mechanics. The asymmetry isn't quite Twilight Imperium level, but it's there if you add in the Leaders and Lore. I've yet to play the Blighted Reach campaign at all and at this point it seems unlikely I'll ever be able to get my gaming group to do so; after 3 games everyone who's tried it dislikes it. "It's too random." "It's very swingy." "I can't plan anything in advance so my turns take too long." This may not be you or your group, but for me, this is both my experience online in TTS and offline with my physical copy. Arcs WAS a better game. I get why some people like it, but it absolutely isn't game of the year or IME even a great game. it's just good for certain kinds of gamers, and frankly with how long it takes to play I'd rather just play Twilight Imperium.

[@edmundengland]

You have fantastic lighting and cinematography!

[@thisjust10]

I skipped right to leaders and lore per SCPT reccomendation and it's already in my top 5 games of all time. So fun and interesting, can't wait to try blighted reach.

[@opsallen]

Genuine question - where did all the B-roll footage and dramatic music go? One of the first reasons why I subbed to the channel.

[@Quackalope]

We still have a wide range of that footage. However, the drama and lies from this last year cost the channel around $250,000. Ended 4 full time jobs (my own included) and has made it so both my wife and I are back to working full time outside of the channel. Filming and editing the additional footage is just a question of time. It’s not always possible.

[@wye_Homba]

What!? This needs elaboration.

[@gR22401]

@@QuackalopeVague posting this way highlights the potential source of the drama.

[@MerrillWhiteKalEl]

Thanks for your thoughts - I really want to try it eventually

[@pzubets]

"Don't buy on hype" Yeah, right

[@Quackalope]

Bad advice?

[@pzubets]

@@Quackalope probably, good, but still, not that helpful:)

[@Quackalope]

Haha. I understand :) I still buy on hype.

[@analog_arnie]

I think this is a really good video to exist. It goes over a lot of the positives and the negatives. I think the scores will get closer as people learn how to balance each other. However, it is like the woodland alliance or corvid conspiracy where at the end you can just explode. And people need to be aware of and try and stop it. I think if your group doesn't ever grasp the risk/reward options of the dice then they are severely hampering themselves strategically. And leaving out a lot of how the game self balances. I also hear you in regards to narrative. Trust me, Leaders & lore will make you feel like you are an individual trying to do something different than your opponents. Do not move on to the campaign without including them. They don't have a lot of rules overhead just some much needed spicey asymmetry And in the campaign? Holy crap. You will get the narrative you are seeking. There is the story for sure. However, I think maybe you are still rushing into it too fast. It is A LOT MORE than base game. Anyway, good luck to ya!

[@jaymar5189]

Great video. My group has played twice. Opinions are varied but all of us want to play again. This time with leaders & lore. There is a lot to learn. I know that I have been thinking about how I could’ve played better. Also just how clever many aspects of this game are. Off topic what notepad is that?

[@richardkramer1542]

A shirt, tie and a decent haircut!! Looks good!! 👍🏻👍🏻 Keep up the good work. Seems an interesting game.

[@Quackalope]

Aww, thanks so much :)

[@thomasromanelli2561]

As I have come to know Arcs, I've discovered that it is nigh impossible to "turtle" due to the open nature of much of the map, the unpredictable effects of opponents leveraging their prelude phase and the fact that you really can't build sufficient ships quickly. The game does reward the adaptable player- some one who pursues a particular strategy but doesn't hesitate to abandon it entirely when the circumstances no longer support their initial gambit. The limited action system (pips) also forces one to make hard decisions about achieving effects now versus setting up for a later, possible play. It's one of Cole's most engaging designs thus far, and we're lovin' it! 🖖

[@D3m0n7x]

im having my first play of arcs this Sunday I gotta say I am extremely excited about this game, and I am kinda surprised that you had these thoughts on it, I always associated you with a huge fondness for Leder games games, I think that the blighted reach expansion will give you all the lore and epicness you want out of the game though. on another note, and sorry If I am lagging months behind, did you ever do the crimson scales giveaway for backers of rover?

[@Quackalope]

Video with names will be posted tomorrow alongside another giveaway :)

[@D3m0n7x]

@@Quackalope sweet! Keeping my fingers crossed haha

[@dago6410]

I dont get people saying this huge gap in results is sth wrong. Finally. In most games, they try to hide how much the better player is better than a worse player. As a chess player, i think it is obvious a better player should be able to mop the floor woth the worse player. Otherwise being better means nothing. This fakturę makes me more not less likely to buy this.... tho i suck at trick taking so I expect to be on the 2 points side of this xdd

[@shyzunk]

wait root has 12 factions now? Did I miss a major update? :-D I have 21+ factions in my pool so at first you really had me thinking if I missed some official developments :-D

[@Quackalope]

XD . . . nope. I just say numbers :) its 5am when I was recording lol.

[@amolech]

This is 100% in alignment with my experience. I was crushed chapter 1 and people kept hitting me the rest of the game because i was an easy target that couldnt retaliate in a meaningful way. The score was close until chapter 3 (me at 3 and the leader at like 13, it was a month ago so cant remember exactly) when one person scored a ton and ended the game. I finished the game with I believe 3 points. This was a first game and would likely get better over more plays, but its definitely possible to have one player get hosed by the RNG (like settlers when your number just never comes up) with no option to come back if the rest of the table isnt kind. I had a decent time but it was super frustrating to just be stuffed down the whole time. And yeah I agree with the 6/10 score, could go up easily based on campaign and leaders and lore, but base game can be way too RNG heavy.

[@Quackalope]

Thanks for sharing! With an experienced group it can be very compelling - but an unbalanced game is rough and can even be unfun.

[@thegamesninja3119]

The chaos angle I see akin to Cosmic Encounter. The heart of Arcs is trick taking, in contrast to Cosmic that is poker.

[@wye_Homba]

Why do people keep using the term trick taking? Bridge is a trick taking game. There are tricks. Someone takes them, and they win the little pile of cards that is the trick. In arcs, there is no trick, and there is no taking of a trick. Applying the term trick taking to the action mechanic in arcs is breaking the definition of trick taking, and is therefor both unhelpful and misleading.

[@thegamesninja3119]

@wye_Homba well what goes on in Cosmic isn't poker, but it approximates. Trick taking goes by many forms, not just Bridge.

[@thedeltastrat]

44:24 - guess I should stay in and do some work?

[@PaweAdamowicz1981]

Do you remember Oros? Lame game, but you hyped it. Now it stands on my shelf, and taking dust. I learned my lesson, and will buy arcs.

[@Quackalope]

@@PaweAdamowicz1981 yep, absolutely. I think BGco and I liked it a decent amount when in prototype form. The final version was not as good. I would have to check the changes again to remember why. It’s good to know what and who shares your tastes :)

[@siriactuallysara]

I think they can sell this as a faster twighlight imperium.

[@Quackalope]

I think, in some form yes, but I also think the closest elements to TI will show up with the more advanced plays. So, it's a long road to get there and the end question is - is the time invested worth the trade off.

[@siriactuallysara]

@@Quackalope I ended up not backing this game. But if it has a good campaign maybe I get it on the next KS. so I can get the expansion and play with my group. Already we have 7 games in the queue though

[@Quackalope]

We will have a lot of coverage and some very high quality gameplays :)

[@oerthling]

​@@QuackalopeIt's faster (as base game), but it's not like TI, except for: has planets and ships. In fact people who bounce off of Arcs often expected something more like TI or Eclipse. And then find that Arcs doesn't work that way at all.

[@dublao7]

The difference between my 1st game and my 10th game (in terms of enjoyment) was tremendous. Unfortunately this game takes about that many plays to really ramp up and start to see it as less random, and more a puzzle for control. I really think adding in leaders and lore, and eventually the campaign is going to make some impact on your opinion. Reminds me of the experience of a new player in a first person shooter (video game). Your first experience is always going to be losing to the experienced player, and you’re simply going to have to play until you can really compete. Based on your review I would absolutely destroy you and your crew. JK JK But seriously, it’s going to take you some time to hit those headshots. I would watch a follow up of how (if) your opinion shifts over time as you get more exposure.

[@fan-i-am]

I love trick taking card games. I have the game Sensō: Battle for Japan. When I saw ARCS I thought the font and artwork reminded me of ROOT, so I dismissed it, because I don't like ROOT. But since I've been seeing more of it now it's out and people are giving their reviews, I'm eager to try it. I want to like it

[@Quackalope]

Come to a game night and play it with us! :)

[@oerthling]

Arcs isn't a trick taking game. It just uses a kinda trick taking mechanism for its action selection.

[@fan-i-am]

@@oerthling yeah realise that. But I was just stating that since I like trick taking, any little amount of it in the game amongst the other mechanics will be sure to pique my interest

[@oerthling]

@@fan-i-am Yeah, just want to make sure people have the right expectations. :-)

[@Quackalope]

@@oerthling I do think the core feeling and strategy is very similar to some great trick taking games like ghosts of Christmas and 5 lives.

[@quishzhu]

I got 0 point in my first game! I got 4 construction cards in my hand for the first round .. This game is not free at all. I come here as a faction to compete, why my actions get restrcited to the first player's card's color. As a area control player, I don't like this at all.

[@Jorn2u]

These clickbate titles...

[@Quackalope]

This free content . . .

[@Joshua_Tymchyn]

It got you here, didn't it? :P

[@Jorn2u]

@@Joshua_Tymchyn it made me stop the vid after one minute. So yeah, it got them their Ad Income. But now I'll never watch their vids again. So yeah, not the best business practice

[@5hrsbefore1998]

@@Quackalopeis it really free if you try to extort money out of publishers lol. you’re a joke.

[@analog_arnie]

The title is totally accurate. The thumbnail is a little off base.

[@Gothbrooks420]

Thanks for the video! I am loving this game so far and I wasnt initially excited cause the theme isnt as interesting to me, However, regarding the dice issues: I feel like the dice and thier consequences are very similar to Root where the dice can and often do win or lose a game on a single good or bad role.

[@garyspartan67]

Thanks for the breakdown. I think they packed in too many mechanics and rules, but not enough means to score points. And this is definitely not a gateway game, for sure. I might play it if someone else buys it and breaks it out for a game night, just out of curiosity, but it's a hard pass for me and won't be buying. I've watched a bunch of videos on this game and so many are praising it's mechanics and such, but no one really addresses the points problem. I get the feeling that this game will flame out within the next 6 months or so due to its unwelcoming nature.

[@polymossimal]

Hey Jesse, Just wanted to say I appreciate your grind in the board gaming space. I know stuff was turbulent for awhile but I always appreciate your hardwork and love for the hobby. Hope to see you at gen con, good sir!

[@elqord.1118]

Great overview

[@TheWalkMan1234]

That's a dope tie.

[@Orcallo.]

Is the time investment into these complicated rules worth the fun reward?

[@louisuniverse]

@@Orcallo. honestly Arcs is pretty simple. The game’s basic loop is straightforward. What you do with it is the complex/tactical part It’s very very fun.

[@JanusZudnik]

The rules are not complicated

[@White1148]

This is very much an easy to learn hard to master game. I've had 5 plays so far, my friends have had more. Not hard to learn, hard to play well.

[@crash331]

@@White1148 Sort of like chess? Seems complicated at first when someone is saying "this can do this, but THIS can do THIS". But once you spend a couple of hours with it, the hard part isn't the rules, it's the turn-to-turn tactics.

[@White1148]

@@crash331 you just have to understand the action system. It's like a trick taker but not exactly. Surpass is play something higher of the same suit, which means you can use all of the actions on that card. Pivot is playing a card of another suit face up to not do the same actions as the lead card. So you could do one build action rather than battle for example. Lastly, you can copy which is playing a card face down which allows you one action of the same types that are on the lead card. You can also play two cards to take the lead play for the next turn. If you lead, you get to take all of the actions available on the card you play. Honestly after one good playthrough you should have it down on how to play the game. Then after that you're going to have a hell of a lot more fun. And your task is to read the situation you are in to do the most that you can to better your situation. The key to the game in terms of winning is the ambitions. I haven't won a game yet because I have focused too much on fighting and a couple of the other things rather than taking the lead and getting ambitions done.

[@dcrbdh]

I think it's important to be critical of Wehrle games. I don't think Cole is a bad designer, just a "meh" designer IMO. Right now there is a massive amount of Hype. Videos are being made about criticisms of this game are wrong. Fans of Wehrle games have a tendency to attempt to drown out critical voices.

[@TheGilzam]

This is a fair perspective. I'm def in the "Cole Wehrle can do no wrong camp." I think it tends to be easy to shrug off major criticism like "there is king making" or "its mean" or "his game design limits your ability to plan ahead." The reason its easy to shrug that criticism off is because those are reasons some of us enjoy his games.

[@crash331]

@@TheGilzam Yeah, it seems like Cole leans towards the wargame design philosophy. He also tends to prefer game balancing done by the players rather than 'baking in' the balancing. It lends more freedom when playing with other dedicated 'wargamers', but if there is a skill gap or if players don't know the right counters, it can lead to lopsided games.

[@Crumplebutt]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but calling Cole a 'meh' designer is wild. Like his designs or not, he's one of the most innovative and thoughtful designers in the space today.

[@dcrbdh]

@@Crumplebutt *shrug* Yeah. I could clap back with design choices he makes that I dislike. But I don't think I'm changing your mind. I've got Arcs on the way and suspect I'll enjoy it. I've played a ton of Root and Oath, and yeah his designs don't excite me.

[@are_you_smarter_than_a_LLM]

Sorry, I didn't appreciate the title and the format of the video wasn't great... Not concise enough. Wishing you luck on future videos though

[@oerthling]

The comparisons with TI, Eclipse or Cosmic Encounter don't make sense or are at least very superficial. The things that Arcs has in common with those games: - Scifi - contains starships - has some sort of Combat And Arcs is not a multiplayer solitaire game. If you just focus on your tableau "engine" you lose. The counter to something the opponents achieve is often to crush their fleets, raid their starports/cities or outbid them in guild cards.

[@JanusZudnik]

Well, ambitions remind me of the objectives in TI though. And there's also some diplomacy, of course ramped up to overdrive in the campaign. Lastly, the area control aspect is very dependant on your goals and not necessarily a goal in itself. I just know TI, so can't comment on the other 2.

[@crash331]

I think the Cosmic Encounter comparison is because it sounds like the players are responsible for keeping other players in check, or else they will run away. Like in Root, as well.

[@oerthling]

​@@crash331​ OK. But that is not a particular connection to Cosmic Encounter or Root. That's in common with about every multiplayer gane that involves conflict. Diplomacy, Inis, a hundred others.

[@crash331]

@@oerthling Game mechanics are re-used everywhere. You rarely find unique ones these days. So I don't think it is out of line to compare using a game that is probably most well-known for being unbalanced by design so the players have to balance the game.

[@oerthling]

@@crash331 Of course mechanics are copied all over the place. Of course Games having a lot in common can be compared. It's these specific comparisons that I find weird and superficial. TI and Eclipse have quite a bit in common. Both use exploration and place hex tiles in a geomorphic map. Both have tech trees. Etc... But does TI and Arcs share an action selection mechanism. Nope. Exploration. Nope. Have a variety of shit types, fight over a capital world with special powers, geomorphic hex map, winning conditions, etc... except for theme and mentioning space ships they don't share that much. Arcs and Cosmic Encounter: Do they both use similar combat mechanic? Nope. Action selection? Nope. Win condition? Nope. Movement and target selection? Nope. Etc... People compare them because sci-fi.

[@FxBrawler]

Too late.

[@adelindumitru5518]

Who even listens to this guy anymore?

[@Quackalope]

So many people :)

[@richardkramer1542]

I do. And why not?

[@Alloniya]

I’ve heard some people like it and some not

[@Quackalope]

That seems to be the case :)

[@lystic9392]

You are wise in your ways.