On the topic of crazy tactics, there was this one game I played with folks on TTS where this one person had an OPPRESSIVE amount of trophies. He declared warlord, and it became clear to the table he was just going to win the game that chapter. The other player didn't have a large fleet because he had been the main target for the warlord's aggression. Meanwhile, I had a nice fleet but circumstances that would make it impossible for me to mount an offensive and contest on trophies. The warlord's fleet was also so scattered that it would take a lot of moves in addition to battles to destroy enough of it. So what did I do? I lined pretty much my entire fleet and I parked it on the other player's most defended system. Waving white flags in space, I offered enough of my fleet to tip the scales and cause a tie for first place on trophies, which also cut off the 5 bonus points the "warlord player" would get if he was first. I didn't win the game according to the Arcs Rulebook or whatever, but c'mon. Felt like a win.
The question on C fates could be looked at trough the lens of what it would take to have a all A fate Act 3. Everyone has to have enough points, guild cards, board position going into Act 3 that no-one feels the need to switch over to C.
I really enjoyed the brainstorming of ideas at the end and it really shows how robust of a game they've created. Even as an Arcs noob I've watched enough of both of your videos that I can see how these ideas might, in a modular system's friendly way just expand upon the game so much over the years.
As of now this is my favorite Leder game because the first game with a group can have a setup that don't require any player input. Which means you can teach the game with a real setup in front of the players.
One of the things I like about the expansibility (?) of Arcs is that's the one game from Leder with the option of playing a mostly symetric game. That let a lot of space for more and for alternate things.
What I use is my wooden pieces when putting away the campaign. So now I can use my miniatures to play base game. So I am able to fully put away the campaign and still play base game as they do not share the components. Anything that is shared is fixed with just a note in the box
I think some crazy expansion ideas could work with this setup - something like cooperative/solo expansion ala Spirit Island could work really well. Or a prequel in the Empire's early days, where it is 2 v 1 or something like that
Just finished a campaign and can confirm: 3 C Fates is insane. I went Steward>Steward>Overlord but the chaos was just too much with a Gate Wraith and Redeemer in Act 3. The poor Founder didn’t stand a chance.
@@merkingGuy Oh 100% - most fun and dynamic experience I've had out of any campaign game I've played/finished. Wehrle's games are consistently my favorites. Have had about 15 sessions now and love how differently the campaign plays from the single-shot.
I do judge a game by its aesthetics quite a bit and Arcs not having a hex map was a key factor in me getting interested. I think the Trivial Pursuit nature really sets it apart. Kyle's artwork is a huge part as well.
Havent played yet, about thirty minutes in to the video. Seen other videos but no full play through The story about using the ambitions aggressively is the *first* thing I thought of doing. Possibly Setting up an ambition early, letting other people score/fight for it while you capture pieces and build for another ambition later in the game. Freeing up time and space in early game for a point burst later. Again, havent played but really want to try.
i may have missed it in your discussion of the c fates criticism, but imo they play directly into wehrle's ongoing exploration of placing greater importance on how players win and play, and the ubiquitous poker esque uncertainty
Top which list is number 1: just like Tom said a simple political module for diplomacy for the base game. Number 2: A new guild deck that creates a whole different vibe when playing the game Number3: More leaders and lores
I haven't gotten the campaign to the table yet, but the way you talk about C Fates reminds me of John Company where you have to spend effort incentivizing players to not invest in workshops and sabotage the company.
Strongly disagree with Snoopymate's assertion that "the choices you make can make you helpless, but they're your choices". He cites an example where a fleet goes away to raid and the rear areas become permataxed. Well, that can also 100% happen without even going raiding. Some rando can just come in and take a huge swing at you, and blow you up. Guess you should have been more charismatic or something, because you lost just as much, but got _nothing_. This game makes you helpless, sometimes before you even get a turn.
Hey, thanks for sharing! Arcs definitely isn’t for everyone but I don’t think this a fair criticism of the game. I can elaborate more on this if you’re interested in a conversation but we can also just agree to disagree on this.
@@snoopymate25 Thanks for the kind & thoughtful reply, as always. I'm not trying to dunk on Arcs. I think it's a game that has lessons to teach me about things being out of my control. As usual when this is a feature in a good design, a workaround is to play lots of games of it. What I'm working on now is how to optimize fun at the table even when random calamities happen to people who didn't invite it.
I love Arcs but I think the campaign isn't very fun to me. It feels very railroaded to me (some Fates are very PvE oriented) and the two groups I played with didn't gain much "fun" value for all the rules overhead. Plus it's not as balanced as normal Arcs, some of the fates are plainly stronger than others in goofy ways. I have 30 plays of the normal game. One thing I would like is some sort of defensive option in an expansion. It would be cool if I could coexist with a Rival where we both have cities under occupation or such. Currently ransacking the court is too much of an incentive to really let that pass. Would be cool if there was a Truce/Armistice action that lasted a short while or even like blocks 1 Attack action from a single player. Or the ability to create a barrier between two non-gate lines on the map that blocks a single move action or somesuch. All this would be hard to balance of course and they don't want the game to be defensive, but sometimes it's a little much (Sprinter Drives is a mistake). I would like defense to be a little stronger. (I also just feel bad because I feel pushed to attack my friends first) I'd like new maps, leaders, actions, guild cards. Events that take up a slot next to the guild cards. Who knows where they'll go with this game, it's so fun. I'm kinda not hoping they go with a new campaign though but who knows.
@@snoopymate25 this is a potential change I'm contemplating: essentially playing a second chapter of a campaign game without moving into the B fates. Give the A fates a little more time to play out, without the further complications of B and C. This may not work out at all, but it seems like part of the reasons the Campaign game is so daunting is how radically the A, B, and C fates change. Some more time at each level might increase the fun/overwhelm quotient.
I have yet to play this game yet, but the critique I always here is the C fates in campaign, which was brought up in the interview too. Was wondering if there is any incentive to not just lose chapter 2 on purpose if the C fates are as strong as everyone feels. Is there a proper response to that complaint?
The question is whether to fail on purpose in Act 2 to get to look at 2 C fates vs. 1 C fate. I think the answer is no because the C fates have so much variation between them and what they care about. But this is a conversation that will take place over time. The game is slowly releasing into retail and lots of new players will try it and have helpful insights
@@kidney-vitoratio9312 Thanks for correcting me on that, good to know. Tho that doesn't actually answer my question. There's not much of a difference in losing act 2 on purpose vs just abandoning your act 2 fate for a C fate, no? Other than what snoopy pointed out above
@@snoopymate25 thanks for the response, looking forward to getting my hands on the game to try it out, and seeing how the campaign meta develops over time.
@@andrewuber8184 There are also fate cards that you keep if you complete your act2 objective but choose to change to a C anyway, so I thiink its generally better to try for success even if you are already planning to pivot.
It's an awkward conversation, you feel like the host is deeply disappointed with the game, when Tom is unabashedly turning everything into a good point
Oh yes. Tom has played more than me indeed. Double declaring warlord so the rest of the table will go after the leader? Thats 4d chess right there
On the topic of crazy tactics, there was this one game I played with folks on TTS where this one person had an OPPRESSIVE amount of trophies. He declared warlord, and it became clear to the table he was just going to win the game that chapter. The other player didn't have a large fleet because he had been the main target for the warlord's aggression. Meanwhile, I had a nice fleet but circumstances that would make it impossible for me to mount an offensive and contest on trophies. The warlord's fleet was also so scattered that it would take a lot of moves in addition to battles to destroy enough of it.
So what did I do?
I lined pretty much my entire fleet and I parked it on the other player's most defended system. Waving white flags in space, I offered enough of my fleet to tip the scales and cause a tie for first place on trophies, which also cut off the 5 bonus points the "warlord player" would get if he was first.
I didn't win the game according to the Arcs Rulebook or whatever, but c'mon. Felt like a win.
sounds epic and it's exactly these moments that are worth playing for.
The question on C fates could be looked at trough the lens of what it would take to have a all A fate Act 3. Everyone has to have enough points, guild cards, board position going into Act 3 that no-one feels the need to switch over to C.
"I'm either a genius or a complete idiot."
Tom has mastered the art of making *relevant* moves.
There's no bad moves, only *interesting* moves
Sick!!! Haven’t watched the video yet, but been wanting to hear Tom talk about arcs more!
Thanks for the interview!
I really enjoyed the brainstorming of ideas at the end and it really shows how robust of a game they've created. Even as an Arcs noob I've watched enough of both of your videos that I can see how these ideas might, in a modular system's friendly way just expand upon the game so much over the years.
As of now this is my favorite Leder game because the first game with a group can have a setup that don't require any player input. Which means you can teach the game with a real setup in front of the players.
One of the things I like about the expansibility (?) of Arcs is that's the one game from Leder with the option of playing a mostly symetric game. That let a lot of space for more and for alternate things.
That was great. More of this please
awesome interview, thanks for all the content, looking forward to more!
44:53 What!!! A wishlist already 😂
I agree with Tom. Need a 2nd copy so I can play the campaign and the base at the same time
Or 2 campaigns!
What I use is my wooden pieces when putting away the campaign. So now I can use my miniatures to play base game. So I am able to fully put away the campaign and still play base game as they do not share the components. Anything that is shared is fixed with just a note in the box
@@RonBelloComedy loyal cities and starports?
@@nin_4_me58 you’d had to write that down or find proxy
This was fun! Thanks! Request: a video on how to play Arcs on TTS? I'm so confused :(
I think some crazy expansion ideas could work with this setup - something like cooperative/solo expansion ala Spirit Island could work really well. Or a prequel in the Empire's early days, where it is 2 v 1 or something like that
I thought this was going to be a game of Arcs being played, just to know how yall just go nuts, but this is also enjoyable
Just finished a campaign and can confirm: 3 C Fates is insane. I went Steward>Steward>Overlord but the chaos was just too much with a Gate Wraith and Redeemer in Act 3. The poor Founder didn’t stand a chance.
Fun though?
@@merkingGuy Oh 100% - most fun and dynamic experience I've had out of any campaign game I've played/finished. Wehrle's games are consistently my favorites. Have had about 15 sessions now and love how differently the campaign plays from the single-shot.
YAY! 3 months of Arcs of videos from SUSD! 1:01:55
I do judge a game by its aesthetics quite a bit and Arcs not having a hex map was a key factor in me getting interested. I think the Trivial Pursuit nature really sets it apart. Kyle's artwork is a huge part as well.
Alternate action deck? Add Believer cards to base…
Havent played yet, about thirty minutes in to the video. Seen other videos but no full play through
The story about using the ambitions aggressively is the *first* thing I thought of doing. Possibly Setting up an ambition early, letting other people score/fight for it while you capture pieces and build for another ambition later in the game. Freeing up time and space in early game for a point burst later.
Again, havent played but really want to try.
i may have missed it in your discussion of the c fates criticism, but imo they play directly into wehrle's ongoing exploration of placing greater importance on how players win and play, and the ubiquitous poker esque uncertainty
Top which list is
number 1: just like Tom said a simple political module for diplomacy for the base game.
Number 2:
A new guild deck that creates a whole different vibe when playing the game
Number3:
More leaders and lores
I haven't gotten the campaign to the table yet, but the way you talk about C Fates reminds me of John Company where you have to spend effort incentivizing players to not invest in workshops and sabotage the company.
Great chat!
I'd love to see a campaign of Arcs! Can someone please do that? *wink wink*
@@yiannchrst heavycarboard and colesrootchannel have both done one
I ordered a second full game. Same problem as Tom.
Strongly disagree with Snoopymate's assertion that "the choices you make can make you helpless, but they're your choices". He cites an example where a fleet goes away to raid and the rear areas become permataxed. Well, that can also 100% happen without even going raiding. Some rando can just come in and take a huge swing at you, and blow you up. Guess you should have been more charismatic or something, because you lost just as much, but got _nothing_. This game makes you helpless, sometimes before you even get a turn.
Hey, thanks for sharing! Arcs definitely isn’t for everyone but I don’t think this a fair criticism of the game. I can elaborate more on this if you’re interested in a conversation but we can also just agree to disagree on this.
@@snoopymate25 Thanks for the kind & thoughtful reply, as always. I'm not trying to dunk on Arcs. I think it's a game that has lessons to teach me about things being out of my control. As usual when this is a feature in a good design, a workaround is to play lots of games of it.
What I'm working on now is how to optimize fun at the table even when random calamities happen to people who didn't invite it.
I love Arcs but I think the campaign isn't very fun to me. It feels very railroaded to me (some Fates are very PvE oriented) and the two groups I played with didn't gain much "fun" value for all the rules overhead. Plus it's not as balanced as normal Arcs, some of the fates are plainly stronger than others in goofy ways.
I have 30 plays of the normal game. One thing I would like is some sort of defensive option in an expansion. It would be cool if I could coexist with a Rival where we both have cities under occupation or such. Currently ransacking the court is too much of an incentive to really let that pass. Would be cool if there was a Truce/Armistice action that lasted a short while or even like blocks 1 Attack action from a single player. Or the ability to create a barrier between two non-gate lines on the map that blocks a single move action or somesuch. All this would be hard to balance of course and they don't want the game to be defensive, but sometimes it's a little much (Sprinter Drives is a mistake). I would like defense to be a little stronger. (I also just feel bad because I feel pushed to attack my friends first)
I'd like new maps, leaders, actions, guild cards. Events that take up a slot next to the guild cards. Who knows where they'll go with this game, it's so fun. I'm kinda not hoping they go with a new campaign though but who knows.
Very fair feedback. Thanks for sharing! I still enjoy the base game more than the campaign but am still working out my thoughts as for why that is
@@snoopymate25 this is a potential change I'm contemplating: essentially playing a second chapter of a campaign game without moving into the B fates. Give the A fates a little more time to play out, without the further complications of B and C. This may not work out at all, but it seems like part of the reasons the Campaign game is so daunting is how radically the A, B, and C fates change. Some more time at each level might increase the fun/overwhelm quotient.
I have yet to play this game yet, but the critique I always here is the C fates in campaign, which was brought up in the interview too.
Was wondering if there is any incentive to not just lose chapter 2 on purpose if the C fates are as strong as everyone feels. Is there a proper response to that complaint?
You can always choose a C fate. There is no lose on purpose. You are misinformed.
The question is whether to fail on purpose in Act 2 to get to look at 2 C fates vs. 1 C fate. I think the answer is no because the C fates have so much variation between them and what they care about.
But this is a conversation that will take place over time. The game is slowly releasing into retail and lots of new players will try it and have helpful insights
@@kidney-vitoratio9312 Thanks for correcting me on that, good to know. Tho that doesn't actually answer my question. There's not much of a difference in losing act 2 on purpose vs just abandoning your act 2 fate for a C fate, no? Other than what snoopy pointed out above
@@snoopymate25 thanks for the response, looking forward to getting my hands on the game to try it out, and seeing how the campaign meta develops over time.
@@andrewuber8184 There are also fate cards that you keep if you complete your act2 objective but choose to change to a C anyway, so I thiink its generally better to try for success even if you are already planning to pivot.
It's an awkward conversation, you feel like the host is deeply disappointed with the game, when Tom is unabashedly turning everything into a good point