Oath is a very mean game. There is a very strong element of king making. The dice can be swingy. Lucky card draws can derail the best laid plans. Having said that, I find I love this game. This game generates more table talk, deal making, and betrayal than any other game I can think of. I love all of those elements. I do warn folks before playing that these elements are present so they are not surprised. More puzzle like games, like Scythe, are fantastic as well, but there is so limited player interaction that those games feel like a solitaire game.
Yes, the game was created around the idea of king making as a narrative driver. Designer also talks about the purple die forcing risk taking and thereby contributing an interesting narrative as opposed to a deterministic outcome.
I'm interested in this game, and every video I see I feel like this is Game of Thrones the Board game, more than the Game of Thrones the Board Game lol
I'm rather surprised with this turn out. Your videos first brought Oath to my attention over a year ago. As a direct result, I now have my own copy along with the upgraded components and I couldn't be happier! I think the main source of dissatisfaction one could feel with this game is that it's something of a contradiction? This is a big, expensive game with a MEATY set of rules. However it's not heavy with traditional competitive strategy. Despite its depth it plays more like a casual game. The problem with this is that the type of player most likely to buy into such a game will be expecting that familiar, grand strategic play style. But in Oath, any amount of planning and scheming can easily be undone by single roll of the die. In addition, I feel like this is a game where a 'win' and a 'loss' are more loosely defined. Or rather, SHOULD be loosely defined. It is completely reasonable to go into a game wanting to 'win', but what is a win in Oath? The most obvious answer is: fulfilling one of the various victory conditions within the game. But just as your tangible goal for victory can change throughout the game, you should be prepared to change your personal goal as well. Above everything else Oath is 'a game that remembers', and whether I win or lose my ultimate goal is to ensure I leave some mark on future games to come. Obviously, you have the largest impact on future games by winning; and thus being the Chancellor in the next game. But what changes can you make if you DON'T win? If the Chancellor appears to be the imminent winner and I as an Exile I rule a site or two that I want to see carried over in the next game, I appeal to the Chancellor and attempt to bargain for Citizenship 'on behalf of my people'. Because if I become a Citizen, those sites join the empire and are saved from being lost to history. Alternatively, if the impending victor has something oppressive that I want to see gone; such as a troublesome relic or a site with powerful denizens that would entrench them in a stronger starting position, I focus on taking it so it will be shuffled away during the chronicle. I watched all of your play-through videos, and it seemed that during each game you were all focused very much on the here and now, with little thought towards the next game. Granted, I see the difficulty in caring about the future of a game whose core mechanics are denying you a certain kind of enjoyment in the present. But there's a tipping point where you need to shift from worrying about winning the current game and start planning for the future. To me, this is an integral part of the game and I don't think it was covered adequately here.
@@Quackalope "Kinda, kinda not"? She had **NINE** blue dice. 4 makes me cautious. 6, I'd probably never try without 10+ warbands & more than 1 Battle Plan...and even then, I'm probably sacrificing a lot. Nine? I'd say, "Not even 'kinda.'"
Exactly this, they said the rulebook mention with more than 4 it is already a problem, yet they still roll that much def dice and complaining about it.
@@The-Duke-of-Zill Totally. And, I'm not saying it was wrong for Jan to try. He definitely needed more warbands for a true effort: I would've rounded up as many last warbands as I could, since the Bandit Crown lets you "break" that rule. And true, she got lucky with her roll in a sense, because his Battle Plan ignored single shields & she rolled only 1 single with 9 dice. Still: she was rolling 9 dice to begin with. So I think the complaint is a little silly.
So. About the die roll ending the game. Cole has stated that the point of the roll is to create tension, but it is still a mechanic that is in the players hands. If the exiles make it a priority, they can ALWAYS prevent that die from ever being rolled. The question is not "will I get another turn?" But "is it worth giving the chancellor a 1/6 chance to win while setting myself up for a turn 7 win." But if an exile takes that chance its on them.
Exactly, if you had a intricate plan that set you up for a turn 7 win, you know when you made those plans that you at best have 5/9 probability of wining if the Chancellor remains the Oathkeeper. It's a gamble you have chosen to take by perusing that plan, which must be weighed against the risks of taking actions to prevent those roles from occurring.
13:00 I really disagree with Jesse there. I don't think that's accurate at all. Instead, I think what is going on is, "the chancellor has been doing too well, maybe it's time to end the game because the exiles aren't doing what they need to be doing." Maybe the meta on the WW discord is different, but 70-80% of my games go to the full 8 turns. It's something under the players' control, after all.
More precisely, the game can end on a die roll if the exiles are playing bad. That die roll should be considered like a bomb you should not set off if you’re an exile or a “hold on” timer if you’re the chancellor of a citizen. If the chancellor is not the oath keeper you don’t even roll that die. You should not consider it an end game condition like the game could end on a die roll no matter what you did during the game, because it’s not. If it is in your game, you haven’t manipulated the board enough to your advantage. The multiplicative defense dice are not there to make campaigning swingy but to lead you into focused campaigns. You CAN campaign against a 7 different targets, but it’s suicide. Those x2 defense dice are there to let you know you’re doing something very very risky. Kingmaking: this game is ALL about kingmaking. The focus is not on who wins but on how you can manipulate the chronicle. Sometimes in real life some factions cannot win a war or snatch the power from the oppressor but they can choose to help some other faction to. This game is so different from other games exactly because the thought space when making decisions, when thinking about the goal of each game is completely different from what we’re used to. The game is telling a story, not necessarily “your” story. People should play it’s a different attitude: not focusing on who is going to win, but how the story can be told, how the empires will fall and rise, what relics and sites will enter and leave the world. It’s definitely not for everyone because it shattered all the foundations of how games are played, with what mindset, with what goal… I’m sorry this game didn’t click for you, everyone has their no-go games (I don’t like Kingdom Death Monster for instance 😅), but it seems like you looked at some of the peculiar things this game is trying to do through the lenses of more “conventional” games, which likely may have contributed to your frustration and no-fun during your sessions.
Agreed Marco, this game is all about trying to secure power and power at the end of the day is only ever given to you by others. In real life, when we have political leaders (whether they're presidents, monarchs, etc.) they only get to be a leader if enough people support them (by paying taxes, not causing social disruptions, etc.). That should be what the purple dice roll represents. It's very thematic when an early roll ends the game because it's saying that the people aren't giving the visionaries a chance. They're going with the devil they know and are going to ignore the troublemakers and their disruptions, meaning that the exiles will never be able to secure power.
After probably 8 plays, Oath is probably tied for my SECOND favorite game of all time. Tied with Scythe, and these two only behind TI4. Oath has such a unique and cool feeling of play and of winning out of nowhere that myself and my group can't find anywhere else. It even sort of encourages role play similarly to a strategy game kind of like Twilight Imperium does. Makes the game more fun. I've also NEVER ONCE seen the dice roll win a game near the end. We actually want it to happen at this point. But this is a storytelling game. The end of game dice rolling thing is very much by design and this is supposed to be swingy and crazy, not high tier strategy with low luck to win. Truly a treasure of a game.
Thank you for your negative review. It actually makes me want to play the game more. One observation that I'd like to make is in relation to the defense dice and how it relates to battles in real life. Interestingly, when an attack takes place along the direct line of expectation, resistance is at its strongest and the advantage lies entirely with the defender, even when outnumbered. Decisive victories only occur when geographical and/or psychological dislocation occurs before the battle. And this is why this board game greatly appeals to me. However, just because a mechanic has realism linked to it doesn't make it fun so I understand why some people will hate it. One thing I've also noticed is that sometimes board games can be greatly enhanced by house rules. I wonder if the experience could be improved by altering the rules around the luck and finding some way to make coalitions more appealing. Perhaps metagaming deals are so integral to the game that the experience falls flat if your group simply plays "by the rules?"
The defense dice are super swingy, but I’ve had rolls of 8 defense dice where I rolled below 10 total. It’s still more likely to get a blank than a x2. But if you’re trying to plan your every move and calculate all the odds, don’t play Oath. There are many better games for you
This game gets much better with the more players added I feel. 3 players really makes the kingmaking element and the asymmetry much more stark. More players enables more cards to be seen throughout the game and much more likely that someone else will win via visions prior to turn 6. 3 players really isn't the sweet spot I feel.
What if the end game dice roll would have been the other way around? Instead of rolling to see if the game ends early you roll to see if the game continue another round? The game ends after 8 rounds no matter what. I think that is what the dice is for. You are supposed to stop the chancellor before the dice might end the game.
We tried it several times at 3 and it always fell flat. Will never play with less than 4 again. I don't even think it should be marketed for less than 4 nor can I fathom anyone would play this solo.
@@Quackalope Did you really only ever play it at 3p? It's not meant to be dismissive of that player count. I actually really like 3p, but I think it's potentially best for veteran players, who know each other well & how to bluff & feint & surprise one another. Everything also happens faster, multi-turn plans & also setbacks: 3p is extremely tight. In general in Oath, most of the time, you're actually less "100% out" than you think. You're often in contention for winning, even in the 11th hour. But that is far less the case in 3p, due to its tightened nature. Still: there are many great 3p-specific moves & plans I never saw once in these playthroughs. A last remark about winning & kingmaking...something I really appreciate about Oath is that it elicits complex emotional responses to winning. Now, obviously, that must include some feel-bads, and obviously that won't be for everyone. But I also think players have to accept this open range of "knotty feelings." Which is **not** just the storytelling, or political theme. It's also a different way of thinking about what it means to play competitively. Especially in a game where certain incentives are not in place because the game itself doesn't have an ending. It measures your success differently. For players who like games to measure their successes or (failures) in purer terms, or more binary ones anyway, Oath will be very challenging. And for players who prioritize "fun," a very subjective word, as an essential game element, Oath will be extremely mixed.
I feel like it also depends on how you look at this game. For me this is a game of storytelling and I love the unforgiving nature of this, it feels like I'm on a council and things can always go any direction and I let the game play me like you guys say. These little stories are amazing, but I can see how people prefer having more control.
I love Oath but I'm glad to see this because I think a LOT of people will bounce off it and really need to hear this. The quote "I want to feel like I won because of my skill" is really important. I think anyone who feels this way will not enjoy Oath.
Well tbh I don't really agree with this , there are multiple ways to win the Oath and 1 of them is skill based . What i would say is that Oath is just like the poker ,a bit of rng is in there but the result going to come from who's able to manipulate the other player's, And remembering what's is in the discard pilles and where. Also you need to be flexible there was a time where i changed my goal 3 times ! And still won the game every single card is good just not for the same goal .
@@zippo7422 "there are multiple ways to win the Oath and 1 of them is skill based." Which one? If you're saying only 1 of the ways to win is skill based, that seems to agree with my point? Oath definitely has an element of skill to it, but that skill often won't be the determining factor for who wins the game. Instead the victor will often be decided by luck or kingmaking. That's not a criticism, it's a deliberate part of the design. Anyone who wants a competitive experience without luck or kingmaking probably shouldn't play oath.
@@JackMacki didn't used the right word, There are 3 ways to PLAY 1 of them is skill, 2nd luck 3 th the combination of the 1 and 2 . And mostly always thr 1 st the winner . Also we are "added a rule" to kill the king making element .( It's in the rule book too but not a specific rule ) Everyone must fight for his own people . Even if someone grouping up it's needs to be for the benefit of both of the player's.
@@zippo7422 Well, I'm glad your house rule works for you. In my opinion the king making is a core and deliberate part of the game, so I personally wouldn't try to remove it. If I didn't enjoy kingmaking I would play other games.
Got my first game of Oath (and possibly second) on Friday. Thanks for the honest opinions. Here's hoping it lands with my group. Keep up the great work. QUACK
Cole Wehrle is an excellent designer, but let us not forget this is someone who wrote his dissertation on “How the Experience of the empire altered the way British writers imagined distances of time and space during the early and mid 19th century.” This is someone who has very esoteric interests, and is quite different in his design philosophy than most mainstream designers. Which is to say he does not really care about making his designs enjoyable or fun, he cares much more about the stories the games create, and the emotional range a design has. I think many people are going to have similar feelings as you all, and I think there will be a similar wave of people who backed John Company, off the strength of Root, but maybe did not realize what they are getting into. (Not to imply that was the case at all for you all with Oath).
Thanks for the review guys! I enjoy that you’re honest even if it may upset people. An honest review is a good one! Constructive criticism is the only way for games to get better!
Man I love this game so much... but also so scared my gaming group ends up not liking it as much as I do after a couple of playthroughs. We had a blast our first game, so many lil stories and laughter for all the silly thins that happened. I'm curious why the level of anxiety was so high in your playthroughs ...I usually am anxious in many heavy strategic games I play (trying to find the best strategy etc), but in oath I'm more focused on trying silly things and making history than trying to analyze every tiny detail leading to victory...which reduces my anxiety and pressure,,,, It almost feels like my experience was 100% different compared to yours. The comparison with Nemesis is good based on the type of experience it provides, but I'd say there are way more ways to have control over your game in Oath than Nemesis....Nemesis is built to f*ck you over whatever you do (which is a funny unique experience).
Except in Nemesis, you know its a game with very high highs and low lows. And if you manage to win. Its not likely because you got lucky, its because you really earned it while everything is trying to fuck you up. So its something that really really feels rewarding when it happens.
Yea, it is more about going into this one to develop a fun story naturally based on what occurs in the play through. Only playing competitively on a lowkey level, trying to win of course, but not expecting a traditional competitive gameplay. It is almost a simulation of real life politics in a medieval setting almost. Having to gain power but not make it obvious enough that others will focus you down until it is too late for them, making alliances so that you come out on top and hopefully they may even side with you if you near winning with someone they disliked in the match more. Idk, more of a chill lowkey competitive politics type thing. I struggle even to find out how to describe it here. xD Not many that are like it.
I don't agree with the terror to the defense dice, they are scary if you decide to campaign against multiple sites or relics, but if you atack fewer places or safer places you don't ever need to roll vs that many dice, is about strategy and high risk high rewards, also the ending die happens only if the exiles can't deny the oathkeeper, the game is all about messing the possible winner player before he takes another round while trying to get your own shot, I like it, it was fun for my group
The goal with the games these guys make is not to be 100% balanced, but to be _interesting,_ and to bake narrative into the gameplay seamlessly. The do that beautifully, even if it isn't "fair."
Thanks for bringing up my black orchestra comment from the first vid. Right after I wrote that I actually went and sold black orchestra because it felt way too lucky. With oath I'm actually feeling much more in control of setting up the game and other players for my one big shot. The thing I think that helps me enjoy oath is viewing it as a history means I can shoot for smaller goals along the way. I can make sure the chancellor doesn't rule a particular site if it looks like they will win, or make sure my favorite site ends up in an exiles new kingdom. I haven't totally figured out why the game speaks to me so much yet sincei can see where all of your complaints are coming from and on paper I agree with the m
Yeah, I think it just comes down to what people want in their board games. I love Black Orchestra, but I see the assassination attempt roll as highly thematic. It doesn't matter how well you plan something, things can go wrong that were unforeseen. Especially when you're trying to assassinate a world leader... Then again, "losing games" for me does not bother me in the slightest. That's just the way the story played out that time. Perhaps the next story will be about the assassin succeeding. That sort of thing. Perhaps Oath was intended to be taken in the same sense, where it doesn't matter if you won or lost and it puts narrative first, even at the expense of player agency. To be fair, I have not played Oath yet so do not know if it would be a step too far for my own tastes.
Sounds fair, especially at 3. At the same time, with 4 players, it feels very different. And the "turn" mechanic, I feel, is something to be seen the opposite way. The chancellor wins at 5 unless the Exiles get a lucky respite. This is to me not too different from, say, a game of Warhammer with a roll-based turn number. The mechanic does exist for a reason. And like any reason, that reason doesn't work for everyone. Me, I agree with SUSD way more, but your take is very fair, especially at 3 players. This kind of thing is why, going back to your discussion with BGC, a "best at" player count would really help games.
It's kind of weird that it was you guys you got me into the game of Oath. I've watched all of your prototypes gameplay videos and there was something unique about this game that pulled me in. It's weird to see you not liking it anymore. I guess your taste in boardgame changed and it's ok. I still fully enjoy this game and I hope will like it as much as I do
I think where you were at this point in time (shooting this video) is where people mostly wound up, with the exception of susd. Even though all the things you pointed out as problems they brought up but regarded in a different light. On top of that, the big thing they mentioned is what you called an experience. I feel this was the most hyped game of the year so far, and people were high on it and had to come down, and it came down hard.
I very much respect your plays and your subjective opinions, thank you for being so bold to share them. I am excit d to experience the game and understand what you all feel and hopefully to enjoy it
The thing about Oath is, the same reason some people's stance on this dropped is exactly why others are getting so high on it. I'm with SUSD, this is right now my favorite game - period.
I really thought this game would be for Jesse. Its full with narration. I thought you would embrace the story more. Dont play it as a competitiv strategy game like Root or so. Sure there will be games where you dont play a big role in the story, then you just roll with it. (Kingmaking: This is the only game where you can base your desicion on who to support on something, on the story. You can make promises of citicenship for the future game. Dice Roll on turn 5: You have 5 turns to take away the Oathkeeper title. If you didnt up to this point, then I was your desicion to potentially loose on a roll of 6) But of course, games need to be fun. Thanks for taking the time to play this several times and to produce the playthroughs :-)
If they can leave a honest review about this game, I can leave an honest review about this channel: This video completely turned me away from this channel. I haven’t played Oath, so it isn’t the low marks they gave the game in the end, it was the way they constantly justify their opinions. There are two guys that hang around my local game shop. They are famous for this kind of “discussion”. Any time someone comes into the shop talking positively about a game that they have played, or a game they hope to play, these two gentlemen will talk in circles about all the “flaws” that game has until the person concedes that the game isn’t as great as they initially thought, or that they aren’t as exciting about it anymore. I can’t help but sense that these guys do this in order to make themselves feel more intelligent about games and systems than the people around them. This video and the video on this channel about nemesis both made me feel same way that the men at my local shop do; frustrated.
Three unusual comments regarding this game from my group are: 1. "An odd thing is that you don't look forward to your turn". 2. "You don't feel clever when you win". 3. "I never even had anything to work towards this game session". Now, to be fair, I do kinda enjoy playing the game, and I love writing the chronicle, it's really fun. And the art is fantastic! But there is always an opportunity cost to any game. If a game is only 'kinda' fun, it needs to be a filler or something that takes like 30 minutes. A game that can often take 3 hours need to be fantastic, because there are plenty of games that take 3 hours are are really fun. Our first game took almost 5 hours. Most of our 4 player games have been 8 rounds, taking around 3-4 hours (with setup and packing up, only 5 games in total though). I think the most disappointing thing about the game is that the mechanism drives the narrative 100%. You are more of an onlooker to the story unfolding rather than an active agent. Should you play card X or Y? Due to how powerful the cards are, and how critical matching suits can be, one of X and Y will almost always be the much better choice, so it doesn't feel like a choice. Then you roll dice very few times during a session, which means the randomness plays a really big role on the outcome of the game. It's said this is "Kingsmaker, the game", but it should be called "Hollow victories, the game". :/ It feel like the games development has to have had some quite striking similarities to the premise behind The Emperors New Clothes.
@@Quackalope I’m not trying to discredit your review/opinions. It was just a suggestion. The rules and mechanics don’t change, just the group dynamic! I played a very intense 6 player game recently with 3 Exiles, 2 Citizens, and the Chancellor. So much fun!
hello, very interesting discussion about die roll ending. Is astonishing, or amazing, yo think you can sin with a diez roll, only one dice. And you say what else mechanism could use yo give the Victory at the three finishing round...... I remember DUNE, and the final condition required ti Bene Gesserit.
Looking at my still unplayed copy... a slight doubt starts reaching the surface. Although it's a piece of art, which easily can still be in my collection for a while, I wonder if I can find the group to actually persist for a few games to find out if this experience can be added and approved or needs to be dusted off and given to any usurpers.
I really believe finding the right group could make or break this game for everyone involved. Which is definitely a fair knock. But the game does not inherently fall short as those who dislike it will generally say -- its a very subjective experience.
This game is not about history, but about historiography. It teaches in a playful way how history has been written; it is not a euro ''spreadsheet management'' game. History has been teaching us over and over again how our actual civilization has been very often based on luck and situational circumstances. This game is not about victory, but reminds us that victory should be a mean to the game, not an end. Gaming should never, NEVER, be about winning, but about creating real emotions and causing tangible situations between people through inert materials in order to create a memorable experience. Oath is the first game where I decided voluntarily at the start of a game to join my strength with someone and play all of my actions in order for that player to win, just because I wanted to reverse the Chancellor's power. Clearly this is just not your type of game. I can see where you're coming from and you enjoy games where you have more control. What I find disappointing though is that you mention that it is a mean game that does not create bonds, when this is just your personal experience. Oath is not mean, nor unforgiving; it is unfair, just like how our civilization has been forged. Oath is a hate letter to civilization, not a casual euro game. Your review is, I feel, a complaint about how a spoon did not successfully help you slice a watermelon. You are allowed to dislike a game if it's not in your taste, but what you did felt like just raging against stuff that you did not like ''just because''... With Oath, I created bonds with my gaming group and we are much closer to each other than before. We accept the take that elements; we are eager to see each other succeed in their scheme, while still being competitive at the same time. We salute the excellence of each others' actions when they do something incredibly smart; we marvel at unbelievable dice rolls and how they create unexpected turns of events. Laughters, arguements, alliances, backstabing; we live the present moment and understand that our own victory is not as much important as the common benefit of the group. Oath is an unselfish game about the players around the table and what they live communally. By the way, I'm not sure if it were voluntary or not, but I got to watch 7 or 8 TH-cam ads throughout the videos. Is that normal? Is it possible to tone them down a little bit? Because THIS is frustrating lol
@@ilqrd.6608 I somewhat knew that some people would obviously interpret my message and make me say things I didn't want to. Gaming is not about winning. Winning a mean for fun, not the ultimate goal. That being said, I actually wrote the opposite of what you insinuate: competition and the actual experience is what makes a game fun. Winning is just the icing on the cake; the ride ultimately has to be more fun than the end. And if for you, gaming is just about winning, then you should avoid online go, dnd or rpg games like the quiet year. The only way to recognize the value of some games is by being unselfish and be ready to hit and take hit, to be competitive and recognize how badly you played or even how others outplayed you. Winning drives a part of the fun, but is not the whole goal at all. Otherwise, if we follow this logic, every game you're bad at winning are considered bad games to your standards. Is that what I should conclude?
@@ilqrd.6608 Oath can and will be mastered by players. There are ways to improve at the game, and not everything is down to pure luck. It's about seizing the opportunity at the right time, just like when Marcus Brutus organized a coup against Ceasar, or William the Conqueror, or Gengis Khan. Our history is filled with king-making moments, of alliances and betrayals. Why do you think Games of Thrones and Dune have become so popular? Our group is very competitive too and look for unimaginable ways to succeed. We saw unbelievable moves made by players where we didn't see the point at first, but then became key actions for their success. We constantly experiment the butterfly effect in every game, and we are magnified by someone's victory. Hence my win becomes so much more enjoyable when it is saluted by everyone around the table, rather than everyone focusing on themselves. Gaming is about community, not about ourselves; it is supposed to be an unselfish activity, not a joust of personal performance. You may disagree with me, but it doesn't mean that this view is wrong, since it allowed me to connect with people in a much more meaningful way than just "gaming pals".
@@JackMack I read most of the diaries and I don't recall he said this in any of them. If he did it though, then fine, it is a mean game. Does that therefore discredit everything I said?
@@ilqrd.6608 I can see what you're saying, and I enjoy winning. But I'm by nature not a competitive person, so I may already differ here. I don't usually play most games to win because I want to get better at the winning of them. Sometimes, yes, but sometimes once I've been able to win a few times, the game has stopped being anything else. And then, it doesn't matter to me that I can keep winning. I think most competitive games are liked & people like to win them because it's the game making a value judgement about you. We like to think it's about your skill as a player. There's an argument, when considering the modern history of games, that possibly this is rooted in the pedagogy of Empire in teaching how good citizenship is rewarded: you worked hard in an equal playing field = you ought to be rewarded for working hard = you merit a victory = you are a winner = you are successful as a person = you are a good person. See, we can hold that skill (and fairness) matters, but it's also ultimately a moral judgement. What makes Oath interesting is that's a competitive game without an ending. So, it measures success very differently. Winning/losing become a false binary. You can change the world of the game & still lose. You can win the game, but because of the state of the world &/or how you won, you can feel like you lost. Because it breaks the binary, it opens up a range of complex emotional responses. Which will include both good & bad feelings. It's okay that that's not for some people, but that is especially not for people who mainly want a game to judge them purely for their skill...not make them feel a mix of things about winning.
Hi guys, after 4-5 games in we also put this one in the closet and we highly doubt if it will ever hit the table again. But we keep coming back to situations that have happened in these games and decisions that where made during them. So it did trigger something during the gameplays. I have a question for you would your opinion about the game change when the win was instant as soon as you would hit the victory condition ? Some in our groups say it might for them as it takes away kingmaking and the game would be lean more towards you working for your goals instead of preventing others from reaching theirs. For the rest a perfect video and we can feel your frustration on this unique experience, called oath .
The experience is something unique - just didn’t hook us deeply enough to overcome our issues. I don’t know about the instant win condition - it might then be too easy to close the gap.
Its weird that you say the chancellor feels veru powerful, yes on later games this could be very true but game 1, the chancellor starts with only a few more things and has 3-4 devious exiles gunning for them
Wow thank you, I'm glad I stayed until the end because you've cemented my decision. I LOVE Nemesis and thematic games, in fact Nemesis is my favorite board game by a long shot. I now understand what you mean by a game being unfair "unbalanced" for story sake. I was getting the idea that those complaint would be similar to the complaints on Nemesis which are totally valid. But I find my group enjoyed the unpredictability and unfairness. I watched your video after SU&SD for contrast and while I find I'll likely disagree with the sentiment. I always appreciate your contrasting opinion. It's helpful to my purchase decisions.
I VERY much enjoy the ride Oath offers. 6 Games deep until now and the Story that unfolded is just amazing. I wanted to write about a part that I did not like. But formulating it and thinking harder about - made me realize I love it aswell :-P I'm looking forward to Expansions - especially more Edifices will be amazing. And I think the Game-Space that Oath offers is not even close to being filled up. New roles, new types of cards it will be even more wonderful :-)
Is it worth exploring whether adding more turns into the game, such that there are more opportunities to make plays, would maybe make the game feel less arbitrary in terms of victory and give more possibilities of play?
If you are giving more turn's in to the game you going ro destroy the Chancellor, let's not forget that the Chancellor has only got 3 turn's to win out of the 8 while everyone else got 5 . Yes i know the guy's in the video were crying about the fate dice , but that's only true if the winning condition is the gran scapter every other game it's hard to keep the oath keeper title for the Chancellor.
Great review but darn, you leave me wanting to give it a spin to see how i feel it plays. I feel it has the potential to either be one of my faves or a let down.
Same for me, it definitely can be frustrating to not have the "satisfaction" of winning the game with just your wits or skills, but it feels like the game is meant to not be fair. Itching to get my hands on it tbh
Such a shame you guys didn't enjoy it (apart from some moments). It was a lot of fun watching and I've really enjoyed playing this with my group of friends (though not 7 games deep yet). I hope this doesn't turn too many people away from the game, because if you have the right mindset it is a truly epic and amazing game to play with a more or less dedicated group of friends.
I can remember watching Jesse's videos introducing and playing the early prototypes of Oath. I wonder how much of the experience of disappointment/disenchantment he describes is related to the reality not matching to the hype that was build up beforehand. That said, in my own experience playing thus far and as many others have said, Oath is definitely not a game for everyone. Oath contravenes a lot of the "muscle memory" that folks have from playing other games. As a result, it's less... consistent than other typical titles (thinking of their discussion about the amount of "fun" had while playing). A lot of people, maybe even most, will bounce off if it pretty hard. Finding the right group feels much more critical for Oath than other titles and bringing random folks in won't go over too well. I've enjoyed watching the channel grow and I like the banter, but like Jesse's views on SUSD I find myself disagreeing with the opinions and conclusions more often than not. Which is fine! It's thought-provoking and entertaining to reflect on what is said. I've loved Oath so far despite/because of all it's weirdness. Whatever my own disagreements with the conclusions offered here, I appreciate the honesty of it. Well done.
@@Kollider115 I haven't seen that design talk, but if I had to guess based on his pedigree (student of history), I'd say he likes kingmaking because it's realistic. "Kingmaking" has existed among nations throughout history.
From all I've seen and experienced of this game, I think it fits a political strategy game the most. Thematically I've felt it fits a revolt in a kingdom and how a straight 1v1 with the big guy is rarely going to work, that one needs to act and with what they are given. That said I can see why you 3 didn't like it and I also feel like having just 3 people with relatively close playstyles wouldn't be all that fun in a political game. Even with earlier versions you showcased on the channel you had people who played very differently and I do feel that each different person added to this game increases enjoyment. Still I do find your reasons valid, though maybe some day in the future if you can get a bigger group of people with very different playstyles this game will be more fun... I still don't really expect it to change your general opinion though.
If you want a thematic experience with some luck in it then Nemesis is really good. I don't think this is a good story telling game. I had the same with Western Legends. The way that game works is even worse as it literally presents itself as the ultimate western sandbox experience, but it just falls short in the way it handles the victory points.
Sounds like how I feel about nemesis: brilliant game with awesome mechanics, theme, and complexity. So much to love, but I just fundamentally don’t have fun playing the game.
Not gonna lie, I'm kind of surprised by the outcome you guys arrived at, despite liking Root. I know both are like apples and oranges, but I find the learning curve quite similar for both. Both taking quite long time to get a sense of victory goal, in Root because of multiple, asymmetric factions, in Oath because of multiple victory conditions and instability. About the dice, I differ a lot. I find the campaign design be much closer to D&D, than board game combat. Just as rolling 1 on K20, despite being armed to teeth could result in tripping on branch, so can go battles and wars. While that was indeed quite lucky throw, I don't know what else you were expecting, statistically speaking. Like Jan said, mistake of not thinking ahead cost him that game. Shira had a lot of books, another vision hidden in advisors, fully equipped to swing. I strongly recommend design diary on bgg by Cole during the development, regarding campaigns. Can't really argue with the point about the game unfolding the story instead of being the game. Shame, as I thought Jesse would love it with entire game being kind of flavor text, but so it happens. Someone below compared it to Shogun novel, I remember the Foundation by Asimov, the first one. Political success is a result from multiple carefully constructed actions, plots and schemes. So is the Chancellor role, heavy lies the crown :) I'm kind of wondering how it would go in 4-player or even more.
@@Madgaar not sure negative reviews are ever easy, not only do you have to justify your opinions but you also run the risk of alienating the board game designer and fans of the game. I think I agree with you that it’s easier to review now it’s arrived with backers if that’s what you were suggesting? It’s a Kickstarter that I considered backing but tbh I wasn’t a fan of his previous game Root so didn’t imagine liking this. That said I love Pax Pamir 2nd Ed so each to their own
I'm currently playing _A Plague Tale: Innocence_ and this review made me think about how I feel about that game: a great story... that I am forced to play with essentially zero creativity, decision-making, or input. Looks like Oath ain't for me! Thanks so much for your playthroughs and honest assessments.
But KDM is all about them dice rolls...true that it is a co-op experience but yeah many times you don't lose, the dice rolls own you...and he is an advocate for KDM. Just wondering how this dice rolling experience is not similar to more punishing games as ones like KDM.
I find Oath a fabulously good time, or an absolutely terrible time. The idea is a great one, but in some circumstances it doesn't carry off well. Three players when one is a citizen is terrible. The element of kingmaking is absolutely through the roof. The dice and cards are swingy in a way that sometimes seems unfair. You can have a several bad rounds where you can do basically nothing and any plan you made for the game is destroyed. I enjoy the game immensely, but it isn't perfect or sometimes even very good. It does cause some of the best table talk in a game I have seen though. One thumb up.
A very lacking and poor review to be honest_ DEFENSE DICE are perfectly balance, they are balance in a sense that you only attack what you need to and not whatever you feel like. Let me expand on that , if we made defense dice weaker then all what Chancellor has to do to win is just attack everything in 1 go with all his warbands and that be a very easy win. Now since the defense dice is so brutal that's exactly why the attackers will target limited things and target them wisely instead of attacking everything on site Do you see the logic now and why it's balance so people don't abuse the attack option especially the chancellor that's exactly why they are balance. Side Note:- Everything is worked on over and over and developers really put alot of time and effort to balance things out as much as they can and they think things over and over with different perspectives and scenarios. No offense but this review was very short-sighted and lacking in general you got 3 people would have been nice to have 3 different perspectives and opinions but it completely fell flat and was one-dimensional in general No offense.
We all talked about our experience with the game - we were all honest and gave as much context as possible. It’s fine if you don’t like our experience / final thoughts - but the review is just a conversation about those very elements.
I like the fact you express honest opinions but it seems like you make a lot of rules mistakes that can significantly affect gameplay and may affect your experience and opinion of the game. That surprises me a bit - I’d expect a channel like this to be more careful. And have you seen the dice breaker interview with Cole Wehrle, the designer? It contains a lot of insights into how the game was designed. You complained that the game doesn’t know how to end. Cole explained that the game ending was designed very deliberately to create opportunity and tension. And he wanted it to not always be about who wins this game but also the impact on the next one. I think the game is wonderful and agree with him on both counts. However, if you are not having fun, you should definitely put something else on the table 😎
Shouldn't a GREAT game that you don't want to play be a 3 though? Surely there's a difference between a good game you don't want to play and a great game you don't want to play?
We played four games at three players and we came away with the same type of feeling. We had a good time, but each victory did feel hollow despite some very memorable moments and an interesting and hilarious overall story of our game. But we haven't gone back. I'd play it again but I do feel powerless most of the game (I've never played Chancellor, ours was too effective at his job). I relished the chance that I could make the Chancellor sweat. Knowing I could draw his attention for a full turn or two near the end of the game, but knowing he had clear ways to stop my uprising. As Exiles you have to work together to unseat him but at the end of the game only one of you will actually win and it was never through only your own efforts. By your scale, I'd give it a 3. I'd play again because I get to participate in that story. But it won't ever be my first choice.
So where this bills itself as a generational game, is there room through negotiation and and gameplay to set yourself up for better positions a game or two down the road? I'm wondering if this perspective change changes the way you play the game. "I cannot win, but how can I improve things for myself next game?"
Absolutely, yes, there is tons of room for that. Perhaps you haven't positioned into one of the win conditions, but you own valuable parts of the shared tableau (you rule good Sites with good Denizens, or Battle Plans, etc.) and you can bargain over that. In the opposite direction, you can shrink the size of the ruler's future Empire: will the potential winner start with lots of powerful stuff, or maybe not even powerful but things they're fond of? then take them away, or threaten to. There are other things too, including the next game's Oath & I've seen that be haggled over: "Well, if Joe wins with his Vision of Faith, the next game will be that Oath, and we're gonna all have to deal with these Site powers that strengthen the holder of the Darkest Secret *and* Joe starts with holding that Banner!" etc. ...In 3p games, there's very little room, comparatively.
There is tons of room for that, but its sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees. It takes a special kind of analysis to not only figure out that you can't win, but also to then figure out how you can leverage what you have is ways that most board games steer you away from.
The losing players CAN influence future games in Oath... but you won't usually be giving yourself a hugely better chance to win. You'll just be making future games different. Your ability to set yourself up for future games is extremely limited compared to other campaign or legacy games. For example, in Charterstone, Risk Legacy or Pandemic Legacy, the losers can get permanent upgrades in future games. In Arkham Horror: The card game, you earn EXP which will allow you to permanently upgrade and improve your deck. So in all these games the losers can be quantifiably more powerful next game. In Oath, the winners stuff stays there and the losers stuff gets swept away. So, the ability for the losing players to build themselves up for future games is much more limited. There are 2 main things you can do if you're losing: 1. Attack the winner. This will weaken the chancellor and strengthen all exiles next game. That won't make you more likely to win next game, but it might make the Chancellor more likely to lose. This could be useful if the chancellor is the biggest threat at the table, but in my games that's usually one of the other players. In that case, all you've done by attacking the chancellor last game is strengthen your opponents and stop the chancellor from beating them up. 2. Become a citizen. In my experience, starting a game as a citizen doesn't really make you more likely to win than starting as an exile or chancellor - it's just different. I mean, if Oath was designed so that citizens are super powerful and have a much better chance to win, that would be pretty frustrating for all the non-citizen players! So, this is more like an alternate way to play the game that may be fun or rewarding for story reasons. It's not a straight upgrade like having more powerful stickers in Charterstone, or having 0XP vs 30XP in arkham horror. So in the other games I've mentioned, I think it's a reasonable choice to decide "I'm going to let myself lose the next game or 2 to build myself up for the future". I don't think that would be a worthwhile strategic choice for Oath.
@@JackMack Totally. I agree with all that. I would echo what has been said elsewhere, by myself & others, about rethinking what you think "winning & losing" mean when you play Oath. It also means thinking about the future of the Empire, or the next generation to experience it. You have to care about what happens next for Oath to be interesting to you.
In listening to you, it sounds like your main complaint was that it is a more intelligent game then you like. Really, a " incredible, brilliant game" but you don't like to play it.
LEDER games is just not for me. I severely dislike most of their titles, and found ROOT to be easily the most over-exposed, over-praised game of Gen Con 2018. I'll never forget playing this in those endless halls and booths for days, as well as Rise of Tribes, Reef, Villainous, Clank in Space, Blue Lagoon, Quacks of Quedlinburg, Haunt the House, Dinosaur Island, Coimbra, and Warsaw City of Ruins, and absolutely hating my experience with only one of them. The time-suck fully grasping the game via multiple plays just isn't worth it to me.
Any game that has kingmaking be a part of it, I'm not interested in. The game of thrones board game turned me off any kingmaking stuff real bad, where if you're not 1st or 2nd, you then decide who wins by attacking or helping 1st or 2nd place, while having no chance to win yourself.
@@Spearca Yes they do, but not all kingmaking in games is the same. The game of thrones one is bad because you can directly help the person winning in combat with the leaders rivals, or you can give them your castles and land by abandoning them.
Really need to work on the talking over each other bit. You devalue each other and your opinions by doing it. I was unable to watch the video for that reason. Sad part it you grabbed with the title.
This was my first quackalope video and was totally turned off by the drunk girl. I don't have any problem with people drinking but for gods sake sober up before you film the review. Distracting and annoying.
Oath is a very mean game. There is a very strong element of king making. The dice can be swingy. Lucky card draws can derail the best laid plans. Having said that, I find I love this game. This game generates more table talk, deal making, and betrayal than any other game I can think of. I love all of those elements. I do warn folks before playing that these elements are present so they are not surprised. More puzzle like games, like Scythe, are fantastic as well, but there is so limited player interaction that those games feel like a solitaire game.
As long as you give the group context - I think it can be amazing - just not for us!
Yes, the game was created around the idea of king making as a narrative driver. Designer also talks about the purple die forcing risk taking and thereby contributing an interesting narrative as opposed to a deterministic outcome.
@@aretwodeetoo1181 MY DAUGHTER: [suddenly] Huh. That mine has a wizard school in it...
This is exactly what I want form boardgaming. I usually play werewolf, but I miss a narrative building experience for under 3 to 6 players
I'm interested in this game, and every video I see I feel like this is Game of Thrones the Board game, more than the Game of Thrones the Board Game lol
I'm rather surprised with this turn out. Your videos first brought Oath to my attention over a year ago. As a direct result, I now have my own copy along with the upgraded components and I couldn't be happier!
I think the main source of dissatisfaction one could feel with this game is that it's something of a contradiction? This is a big, expensive game with a MEATY set of rules. However it's not heavy with traditional competitive strategy. Despite its depth it plays more like a casual game. The problem with this is that the type of player most likely to buy into such a game will be expecting that familiar, grand strategic play style. But in Oath, any amount of planning and scheming can easily be undone by single roll of the die.
In addition, I feel like this is a game where a 'win' and a 'loss' are more loosely defined. Or rather, SHOULD be loosely defined. It is completely reasonable to go into a game wanting to 'win', but what is a win in Oath? The most obvious answer is: fulfilling one of the various victory conditions within the game. But just as your tangible goal for victory can change throughout the game, you should be prepared to change your personal goal as well.
Above everything else Oath is 'a game that remembers', and whether I win or lose my ultimate goal is to ensure I leave some mark on future games to come. Obviously, you have the largest impact on future games by winning; and thus being the Chancellor in the next game. But what changes can you make if you DON'T win? If the Chancellor appears to be the imminent winner and I as an Exile I rule a site or two that I want to see carried over in the next game, I appeal to the Chancellor and attempt to bargain for Citizenship 'on behalf of my people'. Because if I become a Citizen, those sites join the empire and are saved from being lost to history. Alternatively, if the impending victor has something oppressive that I want to see gone; such as a troublesome relic or a site with powerful denizens that would entrench them in a stronger starting position, I focus on taking it so it will be shuffled away during the chronicle.
I watched all of your play-through videos, and it seemed that during each game you were all focused very much on the here and now, with little thought towards the next game. Granted, I see the difficulty in caring about the future of a game whose core mechanics are denying you a certain kind of enjoyment in the present. But there's a tipping point where you need to shift from worrying about winning the current game and start planning for the future. To me, this is an integral part of the game and I don't think it was covered adequately here.
If a defense roll was 80 wouldn't that be more of an issue with the attacking player choosing way too many things to attack?
Kinda, kinda not.
@@Quackalope "Kinda, kinda not"?
She had **NINE** blue dice.
4 makes me cautious. 6, I'd probably never try without 10+ warbands & more than 1 Battle Plan...and even then, I'm probably sacrificing a lot.
Nine? I'd say, "Not even 'kinda.'"
Exactly this, they said the rulebook mention with more than 4 it is already a problem, yet they still roll that much def dice and complaining about it.
@@ElParoach Yep...I think it's sorta telling that the response is "kinda, kinda not." ;)
@@The-Duke-of-Zill Totally. And, I'm not saying it was wrong for Jan to try. He definitely needed more warbands for a true effort: I would've rounded up as many last warbands as I could, since the Bandit Crown lets you "break" that rule. And true, she got lucky with her roll in a sense, because his Battle Plan ignored single shields & she rolled only 1 single with 9 dice.
Still: she was rolling 9 dice to begin with. So I think the complaint is a little silly.
So. About the die roll ending the game.
Cole has stated that the point of the roll is to create tension, but it is still a mechanic that is in the players hands.
If the exiles make it a priority, they can ALWAYS prevent that die from ever being rolled.
The question is not "will I get another turn?" But "is it worth giving the chancellor a 1/6 chance to win while setting myself up for a turn 7 win."
But if an exile takes that chance its on them.
Exactly, if you had a intricate plan that set you up for a turn 7 win, you know when you made those plans that you at best have 5/9 probability of wining if the Chancellor remains the Oathkeeper. It's a gamble you have chosen to take by perusing that plan, which must be weighed against the risks of taking actions to prevent those roles from occurring.
13:00 I really disagree with Jesse there. I don't think that's accurate at all. Instead, I think what is going on is, "the chancellor has been doing too well, maybe it's time to end the game because the exiles aren't doing what they need to be doing."
Maybe the meta on the WW discord is different, but 70-80% of my games go to the full 8 turns. It's something under the players' control, after all.
More precisely, the game can end on a die roll if the exiles are playing bad.
That die roll should be considered like a bomb you should not set off if you’re an exile or a “hold on” timer if you’re the chancellor of a citizen.
If the chancellor is not the oath keeper you don’t even roll that die.
You should not consider it an end game condition like the game could end on a die roll no matter what you did during the game, because it’s not. If it is in your game, you haven’t manipulated the board enough to your advantage.
The multiplicative defense dice are not there to make campaigning swingy but to lead you into focused campaigns. You CAN campaign against a 7 different targets, but it’s suicide. Those x2 defense dice are there to let you know you’re doing something very very risky.
Kingmaking: this game is ALL about kingmaking. The focus is not on who wins but on how you can manipulate the chronicle. Sometimes in real life some factions cannot win a war or snatch the power from the oppressor but they can choose to help some other faction to.
This game is so different from other games exactly because the thought space when making decisions, when thinking about the goal of each game is completely different from what we’re used to.
The game is telling a story, not necessarily “your” story. People should play it’s a different attitude: not focusing on who is going to win, but how the story can be told, how the empires will fall and rise, what relics and sites will enter and leave the world.
It’s definitely not for everyone because it shattered all the foundations of how games are played, with what mindset, with what goal…
I’m sorry this game didn’t click for you, everyone has their no-go games (I don’t like Kingdom Death Monster for instance 😅), but it seems like you looked at some of the peculiar things this game is trying to do through the lenses of more “conventional” games, which likely may have contributed to your frustration and no-fun during your sessions.
Agreed Marco, this game is all about trying to secure power and power at the end of the day is only ever given to you by others. In real life, when we have political leaders (whether they're presidents, monarchs, etc.) they only get to be a leader if enough people support them (by paying taxes, not causing social disruptions, etc.). That should be what the purple dice roll represents. It's very thematic when an early roll ends the game because it's saying that the people aren't giving the visionaries a chance. They're going with the devil they know and are going to ignore the troublemakers and their disruptions, meaning that the exiles will never be able to secure power.
@alannash2778 This is very well put, good reply
After probably 8 plays, Oath is probably tied for my SECOND favorite game of all time. Tied with Scythe, and these two only behind TI4. Oath has such a unique and cool feeling of play and of winning out of nowhere that myself and my group can't find anywhere else. It even sort of encourages role play similarly to a strategy game kind of like Twilight Imperium does. Makes the game more fun. I've also NEVER ONCE seen the dice roll win a game near the end. We actually want it to happen at this point. But this is a storytelling game. The end of game dice rolling thing is very much by design and this is supposed to be swingy and crazy, not high tier strategy with low luck to win. Truly a treasure of a game.
Oath gave me one of the most unique conversations I've had about a game. That alone is enough for me
Thank you for your negative review. It actually makes me want to play the game more.
One observation that I'd like to make is in relation to the defense dice and how it relates to battles in real life. Interestingly, when an attack takes place along the direct line of expectation, resistance is at its strongest and the advantage lies entirely with the defender, even when outnumbered. Decisive victories only occur when geographical and/or psychological dislocation occurs before the battle. And this is why this board game greatly appeals to me. However, just because a mechanic has realism linked to it doesn't make it fun so I understand why some people will hate it.
One thing I've also noticed is that sometimes board games can be greatly enhanced by house rules. I wonder if the experience could be improved by altering the rules around the luck and finding some way to make coalitions more appealing. Perhaps metagaming deals are so integral to the game that the experience falls flat if your group simply plays "by the rules?"
Such a clever and fascinating observation!
The defense dice are super swingy, but I’ve had rolls of 8 defense dice where I rolled below 10 total. It’s still more likely to get a blank than a x2. But if you’re trying to plan your every move and calculate all the odds, don’t play Oath. There are many better games for you
This game gets much better with the more players added I feel. 3 players really makes the kingmaking element and the asymmetry much more stark. More players enables more cards to be seen throughout the game and much more likely that someone else will win via visions prior to turn 6. 3 players really isn't the sweet spot I feel.
What if the end game dice roll would have been the other way around?
Instead of rolling to see if the game ends early you roll to see if the game continue another round?
The game ends after 8 rounds no matter what.
I think that is what the dice is for.
You are supposed to stop the chancellor before the dice might end the game.
We tried it several times at 3 and it always fell flat. Will never play with less than 4 again. I don't even think it should be marketed for less than 4 nor can I fathom anyone would play this solo.
Makes sense - we tried to make sure to give that context.
@@Quackalope Did you really only ever play it at 3p?
It's not meant to be dismissive of that player count. I actually really like 3p, but I think it's potentially best for veteran players, who know each other well & how to bluff & feint & surprise one another. Everything also happens faster, multi-turn plans & also setbacks: 3p is extremely tight.
In general in Oath, most of the time, you're actually less "100% out" than you think. You're often in contention for winning, even in the 11th hour. But that is far less the case in 3p, due to its tightened nature.
Still: there are many great 3p-specific moves & plans I never saw once in these playthroughs.
A last remark about winning & kingmaking...something I really appreciate about Oath is that it elicits complex emotional responses to winning. Now, obviously, that must include some feel-bads, and obviously that won't be for everyone. But I also think players have to accept this open range of "knotty feelings." Which is **not** just the storytelling, or political theme. It's also a different way of thinking about what it means to play competitively. Especially in a game where certain incentives are not in place because the game itself doesn't have an ending. It measures your success differently. For players who like games to measure their successes or (failures) in purer terms, or more binary ones anyway, Oath will be very challenging. And for players who prioritize "fun," a very subjective word, as an essential game element, Oath will be extremely mixed.
I feel like it also depends on how you look at this game. For me this is a game of storytelling and I love the unforgiving nature of this, it feels like I'm on a council and things can always go any direction and I let the game play me like you guys say. These little stories are amazing, but I can see how people prefer having more control.
I love Oath but I'm glad to see this because I think a LOT of people will bounce off it and really need to hear this. The quote "I want to feel like I won because of my skill" is really important. I think anyone who feels this way will not enjoy Oath.
Well tbh I don't really agree with this , there are multiple ways to win the Oath and 1 of them is skill based . What i would say is that Oath is just like the poker ,a bit of rng is in there but the result going to come from who's able to manipulate the other player's, And remembering what's is in the discard pilles and where.
Also you need to be flexible there was a time where i changed my goal 3 times ! And still won the game every single card is good just not for the same goal .
@@zippo7422 "there are multiple ways to win the Oath and 1 of them is skill based." Which one? If you're saying only 1 of the ways to win is skill based, that seems to agree with my point?
Oath definitely has an element of skill to it, but that skill often won't be the determining factor for who wins the game. Instead the victor will often be decided by luck or kingmaking. That's not a criticism, it's a deliberate part of the design. Anyone who wants a competitive experience without luck or kingmaking probably shouldn't play oath.
@@JackMacki didn't used the right word, There are 3 ways to PLAY 1 of them is skill, 2nd luck 3 th the combination of the 1 and 2 . And mostly always thr 1 st the winner .
Also we are "added a rule" to kill the king making element .( It's in the rule book too but not a specific rule )
Everyone must fight for his own people . Even if someone grouping up it's needs to be for the benefit of both of the player's.
@@zippo7422 Well, I'm glad your house rule works for you. In my opinion the king making is a core and deliberate part of the game, so I personally wouldn't try to remove it. If I didn't enjoy kingmaking I would play other games.
Got my first game of Oath (and possibly second) on Friday. Thanks for the honest opinions. Here's hoping it lands with my group. Keep up the great work. QUACK
Quack!
Cole Wehrle is an excellent designer, but let us not forget this is someone who wrote his dissertation on “How the Experience of the empire altered the way British writers imagined distances of time and space during the early and mid 19th century.” This is someone who has very esoteric interests, and is quite different in his design philosophy than most mainstream designers. Which is to say he does not really care about making his designs enjoyable or fun, he cares much more about the stories the games create, and the emotional range a design has.
I think many people are going to have similar feelings as you all, and I think there will be a similar wave of people who backed John Company, off the strength of Root, but maybe did not realize what they are getting into. (Not to imply that was the case at all for you all with Oath).
Thanks for the review guys! I enjoy that you’re honest even if it may upset people. An honest review is a good one! Constructive criticism is the only way for games to get better!
Man I love this game so much... but also so scared my gaming group ends up not liking it as much as I do after a couple of playthroughs. We had a blast our first game, so many lil stories and laughter for all the silly thins that happened.
I'm curious why the level of anxiety was so high in your playthroughs ...I usually am anxious in many heavy strategic games I play (trying to find the best strategy etc), but in oath I'm more focused on trying silly things and making history than trying to analyze every tiny detail leading to victory...which reduces my anxiety and pressure,,,, It almost feels like my experience was 100% different compared to yours.
The comparison with Nemesis is good based on the type of experience it provides, but I'd say there are way more ways to have control over your game in Oath than Nemesis....Nemesis is built to f*ck you over whatever you do (which is a funny unique experience).
Except in Nemesis, you know its a game with very high highs and low lows.
And if you manage to win. Its not likely because you got lucky, its because you really earned it while everything is trying to fuck you up. So its something that really really feels rewarding when it happens.
Yea, it is more about going into this one to develop a fun story naturally based on what occurs in the play through. Only playing competitively on a lowkey level, trying to win of course, but not expecting a traditional competitive gameplay. It is almost a simulation of real life politics in a medieval setting almost. Having to gain power but not make it obvious enough that others will focus you down until it is too late for them, making alliances so that you come out on top and hopefully they may even side with you if you near winning with someone they disliked in the match more. Idk, more of a chill lowkey competitive politics type thing. I struggle even to find out how to describe it here. xD Not many that are like it.
It’s an amazing simulation for sure!
I don't agree with the terror to the defense dice, they are scary if you decide to campaign against multiple sites or relics, but if you atack fewer places or safer places you don't ever need to roll vs that many dice, is about strategy and high risk high rewards, also the ending die happens only if the exiles can't deny the oathkeeper, the game is all about messing the possible winner player before he takes another round while trying to get your own shot, I like it, it was fun for my group
The goal with the games these guys make is not to be 100% balanced, but to be _interesting,_ and to bake narrative into the gameplay seamlessly. The do that beautifully, even if it isn't "fair."
This is true - I’m open to trying it out again. Overall, it didn’t work for us.
Thanks for bringing up my black orchestra comment from the first vid. Right after I wrote that I actually went and sold black orchestra because it felt way too lucky. With oath I'm actually feeling much more in control of setting up the game and other players for my one big shot. The thing I think that helps me enjoy oath is viewing it as a history means I can shoot for smaller goals along the way. I can make sure the chancellor doesn't rule a particular site if it looks like they will win, or make sure my favorite site ends up in an exiles new kingdom. I haven't totally figured out why the game speaks to me so much yet sincei can see where all of your complaints are coming from and on paper I agree with the m
Absolutely!!
Yeah, I think it just comes down to what people want in their board games. I love Black Orchestra, but I see the assassination attempt roll as highly thematic. It doesn't matter how well you plan something, things can go wrong that were unforeseen. Especially when you're trying to assassinate a world leader...
Then again, "losing games" for me does not bother me in the slightest. That's just the way the story played out that time. Perhaps the next story will be about the assassin succeeding. That sort of thing. Perhaps Oath was intended to be taken in the same sense, where it doesn't matter if you won or lost and it puts narrative first, even at the expense of player agency. To be fair, I have not played Oath yet so do not know if it would be a step too far for my own tastes.
Sounds fair, especially at 3.
At the same time, with 4 players, it feels very different. And the "turn" mechanic, I feel, is something to be seen the opposite way.
The chancellor wins at 5 unless the Exiles get a lucky respite.
This is to me not too different from, say, a game of Warhammer with a roll-based turn number. The mechanic does exist for a reason. And like any reason, that reason doesn't work for everyone. Me, I agree with SUSD way more, but your take is very fair, especially at 3 players. This kind of thing is why, going back to your discussion with BGC, a "best at" player count would really help games.
It's kind of weird that it was you guys you got me into the game of Oath. I've watched all of your prototypes gameplay videos and there was something unique about this game that pulled me in.
It's weird to see you not liking it anymore. I guess your taste in boardgame changed and it's ok. I still fully enjoy this game and I hope will like it as much as I do
I think where you were at this point in time (shooting this video) is where people mostly wound up, with the exception of susd. Even though all the things you pointed out as problems they brought up but regarded in a different light. On top of that, the big thing they mentioned is what you called an experience.
I feel this was the most hyped game of the year so far, and people were high on it and had to come down, and it came down hard.
Yep - that makes sense. It’s an amazing experience - I don’t think they are “wrong” just have a different core element they want from games!
I very much respect your plays and your subjective opinions, thank you for being so bold to share them. I am excit d to experience the game and understand what you all feel and hopefully to enjoy it
Hopefully this will help free up some games so I can my hands on a copy. :)
Xd nice
haha, this would happen anyway. As soon as the KS was funded with that amount of pledges...
The thing about Oath is, the same reason some people's stance on this dropped is exactly why others are getting so high on it.
I'm with SUSD, this is right now my favorite game - period.
100% understand why :)
I really thought this game would be for Jesse. Its full with narration. I thought you would embrace the story more. Dont play it as a competitiv strategy game like Root or so.
Sure there will be games where you dont play a big role in the story, then you just roll with it.
(Kingmaking: This is the only game where you can base your desicion on who to support on something, on the story. You can make promises of citicenship for the future game.
Dice Roll on turn 5: You have 5 turns to take away the Oathkeeper title. If you didnt up to this point, then I was your desicion to potentially loose on a roll of 6)
But of course, games need to be fun.
Thanks for taking the time to play this several times and to produce the playthroughs :-)
If they can leave a honest review about this game, I can leave an honest review about this channel: This video completely turned me away from this channel.
I haven’t played Oath, so it isn’t the low marks they gave the game in the end, it was the way they constantly justify their opinions.
There are two guys that hang around my local game shop. They are famous for this kind of “discussion”. Any time someone comes into the shop talking positively about a game that they have played, or a game they hope to play, these two gentlemen will talk in circles about all the “flaws” that game has until the person concedes that the game isn’t as great as they initially thought, or that they aren’t as exciting about it anymore. I can’t help but sense that these guys do this in order to make themselves feel more intelligent about games and systems than the people around them.
This video and the video on this channel about nemesis both made me feel same way that the men at my local shop do; frustrated.
Three unusual comments regarding this game from my group are:
1. "An odd thing is that you don't look forward to your turn".
2. "You don't feel clever when you win".
3. "I never even had anything to work towards this game session".
Now, to be fair, I do kinda enjoy playing the game, and I love writing the chronicle, it's really fun. And the art is fantastic!
But there is always an opportunity cost to any game. If a game is only 'kinda' fun, it needs to be a filler or something that takes like 30 minutes. A game that can often take 3 hours need to be fantastic, because there are plenty of games that take 3 hours are are really fun. Our first game took almost 5 hours. Most of our 4 player games have been 8 rounds, taking around 3-4 hours (with setup and packing up, only 5 games in total though).
I think the most disappointing thing about the game is that the mechanism drives the narrative 100%. You are more of an onlooker to the story unfolding rather than an active agent. Should you play card X or Y? Due to how powerful the cards are, and how critical matching suits can be, one of X and Y will almost always be the much better choice, so it doesn't feel like a choice. Then you roll dice very few times during a session, which means the randomness plays a really big role on the outcome of the game.
It's said this is "Kingsmaker, the game", but it should be called "Hollow victories, the game". :/
It feel like the games development has to have had some quite striking similarities to the premise behind The Emperors New Clothes.
What if you tweaked the defense dice? Instead of multiplying, just counting the x2 dice as 2 defense successes. Might change the sense of play.
You guys should try with 4 or 5 players. It’s a much different game.
I believe it's the game as it's meant to be played at 4+ players.
@@opsallen I’ve played in twice as many 3 player games than anything else, but always enjoy the 4+ player games the most!
I’m sure - I don’t know that it changes some of the core issues we had.
@@Quackalope I’m not trying to discredit your review/opinions. It was just a suggestion. The rules and mechanics don’t change, just the group dynamic! I played a very intense 6 player game recently with 3 Exiles, 2 Citizens, and the Chancellor. So much fun!
@@boxcarbuddha6505 I 100% agree with the group dynamic changing!
hello, very interesting discussion about die roll ending.
Is astonishing, or amazing, yo think you can sin with a diez roll, only one dice. And you say what else mechanism could use yo give the Victory at the three finishing round...... I remember DUNE, and the final condition required ti Bene Gesserit.
Looking at my still unplayed copy... a slight doubt starts reaching the surface. Although it's a piece of art, which easily can still be in my collection for a while, I wonder if I can find the group to actually persist for a few games to find out if this experience can be added and approved or needs to be dusted off and given to any usurpers.
I really believe finding the right group could make or break this game for everyone involved. Which is definitely a fair knock. But the game does not inherently fall short as those who dislike it will generally say -- its a very subjective experience.
You have five rounds to take away the Chancellor's ability to roll that purple die.
This game is not about history, but about historiography. It teaches in a playful way how history has been written; it is not a euro ''spreadsheet management'' game. History has been teaching us over and over again how our actual civilization has been very often based on luck and situational circumstances.
This game is not about victory, but reminds us that victory should be a mean to the game, not an end. Gaming should never, NEVER, be about winning, but about creating real emotions and causing tangible situations between people through inert materials in order to create a memorable experience. Oath is the first game where I decided voluntarily at the start of a game to join my strength with someone and play all of my actions in order for that player to win, just because I wanted to reverse the Chancellor's power.
Clearly this is just not your type of game. I can see where you're coming from and you enjoy games where you have more control. What I find disappointing though is that you mention that it is a mean game that does not create bonds, when this is just your personal experience. Oath is not mean, nor unforgiving; it is unfair, just like how our civilization has been forged. Oath is a hate letter to civilization, not a casual euro game. Your review is, I feel, a complaint about how a spoon did not successfully help you slice a watermelon. You are allowed to dislike a game if it's not in your taste, but what you did felt like just raging against stuff that you did not like ''just because''...
With Oath, I created bonds with my gaming group and we are much closer to each other than before. We accept the take that elements; we are eager to see each other succeed in their scheme, while still being competitive at the same time. We salute the excellence of each others' actions when they do something incredibly smart; we marvel at unbelievable dice rolls and how they create unexpected turns of events. Laughters, arguements, alliances, backstabing; we live the present moment and understand that our own victory is not as much important as the common benefit of the group. Oath is an unselfish game about the players around the table and what they live communally.
By the way, I'm not sure if it were voluntary or not, but I got to watch 7 or 8 TH-cam ads throughout the videos. Is that normal? Is it possible to tone them down a little bit? Because THIS is frustrating lol
@@ilqrd.6608 I somewhat knew that some people would obviously interpret my message and make me say things I didn't want to.
Gaming is not about winning. Winning a mean for fun, not the ultimate goal. That being said, I actually wrote the opposite of what you insinuate: competition and the actual experience is what makes a game fun. Winning is just the icing on the cake; the ride ultimately has to be more fun than the end. And if for you, gaming is just about winning, then you should avoid online go, dnd or rpg games like the quiet year. The only way to recognize the value of some games is by being unselfish and be ready to hit and take hit, to be competitive and recognize how badly you played or even how others outplayed you. Winning drives a part of the fun, but is not the whole goal at all. Otherwise, if we follow this logic, every game you're bad at winning are considered bad games to your standards. Is that what I should conclude?
@@ilqrd.6608 Oath can and will be mastered by players. There are ways to improve at the game, and not everything is down to pure luck. It's about seizing the opportunity at the right time, just like when Marcus Brutus organized a coup against Ceasar, or William the Conqueror, or Gengis Khan. Our history is filled with king-making moments, of alliances and betrayals. Why do you think Games of Thrones and Dune have become so popular?
Our group is very competitive too and look for unimaginable ways to succeed. We saw unbelievable moves made by players where we didn't see the point at first, but then became key actions for their success. We constantly experiment the butterfly effect in every game, and we are magnified by someone's victory. Hence my win becomes so much more enjoyable when it is saluted by everyone around the table, rather than everyone focusing on themselves. Gaming is about community, not about ourselves; it is supposed to be an unselfish activity, not a joust of personal performance.
You may disagree with me, but it doesn't mean that this view is wrong, since it allowed me to connect with people in a much more meaningful way than just "gaming pals".
Cole himself describes Oath as a "mean game" so I think you're competely off-base when you say "Oath is not mean".
@@JackMack I read most of the diaries and I don't recall he said this in any of them. If he did it though, then fine, it is a mean game. Does that therefore discredit everything I said?
@@ilqrd.6608 I can see what you're saying, and I enjoy winning. But I'm by nature not a competitive person, so I may already differ here. I don't usually play most games to win because I want to get better at the winning of them. Sometimes, yes, but sometimes once I've been able to win a few times, the game has stopped being anything else. And then, it doesn't matter to me that I can keep winning.
I think most competitive games are liked & people like to win them because it's the game making a value judgement about you. We like to think it's about your skill as a player. There's an argument, when considering the modern history of games, that possibly this is rooted in the pedagogy of Empire in teaching how good citizenship is rewarded: you worked hard in an equal playing field = you ought to be rewarded for working hard = you merit a victory = you are a winner = you are successful as a person = you are a good person. See, we can hold that skill (and fairness) matters, but it's also ultimately a moral judgement.
What makes Oath interesting is that's a competitive game without an ending. So, it measures success very differently. Winning/losing become a false binary. You can change the world of the game & still lose. You can win the game, but because of the state of the world &/or how you won, you can feel like you lost. Because it breaks the binary, it opens up a range of complex emotional responses. Which will include both good & bad feelings. It's okay that that's not for some people, but that is especially not for people who mainly want a game to judge them purely for their skill...not make them feel a mix of things about winning.
Where can I watch content made for the Oath Prototype? I'd love to see this "better" combat
Hi guys, after 4-5 games in we also put this one in the closet and we highly doubt if it will ever hit the table again. But we keep coming back to situations that have happened in these games and decisions that where made during them. So it did trigger something during the gameplays.
I have a question for you would your opinion about the game change when the win was instant as soon as you would hit the victory condition ? Some in our groups say it might for them as it takes away kingmaking and the game would be lean more towards you working for your goals instead of preventing others from reaching theirs.
For the rest a perfect video and we can feel your frustration on this unique experience, called oath .
The experience is something unique - just didn’t hook us deeply enough to overcome our issues.
I don’t know about the instant win condition - it might then be too easy to close the gap.
Its weird that you say the chancellor feels veru powerful, yes on later games this could be very true but game 1, the chancellor starts with only a few more things and has 3-4 devious exiles gunning for them
Wow thank you, I'm glad I stayed until the end because you've cemented my decision. I LOVE Nemesis and thematic games, in fact Nemesis is my favorite board game by a long shot. I now understand what you mean by a game being unfair "unbalanced" for story sake. I was getting the idea that those complaint would be similar to the complaints on Nemesis which are totally valid. But I find my group enjoyed the unpredictability and unfairness. I watched your video after SU&SD for contrast and while I find I'll likely disagree with the sentiment. I always appreciate your contrasting opinion. It's helpful to my purchase decisions.
This is one of those games where as soon as I saw some gameplay I knew it wasn't for me.
I like how honest this review was, would be great to get Cole back on the channel to pick his brains about the criticisms and get his take!
Very interesting point ! Thank you! Have you played a lot of game ?
I VERY much enjoy the ride Oath offers. 6 Games deep until now and the Story that unfolded is just amazing. I wanted to write about a part that I did not like. But formulating it and thinking harder about - made me realize I love it aswell :-P
I'm looking forward to Expansions - especially more Edifices will be amazing. And I think the Game-Space that Oath offers is not even close to being filled up. New roles, new types of cards it will be even more wonderful :-)
Is it worth exploring whether adding more turns into the game, such that there are more opportunities to make plays, would maybe make the game feel less arbitrary in terms of victory and give more possibilities of play?
If you are giving more turn's in to the game you going ro destroy the Chancellor, let's not forget that the Chancellor has only got 3 turn's to win out of the 8 while everyone else got 5 .
Yes i know the guy's in the video were crying about the fate dice , but that's only true if the winning condition is the gran scapter every other game it's hard to keep the oath keeper title for the Chancellor.
The game is about the journey not the win
This is not the review for me.
Great review but darn, you leave me wanting to give it a spin to see how i feel it plays. I feel it has the potential to either be one of my faves or a let down.
Same for me, it definitely can be frustrating to not have the "satisfaction" of winning the game with just your wits or skills, but it feels like the game is meant to not be fair. Itching to get my hands on it tbh
Such a shame you guys didn't enjoy it (apart from some moments). It was a lot of fun watching and I've really enjoyed playing this with my group of friends (though not 7 games deep yet).
I hope this doesn't turn too many people away from the game, because if you have the right mindset it is a truly epic and amazing game to play with a more or less dedicated group of friends.
Another question...... Did you play game with 6 player?. maybe would be different
I can remember watching Jesse's videos introducing and playing the early prototypes of Oath. I wonder how much of the experience of disappointment/disenchantment he describes is related to the reality not matching to the hype that was build up beforehand. That said, in my own experience playing thus far and as many others have said, Oath is definitely not a game for everyone. Oath contravenes a lot of the "muscle memory" that folks have from playing other games. As a result, it's less... consistent than other typical titles (thinking of their discussion about the amount of "fun" had while playing). A lot of people, maybe even most, will bounce off if it pretty hard. Finding the right group feels much more critical for Oath than other titles and bringing random folks in won't go over too well.
I've enjoyed watching the channel grow and I like the banter, but like Jesse's views on SUSD I find myself disagreeing with the opinions and conclusions more often than not. Which is fine! It's thought-provoking and entertaining to reflect on what is said. I've loved Oath so far despite/because of all it's weirdness. Whatever my own disagreements with the conclusions offered here, I appreciate the honesty of it. Well done.
Can you point me to where he expresses his views on SUSD? I'm curious what he thinks.
I really feel like many of Cole's designs have kingmaking... Does he like that or is it just incidental and he doesn't worry about it?
Cole said Oath is "kingmaking - the game"
Many certainly have that element :)
Cole has had a design talk titled “Kingmaking - A defense”
So yes, he thoroughly enjoys kingmaking and believes it makes games better
@@Kollider115 I haven't seen that design talk, but if I had to guess based on his pedigree (student of history), I'd say he likes kingmaking because it's realistic. "Kingmaking" has existed among nations throughout history.
@@Kollider115 I would rewatch the talk: that's not actually what he argues.
From all I've seen and experienced of this game,
I think it fits a political strategy game the most.
Thematically I've felt it fits a revolt in a kingdom and how a straight 1v1 with the big guy is rarely going to work, that one needs to act and with what they are given.
That said I can see why you 3 didn't like it and I also feel like having just 3 people with relatively close playstyles wouldn't be all that fun in a political game.
Even with earlier versions you showcased on the channel you had people who played very differently and I do feel that each different person added to this game increases enjoyment.
Still I do find your reasons valid, though maybe some day in the future if you can get a bigger group of people with very different playstyles this game will be more fun... I still don't really expect it to change your general opinion though.
superb video, so glad to see an honest and fair review based on proper play.
Quack
Very good comprehensive review; thanks a ton!
If you want a thematic experience with some luck in it then Nemesis is really good. I don't think this is a good story telling game. I had the same with Western Legends. The way that game works is even worse as it literally presents itself as the ultimate western sandbox experience, but it just falls short in the way it handles the victory points.
I love storytelling and am impressed by both games - I just don't know that either are right for me.
Sounds like how I feel about nemesis: brilliant game with awesome mechanics, theme, and complexity. So much to love, but I just fundamentally don’t have fun playing the game.
Not gonna lie, I'm kind of surprised by the outcome you guys arrived at, despite liking Root. I know both are like apples and oranges, but I find the learning curve quite similar for both. Both taking quite long time to get a sense of victory goal, in Root because of multiple, asymmetric factions, in Oath because of multiple victory conditions and instability.
About the dice, I differ a lot. I find the campaign design be much closer to D&D, than board game combat. Just as rolling 1 on K20, despite being armed to teeth could result in tripping on branch, so can go battles and wars. While that was indeed quite lucky throw, I don't know what else you were expecting, statistically speaking. Like Jan said, mistake of not thinking ahead cost him that game. Shira had a lot of books, another vision hidden in advisors, fully equipped to swing. I strongly recommend design diary on bgg by Cole during the development, regarding campaigns.
Can't really argue with the point about the game unfolding the story instead of being the game. Shame, as I thought Jesse would love it with entire game being kind of flavor text, but so it happens. Someone below compared it to Shogun novel, I remember the Foundation by Asimov, the first one. Political success is a result from multiple carefully constructed actions, plots and schemes. So is the Chancellor role, heavy lies the crown :)
I'm kind of wondering how it would go in 4-player or even more.
Can't fault your honest/brave review, that's exactly why you have 28.3K subscribers.
easier to give a negative review of something that's already on the market though.
@@Madgaar not sure negative reviews are ever easy, not only do you have to justify your opinions but you also run the risk of alienating the board game designer and fans of the game. I think I agree with you that it’s easier to review now it’s arrived with backers if that’s what you were suggesting? It’s a Kickstarter that I considered backing but tbh I wasn’t a fan of his previous game Root so didn’t imagine liking this. That said I love Pax Pamir 2nd Ed so each to their own
It will be interesting to see how will expansion look like
I wonder :)
I'm currently playing _A Plague Tale: Innocence_ and this review made me think about how I feel about that game: a great story... that I am forced to play with essentially zero creativity, decision-making, or input.
Looks like Oath ain't for me! Thanks so much for your playthroughs and honest assessments.
Sometimes those stories are worth it - sometimes it is hard to keep going.
But KDM is all about them dice rolls...true that it is a co-op experience but yeah many times you don't lose, the dice rolls own you...and he is an advocate for KDM.
Just wondering how this dice rolling experience is not similar to more punishing games as ones like KDM.
@S R fair point.
Jesse's hair is Back! Black Sorcery!!!
I find Oath a fabulously good time, or an absolutely terrible time. The idea is a great one, but in some circumstances it doesn't carry off well. Three players when one is a citizen is terrible. The element of kingmaking is absolutely through the roof. The dice and cards are swingy in a way that sometimes seems unfair. You can have a several bad rounds where you can do basically nothing and any plan you made for the game is destroyed. I enjoy the game immensely, but it isn't perfect or sometimes even very good. It does cause some of the best table talk in a game I have seen though. One thumb up.
A very lacking and poor review to be honest_
DEFENSE DICE are perfectly balance, they are balance in a sense that you only attack what you need to and not whatever you feel like.
Let me expand on that , if we made defense dice weaker then all what Chancellor has to do to win is just attack everything in 1 go with all his warbands and that be a very easy win.
Now since the defense dice is so brutal that's exactly why the attackers will target limited things and target them wisely instead of attacking everything on site
Do you see the logic now and why it's balance so people don't abuse the attack option especially the chancellor that's exactly why they are balance.
Side Note:-
Everything is worked on over and over and developers really put alot of time and effort to balance things out as much as they can and they think things over and over with different perspectives and scenarios.
No offense but this review was very short-sighted and lacking in general you got 3 people would have been nice to have 3 different perspectives and opinions but it completely fell flat and was one-dimensional in general
No offense.
We all talked about our experience with the game - we were all honest and gave as much context as possible. It’s fine if you don’t like our experience / final thoughts - but the review is just a conversation about those very elements.
I like the fact you express honest opinions but it seems like you make a lot of rules mistakes that can significantly affect gameplay and may affect your experience and opinion of the game. That surprises me a bit - I’d expect a channel like this to be more careful. And have you seen the dice breaker interview with Cole Wehrle, the designer? It contains a lot of insights into how the game was designed. You complained that the game doesn’t know how to end. Cole explained that the game ending was designed very deliberately to create opportunity and tension. And he wanted it to not always be about who wins this game but also the impact on the next one. I think the game is wonderful and agree with him on both counts. However, if you are not having fun, you should definitely put something else on the table 😎
OMG did she just pull a knife???
I was really worry to be the only one that didn't enjoy this game. My friend love it but I will try to avoid to play it... Is just not for me
Yep - and that is ok!
I liked the review, but i would like to see more oath game play, with 4 or 5 players. Thank you anyway.
Shouldn't a GREAT game that you don't want to play be a 3 though? Surely there's a difference between a good game you don't want to play and a great game you don't want to play?
This is pretty on point. Great game. Just not for our group. WTS one opened KS copy. 😁
We played four games at three players and we came away with the same type of feeling. We had a good time, but each victory did feel hollow despite some very memorable moments and an interesting and hilarious overall story of our game. But we haven't gone back. I'd play it again but I do feel powerless most of the game (I've never played Chancellor, ours was too effective at his job). I relished the chance that I could make the Chancellor sweat. Knowing I could draw his attention for a full turn or two near the end of the game, but knowing he had clear ways to stop my uprising. As Exiles you have to work together to unseat him but at the end of the game only one of you will actually win and it was never through only your own efforts. By your scale, I'd give it a 3. I'd play again because I get to participate in that story. But it won't ever be my first choice.
I enjoy watching people struggle to describe this game.
Not every game can be a CMON game, right?
Hahaha, I don’t want to play most CMON games either :)
I wonder if it would be better head to head?
I don't expect so.
So where this bills itself as a generational game, is there room through negotiation and and gameplay to set yourself up for better positions a game or two down the road?
I'm wondering if this perspective change changes the way you play the game. "I cannot win, but how can I improve things for myself next game?"
I think it’s too long and random for that to be the core value.
Absolutely, yes, there is tons of room for that. Perhaps you haven't positioned into one of the win conditions, but you own valuable parts of the shared tableau (you rule good Sites with good Denizens, or Battle Plans, etc.) and you can bargain over that. In the opposite direction, you can shrink the size of the ruler's future Empire: will the potential winner start with lots of powerful stuff, or maybe not even powerful but things they're fond of? then take them away, or threaten to.
There are other things too, including the next game's Oath & I've seen that be haggled over: "Well, if Joe wins with his Vision of Faith, the next game will be that Oath, and we're gonna all have to deal with these Site powers that strengthen the holder of the Darkest Secret *and* Joe starts with holding that Banner!" etc.
...In 3p games, there's very little room, comparatively.
There is tons of room for that, but its sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees. It takes a special kind of analysis to not only figure out that you can't win, but also to then figure out how you can leverage what you have is ways that most board games steer you away from.
The losing players CAN influence future games in Oath... but you won't usually be giving yourself a hugely better chance to win. You'll just be making future games different. Your ability to set yourself up for future games is extremely limited compared to other campaign or legacy games.
For example, in Charterstone, Risk Legacy or Pandemic Legacy, the losers can get permanent upgrades in future games. In Arkham Horror: The card game, you earn EXP which will allow you to permanently upgrade and improve your deck. So in all these games the losers can be quantifiably more powerful next game.
In Oath, the winners stuff stays there and the losers stuff gets swept away. So, the ability for the losing players to build themselves up for future games is much more limited. There are 2 main things you can do if you're losing:
1. Attack the winner. This will weaken the chancellor and strengthen all exiles next game. That won't make you more likely to win next game, but it might make the Chancellor more likely to lose. This could be useful if the chancellor is the biggest threat at the table, but in my games that's usually one of the other players. In that case, all you've done by attacking the chancellor last game is strengthen your opponents and stop the chancellor from beating them up.
2. Become a citizen. In my experience, starting a game as a citizen doesn't really make you more likely to win than starting as an exile or chancellor - it's just different. I mean, if Oath was designed so that citizens are super powerful and have a much better chance to win, that would be pretty frustrating for all the non-citizen players! So, this is more like an alternate way to play the game that may be fun or rewarding for story reasons. It's not a straight upgrade like having more powerful stickers in Charterstone, or having 0XP vs 30XP in arkham horror.
So in the other games I've mentioned, I think it's a reasonable choice to decide "I'm going to let myself lose the next game or 2 to build myself up for the future". I don't think that would be a worthwhile strategic choice for Oath.
@@JackMack Totally. I agree with all that. I would echo what has been said elsewhere, by myself & others, about rethinking what you think "winning & losing" mean when you play Oath. It also means thinking about the future of the Empire, or the next generation to experience it. You have to care about what happens next for Oath to be interesting to you.
Who's Shira? 😊
In listening to you, it sounds like your main complaint was that it is a more intelligent game then you like. Really, a " incredible, brilliant game" but you don't like to play it.
By any chance you could send me your copy? Quack. :)
LEDER games is just not for me. I severely dislike most of their titles, and found ROOT to be easily the most over-exposed, over-praised game of Gen Con 2018. I'll never forget playing this in those endless halls and booths for days, as well as Rise of Tribes, Reef, Villainous, Clank in Space, Blue Lagoon, Quacks of Quedlinburg, Haunt the House, Dinosaur Island, Coimbra, and Warsaw City of Ruins, and absolutely hating my experience with only one of them. The time-suck fully grasping the game via multiple plays just isn't worth it to me.
Any game that has kingmaking be a part of it, I'm not interested in. The game of thrones board game turned me off any kingmaking stuff real bad, where if you're not 1st or 2nd, you then decide who wins by attacking or helping 1st or 2nd place, while having no chance to win yourself.
@@Spearca Yes they do, but not all kingmaking in games is the same. The game of thrones one is bad because you can directly help the person winning in combat with the leaders rivals, or you can give them your castles and land by abandoning them.
Nice artwork they all say, yet the lack of an overhead camera means that we cannot see it properly and judge it for ourselves :(
Also, just a 1 to 10 rating system. Having to explain a rating system is kind of defeating the point, right?
how is explaining a custom rating system defeating the point of rating it?
Maybe try talking one at a time.
She's just casually playing with a knife while filming lol. Why is there a knife there?! Very distracting.
Looks like she's had a few drinks too, I was definitely getting nervous when she took the knife out!
I wished this average-to-boring channel would stop showing in my recommendations
I also wish that - sadly I still have you around it seems.
oath = worst game ever, very good idea, worst done ever ... SAD.
Really need to work on the talking over each other bit. You devalue each other and your opinions by doing it. I was unable to watch the video for that reason. Sad part it you grabbed with the title.
This was my first quackalope video and was totally turned off by the drunk girl. I don't have any problem with people drinking but for gods sake sober up before you film the review. Distracting and annoying.
Thanks for watching. For the record - no one was drunk or even close to.