Hard to remember another recent game that has been this divisive. A lot of games seem to fall into the 6 - 8 out of 10 for most people. ARCS seems to be a 1 or a 10 out of 10 for everyone.
It's got one of the most unique game designs in modern boardgames which is hugely exciting, unfortunately that design massively limits your freedom to play, instead of doing what you want to do you're limited to what the cards let you do. It can be extremely satisfying to ride that design to victory but it can also be extremely frustrating if you can't tame it.
@@BoardGameBollocks I'd be more comfortable calling it a different design, you've still got lots of choices and I don't think success is dependent on drawing the best cards. Personally I'd prefer something more freeform but I have friends who love the puzzle it presents.
I see games as a goal and a framework of limitations that you must navigate to achieve that goal. All games are limiting (you can only draw x cards, or things cost X, or you can only move 1 space, or you can only take 1 action etc). Some games more than others. Sometimes those limitations will be frustrating to some while seen as a fun puzzle for others. Vice versa, total freedom to do whatever you want will feel liberating to some and not much of a game to others. I personally like figuring out how to maximise my turn under the restrictions of a system. There are some systems I love that my friends find annoying; they want to do X but the system says no. I enjoy being presented with that problem - how can I manipulate the system so it doesn’t say no, or how can I still maximise my turn without doing X? Those are the sort of decisions I like thinking about. I can’t just do the obvious and best thing, I have to get creative. It’s like when people complain about the non-draft mode of Terraforming Mars claiming it’s too luck driven and therefore less skilful. I find being able to cherry-pick the best cards less skilful, where being limited by the draw forces you to think more deeply. If more control over the cards really did equate to a more skilful game, then it would follow that being able to just pick any cards out of the entire deck at any time would be the most skilful variant of the game - yet all that would require would be an ability to read. “How do I build the best engine with unlimited access to all the cards?” is a far less interesting question to answer than “how do I build the best engine with the cards I am given?” Horses for courses though. Sometimes a game’s limitations are just a step too far for some. Arcs doesn’t cross the line for me, but I can imagine it does for others and that’s ok. But I suspect their instinctive distaste for a restrictive system somewhat colours their ability to see ways around it and just dismiss it as a game that can completely hose you with randomness, when I really don’t think it’s the case (if it was, I wouldn’t like the game either!).
@@guyselway4865 Quite the opposite. The freedom you have in this game is unlike most other games, which is why I like it so much. Every single turn is what you make of it, and there is always some insane play that you can make to get the best out of your current situation. Every single hand you draw will be "bad" if you don't use it correctly. The only limitation is how far you can see into the future, it's kind of like you're playing Chess, but the position of each piece is randomized at the beginning of each game. There's an infinite number of new combinations that you can play with, and adapting to it is a skill you need to learn. I think the best review I've seen on the game compared it to a skateboard. If it's the first time you've ever seen one, you'd think it's a useless piece of wood that is harder to maneuver than simply running. Only through discovery can you see all the tricks you can do with it.
Love your channel, always happy to hear your opinions even if they dont match with mine. One thing I'd say though, unless no one leads with an Agression card all round (unlikely) you can always copy one action off their card by playing one of your cards face down. So there is some mitigation of luck, especially if you can stockpile a few resources to combo with your card in the prelude actions. There's also guild cards that let you take a card from the play area before they're discarded if you want to make sure you definitely have an action card that you need... although I'd probably house rule that they get shuffled back into the guild deck after use rather than discarded cuz they are quite handy. I've not had much chance to play yet so maybe your frustrations will reveal themselves in time, but there's also the leaders and lore stuff which looks like it could be handy in spicing things up too... it's not for everyone, no game ever is, but it's only 50 quid so I'm not fussed if it doesn't gel with my group in the long run.
@@BoardGameBollocks Ohhh was it not your account or something? I don't understand the justification on their part . . . but then again I never understand any of the decisions that occur on that site.
You are great, but can’t say i agree with all your criticisms. 1. You can mitigate your card draw with resources (which allow you to take actions unrelated to your cards) and of course by simply following (playing a card face down) - if you haven’t got the Aggression cards, someone else will. 2. Your defence in combat is the number of ships you have present which (a) make it harder for the attacker to raid (as they may roll an intercept which damages them equal to the number of defending ships) and (b) leaves the attacker vulnerable to a response. Again, you can spend resources to battle, so you aren’t entirely dependent on your cards. 3. I think the game is about building up your empire in both presence, resources and tableau cards such that the latter ambition scoring is less about luck and more about who has crafted a strong position. Love your reviews and your channel, so just a friendly counter to a few of your points - I do agree there is obviously a bit of luck baked into the game, but as with many card games it’s about learning how to work with what the game gives you. We are really loving Arcs, which seems to foster some incredibly clever and creative turns from players working the system to their advantage and haven’t felt overly hosed by the card draw. Each suit has value and if you can’t do a lot of one thing during one chapter, you can generally set yourself up for the next. Great game, could be a bit shorter though!
In answer to your criticisms of my criticisms 1. You need decent action cards to get resources. 2. Your ships don’t do anything defensive until someone else decides to attack so you don’t have any input in the decision making process. 3. You can’t build up an empire of people can randomly stroll in and steal stuff you built up. Again, you gain resources by getting the correct action cards. If you don’t you can’t get any and therefore there is no mitigation.
1. Admin cards can be used to tax, but you can play any cards face-down to copy if you don’t have any (if you don’t, someone else does). 2. In Cyclades you don’t make any decisions as the defence either. You just roll a die. I’m personally not a big fan of both attackers and defenders rolling - seems unnecessary. But ships also act as a deterrent and as blockades for travelling, so I don’t see them as superfluous or without decisions. 3. That’s what defending ships are for I guess! No problem, just passing on my experiences with the game - maybe you had a particularly wonky experience that put you off, but so far I can’t say I’ve seen the same problems. If you don’t get a lot of one type of card, you obviously get a lot of another type of card, allowing you to focus on whatever they do for a chapter. Keep your stocks up to give you added flexibility, enjoy the added powers and rule breakers from the court cards and make sure you copy suits you have fewer cards in. It’s not always easy, but I don’t think you really get that hosed either.
@ryancook1873 You can’t get court cards unless you have two different types of cards though. Cyclades is a completely different game. Not sure why you even brought that up tbh.
@@BoardGameBollocks When I have had few or no Aggression cards I use psyonics to secure. I’m trying to think if I have ever been screwed by the draw but I really don’t think I have (maybe I have just been lucky!). I recall one game in which I received a hand without Aggression cards but that meant I ended up with a lot of admin cards so I just moved and taxed a lot, using psyonics to secure cards and weapons to occasionally battle. I just sort of accepted this chapter was not going to be very battle-based and used my cards and resources to make the best of it. I don’t think you really need to a bit of everything every chapter, the suits all play into their own individual benefits and ambitions. I brought up Cyclades as I played it last night and it was the first game that sprang to mind. Different game sure, but I can’t think of any games I have played where the defence gets to make much decisions when they are attacked. To be honest I thought the fact the attacker in Arcs gets to choose their dice instead of just rolling them was a nice touch.
@ryancook1873 Problem is there’s only a max of 3 ambitions available each chapter so you can’t pull switch your strategy that easily if you draw a crap hand. “Making the best of it” isn’t a fun time…planning, mitigation and skill is.
I love me some Arcs! But definitely a Marmite game. To be fair it's one that develops with repeated plays (and the base game needs to be played with the leaders and lore cards to be fully experienced as designed, i think). There is plenty of mitigation really - hoarding resources to use for actions (psionics and relics are particularly useful), copying lead actions, seizing initiative, defending with large fleets so that intercepts can really take their toll, plus there really is a lot of negotiation in this game (I.e pleading and manipulation, begging and cajoling - which is definitely not to everyone's taste.). Also, a bit like Twilight Struggle, the more you learn the court cards and what they can do, the greater their impact on the game. I am about a dozen plays in now, and I can see the card draws becoming less and less influential - insofar as an experienced player will pretty much always beat a newbie. With regard to card counting, there is an option in the rules to avoid this, where all the cards that are played face up stay face up in a discard row so that all players can see what has been played. The really odd thing about Arcs is that the base game only came about after the campaign game was designed, which is now its expansion. And this is an entirely different beast. Massively assymetric, lots of changing roles rules and player powers, a whole political game. For me, this is the Arcs masterpiece - although I would play the base game any time as well. Amazing game but completely understand your reaction!
@@BoardGameBollocks Prelude actions are so important in allowing you to do what you need to do, so setting then up is vital. You start with some resources and you set up with cities that have access to resources, if someone else taxes, then you copy that action to tax. If you haven't got battle action cards, then focus on moving to new systems and building and improving your board position for future turns. And if you really only have a hand of influence cards then seize initiative and keep it, forcing others to waste actions to seize initiative back. When I go into a game i assume i am only going to have one action per card and likely only hold the initiative once per round (or twice if I'm lucky). I have seen quite a few games where people don't bother even trying to setup or score objectives in the first round or never set up objectives at all and just focus on competing for those other people have given up the initiative to set up. And if you have got a load of influence cards then build up majorities in the court so you can copy a secure action (or use a relic) to gain a load of trophies. If Tyrant hasn't been declared these hold over to the next chapter and you're in a great position to double declare tyrant and get a load of points. The list really does go on. Also, I really think it is important to move on to leaders and lore as soon as possible - this is really the base game - without these cards and their powers you are really just playing the tutorial game. And these cards always give you some powerful things you can lean on to achieve your goals. But look, I'm not trying to win you over, you obviously don't like it and that's fine. But I love it! And i suppose I would simply argue that the game itself is not inherently crap when for quite a few people it is genuinely their game of the year. Like a lot of Wehrle games it offers something new and distinct which is rare in a market saturated with mechanical retreads or an abundance of bling. I mean I'm not a massive fan of LSD, but i can understand why others love it (actually, no, I can't . . . )
Also, what would you consider to be a crap card draw? Low numbers? then lots of actins if you seize the initiative or surpass someone who has declared an objective. High numbers? plenty of opportunities to surpass and get the initiative. All of one type? Keep the initiative. Or build a massive fleet or generate a load of influence or gather a load of resources . . .
Just realized, there is no such thing as a good hand , everything is a bad hand. And that's a best part. This game excels in social element, which is subtle bluffing and pseudo trick taking. There is no linear method to play. It's purely playing each moment and moment to moment it keeps changing. Hence may not work for everyone.
@@BoardGameBollocks Yes its more on the go and momentous. We make the best out of it. I know this sounds crazy, but this game is bit unconventional in every sense no doubt. The game system and mechanism sound great theoretically, wonder how well it will age over time.
I can see your point but it feels like you pretty much ignored the primary method of removing randomness which is through prelude actions. They would seem to remove your complaint just by themselves but you also don’t seem to have made much use of the follow option so that if someone else does hold all of the aggression cards you are able to grab on to their coat tails.
You need the right action cards to get resources and guilds for prelude actions. If you get bad hands of action cards you can’t do meaningful prelude actions either. Also when you copy you only get one action. Most plays require two actions (move battle, influence, secure) so you’re stuffed even if you follow suit.
@boardgamebollocks but if you didn’t have any aggression cards and instead had ones that let you influence you either had mobilisation or administration, the latter of which lets you tax.l to get resources. If you only had mobilisation then you would probably have been better off grabbing initiative with a double card and forcing everyone else into following. You are ofc entirely allowed to not like it (not that you need my permission) but it feels like solutions might have been available to the issues you found. Either way, nice to hear a different opinion, even if it’s one I don’t agree with.
@boardgamebollocks but you can tax your own cities without control. And control itself doesn’t need aggression cards it just needs more fresh ships in a system. So I’m not sure I do see the problem. That said, your opinion is just as valid as mine and my not finding it a problem obviously doesn’t make it something you enjoyed in any event.
@Adam-pt3cb Yea if you’re lucky enough to get the cities you want from the random setup card draw. At the end of the day opinions differ and that’s fine. If everyone liked the same stuff then the world would be boring.
People keep calling this "trick-taking" however, the rule book does not mention trick taking so it makes me wonder if this term comes from the designers or reviewers/fans?
I wonder if it has to have The Blighted Reach expansion to shine. I think I remember during the KS campaign they said the game was originally designed as both the base and the expansion but they broke it up for some reason.
The Blighted Reach expansion makes it a series of three games where everyone gets wildly asymmetric abilities, but at its heart it is still Arcs. It's going to be way worse for people who already don't enjoy the base game.
No, I saw a Werhle interview where he said in their office they've played more base game than campaign, so it is meant to be a complete experience on its own.
@@rain1224 "The game was designed initially as primarily a campaign game, and I didn’t want to present it without that mode." -Cole Wehrle on Arcs BGG Designer Diary 7 The Product Split
Currently 3 games deep for Arcs. Haven't played with L&L since all games were with different groups of people playing for the first time. I love the random card draw!! It forces you to think and pivot your strategy to what you drew and not what you already have! Maybe I've been having the most Psyonics for 3 chapters in a row but I only got a 6 in the 2nd chapter. This forces me to think what else can I use to my advantage and how to use those extra not-currently-needed Psyonics to score points in a different ambition. The way the game makes me think about the least obvious way to score points for my board state is maybe what I like most about it! :D
@@metzgerov I mean if we're gonna talk about games played with the standard 52-card deck with French suits, then we have to say it's like bridge since bridge is also a trick taking game :D And I do love me some bridge!!
A lot of people talking this one up. Good to see your opinion isn't swayed by the masses "and all that You Tube bullsh*t!" Best boardgame reviews IMO;)
@@PadsandPawns Yeah this has had way more negative reviews than lots of the other hype games of the last few years - Earth, Ark Nova, Frosthaven, etc. I think people are just looking at SUSD's review when they talk about "overhype-ness".
Oh wow - ARCS. My official vedict is still TBD since we just got in our first play of the base game this week. Part of a once a week game group with friends, and the last game that spawned anywhere close to the same level of next day Discord chatter was Gaia Project, and maybe Aeons End. The slowest part of the 1st game is learning the court deck, but its relatively small and by the end of the 1st game we had a good idea of what a majority of the cards do. Even with that, playtime was about 3 hours 15 minutes for 4 people. The game was an absolute delight. There is no question that you can find yourself in a tight spot, and someone can race ahead. In other games, if 1 player is jumping ahead, it becomes a game of "who is going to make the sacrifice to ignore their own plans to slow that player down".. missing out on some VPs in the process (hate drafting for example). In ARCs it is different because of the ambition scoring. Often the way you "attack the leader" in a chapter is through Raiding, or securing resources before them. Since all players are scoring the same conditions each round, you are incentivised to go after the leader. Instead of "who is going to take the hit, and sl9w down the leader", it becomes "who is going to get the opportunity first to attack the leader". Im done rambling, this game might fall apart after a few more plays, but right now our Discord chat is blowing up with card explanations and tactical ideas. Can't wait to get a few more base games in before checking out the campaign.
@BoardGameBollocks you can't, but hopefully, one of the other players at the table can. With a grand total of 1 play under my belt, there is a lot I still need to understand, but the limitation on resource tokens helps keep the leader within striking distance for most scoring categories. Maybe it comes down to 4 different outcomes? 1. You can attack the leader directly; 2. You can't, but others can, and they end up dividing points between them enough that you live to see another chapter; 3. Team effort, with multiple players chipping away; 4. You all tried and fell short. So definitely not guaranteed, but the chances of everyone at the table not being in a position with their action, court cards, and resource tokens to at least make a valiant effort seems low. We went into this game fully aware of the criticisms, and talked through as a group what paths everyone was seeing. Time will tell if this holds up for us though, or if more often than not it's a luck fest. Coming off a high though from game 1.
Why would you have to rely of the actions of others to win? You’re saying that your own actions have no bearing on the outcome of the game if you don’t draw the correct cards…that’s not a game.
@BoardGameBollocks If Chess is like Tennis (experience and skill will win 99% of the time); Euros are like Football (experience and skill will win a majority of the time, but an upset isn't out of the question). Then ARCS might be Formula 1. Someone in 3rd might jump into 1st because the two lead cars lost time battling each other. That car in 3rd still needed to be there to take advantage of the opportunity, and then execute on the overtake. No guarantee the opportunity will come, but you stick with it until the end because you never know. Tennis, Football and F1 are all sports. Sometimes I'm in the mood to watch F1, other times Football. I never watch Tennis which might explain why I don't like Chess (that and I'm terrible at Chess).
I was on the fence about this one. Now I'm not. I really appreciate the objective criticism, too rare amongst all the multitude of board game evaluators out there. I also really like your down-to-earth style. Thank you.
amazing review. Every game isn't for everyone. Arcs requires many, many plays to start to see the matrix.. again not for everyone, but if you give it some time, you may enjoy it more!
Interesting the thing you despise most about the game is its main tension. The entire game is about pivoting to the best thing you can do with the hand given to you. And you get better at that the more you play. Personally this game is one you want to invest time and plays into to see its full potential! Because most people complaints on it are what makes it great for others. Good video!
@@BoardGameBollocks just different strokes for different folks I guess. I quickly never felt stuck, it just stretched me to think differently. Gotta make use of those prelude actions I found!
@@BoardGameBollocks so you never once got an administration card or aggression card your entire game ? Both of those card types provide ways to get recourses. Whether from your own cities or from raiding other players.
I’ve heard people say both ways on this one. Definitely hyped to the max. A friend picked it up so I’m going to give it a try. I just played John Company yesterday and thought it was pretty good but a bit lucky and too long.
I have yet to play it, but i heard that you can't just think of one path to victory and expect to have good hand of cards everytime. From what i understand there is always never a perfect or good hand but the main thing is to squeeze as much from what you've been given. I don't know yet how much there is "randomness" in it exactly but from my perspective randomness just miligates going same paths everytime that are most efficient thus making the game boring really quick. Interesting to hear different opinion on this one. As always - love your content.
Seems the division is between people who feel Arcs doesn't allow them to do what they want to do and those who feel like their cards show them what they can do. You claim your own ambitions and win conditions every turn, which means you often need to pivot your strategy based on the cards you draw. I think most people who see it as an aggression/war game are gonna be frustrated. I've won games of Arcs without getting in a single fight where everyone else is duking it out. But yeah divisive game.
I agree 100% with this Bollocks review. An entire round of one action copies and pivots is a heavy penalty. Two straight rounds of crap cards early leads to an unwinnable disadvantage. Too much luck, too little agency, especially when it happens early. This ones a pass.
Aside from Forts and Ahoy, Leder Games require players to learn divergent strategies that may take several plays to master. Most players do not wish to commit to getting thrashed for 4 games before they feel some whiff of agency.
@@BoardGameBollocks I did recently play Forts, the variability and replayability is really good. And plays quickly too, more chaotic in larger player counts 3P,4P. At 2p was tight but fun. looking forward to play again if i get a chance.
The freedom you have in this game is unlike most other games, which is why I like it so much. Every single turn is what you make of it, and there is always some insane play that you can make to get the best out of your current situation. Every single hand you draw will be "bad" if you don't use it correctly. The only limitation is how far you can see into the future, it's kind of like you're playing Chess, but the position of each piece is randomized at the beginning of each game. There's an infinite number of new combinations that you can play with, and adapting to it is a skill you need to learn. I think the best review I've seen on the game compared it to a skateboard. If it's the first time you've ever seen one, you'd think it's a useless piece of wood that is harder to maneuver than simply running. Only through discovery can you see all the tricks you can do with it.
It’s ok the reviewer isn’t interested in your opinion and just your engagement. He’s taking a popular game and shitting on it for the rage responses and click bait. It’s a great game and those that know how to play will play it
Good review as always. I really like the game but it's also nice to hear fleshed out dissenting opinions. For my two cents, I think whether someone likes the game or hates it really hinges on how flexible they're willing to be with a suboptimal set of options. But like you say, the trouble is sometimes the move you really needed to stand a chance was playing a facedown card on that action someone took 10 turns ago because that was the only chance you were ever gonna get to take that action, and no human being on the planet earth was gonna know that at the time. It's absolutely a game where you can get almost completely random'd out of contention. It doesn't happen enough for me to consider it a turnoff, but a very valid point all the same.
I did not play the game so I can not tell who is (more) right. I see a lot or reviews trying to tell me this is the BEST GAME EVER. Like Tim Chuon's review, Shut up & sit Down's review, and (many?) others.
Everyone has to have a favorite game, right? There have been tons of other negative reviews as well. I'd always trust your own experience over what reviewers say.
Me too, but it's *so* not for everyone, in particular the base game that's just a knife fight in a phone booth but every knife is randomly a rubber chicken or not.
I agree, I think a lot of the design really rotates around the kingmaking/players self-balancing the table to even out the randomness. It'll definitely be obnoxious to huge swaths of gamers, I still don't understand how none of the early reviews mentioned that.
My experiences with the game before they changed it were that lots of the luck aspects were things you could mitigate, but they broke all of that in the redesign. I backed this; and if I'd played the release version before backing it I wouldn't have backed it. Too much of the game is dependent on luck, the starts aren't balanced, the leaders/lore aren't balanced, and there's no real way to balance them as the game is designed. And the game takes way longer than advertised; my average 2 player game was over 3 hours, no matter who I played with (usually online, because no one in my game group likes this game). This game was overhyped and I think, probably, because Leder games payed a lot of marketing dollars to make it so, and I don't trust anyone who super-hyped this game and ignored the glaring problems with it. I'll never buy a Leder game again.
@@BoardGameBollocks Just to be clear it's mitigate, not remove. There is definitely still plenty of luck, and the main drive of the game is to make the best of it. So mitigating just means reducing your reliance on luck, not removing it completely. If it's still too much for someone's tastes then that's totally understandable, but it's not just entirely luck with nothing you can do about it. The main sources of luck in Arcs: 1. The combat dice - this is the easiest to mitigate because you can control how many and which type of dice you roll. Sure you can't adjust results once you've rolled them, but you have full control over how risky you want to be. That's much more control than 90% of dice combat games have. 2. The setup cards - Sure there's randomness with what planets you start on, but that's the case with literally any game that has variable setup so not really an issue. Regardless, in a vacuum no one resource is inherently more valuable than the others as depending on the game goes you may not even spend them in order to help score ambitions (and the one that doesn't immediately help score, weapons, is one of the stronger ones in terms of when you do use it). This has a pretty small impact on the game unless you insist on playing a weapons game when you didn't start on a weapons planet. That's like playing Scythe and starting with no oil then insisting on playing an oil game. 3. The court - This is where I personally think there is the biggest balance issue with luck. There's actually no way to mitigate which card comes out next, so if you secure a card early in the turn order and then a card that wrecks your game is immediately pulled, there is no way to stop someone else from getting it. That is true, I will grant that. But the ability of someone to actually influence and secure before you have a chance to secure is pretty difficult actually. One of 2 things has to happen: First option, another player already has a psionic resource AND a relic resource and the lead card allows the Influence action. Then they can influence and secure immediately. There's no other way to do it in the same turn (unless your leader/lore specifically allows you to, but the same principle applies). This means they had this ability before your turn, so by choosing to let them have that combo you are choosing to leave your fate in luck's hands. Second is if someone influences after you, then takes initiative and immediately secures. Not much you can do about that, so I'll give you there's no mitigation there. Realistically, though, the number of court cards that will actually wreck you is super low so even though it might make a feel bad in a single game, over multiple plays it's just crazy low odds that this ever ends up really mattering. Plus unless its a vox card, you can just raid it anyways so even though this has the least mitigation it's of very low concern. This is also the exact same as many other games that have a card row available for purchase, like Seven Wonders Duel, Dune: Imperium, Twilight Imperium with the Secret Objectives, etc. Not unique to Arcs 4. The cards. Oh the cards, this is the biggest one that people have issue with. If you randomly pulled a hand of action cards with no ability to copy, pivot, use guild cards, seize initiative to lead how you want the next round, or use resources, then yes it would be a game of 80% luck (even then you still could choose which of the multiple actions on each card to use). Is there luck involved in which cards you have - obviously. Despite what people say about "every hand being a bad hand", are some hands better than others - yes of course. But being able to do all 5 of those things means the luck is severely mitigated. The other thing is that the ambition scoring system means you get to help determine what makes a good hand. If Arcs were a game where it was a static "whoever controls the most systems wins", then battle and movement would be way more important and hands where you drew neither one would be really bad. But you get to help choose which objectives matter in the game, in a way that you get to help shape the game in a direction that makes what you have in your hand better. Sure if you're last in turn order and the first 3 people all seize initiative and declare, then you can't declare for a single chapter - but in that case everyone burned an additional card and set the number to 0 meaning you got to get full use out of all your actions and will have the initiative to start the next chapter, so that's incredibly unlikely and actually probably good for you. Yes you need the "correct cards" to get the resources/guild cards. But every card either does something "good", like Aggression helping you move, battle, and secure, or helps you acquire those resources/guild cards, like Construction helping you build new cities and Administration letting you influence or tax. Being stuck on copying/pivoting is not much different than a worker placement game where someone blocks a spot you need to go, so you either have to pivot strategies entirely or take a less efficient action to get a lesser of the same effect. Other players get to influence your actions in a similar way, which means you also get more influence over your opponents. That's a good thing if you draw a hand with no influence or battle actions, because you can still very much affect your opponents without the typical ways that most games do - on the board. I view Arcs as almost similar to Mage Knight, where if I really want to move through a swamp and fight that goblin, then I draw a hand with little movement, no attack, and lots of influence, then I either need to use my cards sideways for a super weak (but flexible) effect and wait until later, or I need to say "never mind, let me instead move through the plains to that easier-to-reach village and recruit a unit instead. That will set me up better for the long game even if it isn't what I wanted/felt I needed at that specific moment." Yes, in Mage Knight you get to curate your deck, but arguably that's very similar to Arcs where you get to curate your resources and guild cards as well in a way that makes you less reliant on your card draw later. Even if an action doesn't help you this instant, it can set up to mitigate that reliance on a lucky draw later. In the same way in Arcs you "need the good cards to get the right resources/guild cards" as has been mentioned in other comments, in Mage Knight you need to draw Attack/Influence/Move "at the right times", or to flip an enemy that you can beat when you enter the dungeon, in order to be able to recruit strong units or to level up your fame in a way that lets you curate your deck in that way. And yes in Mage Knight you are guaranteed (unless the end of round is called early) to see all of your cards unlike in Arcs, but the mathematical chance of you never pulling a specific suit over the course of a game is functionally zero. Again, there is certainly lots of luck involved with Arcs, there's no debating that. But there is clearly mitigation built into the design - and mitigation lowers your reliance on luck but can never remove it entirely. To claim that there's literally no mitigation just doesn't make sense to me.
I like Arcs a lot, but I understand why some people don't. It does require a few plays to get the hang of it. However, if you're willing to put in the time, it can be a really rewarding experience.
Great review review! The accent when you say "Bat'oles" is entertianing. My gaming group has only played twice so far. In our second game I did not get the combat cards and could not battle or take the court cards when I wanted to. I realized towards the end that taxing for missiles turns any card's pips into optional combat. So I realized that helped some. One other note: my gaming group plays several games with "card luck" involved. (terraforming mars for example.) We house ruled any game with too much card luck with a drafting system. For Arcs I would suggest you deal out 6 cards to each player, then each player takes one, passes left, takes another, passes left, etc... Then on the next round take one, pass right. This helps with TM and should also help with Arcs as well.
Chances of that card coming out and being able to secure it quickly is zero to none and if you do then the state of the game has changed so you don’t need it anymore.
This may be one of the few times we disagree. I know that I'm going to sound like a total smug knob saying this, but "you are just playing it wrong". Yes, there are some hands that, given initial setup, can be a bit of a dog's breakfast - but not drawing red isn't one of those. Get and use those damn missile resource tokens to change 2-3 of Mobilization into an absolute slaughter-fest or 2-3 of Construction to have a damage free red die rolling attack or Raid, as you can repair right after. Sometimes, you just need to burn 2 cards to get initiative, especially if one of the effects will be picking a court card letting you regain your action card - and even more when otherwise you're just watching from the sidelines. Bottom line, I think you're best reviewer, you just suck at using resources in your Prelude :D. That's literally half of the game actions. If what you have there doesn't provide mitigation, you're doing something wrong :P Resources are meant to mitigate bad/incomplete draws (Oil - no movement, Crate - no construction, Missile/Relic - no red, Psionic - no way to get control while having to do 2 things and general combo use). Also, battle doesn't give vp, if it is not scoring. Blocking ambitions is a great way to prevent combat from being meaningful - and then it doesn't matter that you have no red cards.
You need one suit to get resources and one suit to battle. The odds of only drawing the remaining 2 suits is 0.8% (1 in 125). And the fact that you can copy means even if you don't draw any of the suits you "need" then you can always just copy someone else who leads with that suit.
@justinvamp15 Copy gives you just one action. Most meaningful decisions need at least 2 actions. Move/Battle & Influence/Secure. By the time you’ve setup the 2nd action the game has changed so you can’t pull the trigger.
@@BoardGameBollocks I'm not sure what you mean with "decent action cards" unless you mean "good at the given time for the thing you want to do". After playing Bridge for 10+ years, I'm not sure if I would say 7 of Spades is better than 10 of Diamonds. It's all composition/spread based. What's better, higher numbers, lower numbers, long colours, 7/1 short, long low sequence with access? Playing like everything would be 1 pip and benefiting when it is actually more is way more reasonable than planning for pips you have, especially if you're not great at classic trick taking games - and as you get better at that part, you see there's more and more hands when you can play more of your pips. I know from my own group (most of which was actually Bridge players) that we tease each other every round by playing in a way that prevents them from doing anything of value (or at least blocking the person we are focusing on). And it doesn't require "good cards" just knowing what people want to do and leading into something they don't while trying to maintain the lead and forcing them to take bigger actions too late. This works best when players have 2-3 cards left and taking the lead by playing 2 cards is out of question. The better your trick taking game is, the stronger the cards that return a card to your hand or gain Lead are. Another thing is getting/taking lead strategically - and that means a lot in this game. It is a weird game, we can agree on this - and it does break many expectation of how those things usually work in "space games" - but the lack of options is a surface view only. To me, it is because there are few odd interlocking systems that are quite opaque to get good at at even basic level, at least in the first 10-20 games. It seems simple but it really isn't - the problem here is, that it is not obvious (or even clear at all) when the decisions you're making are bad. That's the problem. It is hard to learn from the mistakes, because the interlocking system underneath is just madly complex without looking like it is.
My biggest complaint is how they released the game as three different boxes for a total of about $150 instead of one $80 box because Cole Wehrle insists upon having optional content be its own box. Then everyone tells me that likes this game that the campaign is vital.
Biggest flaw for me was the court cards have so much text and unless you are sitting near them it isn't easy to read them. Should have gone full Eurogamer and just had easy to see iconography (this card lets you ignore penalties for this kind of outrage, this card lets you change the die type on an attacking roll, this card gives you a free resource swap with another player, this card lets you reroll a Red die after an attack etc) instead it was some janky wall of text which was cool but the first and so far only game I've played only two people got cards and they were the ones sitting nearest to them. I actually liked the combat because it wasn't a time suck like other space games have been in the past but I can see the argument against it.
I like the game quite a bit with Blighted Reach and Leaders & Lore - but does beg the question that if that was the intended way to play, why break it all up? I suspect because they were very stuck on the idea of releasing a "base game" that could be built on like Root and have an introductory price of $60. I will say that their customer service was really nice. My kid got the game down and didn't put it up and my Mastiff got ahold of it and mauled the box. I asked for a replacement saying I was willing to pay for it and they sent me a brand new box for free. Does that have anything to do with the game being enjoyable? No - but it is nice. It's at least easier to teach than Root. Root was super painful to teach my kids since you're teaching everyone different ways to play the game. Respect your opinion. I had purchased Too Many Bones and even though the component quality was very nice and everyone seemed to love it, I kind of didn't enjoy the game at all. Much preferred Adventure Tactics.
Maybe im just thick, but playing a two and half hour game to end up with zero points due to not getting the right cards at the right time was an experience I dont think I will bother repeating.
The comments on this one are divided, eh? All I’ll say is you helped me dodge a bullet as I was invited to sit and play this at a convention over the weekend. I was lucky enough to end up on a different table. I have some faith in your reviews.
i bought this game and thus will be in denial on how great it is until i guess i'm not. As others noted, i enjoy the game but enjoy the review more. I do wish the game were shorter as i'm often fine with luck and tossing dice if i dont have to a play a game i have no chance of winning for 3 hours.
I was surprised to learn the rules quickly, and not surprised that I haven't gotten the hang of playing well after one game. I'll reserve judgement until a few more plays of it. Right now, it seems that the problem is me, and there are better moves I can make next time. As long as the other players are learning too, it's worth playing. It definitely has enough moving parts for exploring different tactics.
This review and others are the reason why I stopped watching Dice Tower. Board Game Bollocks is not afraid to tell the truthy. I massively respect that.
The opposite side of paid hype reviewers are griefers who gather more views and "likes" by constantly complaining, especially about things that is seeing large amount of praise.
Totally agree... played one game of Arcs and it was one of my worst gaming experiences ever -- didn't have the option to make a single interesting decision in that entire last two hours of the game. I will never play it again.
I cancelled my pre order on like the last day. Shut up and sit down was talking about how amazing it is and I just auto-bought it. When I really dug into it it came down to “will I get my family or friends to play this”. Nope
Cole Wehrle games have the same issues. The asymmetry and chaos mean the players have to balance the game. To do that effectively, everyone needs to understand the game state. But with so much going on, the game state is extremely difficult to parse until you have a lot of experience. The games have cool mechanics and cool themes, but you’re just pushing toys around the sandbox unless you play it repeatedly with the same players who are willing to climb that learning curve together. And I haven’t found the first 2-3 plays enough fun to warrant that kind of sustained dedication.
that's a good summarisation of the issues with those games. Everyone at the table needs to be an extremely flexible tactitian and a cut-throat schemer. Not many people enjoy backstabbing their friends at the table as a primary tool to win a game. But that's what most of their games come down to.
Man, you just articulated my toughts. I've been playing Root only and its rulebook was a complete mess. That made me not to try anymore Cole Wehrle games.
There are just too many games these days where you engage with too many complex systems over...what, 5 turns? How do you plan in that kind of game? You can spend hours building up, and be torn down by circumstance in an instant. Modern board games don't even CONSIDER the concept of counter-play.
Interestingly ARCS is cited as an example of *not* doing that, as the base game (note: not Blighted Reach!!) is insanely simplistic. You selection actions, then you perform them. There's few of them, there's few ways to gain points, they're strictly competitive in nature, there's little to do than bash your head in to prevent someone from getting points of going for points themselves. There's a very strong random nature thrown into this coupled with two systems (resources and guild cards) that mitigate this randomness, and they *seemingly* add a lot of complexity but it's this... veneer almost? It's crazy simple once you get a few rounds (not even a whole game in), and plays super quick as a result. I think that's the thing that keeps the randomness frustration down for me, the game is just so damn quick for a space battle point hunting game.
@@BoardGameBollocks Oh definitely it can all fall fully apart. The few times I felt like I had bad luck I mostly just didn't think about what if I get an unbalanced hand, but rare as the super-unbalanced hands are (like well, all taxation) they do ruin your day.
Have you tried Andromeda's Edge? I love Arcs, but a lot of my friends hate how brutal it is and have similar criticisms as you, but we all love AE. It's incredibly fun with some of the most refreshing combat I've ever experienced. It's a reimplementation of Dwellings of Eldervale, but it fixes a lot of the issues Dwellings had. I've played Arcs probably 15 times at this point and have a good time with it, but my first ~4 games were rough because I simply could not wrap my head around the card mechanics, but eventually it clicked at it made a lot of sense, but Andromeda's Edge is super quick to pick up and the Deluxe Edition is simply one of the best board games productions I've ever seen.
Finally a review that vibes with my experience. I played it twice and sold it afterwards. I understand that people praise it for it's "tight gameplay", but I found it to be unfun for at least 1-2 players both times. In my first experience I was on the receiving end of the unfun. Where I jumped ahead in the scoring on the first round scoring 12 points, where my opponents scored single digit points. Then over the course of the next two hours, I scored 0 points while my opponents ended the game with 30 and 29 points respectively. When we looked back at the decisions made, there was only 1 instance where I could have grabbed initiative to grab a scoring marker in the second round that would have scored me a couple of points, but otherwise, my opponent's cards and abilities to steal my resources that would have given me actions to actually score points totally usurped any chance I had to score anything. Yes, they both played their hands correctly and optimized their points, but holy shit was it demoralizing to spend 2 hours scoring nothing. I figured it was a fluke and tried it again but at four players next. In my second game of Arcs at 4 players. The scores were 40, 29, 10, 0. The craziest thing about that, the 0 player was doing incredibly well every round, UNTIL they attacked someone. They blew up more of their own ships in every conflict than they did damage, that the next person would swoop in and finish them off leaving them with nothing. Every. Single. Time. Or the person who set the scoring marker would go and steal that one single resource that prevented them from getting even second in that scoring. The game was unabashedly brutal. There's rewarding people for tight gameplay, then there's just demoralizing everyone else because of that tight gameplay. I consider myself a rather seasoned gamer, but a game shouldn't require 100% perfect play to even score a single point in it. It just becomes an exercise of futility for those who are behind and then it's a wealth of fun for those who are ahead. With that, game is shit. Sold it immediately after that second gameplay. One of the worst games since I played Golem. That game bounced off my group just as hard as this one. Thank you for your service @boardgamebollocks I look forward to your videos everytime they come out.
So far i like the arcs puzzle a lot and enjoy learning... So far my 3 3 player games were all close and tense. I always had one really bad hand but also some good ones or some hands played out much better than i thought. In the end my impression was that table negotiations (who is ahead and should be stopped) and good plays from opponents decided their win more then my hands... But i see the point that you could get quite unlucky which could be bad for a 2 hour+ game and i agree that you regulary have bad chapters (bad hands AND other players can ruin your live)
I love Arcs! It’s super swingy, and every card play can totally change the game, keeping you on the edge of your seat. You can jump into fights right from the first turn, but don’t expect a long-term strategy-it all depends on your card draws. No fight cards in hand? Then avoid combat! And don’t play it like a Euro game; it’s a wargame all about fighting, stealing, and messing with your friends.
Yeah, it's fair. People say "Well the game is clearly not for you", well *durr*, but it still makes sense to make reviews from a disliking perspective available. SUSD explains in minute detail why you might *love* ARCS, but it's important to tell people why you might *hate* ARCS, too, in particular if you dislike strong elements of chance.
I love your honesty with game reviews. I have to say the artwork on this game looks awful and I think Cole Wehrle is the most overrated game designer in the business right now. But then again, maybe I'm just jealous of his success :)
Wow, sweariest one I think I've heard yet. I wonder if this correlates nicely with how frustrating you find a game? SOmeone do a spreadsheet! TY though, I know not to rush for this, though I don't mind luck.
A non-clickbait thumbnail which is guaranteed to get clicks? Brilliant. Side note, I enjoy Arcs, but as with all games it ain't for everyone. Props to you, my guy, for sticking to your guns! Will always be a subscriber to your TH-cam bullSH*T!
Interesting take, feel like the more you play it the better it is. Need resources to avoid having rubbish actions. Personally love the game, a real thinker but very brutal.
Love the review! Your explanation was fantastic and had some great footage to accompany! I think the criticism of the action card system is valid if you play Arcs like a strategy game, not a tactical one. Not having the "right" action card in hand sucks if set yourself up with a plan that requires that action now. But if you limit plans to within a hand, you can build one around the cards you see right now. That includes any suits you're missing because if you don't have them someone else will and you can copy their suit actions. It's not ideal to only get one action per card but often its enough if you build a plan around it. And that also includes seizing with some cards to get the most actions out of some lower cards or declaring an ambition. But these drastically shifting plans won't flow into each other. That's where the rest of the game comes into play. Controlling and building on valued planets and gates, influencing and securing or raiding guild cards and hoarding resources all give you guaranteed abilities that will be there in the next hand. The most painful side of the action cards is when you are in the lead on an ambition but have no way to declare it for the rest of the game. I've been burned by big hoards of ships from battles but no way to capitalize on them. Could I have had a more versatile plan that waiting for a one card? Certainly. But I shouldn't forget that I have locked out my opponents from this ambition since they don't want to compete and have locked away their components from the game in a way I can take advantage. How can I use that in my chapter to chapter plans. If you're looking for a strategic space game, Arcs isn't it. But if you're looking for something chaotic, mean, puzzly, and most important of all tactical, it really shines.
@@BoardGameBollocks What keeps it fair is that everyone has this same experience of non-ideal hands and are adapting and throwing a wrench into each others adaptations. What people seek is that feeling of adapting and the evocative mirroring of a Leader navigating crisis. It's like why anyone play D&D since you can miss attacks when you roll a low number while monsters can crit by rolling high.
@@BoardGameBollocksPersonally, I find the play-space within that struggle of imbalance fascinating and evocative, as it does well to simulate the complex geopolitics and haves and have-nots of large and small global powers. The fact you can use diplomacy to circumvent these imbalances adds to that real world parallelism.
Arcs is my favorite board game! You do have agency in combat because you decide where your ships are defending. Also, the randomness of the cards means you have to be shrewd about what ambition you declare or let your opponents declare so that you can be positioned to score well or stop others from scoring.
Great review. Some designers seem to get a free pass through their careers that has baffled me. Wallace, Lacerda, Eklund, this guy. I sort of enjoyed Pax Pamir, loathed Root, and have avoided Oath and this game. Thanks for validating me … you’re adorable and I’m sure you love kittens and crochet. 😊
To counter the arguments made here. I have played this four times, I am shit at counting cards. I have won every game. So calling it a luck fest seems ridiculous to me. Examples: I had a power that gave me advantage in securing and had a hand with no secure actions. You may say I was shit out of luck. But, I looked up from my hand and saw a free relic planet. I moved to a planet with fuel used my card to tax it and boom, I had tokens that allowed me to secure. A friend had battle strength and afterwards noted he should have made sure to have weapon tokens for a situation in which he had no battle actions. You CAN mitigate, you CAN do what you want when the cards wont allow it. You have to find those opportunities on the board and when you do, its sooo satisfying. A bunch of low numbered cards isnt a death sentence, you can seize and then drop a 1 and do four things. When other players secure, you can surpass with a one and do FOUR things. Low numbered cards are gravy. High numbered cards are gravy. If you think you cant do something, I feel confident enough to say, no, you can actually. You just need to look closer. I think this is a game most people wont truly unlock until a fair few plays. And in this era, very few people will commit to that. If you want a game that slaps first time you are well catered for. If you want a game that can offer a "oooh knowing this now, changes everything" on the tenth game. Arcs.
I’ve played it a fair few times and luck mitigation is an illusion. I’m convinced Leder Games are trolling people. If you have crap card how on earth can you do what you want when it’s the cards that dictate what you can and can’t do. That’s absurd.
@@BoardGameBollocks Resources can allow you to mitigate unwanted action cards. I think the most impactful thing to not being able to do what you want to do is getting a severe beat down, that will really slow you down. Losing key guild cards, resources, and ships puts you in a terrible position. But if you can keep hold of guild cards, resources, and enough ships, it's possible to mitigate a bad card draw with what you have.
I’ve played this game 12 times, and this game will for sure fuck you at times. And sure if….IF you play all the cards right you can make something, and a lot of the times you can. BUT, every little while the game will suck. Players will steal the weapon resource you needed to declare a battle and you’re left with nothing (or the fuel, the relic, the psionic , or whatever}. This is what will keep the game back from being great.
The fact you won every game tells me the game is a luck fest. If it were not probability would suggest that other players would’ve won at least 7 of the games. Statistics don’t lie.
First vid I've seen that is actually critical of this game. We seem to have similar tastes in games, so I appreciate this honest review. Keep 'em coming.
I honestly do not understand what is supposed to be so good about Werhle games. What/How does this game even present in such a way as to interest anybody in how it works in the first place!?
I remember hearing from every Tom, Dick & Harry that this game was the GOTY and the glazzed it with their baby batter as frequently as they damn well could as though without it, the game would just die. Having you explain it at some length, it sounds as dull as a bag of rocks, maybe I'm just fatigued with board games right now, but fuck me are most of them looking poorly made in an attempt to either look quirky and interesting, or some vain attempt to reinvent the wheel by replacing it with a depleted uranium fridge. Thanks for your honesty; I was unlikely to get this game in the first place, but it's always nice to hear you yap on about board games.
Pretty much all the things you hate about this game are things I like about it. But your comments about the lack of control over the hand draw have been voiced by many others and for that reason a few of my gaming mates formed a negative first impression as well. Shame because I do think this is a game that really benefits from repeat plays, but because so many people have a bad first experience, this will be a major barrier for many. For me I think is a great game.
Every game gets better with repeated plays. I usually have to Play a Game at least 2 times, until I decide what to think of it. Arcs needs at least 5 plays to mitigate the luckfest … but there are 200+ games in my collection that scream for repeated plays…
Good video, although I don't feel the same way. It is funny to me that there are basically two ways of seeing this game: 1- "If I don't get the cards I want I'm screwed.- bad game" 2- "This game is amazing because there are so many sneaky ways to accomplish what I want to do!- Awesome game!" Every review I've seen is one of these two types.
While I think I tolerate the game a bit better than you, I do agree that Arcs isn't anything to write home about. It's one where the group think that often infects this hobby kicked into higher gear and, for the first month or so that it was out, everyone decided that it was the greatest game that ever existed. Now that it's been out for a bit, hopefully there will be a more nuanced consensus. To me, it's a 7/10 at best.
I have played regular and campaign ganes of arcs and i can tell ypu there is a lot you can fo to mitigate the randomness. One, use your ressources. One weapon token turns yoir 4 acrion buikd card into a 4 action battle card. Relocs can secure the cards yiu want qithout needing battke cards. Hobestly, 90% of hoir negatives can be vountered with USE YOUR RESOURCES.
I love the game, but might love this review more.
This guy is what the board gaming hobby needs.
Hard to remember another recent game that has been this divisive. A lot of games seem to fall into the 6 - 8 out of 10 for most people. ARCS seems to be a 1 or a 10 out of 10 for everyone.
It's got one of the most unique game designs in modern boardgames which is hugely exciting, unfortunately that design massively limits your freedom to play, instead of doing what you want to do you're limited to what the cards let you do.
It can be extremely satisfying to ride that design to victory but it can also be extremely frustrating if you can't tame it.
@guyselway4865 a game deliberately limiting what you want to do isn’t a unique design. It’s a poor design.
@@BoardGameBollocks I'd be more comfortable calling it a different design, you've still got lots of choices and I don't think success is dependent on drawing the best cards. Personally I'd prefer something more freeform but I have friends who love the puzzle it presents.
I see games as a goal and a framework of limitations that you must navigate to achieve that goal. All games are limiting (you can only draw x cards, or things cost X, or you can only move 1 space, or you can only take 1 action etc). Some games more than others. Sometimes those limitations will be frustrating to some while seen as a fun puzzle for others. Vice versa, total freedom to do whatever you want will feel liberating to some and not much of a game to others. I personally like figuring out how to maximise my turn under the restrictions of a system. There are some systems I love that my friends find annoying; they want to do X but the system says no. I enjoy being presented with that problem - how can I manipulate the system so it doesn’t say no, or how can I still maximise my turn without doing X? Those are the sort of decisions I like thinking about. I can’t just do the obvious and best thing, I have to get creative. It’s like when people complain about the non-draft mode of Terraforming Mars claiming it’s too luck driven and therefore less skilful. I find being able to cherry-pick the best cards less skilful, where being limited by the draw forces you to think more deeply. If more control over the cards really did equate to a more skilful game, then it would follow that being able to just pick any cards out of the entire deck at any time would be the most skilful variant of the game - yet all that would require would be an ability to read. “How do I build the best engine with unlimited access to all the cards?” is a far less interesting question to answer than “how do I build the best engine with the cards I am given?” Horses for courses though. Sometimes a game’s limitations are just a step too far for some. Arcs doesn’t cross the line for me, but I can imagine it does for others and that’s ok. But I suspect their instinctive distaste for a restrictive system somewhat colours their ability to see ways around it and just dismiss it as a game that can completely hose you with randomness, when I really don’t think it’s the case (if it was, I wouldn’t like the game either!).
@@guyselway4865 Quite the opposite. The freedom you have in this game is unlike most other games, which is why I like it so much. Every single turn is what you make of it, and there is always some insane play that you can make to get the best out of your current situation. Every single hand you draw will be "bad" if you don't use it correctly. The only limitation is how far you can see into the future, it's kind of like you're playing Chess, but the position of each piece is randomized at the beginning of each game. There's an infinite number of new combinations that you can play with, and adapting to it is a skill you need to learn.
I think the best review I've seen on the game compared it to a skateboard. If it's the first time you've ever seen one, you'd think it's a useless piece of wood that is harder to maneuver than simply running. Only through discovery can you see all the tricks you can do with it.
Thanks!
👍🏻🥳🎉
I love the camera work in this review.
👍🏻
Love your channel, always happy to hear your opinions even if they dont match with mine. One thing I'd say though, unless no one leads with an Agression card all round (unlikely) you can always copy one action off their card by playing one of your cards face down. So there is some mitigation of luck, especially if you can stockpile a few resources to combo with your card in the prelude actions. There's also guild cards that let you take a card from the play area before they're discarded if you want to make sure you definitely have an action card that you need... although I'd probably house rule that they get shuffled back into the guild deck after use rather than discarded cuz they are quite handy.
I've not had much chance to play yet so maybe your frustrations will reveal themselves in time, but there's also the leaders and lore stuff which looks like it could be handy in spicing things up too... it's not for everyone, no game ever is, but it's only 50 quid so I'm not fussed if it doesn't gel with my group in the long run.
Did you remove your review on BGG or did the mods get it?
Mods got hold of it and deleted the account that posted it
@@BoardGameBollocks So the "board game maffia" is real then.
Absolutely…
@@BoardGameBollocks Ohhh was it not your account or something? I don't understand the justification on their part . . . but then again I never understand any of the decisions that occur on that site.
@TabletopTurtle no. I got banned ages ago so a mate of mine started adding links. They got banned now too. What a bunch of twats 😂
You are great, but can’t say i agree with all your criticisms.
1. You can mitigate your card draw with resources (which allow you to take actions unrelated to your cards) and of course by simply following (playing a card face down) - if you haven’t got the Aggression cards, someone else will.
2. Your defence in combat is the number of ships you have present which (a) make it harder for the attacker to raid (as they may roll an intercept which damages them equal to the number of defending ships) and (b) leaves the attacker vulnerable to a response. Again, you can spend resources to battle, so you aren’t entirely dependent on your cards.
3. I think the game is about building up your empire in both presence, resources and tableau cards such that the latter ambition scoring is less about luck and more about who has crafted a strong position.
Love your reviews and your channel, so just a friendly counter to a few of your points - I do agree there is obviously a bit of luck baked into the game, but as with many card games it’s about learning how to work with what the game gives you. We are really loving Arcs, which seems to foster some incredibly clever and creative turns from players working the system to their advantage and haven’t felt overly hosed by the card draw. Each suit has value and if you can’t do a lot of one thing during one chapter, you can generally set yourself up for the next.
Great game, could be a bit shorter though!
In answer to your criticisms of my criticisms
1. You need decent action cards to get resources.
2. Your ships don’t do anything defensive until someone else decides to attack so you don’t have any input in the decision making process.
3. You can’t build up an empire of people can randomly stroll in and steal stuff you built up.
Again, you gain resources by getting the correct action cards. If you don’t you can’t get any and therefore there is no mitigation.
1. Admin cards can be used to tax, but you can play any cards face-down to copy if you don’t have any (if you don’t, someone else does).
2. In Cyclades you don’t make any decisions as the defence either. You just roll a die. I’m personally not a big fan of both attackers and defenders rolling - seems unnecessary. But ships also act as a deterrent and as blockades for travelling, so I don’t see them as superfluous or without decisions.
3. That’s what defending ships are for I guess!
No problem, just passing on my experiences with the game - maybe you had a particularly wonky experience that put you off, but so far I can’t say I’ve seen the same problems. If you don’t get a lot of one type of card, you obviously get a lot of another type of card, allowing you to focus on whatever they do for a chapter. Keep your stocks up to give you added flexibility, enjoy the added powers and rule breakers from the court cards and make sure you copy suits you have fewer cards in. It’s not always easy, but I don’t think you really get that hosed either.
@ryancook1873 You can’t get court cards unless you have two different types of cards though. Cyclades is a completely different game. Not sure why you even brought that up tbh.
@@BoardGameBollocks When I have had few or no Aggression cards I use psyonics to secure. I’m trying to think if I have ever been screwed by the draw but I really don’t think I have (maybe I have just been lucky!). I recall one game in which I received a hand without Aggression cards but that meant I ended up with a lot of admin cards so I just moved and taxed a lot, using psyonics to secure cards and weapons to occasionally battle. I just sort of accepted this chapter was not going to be very battle-based and used my cards and resources to make the best of it. I don’t think you really need to a bit of everything every chapter, the suits all play into their own individual benefits and ambitions.
I brought up Cyclades as I played it last night and it was the first game that sprang to mind. Different game sure, but I can’t think of any games I have played where the defence gets to make much decisions when they are attacked. To be honest I thought the fact the attacker in Arcs gets to choose their dice instead of just rolling them was a nice touch.
@ryancook1873 Problem is there’s only a max of 3 ambitions available each chapter so you can’t pull switch your strategy that easily if you draw a crap hand. “Making the best of it” isn’t a fun time…planning, mitigation and skill is.
I love me some Arcs! But definitely a Marmite game. To be fair it's one that develops with repeated plays (and the base game needs to be played with the leaders and lore cards to be fully experienced as designed, i think). There is plenty of mitigation really - hoarding resources to use for actions (psionics and relics are particularly useful), copying lead actions, seizing initiative, defending with large fleets so that intercepts can really take their toll, plus there really is a lot of negotiation in this game (I.e pleading and manipulation, begging and cajoling - which is definitely not to everyone's taste.). Also, a bit like Twilight Struggle, the more you learn the court cards and what they can do, the greater their impact on the game. I am about a dozen plays in now, and I can see the card draws becoming less and less influential - insofar as an experienced player will pretty much always beat a newbie.
With regard to card counting, there is an option in the rules to avoid this, where all the cards that are played face up stay face up in a discard row so that all players can see what has been played.
The really odd thing about Arcs is that the base game only came about after the campaign game was designed, which is now its expansion. And this is an entirely different beast. Massively assymetric, lots of changing roles rules and player powers, a whole political game. For me, this is the Arcs masterpiece - although I would play the base game any time as well. Amazing game but completely understand your reaction!
Not sure how you can mitigate the crap card draw if you need decent cards to do the mitigations you listed 🤷♂️
@@BoardGameBollocks Prelude actions are so important in allowing you to do what you need to do, so setting then up is vital. You start with some resources and you set up with cities that have access to resources, if someone else taxes, then you copy that action to tax. If you haven't got battle action cards, then focus on moving to new systems and building and improving your board position for future turns. And if you really only have a hand of influence cards then seize initiative and keep it, forcing others to waste actions to seize initiative back.
When I go into a game i assume i am only going to have one action per card and likely only hold the initiative once per round (or twice if I'm lucky). I have seen quite a few games where people don't bother even trying to setup or score objectives in the first round or never set up objectives at all and just focus on competing for those other people have given up the initiative to set up. And if you have got a load of influence cards then build up majorities in the court so you can copy a secure action (or use a relic) to gain a load of trophies. If Tyrant hasn't been declared these hold over to the next chapter and you're in a great position to double declare tyrant and get a load of points. The list really does go on.
Also, I really think it is important to move on to leaders and lore as soon as possible - this is really the base game - without these cards and their powers you are really just playing the tutorial game. And these cards always give you some powerful things you can lean on to achieve your goals.
But look, I'm not trying to win you over, you obviously don't like it and that's fine. But I love it! And i suppose I would simply argue that the game itself is not inherently crap when for quite a few people it is genuinely their game of the year. Like a lot of Wehrle games it offers something new and distinct which is rare in a market saturated with mechanical retreads or an abundance of bling. I mean I'm not a massive fan of LSD, but i can understand why others love it (actually, no, I can't . . . )
Also, what would you consider to be a crap card draw? Low numbers? then lots of actins if you seize the initiative or surpass someone who has declared an objective. High numbers? plenty of opportunities to surpass and get the initiative. All of one type? Keep the initiative. Or build a massive fleet or generate a load of influence or gather a load of resources . . .
@billeaton6495 You need decent action cards to get prelude actions though 🤷♂️
@billeaton6495 Anything you can’t use. Which is most of the cards. Move and battle are on the same card. Influence and secure are not madness…
Just realized, there is no such thing as a good hand , everything is a bad hand. And that's a best part. This game excels in social element, which is subtle bluffing and pseudo trick taking. There is no linear method to play. It's purely playing each moment and moment to moment it keeps changing. Hence may not work for everyone.
How is having a bad hand the best thing? You’re reacting and not planning…daft
@@BoardGameBollocks Yes its more on the go and momentous. We make the best out of it. I know this sounds crazy, but this game is bit unconventional in every sense no doubt. The game system and mechanism sound great theoretically, wonder how well it will age over time.
yes, reacting is better than planning, because planning takes much more energy. it's not fun. for me.
I love this game, as well as Eclipse
Great to see a less overwhelmingly positive review of this game - always appreciate hearing different takes.
I can see your point but it feels like you pretty much ignored the primary method of removing randomness which is through prelude actions. They would seem to remove your complaint just by themselves but you also don’t seem to have made much use of the follow option so that if someone else does hold all of the aggression cards you are able to grab on to their coat tails.
You need the right action cards to get resources and guilds for prelude actions. If you get bad hands of action cards you can’t do meaningful prelude actions either.
Also when you copy you only get one action. Most plays require two actions (move battle, influence, secure) so you’re stuffed even if you follow suit.
@boardgamebollocks but if you didn’t have any aggression cards and instead had ones that let you influence you either had mobilisation or administration, the latter of which lets you tax.l to get resources.
If you only had mobilisation then you would probably have been better off grabbing initiative with a double card and forcing everyone else into following.
You are ofc entirely allowed to not like it (not that you need my permission) but it feels like solutions might have been available to the issues you found.
Either way, nice to hear a different opinion, even if it’s one I don’t agree with.
@Adam-pt3cb you can only tax if you setup control of that planet so you need the right action cards to do it…you see the issue here now?
@boardgamebollocks but you can tax your own cities without control. And control itself doesn’t need aggression cards it just needs more fresh ships in a system. So I’m not sure I do see the problem. That said, your opinion is just as valid as mine and my not finding it a problem obviously doesn’t make it something you enjoyed in any event.
@Adam-pt3cb Yea if you’re lucky enough to get the cities you want from the random setup card draw. At the end of the day opinions differ and that’s fine. If everyone liked the same stuff then the world would be boring.
People keep calling this "trick-taking" however, the rule book does not mention trick taking so it makes me wonder if this term comes from the designers or reviewers/fans?
Yea it’s nonsense
@@BoardGameBollocks Bollocks it is 🤠👍
It is more of liciting than trick-taking what you do with the cards.
This is the best description of Arcs I have ever heard.
I wonder if it has to have The Blighted Reach expansion to shine. I think I remember during the KS campaign they said the game was originally designed as both the base and the expansion but they broke it up for some reason.
Well that was a dumb thing to do…
The Blighted Reach expansion makes it a series of three games where everyone gets wildly asymmetric abilities, but at its heart it is still Arcs.
It's going to be way worse for people who already don't enjoy the base game.
No, I saw a Werhle interview where he said in their office they've played more base game than campaign, so it is meant to be a complete experience on its own.
@@rain1224 "The game was designed initially as primarily a campaign game, and I didn’t want to present it without that mode." -Cole Wehrle on Arcs BGG Designer Diary 7 The Product Split
@@BoardGameBollocksSpirit Island did this too and it seems to have worked out for them
Currently 3 games deep for Arcs. Haven't played with L&L since all games were with different groups of people playing for the first time. I love the random card draw!! It forces you to think and pivot your strategy to what you drew and not what you already have! Maybe I've been having the most Psyonics for 3 chapters in a row but I only got a 6 in the 2nd chapter. This forces me to think what else can I use to my advantage and how to use those extra not-currently-needed Psyonics to score points in a different ambition. The way the game makes me think about the least obvious way to score points for my board state is maybe what I like most about it! :D
Meh it’s more like blackjack than any strategy game
@@metzgerov I mean if we're gonna talk about games played with the standard 52-card deck with French suits, then we have to say it's like bridge since bridge is also a trick taking game :D And I do love me some bridge!!
A lot of people talking this one up. Good to see your opinion isn't swayed by the masses "and all that You Tube bullsh*t!" Best boardgame reviews IMO;)
A lot talking it down too. And a lot saying it’s a marmite game. IMO a lot less positive only press than a lot of other games
He definitely shared a lot of the issues with the game I mentioned in your review just after Gencon.
You know when people say 9/10 doctors recommend this?
This guy is that 1/10.
@@PadsandPawns Yeah this has had way more negative reviews than lots of the other hype games of the last few years - Earth, Ark Nova, Frosthaven, etc. I think people are just looking at SUSD's review when they talk about "overhype-ness".
@ undoubtedly so. It’s definitely one I tried before buying!
Oh wow - ARCS. My official vedict is still TBD since we just got in our first play of the base game this week. Part of a once a week game group with friends, and the last game that spawned anywhere close to the same level of next day Discord chatter was Gaia Project, and maybe Aeons End.
The slowest part of the 1st game is learning the court deck, but its relatively small and by the end of the 1st game we had a good idea of what a majority of the cards do. Even with that, playtime was about 3 hours 15 minutes for 4 people.
The game was an absolute delight.
There is no question that you can find yourself in a tight spot, and someone can race ahead. In other games, if 1 player is jumping ahead, it becomes a game of "who is going to make the sacrifice to ignore their own plans to slow that player down".. missing out on some VPs in the process (hate drafting for example). In ARCs it is different because of the ambition scoring. Often the way you "attack the leader" in a chapter is through Raiding, or securing resources before them. Since all players are scoring the same conditions each round, you are incentivised to go after the leader. Instead of "who is going to take the hit, and sl9w down the leader", it becomes "who is going to get the opportunity first to attack the leader".
Im done rambling, this game might fall apart after a few more plays, but right now our Discord chat is blowing up with card explanations and tactical ideas. Can't wait to get a few more base games in before checking out the campaign.
How do you slow down the leader if you don’t get the cards you need to do that? Prey tell…
@BoardGameBollocks you can't, but hopefully, one of the other players at the table can.
With a grand total of 1 play under my belt, there is a lot I still need to understand, but the limitation on resource tokens helps keep the leader within striking distance for most scoring categories.
Maybe it comes down to 4 different outcomes?
1. You can attack the leader directly;
2. You can't, but others can, and they end up dividing points between them enough that you live to see another chapter;
3. Team effort, with multiple players chipping away;
4. You all tried and fell short.
So definitely not guaranteed, but the chances of everyone at the table not being in a position with their action, court cards, and resource tokens to at least make a valiant effort seems low.
We went into this game fully aware of the criticisms, and talked through as a group what paths everyone was seeing. Time will tell if this holds up for us though, or if more often than not it's a luck fest. Coming off a high though from game 1.
Why would you have to rely of the actions of others to win? You’re saying that your own actions have no bearing on the outcome of the game if you don’t draw the correct cards…that’s not a game.
@BoardGameBollocks If Chess is like Tennis (experience and skill will win 99% of the time);
Euros are like Football (experience and skill will win a majority of the time, but an upset isn't out of the question).
Then ARCS might be Formula 1. Someone in 3rd might jump into 1st because the two lead cars lost time battling each other. That car in 3rd still needed to be there to take advantage of the opportunity, and then execute on the overtake. No guarantee the opportunity will come, but you stick with it until the end because you never know.
Tennis, Football and F1 are all sports. Sometimes I'm in the mood to watch F1, other times Football. I never watch Tennis which might explain why I don't like Chess (that and I'm terrible at Chess).
Sorry bud but that makes no sense
I was on the fence about this one. Now I'm not. I really appreciate the objective criticism, too rare amongst all the multitude of board game evaluators out there. I also really like your down-to-earth style. Thank you.
I bought arcs all in kickstarter. Can’t get it to the table. Just feels overwhelming
Core games is quite simple. Start there innit…
Yeah the game specifically tells you to NOT start with the Blighted Reach OR with Leaders and Lore. The base game is pretty simple.
amazing review. Every game isn't for everyone. Arcs requires many, many plays to start to see the matrix.. again not for everyone, but if you give it some time, you may enjoy it more!
I played it many times and it still sucks
@@BoardGameBollocks yup, that was kinda meant for the general audience. You clearly hate it.
So you lied to the general audience…
@@BoardGameBollocks HA. I'm a secret Leder employee
@noahwilson422 I’d change jobs if I were you
Great review that I happen to disagree with and doesn't affect my enjoyment. Always glad to hear your take on a game.
Interesting the thing you despise most about the game is its main tension. The entire game is about pivoting to the best thing you can do with the hand given to you. And you get better at that the more you play.
Personally this game is one you want to invest time and plays into to see its full potential! Because most people complaints on it are what makes it great for others.
Good video!
I’ve played it enough times and the results were the same…frustration at being dealt a crap hand for the state of the game at the time.
@@BoardGameBollocks just different strokes for different folks I guess. I quickly never felt stuck, it just stretched me to think differently. Gotta make use of those prelude actions I found!
@LordoftheBoard Yea, if you get the action cards that let you get the resources and cards to take the prelude actions 😂👍🏻
@@BoardGameBollocks so you never once got an administration card or aggression card your entire game ? Both of those card types provide ways to get recourses. Whether from your own cities or from raiding other players.
@LordoftheBoard yes of course but I’ve already altered my plans to accommodate the previous dud hand so I don’t need them anymore…
Hmmm interesting take. Never played the game, but I do like seeing different thoughts on the game
I did NOT expect a yoghurt joke 😄..
Bless ya ..👌🍻
I’ve heard people say both ways on this one. Definitely hyped to the max. A friend picked it up so I’m going to give it a try. I just played John Company yesterday and thought it was pretty good but a bit lucky and too long.
I have yet to play it, but i heard that you can't just think of one path to victory and expect to have good hand of cards everytime. From what i understand there is always never a perfect or good hand but the main thing is to squeeze as much from what you've been given. I don't know yet how much there is "randomness" in it exactly but from my perspective randomness just miligates going same paths everytime that are most efficient thus making the game boring really quick. Interesting to hear different opinion on this one. As always - love your content.
Couldn't agree with you more on this one...
Seems the division is between people who feel Arcs doesn't allow them to do what they want to do and those who feel like their cards show them what they can do. You claim your own ambitions and win conditions every turn, which means you often need to pivot your strategy based on the cards you draw. I think most people who see it as an aggression/war game are gonna be frustrated. I've won games of Arcs without getting in a single fight where everyone else is duking it out. But yeah divisive game.
You can’t pivot your strategy if you draw crap cards. Reacting to a random card draw each turn isn’t “strategy”.
I agree 100% with this Bollocks review. An entire round of one action copies and pivots is a heavy penalty. Two straight rounds of crap cards early leads to an unwinnable disadvantage. Too much luck, too little agency, especially when it happens early. This ones a pass.
@jpodius nicely put mate
Aside from Forts and Ahoy, Leder Games require players to learn divergent strategies that may take several plays to master. Most players do not wish to commit to getting thrashed for 4 games before they feel some whiff of agency.
I’ve played most of their games several times and by and large they all suck
@@BoardGameBollocks I did recently play Forts, the variability and replayability is really good. And plays quickly too, more chaotic in larger player counts 3P,4P. At 2p was tight but fun. looking forward to play again if i get a chance.
Favourite board game review site. Keep up the good work!
The freedom you have in this game is unlike most other games, which is why I like it so much. Every single turn is what you make of it, and there is always some insane play that you can make to get the best out of your current situation. Every single hand you draw will be "bad" if you don't use it correctly. The only limitation is how far you can see into the future, it's kind of like you're playing Chess, but the position of each piece is randomized at the beginning of each game. There's an infinite number of new combinations that you can play with, and adapting to it is a skill you need to learn.
I think the best review I've seen on the game compared it to a skateboard. If it's the first time you've ever seen one, you'd think it's a useless piece of wood that is harder to maneuver than simply running. Only through discovery can you see all the tricks you can do with it.
It’s ok the reviewer isn’t interested in your opinion and just your engagement. He’s taking a popular game and shitting on it for the rage responses and click bait. It’s a great game and those that know how to play will play it
@@JustTheTrick Yeah, I do get the feeling that he's just a rage-baiting grifter...
When are you two trolls going to suck each other off? ✊🏻💦
@ oh, speaking up is trolling…. Right. Bless.
Video liked, subbed. I like the game but your criticisms are spot on
Could you please review Tiny Epic Dungeons???????????????????????
If I can get a copy then yea
Good review as always. I really like the game but it's also nice to hear fleshed out dissenting opinions.
For my two cents, I think whether someone likes the game or hates it really hinges on how flexible they're willing to be with a suboptimal set of options. But like you say, the trouble is sometimes the move you really needed to stand a chance was playing a facedown card on that action someone took 10 turns ago because that was the only chance you were ever gonna get to take that action, and no human being on the planet earth was gonna know that at the time. It's absolutely a game where you can get almost completely random'd out of contention. It doesn't happen enough for me to consider it a turnoff, but a very valid point all the same.
Prob the best comment I’ve read..👍🏻
The vitriol was strong in this one. Love it! Those criticisms slap like a cold shower.
I did not play the game so I can not tell who is (more) right. I see a lot or reviews trying to tell me this is the BEST GAME EVER. Like Tim Chuon's review, Shut up & sit Down's review, and (many?) others.
It’s not the worst game ever but it’s deffo not the best…
Everyone has to have a favorite game, right? There have been tons of other negative reviews as well. I'd always trust your own experience over what reviewers say.
I like this game. Definitely not for everyone.
Me too, but it's *so* not for everyone, in particular the base game that's just a knife fight in a phone booth but every knife is randomly a rubber chicken or not.
I agree, I think a lot of the design really rotates around the kingmaking/players self-balancing the table to even out the randomness. It'll definitely be obnoxious to huge swaths of gamers, I still don't understand how none of the early reviews mentioned that.
Over hyped.
I feel the same hype with Heat.
@@paullumsden6093Have you played it?
My experiences with the game before they changed it were that lots of the luck aspects were things you could mitigate, but they broke all of that in the redesign. I backed this; and if I'd played the release version before backing it I wouldn't have backed it. Too much of the game is dependent on luck, the starts aren't balanced, the leaders/lore aren't balanced, and there's no real way to balance them as the game is designed. And the game takes way longer than advertised; my average 2 player game was over 3 hours, no matter who I played with (usually online, because no one in my game group likes this game). This game was overhyped and I think, probably, because Leder games payed a lot of marketing dollars to make it so, and I don't trust anyone who super-hyped this game and ignored the glaring problems with it.
I'll never buy a Leder game again.
All of the luck is able to be mitigated. Not sure what you played.
@justinvamp15 Please elaborate how it’s mitigated?
@@BoardGameBollocks Just to be clear it's mitigate, not remove. There is definitely still plenty of luck, and the main drive of the game is to make the best of it. So mitigating just means reducing your reliance on luck, not removing it completely. If it's still too much for someone's tastes then that's totally understandable, but it's not just entirely luck with nothing you can do about it.
The main sources of luck in Arcs:
1. The combat dice - this is the easiest to mitigate because you can control how many and which type of dice you roll. Sure you can't adjust results once you've rolled them, but you have full control over how risky you want to be. That's much more control than 90% of dice combat games have.
2. The setup cards - Sure there's randomness with what planets you start on, but that's the case with literally any game that has variable setup so not really an issue. Regardless, in a vacuum no one resource is inherently more valuable than the others as depending on the game goes you may not even spend them in order to help score ambitions (and the one that doesn't immediately help score, weapons, is one of the stronger ones in terms of when you do use it). This has a pretty small impact on the game unless you insist on playing a weapons game when you didn't start on a weapons planet. That's like playing Scythe and starting with no oil then insisting on playing an oil game.
3. The court - This is where I personally think there is the biggest balance issue with luck. There's actually no way to mitigate which card comes out next, so if you secure a card early in the turn order and then a card that wrecks your game is immediately pulled, there is no way to stop someone else from getting it. That is true, I will grant that. But the ability of someone to actually influence and secure before you have a chance to secure is pretty difficult actually. One of 2 things has to happen: First option, another player already has a psionic resource AND a relic resource and the lead card allows the Influence action. Then they can influence and secure immediately. There's no other way to do it in the same turn (unless your leader/lore specifically allows you to, but the same principle applies). This means they had this ability before your turn, so by choosing to let them have that combo you are choosing to leave your fate in luck's hands. Second is if someone influences after you, then takes initiative and immediately secures. Not much you can do about that, so I'll give you there's no mitigation there. Realistically, though, the number of court cards that will actually wreck you is super low so even though it might make a feel bad in a single game, over multiple plays it's just crazy low odds that this ever ends up really mattering. Plus unless its a vox card, you can just raid it anyways so even though this has the least mitigation it's of very low concern.
This is also the exact same as many other games that have a card row available for purchase, like Seven Wonders Duel, Dune: Imperium, Twilight Imperium with the Secret Objectives, etc. Not unique to Arcs
4. The cards. Oh the cards, this is the biggest one that people have issue with. If you randomly pulled a hand of action cards with no ability to copy, pivot, use guild cards, seize initiative to lead how you want the next round, or use resources, then yes it would be a game of 80% luck (even then you still could choose which of the multiple actions on each card to use). Is there luck involved in which cards you have - obviously. Despite what people say about "every hand being a bad hand", are some hands better than others - yes of course. But being able to do all 5 of those things means the luck is severely mitigated. The other thing is that the ambition scoring system means you get to help determine what makes a good hand. If Arcs were a game where it was a static "whoever controls the most systems wins", then battle and movement would be way more important and hands where you drew neither one would be really bad. But you get to help choose which objectives matter in the game, in a way that you get to help shape the game in a direction that makes what you have in your hand better. Sure if you're last in turn order and the first 3 people all seize initiative and declare, then you can't declare for a single chapter - but in that case everyone burned an additional card and set the number to 0 meaning you got to get full use out of all your actions and will have the initiative to start the next chapter, so that's incredibly unlikely and actually probably good for you.
Yes you need the "correct cards" to get the resources/guild cards. But every card either does something "good", like Aggression helping you move, battle, and secure, or helps you acquire those resources/guild cards, like Construction helping you build new cities and Administration letting you influence or tax.
Being stuck on copying/pivoting is not much different than a worker placement game where someone blocks a spot you need to go, so you either have to pivot strategies entirely or take a less efficient action to get a lesser of the same effect. Other players get to influence your actions in a similar way, which means you also get more influence over your opponents. That's a good thing if you draw a hand with no influence or battle actions, because you can still very much affect your opponents without the typical ways that most games do - on the board.
I view Arcs as almost similar to Mage Knight, where if I really want to move through a swamp and fight that goblin, then I draw a hand with little movement, no attack, and lots of influence, then I either need to use my cards sideways for a super weak (but flexible) effect and wait until later, or I need to say "never mind, let me instead move through the plains to that easier-to-reach village and recruit a unit instead. That will set me up better for the long game even if it isn't what I wanted/felt I needed at that specific moment." Yes, in Mage Knight you get to curate your deck, but arguably that's very similar to Arcs where you get to curate your resources and guild cards as well in a way that makes you less reliant on your card draw later. Even if an action doesn't help you this instant, it can set up to mitigate that reliance on a lucky draw later. In the same way in Arcs you "need the good cards to get the right resources/guild cards" as has been mentioned in other comments, in Mage Knight you need to draw Attack/Influence/Move "at the right times", or to flip an enemy that you can beat when you enter the dungeon, in order to be able to recruit strong units or to level up your fame in a way that lets you curate your deck in that way. And yes in Mage Knight you are guaranteed (unless the end of round is called early) to see all of your cards unlike in Arcs, but the mathematical chance of you never pulling a specific suit over the course of a game is functionally zero.
Again, there is certainly lots of luck involved with Arcs, there's no debating that. But there is clearly mitigation built into the design - and mitigation lowers your reliance on luck but can never remove it entirely. To claim that there's literally no mitigation just doesn't make sense to me.
That didn’t make any sense whatsoever
Phew. Thought I was the only one who didn't like this game.
I like Arcs a lot, but I understand why some people don't. It does require a few plays to get the hang of it. However, if you're willing to put in the time, it can be a really rewarding experience.
I put the time in an I want my life back
No, nerd, no. It sucks.
Great review review! The accent when you say "Bat'oles" is entertianing.
My gaming group has only played twice so far. In our second game I did not get the combat cards and could not battle or take the court cards when I wanted to. I realized towards the end that taxing for missiles turns any card's pips into optional combat. So I realized that helped some.
One other note: my gaming group plays several games with "card luck" involved. (terraforming mars for example.) We house ruled any game with too much card luck with a drafting system. For Arcs I would suggest you deal out 6 cards to each player, then each player takes one, passes left, takes another, passes left, etc... Then on the next round take one, pass right. This helps with TM and should also help with Arcs as well.
Chances of that card coming out and being able to secure it quickly is zero to none and if you do then the state of the game has changed so you don’t need it anymore.
This may be one of the few times we disagree. I know that I'm going to sound like a total smug knob saying this, but "you are just playing it wrong". Yes, there are some hands that, given initial setup, can be a bit of a dog's breakfast - but not drawing red isn't one of those. Get and use those damn missile resource tokens to change 2-3 of Mobilization into an absolute slaughter-fest or 2-3 of Construction to have a damage free red die rolling attack or Raid, as you can repair right after. Sometimes, you just need to burn 2 cards to get initiative, especially if one of the effects will be picking a court card letting you regain your action card - and even more when otherwise you're just watching from the sidelines.
Bottom line, I think you're best reviewer, you just suck at using resources in your Prelude :D. That's literally half of the game actions. If what you have there doesn't provide mitigation, you're doing something wrong :P Resources are meant to mitigate bad/incomplete draws (Oil - no movement, Crate - no construction, Missile/Relic - no red, Psionic - no way to get control while having to do 2 things and general combo use).
Also, battle doesn't give vp, if it is not scoring. Blocking ambitions is a great way to prevent combat from being meaningful - and then it doesn't matter that you have no red cards.
You need decent action cards to get the middle resource tokens. By the time you get them chances are you don’t need them anymore.
You need one suit to get resources and one suit to battle. The odds of only drawing the remaining 2 suits is 0.8% (1 in 125). And the fact that you can copy means even if you don't draw any of the suits you "need" then you can always just copy someone else who leads with that suit.
@justinvamp15 Copy gives you just one action. Most meaningful decisions need at least 2 actions. Move/Battle & Influence/Secure. By the time you’ve setup the 2nd action the game has changed so you can’t pull the trigger.
@@BoardGameBollocks I'm not sure what you mean with "decent action cards" unless you mean "good at the given time for the thing you want to do". After playing Bridge for 10+ years, I'm not sure if I would say 7 of Spades is better than 10 of Diamonds. It's all composition/spread based. What's better, higher numbers, lower numbers, long colours, 7/1 short, long low sequence with access?
Playing like everything would be 1 pip and benefiting when it is actually more is way more reasonable than planning for pips you have, especially if you're not great at classic trick taking games - and as you get better at that part, you see there's more and more hands when you can play more of your pips. I know from my own group (most of which was actually Bridge players) that we tease each other every round by playing in a way that prevents them from doing anything of value (or at least blocking the person we are focusing on). And it doesn't require "good cards" just knowing what people want to do and leading into something they don't while trying to maintain the lead and forcing them to take bigger actions too late. This works best when players have 2-3 cards left and taking the lead by playing 2 cards is out of question. The better your trick taking game is, the stronger the cards that return a card to your hand or gain Lead are. Another thing is getting/taking lead strategically - and that means a lot in this game.
It is a weird game, we can agree on this - and it does break many expectation of how those things usually work in "space games" - but the lack of options is a surface view only. To me, it is because there are few odd interlocking systems that are quite opaque to get good at at even basic level, at least in the first 10-20 games. It seems simple but it really isn't - the problem here is, that it is not obvious (or even clear at all) when the decisions you're making are bad. That's the problem. It is hard to learn from the mistakes, because the interlocking system underneath is just madly complex without looking like it is.
@AllinWhenPlaying you can’t “get good” at something if you’re constantly given poor cards in a random draw.
My biggest complaint is how they released the game as three different boxes for a total of about $150 instead of one $80 box because Cole Wehrle insists upon having optional content be its own box. Then everyone tells me that likes this game that the campaign is vital.
Biggest flaw for me was the court cards have so much text and unless you are sitting near them it isn't easy to read them. Should have gone full Eurogamer and just had easy to see iconography (this card lets you ignore penalties for this kind of outrage, this card lets you change the die type on an attacking roll, this card gives you a free resource swap with another player, this card lets you reroll a Red die after an attack etc) instead it was some janky wall of text which was cool but the first and so far only game I've played only two people got cards and they were the ones sitting nearest to them.
I actually liked the combat because it wasn't a time suck like other space games have been in the past but I can see the argument against it.
I thinks it’s a great game. It’s fun and my board game group loves it :)
I'm not sure I like this new Sleaford Mods song that much.
I like the game quite a bit with Blighted Reach and Leaders & Lore - but does beg the question that if that was the intended way to play, why break it all up? I suspect because they were very stuck on the idea of releasing a "base game" that could be built on like Root and have an introductory price of $60. I will say that their customer service was really nice. My kid got the game down and didn't put it up and my Mastiff got ahold of it and mauled the box. I asked for a replacement saying I was willing to pay for it and they sent me a brand new box for free. Does that have anything to do with the game being enjoyable? No - but it is nice. It's at least easier to teach than Root. Root was super painful to teach my kids since you're teaching everyone different ways to play the game. Respect your opinion. I had purchased Too Many Bones and even though the component quality was very nice and everyone seemed to love it, I kind of didn't enjoy the game at all. Much preferred Adventure Tactics.
Adventure tactics kicks major butt. My kid digs it too
Maybe im just thick, but playing a two and half hour game to end up with zero points due to not getting the right cards at the right time was an experience I dont think I will bother repeating.
Juxtapose this with the Orleans game we had the week before and the fun factor is night and day…
I am just decorating my kalax with Kyle Ferrin art 😂
Once my wife asked me why I was in such a bad mood - I just answered that I played Root 😂
The comments on this one are divided, eh?
All I’ll say is you helped me dodge a bullet as I was invited to sit and play this at a convention over the weekend. I was lucky enough to end up on a different table.
I have some faith in your reviews.
i bought this game and thus will be in denial on how great it is until i guess i'm not. As others noted, i enjoy the game but enjoy the review more. I do wish the game were shorter as i'm often fine with luck and tossing dice if i dont have to a play a game i have no chance of winning for 3 hours.
Same guy as Pax Pamir??
Yea and root…
Easy pass then
I'm curious about your opinion on John Company 2nd edition, if you plan to review it in the future.
@SlaneTheMovie I’ll prob steer clear
I was surprised to learn the rules quickly, and not surprised that I haven't gotten the hang of playing well after one game. I'll reserve judgement until a few more plays of it. Right now, it seems that the problem is me, and there are better moves I can make next time. As long as the other players are learning too, it's worth playing. It definitely has enough moving parts for exploring different tactics.
Same applies to all games mate.
@@BoardGameBollocks Not Great Western Trail. That one can disappear for all I care.
This review and others are the reason why I stopped watching Dice Tower. Board Game Bollocks is not afraid to tell the truthy. I massively respect that.
But what if they genuinely enjoyed the game? I thought it was pretty damn good.
Or that you finally realized your interests don't align with the DT. Your logic is broken
The opposite side of paid hype reviewers are griefers who gather more views and "likes" by constantly complaining, especially about things that is seeing large amount of praise.
why do you think tht the dice tower aren't telling the truth? because they liked the game?
Truth is something that aligns with their taste.
Best board game channel on youtube
Totally agree... played one game of Arcs and it was one of my worst gaming experiences ever -- didn't have the option to make a single interesting decision in that entire last two hours of the game. I will never play it again.
LOVE YOUR INTRO BRO
Completely agree. I will not play this game again ever.
You’re the best! Thanks for an honest review of one of these bloated games. ❤
I cancelled my pre order on like the last day. Shut up and sit down was talking about how amazing it is and I just auto-bought it. When I really dug into it it came down to “will I get my family or friends to play this”. Nope
I haven’t been able to sell my copy…seems no one wants it
Fun. Informative. I like. 👍
Cole Wehrle games have the same issues. The asymmetry and chaos mean the players have to balance the game. To do that effectively, everyone needs to understand the game state. But with so much going on, the game state is extremely difficult to parse until you have a lot of experience.
The games have cool mechanics and cool themes, but you’re just pushing toys around the sandbox unless you play it repeatedly with the same players who are willing to climb that learning curve together. And I haven’t found the first 2-3 plays enough fun to warrant that kind of sustained dedication.
that's a good summarisation of the issues with those games.
Everyone at the table needs to be an extremely flexible tactitian and a cut-throat schemer.
Not many people enjoy backstabbing their friends at the table as a primary tool to win a game. But that's what most of their games come down to.
@FalkFlak ARCs is only a backstabbing game if you get the action cards that allow you to do that.
Man, you just articulated my toughts. I've been playing Root only and its rulebook was a complete mess. That made me not to try anymore Cole Wehrle games.
@BoardGameBollocks - I'm starting to think that if you ran into Cole Wehrle in a dark alley, you'd want to throw hands. :D
I’m sure he’s a nice person…just makes crap games
I think he's reserving those special honours for Eric Lang XD
There are just too many games these days where you engage with too many complex systems over...what, 5 turns? How do you plan in that kind of game? You can spend hours building up, and be torn down by circumstance in an instant. Modern board games don't even CONSIDER the concept of counter-play.
Interestingly ARCS is cited as an example of *not* doing that, as the base game (note: not Blighted Reach!!) is insanely simplistic. You selection actions, then you perform them. There's few of them, there's few ways to gain points, they're strictly competitive in nature, there's little to do than bash your head in to prevent someone from getting points of going for points themselves.
There's a very strong random nature thrown into this coupled with two systems (resources and guild cards) that mitigate this randomness, and they *seemingly* add a lot of complexity but it's this... veneer almost? It's crazy simple once you get a few rounds (not even a whole game in), and plays super quick as a result. I think that's the thing that keeps the randomness frustration down for me, the game is just so damn quick for a space battle point hunting game.
@Carighan You need decent action cards to get guild and resources…crap action cards = no guild or resources
@@BoardGameBollocks Oh definitely it can all fall fully apart. The few times I felt like I had bad luck I mostly just didn't think about what if I get an unbalanced hand, but rare as the super-unbalanced hands are (like well, all taxation) they do ruin your day.
Have you tried Andromeda's Edge? I love Arcs, but a lot of my friends hate how brutal it is and have similar criticisms as you, but we all love AE.
It's incredibly fun with some of the most refreshing combat I've ever experienced. It's a reimplementation of Dwellings of Eldervale, but it fixes a lot of the issues Dwellings had.
I've played Arcs probably 15 times at this point and have a good time with it, but my first ~4 games were rough because I simply could not wrap my head around the card mechanics, but eventually it clicked at it made a lot of sense, but Andromeda's Edge is super quick to pick up and the Deluxe Edition is simply one of the best board games productions I've ever seen.
yeah?
Finally a review that vibes with my experience.
I played it twice and sold it afterwards. I understand that people praise it for it's "tight gameplay", but I found it to be unfun for at least 1-2 players both times.
In my first experience I was on the receiving end of the unfun. Where I jumped ahead in the scoring on the first round scoring 12 points, where my opponents scored single digit points. Then over the course of the next two hours, I scored 0 points while my opponents ended the game with 30 and 29 points respectively. When we looked back at the decisions made, there was only 1 instance where I could have grabbed initiative to grab a scoring marker in the second round that would have scored me a couple of points, but otherwise, my opponent's cards and abilities to steal my resources that would have given me actions to actually score points totally usurped any chance I had to score anything. Yes, they both played their hands correctly and optimized their points, but holy shit was it demoralizing to spend 2 hours scoring nothing. I figured it was a fluke and tried it again but at four players next.
In my second game of Arcs at 4 players. The scores were 40, 29, 10, 0. The craziest thing about that, the 0 player was doing incredibly well every round, UNTIL they attacked someone. They blew up more of their own ships in every conflict than they did damage, that the next person would swoop in and finish them off leaving them with nothing. Every. Single. Time. Or the person who set the scoring marker would go and steal that one single resource that prevented them from getting even second in that scoring. The game was unabashedly brutal.
There's rewarding people for tight gameplay, then there's just demoralizing everyone else because of that tight gameplay. I consider myself a rather seasoned gamer, but a game shouldn't require 100% perfect play to even score a single point in it. It just becomes an exercise of futility for those who are behind and then it's a wealth of fun for those who are ahead.
With that, game is shit. Sold it immediately after that second gameplay. One of the worst games since I played Golem. That game bounced off my group just as hard as this one.
Thank you for your service @boardgamebollocks I look forward to your videos everytime they come out.
As always, excellent overview and review!
Nice work, like always. 👊
When Dune: Imperium - Uprising? 🤔
Prob never. Too similar to the game I already own.
Whoops,,, I just brought this thing today.
You may like it. Who knows…
So far i like the arcs puzzle a lot and enjoy learning... So far my 3 3 player games were all close and tense. I always had one really bad hand but also some good ones or some hands played out much better than i thought. In the end my impression was that table negotiations (who is ahead and should be stopped) and good plays from opponents decided their win more then my hands... But i see the point that you could get quite unlucky which could be bad for a 2 hour+ game and i agree that you regulary have bad chapters (bad hands AND other players can ruin your live)
Finally somebody that puts some criticism against the ridiculous "Arcs" hype.
I love Arcs! It’s super swingy, and every card play can totally change the game, keeping you on the edge of your seat. You can jump into fights right from the first turn, but don’t expect a long-term strategy-it all depends on your card draws. No fight cards in hand? Then avoid combat! And don’t play it like a Euro game; it’s a wargame all about fighting, stealing, and messing with your friends.
Really love your honesty. Thank you.
Yeah, it's fair. People say "Well the game is clearly not for you", well *durr*, but it still makes sense to make reviews from a disliking perspective available. SUSD explains in minute detail why you might *love* ARCS, but it's important to tell people why you might *hate* ARCS, too, in particular if you dislike strong elements of chance.
I love your honesty with game reviews. I have to say the artwork on this game looks awful and I think Cole Wehrle is the most overrated game designer in the business right now. But then again, maybe I'm just jealous of his success :)
Wow, sweariest one I think I've heard yet. I wonder if this correlates nicely with how frustrating you find a game? SOmeone do a spreadsheet! TY though, I know not to rush for this, though I don't mind luck.
A non-clickbait thumbnail which is guaranteed to get clicks? Brilliant.
Side note, I enjoy Arcs, but as with all games it ain't for everyone. Props to you, my guy, for sticking to your guns! Will always be a subscriber to your TH-cam bullSH*T!
Played it once, will never play it again.
Finally, a review of this game I completely agree with.
Interesting take, feel like the more you play it the better it is. Need resources to avoid having rubbish actions.
Personally love the game, a real thinker but very brutal.
You need decent action cards to get the resources though…
Love the review! Your explanation was fantastic and had some great footage to accompany!
I think the criticism of the action card system is valid if you play Arcs like a strategy game, not a tactical one.
Not having the "right" action card in hand sucks if set yourself up with a plan that requires that action now. But if you limit plans to within a hand, you can build one around the cards you see right now. That includes any suits you're missing because if you don't have them someone else will and you can copy their suit actions. It's not ideal to only get one action per card but often its enough if you build a plan around it. And that also includes seizing with some cards to get the most actions out of some lower cards or declaring an ambition. But these drastically shifting plans won't flow into each other.
That's where the rest of the game comes into play. Controlling and building on valued planets and gates, influencing and securing or raiding guild cards and hoarding resources all give you guaranteed abilities that will be there in the next hand.
The most painful side of the action cards is when you are in the lead on an ambition but have no way to declare it for the rest of the game. I've been burned by big hoards of ships from battles but no way to capitalize on them. Could I have had a more versatile plan that waiting for a one card? Certainly. But I shouldn't forget that I have locked out my opponents from this ambition since they don't want to compete and have locked away their components from the game in a way I can take advantage. How can I use that in my chapter to chapter plans.
If you're looking for a strategic space game, Arcs isn't it. But if you're looking for something chaotic, mean, puzzly, and most important of all tactical, it really shines.
Why would anyone be looking for a game that is completely unfair and unbalanced?
@@BoardGameBollocks What keeps it fair is that everyone has this same experience of non-ideal hands and are adapting and throwing a wrench into each others adaptations.
What people seek is that feeling of adapting and the evocative mirroring of a Leader navigating crisis.
It's like why anyone play D&D since you can miss attacks when you roll a low number while monsters can crit by rolling high.
@harsch1 Eh? If the game is unfair then it’s unfair for everyone.
@@BoardGameBollocksPersonally, I find the play-space within that struggle of imbalance fascinating and evocative, as it does well to simulate the complex geopolitics and haves and have-nots of large and small global powers. The fact you can use diplomacy to circumvent these imbalances adds to that real world parallelism.
@adambroadish995 How does it simulate the interplay between global powers exactly? Please elaborate.
Arcs is my favorite board game!
You do have agency in combat because you decide where your ships are defending.
Also, the randomness of the cards means you have to be shrewd about what ambition you declare or let your opponents declare so that you can be positioned to score well or stop others from scoring.
Defending isn’t combat until the attacker decides. Noting to do with your ship placement.
My fav and 'plain direct' ARCS review 😂
I sold my copy.....too much "take that"....too long to play and in the end just didn't feel like I had fun...even if I won.
Great review. Some designers seem to get a free pass through their careers that has baffled me. Wallace, Lacerda, Eklund, this guy. I sort of enjoyed Pax Pamir, loathed Root, and have avoided Oath and this game. Thanks for validating me … you’re adorable and I’m sure you love kittens and crochet. 😊
High Frontier 4 all is pretty decent and Brass is a good one. Never been a lacerda fan and all leder games I’ve played have sucked.
To counter the arguments made here. I have played this four times, I am shit at counting cards. I have won every game. So calling it a luck fest seems ridiculous to me.
Examples: I had a power that gave me advantage in securing and had a hand with no secure actions. You may say I was shit out of luck. But, I looked up from my hand and saw a free relic planet. I moved to a planet with fuel used my card to tax it and boom, I had tokens that allowed me to secure. A friend had battle strength and afterwards noted he should have made sure to have weapon tokens for a situation in which he had no battle actions. You CAN mitigate, you CAN do what you want when the cards wont allow it. You have to find those opportunities on the board and when you do, its sooo satisfying. A bunch of low numbered cards isnt a death sentence, you can seize and then drop a 1 and do four things. When other players secure, you can surpass with a one and do FOUR things. Low numbered cards are gravy. High numbered cards are gravy. If you think you cant do something, I feel confident enough to say, no, you can actually. You just need to look closer.
I think this is a game most people wont truly unlock until a fair few plays. And in this era, very few people will commit to that. If you want a game that slaps first time you are well catered for. If you want a game that can offer a "oooh knowing this now, changes everything" on the tenth game. Arcs.
I’ve played it a fair few times and luck mitigation is an illusion. I’m convinced Leder Games are trolling people.
If you have crap card how on earth can you do what you want when it’s the cards that dictate what you can and can’t do. That’s absurd.
@@BoardGameBollocks Resources can allow you to mitigate unwanted action cards. I think the most impactful thing to not being able to do what you want to do is getting a severe beat down, that will really slow you down. Losing key guild cards, resources, and ships puts you in a terrible position. But if you can keep hold of guild cards, resources, and enough ships, it's possible to mitigate a bad card draw with what you have.
@tiford184 That’s great if you have the cards to get the resources and don’t get them nicked just after you go them…you see the problem here?
I’ve played this game 12 times, and this game will for sure fuck you at times. And sure if….IF you play all the cards right you can make something, and a lot of the times you can. BUT, every little while the game will suck. Players will steal the weapon resource you needed to declare a battle and you’re left with nothing (or the fuel, the relic, the psionic , or whatever}. This is what will keep the game back from being great.
The fact you won every game tells me the game is a luck fest. If it were not probability would suggest that other players would’ve won at least 7 of the games. Statistics don’t lie.
“The channel where we talk bulshit about games” Yep! 👍
Nice try chump 👍🏻
First vid I've seen that is actually critical of this game. We seem to have similar tastes in games, so I appreciate this honest review. Keep 'em coming.
@@TabletopFamily Nice shout. I'll have to check his channel.
Rather good summation Mr B. I think fair and helpful. Je suis Bollocks.
I honestly do not understand what is supposed to be so good about Werhle games. What/How does this game even present in such a way as to interest anybody in how it works in the first place!?
I remember hearing from every Tom, Dick & Harry that this game was the GOTY and the glazzed it with their baby batter as frequently as they damn well could as though without it, the game would just die.
Having you explain it at some length, it sounds as dull as a bag of rocks, maybe I'm just fatigued with board games right now, but fuck me are most of them looking poorly made in an attempt to either look quirky and interesting, or some vain attempt to reinvent the wheel by replacing it with a depleted uranium fridge.
Thanks for your honesty; I was unlikely to get this game in the first place, but it's always nice to hear you yap on about board games.
Pretty much all the things you hate about this game are things I like about it.
But your comments about the lack of control over the hand draw have been voiced by many others and for that reason a few of my gaming mates formed a negative first impression as well.
Shame because I do think this is a game that really benefits from repeat plays, but because so many people have a bad first experience, this will be a major barrier for many.
For me I think is a great game.
I’ve played it enough to know it’s not for me…have fun with it
Every game gets better with repeated plays. I usually have to Play a Game at least 2 times, until I decide what to think of it.
Arcs needs at least 5 plays to mitigate the luckfest … but there are 200+ games in my collection that scream for repeated plays…
Good video, although I don't feel the same way.
It is funny to me that there are basically two ways of seeing this game:
1- "If I don't get the cards I want I'm screwed.- bad game"
2- "This game is amazing because there are so many sneaky ways to accomplish what I want to do!- Awesome game!"
Every review I've seen is one of these two types.
While I think I tolerate the game a bit better than you, I do agree that Arcs isn't anything to write home about. It's one where the group think that often infects this hobby kicked into higher gear and, for the first month or so that it was out, everyone decided that it was the greatest game that ever existed. Now that it's been out for a bit, hopefully there will be a more nuanced consensus. To me, it's a 7/10 at best.
Can you step back from the camera ? We could see more of your gesture and or artwork around your basement 👍
I’m in a tiny room so no sorry
It sucks cause i cannot even listen to the rules
I have played regular and campaign ganes of arcs and i can tell ypu there is a lot you can fo to mitigate the randomness.
One, use your ressources. One weapon token turns yoir 4 acrion buikd card into a 4 action battle card.
Relocs can secure the cards yiu want qithout needing battke cards.
Hobestly, 90% of hoir negatives can be vountered with USE YOUR RESOURCES.
You need decent action card to get resources and relic cards.
You can’t use resources if you can secure them. Good grief man…
You can copy even if you don't have the "right" suits
Yea?
Quality. I finally have some evidence to support my wholly unwarranted dislike for this game ;)
l think you just don’t like Cole Wehrle mate
You think?