Thank you for being upfront about it. ❤ I backed this; it's what I expected. I don't think I've seen as many people who haven't played a game feel the need to have strong opinions/inflate on BGG in a small while, as this. And I think that does a disservice, to which this upfront impression helps combat and helps inform buying preferences. So again, thanks.
If root is for 5% of boardgamer, this is open up for 40-50% of people i reckon. I enjoy ARCS because every games makes you better player and there is deepth and replayability with simplicity. The game is smooth! This game is about creating!
@@gagelong9608 I had long considered doing one of those mythical “culls” I see people mentioning. Arcs is the one game that had me do one for real. I didn’t need half as many games as I owned, especially not after owning Arcs.
Love this game a whole lot!! But my goodness. If you are conflict averse, risk averse, luck averse, like being in full control, don’t like the luck of trick taking…you may not like this game. It has blown my mind personally.
We fired our first play through this past weekend. We played without leaders and despite having what we deemed was a major flaw in the game on our first try - it is on the 'play again' list for sure. Our 4 player group (We'll call them D, T, J and JR) had no problem with conflict games, as a matter of fact, the over aggressiveness between 2 players caused what we saw as an issue. Conflict started at the end of Chapter 1. By Player D - a small ship on ship skirmish and worth noting, Player J played the Vox card that cause everyone to Outrage one resource - Materials was chosen (taking away building). Chapter 2, player T decided he was going for warlord. During Chapter 1 and 2, he got some Vox and council cards that let his put down extra ships - so he went aggressive on Player D with early Chapter 2 ship on ship combat to build up his Trophies and in the end of Chapter 2, destroyed one of Player D's cities. Player T easily won Warlord. Player J was focused at the other end of the board doing some Relic and Psionic stuff. Player JR was consolidating ships, had a couple of trophies for destroying ships, but was looking at securing more resources for next chapter Tycoon scoring. At the before last turn of the chapter 2. Player T had about 12 ships (3-4 damaged) on the board, 2 cities, 2 space ports. Player D had 4 ships (2 damaged), 1 city and 1 space port (on the same planet) Player J had 5 Ships, 3 cities and 1 spaceport (and had already cornered the Relic market to score that round). Player JR had 10 ships, 2 cities, 1 spaceport Player T was first player end of Chapter 2 and going into Chapter 3 Looking at the board, it was all obvious that Player T or JR, which would both play before Player D. Were in a position to destroy Player D's last city and\or starport. They both had a weaspons resource on hand and a fresh draw which very likely had a card that gave them access to Moving. We all discussed and without saying as much, since this was our first play through, there was a bit of a truce done so that Player D is not eliminated. Then as we were looking at Player D's options to optimize - the cards he drew really made it impossible to ever be able to catch up on the board. The council and vox draws were not really helpful for him to look at. He did not have a build card in his hand on Chapter 3... He did have one material, but couldn't use it because of outrage from chapter 1. His remaining city produced weapons, which with his half destroyed 4 ship fleet, is barely worth it even to steal. By end of chapter 3, Player T, J and JR were into bonus points since they all had 3 cities down, and Player D still only had 1 city. T, J and JR each split one 1st place so they all scored the points +2. At the very very best, Player D could try to claim an Ambition - which he could not likely win, but he would slow down one of the other 3 players. Which is effectively being reduced to a kingmaker role in the game. Not that fun. So, as mentioned, this sounds like it was a bit a of wild card game. We'll give it another go. But it really showed the biggest flaw in the lack of a rubber band mechanism - it really boils down to the cards your draw. In order to get an taxation OR combat economy going - he needed to build in Chapter 3 and he had 0 way of doing this (1st issue is he had no control over a planet with an open space, 2nd issue was no card he had had the build action, materials were outraged for everyone. His only chance was hoping someone would play a construction card he could clone late in the round once he would have moved his 2 remaining full ships into an empty system - which, well, didn't come to fruition).
I think I’ve learned, after all this time, I don’t mind aggression in games so much as I mind games that don’t know HOW to be aggressive. Road And Boats is a favorite and that game can be be devastatingly mean. Or friendly! Perfection. But what ticks me off is many games that try to emulate that. They make a full euro game with some small piece of middle finger that pops up and that’s no fun. That’s like putting a combat mini game in my sand castle building it just feels out of place. Honestly this game probably wouldn’t have been one I’d buy (yet to play) if not first the expansion. The idea that someone might not want me to lose that badly because I get leveled up the next game? That I HAVE to try
I love it. I can totally attest to the don't play if you don't like mean games thing though lol. I was playing with my family and my mom was about to win the game if she was able to complete the chapter with the keeper ambition. I had one last aggression card and Hail Mary'ed her with raid dice and stole her relics at the last minute thus winning keeper and stealing her victory. She was so mad at me. Like I've never seen her get mad at me and she was like this close to flipping a board game for the first time in her life. lol She doesn't want to play me anymore though there's totally a part of her that wants to play for vengeance but is like no you're too smart you'll win! lol I introduced my brother to it today and he got dominated by only scoring like 3-4 power. But he said he liked it. And definitely thought it was interesting. So yeah it's a good game. It will divide people but good games generally do. And generally speaking Cole Wehrle games tend to do that. You either LOVE his games or really hate them.
“The rules are memorable” for real, I just do not care about rules being thematic please just make then memorable and not having to look up tons of exceptions.
If you are looking for a good mind puzzle, with often-narrow room for manoeuvre, with high interaction among players and with some luck-driven mechanics, that's what Arcs is. If you are instead searching for a full immersion in a lore, or for a full emotional engagement in a space opera, you might get disappointed. This because the rules at the base of the game system are just abstract shenanigans that make everything work, but that don't represent/evoke much the setting. While playing, most of the time you will find yourself worried about card suits (or the number/ pips printed on them), rather than being immersed in the game setting. For me, when looking for that kind of experience, the "briscola" card game is more than enough.
To be fun? No. For them to have a real shot at winning? Probably. I will say, though, that it takes only one or two games to get the hang of this one. That’s a lot fewer than Root or Oath.
I’ve played it twice and had a great time with each play. It’s one you appreciate more with every play as you learn more about it and see how well designed it is.
As the others have said, you definitely get more out of it from repeat plays, but I had fun my first time. There are pitfalls that you might stumble on, and because of how mean it can be, it's possible to have a less than stellar time if the other players are steamrolling you, but I think that might have more to do with your group than the game.
only had two games so far, but in the 2nd game one of the players that had never played it won by a mile. (around 52 points and everyone else ended way under 20).
It's definitely different at two players, but it does work. It is however easier for one player to become a little unbalanced in how strong they are. With no other players to help you fight back, it's possible that a game can be more one-sided in a two player game. Personally I like it better at 3 than 2, but I have enjoyed it at 2.
To me, after demoing once at GenCon, it reminds me of Dune Imperium. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT game, but has the similarity of a medium Euro with simplified combat making it slightly heavier.
Playing with Leader cards and Lore cards is overrated. The base game without it gives plenty for people to think about for a dozen games, and the games will be faster and tighter. I have seen many a new player throw their game away trying to get value from Gate Ports or fumbled with Feastbringer. Leave those cards in the box. And for the love of god steer clear of the L&L expansion product. It's chock full of honeypot trap cards for new players.
The leaders and lore give the game so much replay-ability. One of my favorite parts of the game
I’m obsessed with Arcs currently. Love it! Agree it’s not for everyone.
agree . I'm terrible at it and still enjoy it
Thank you for being upfront about it. ❤ I backed this; it's what I expected. I don't think I've seen as many people who haven't played a game feel the need to have strong opinions/inflate on BGG in a small while, as this. And I think that does a disservice, to which this upfront impression helps combat and helps inform buying preferences. So again, thanks.
I was hooked after the first game; really looking forward to getting at the campaign (not ready for it yet lol)
Jump in! Campaign is so fun!
If root is for 5% of boardgamer, this is open up for 40-50% of people i reckon. I enjoy ARCS because every games makes you better player and there is deepth and replayability with simplicity. The game is smooth! This game is about creating!
Arcs has a hold of my entire brain right now. No other board games exist. Only Arcs.
@@gagelong9608 I had long considered doing one of those mythical “culls” I see people mentioning. Arcs is the one game that had me do one for real. I didn’t need half as many games as I owned, especially not after owning Arcs.
Andromeda's Edge is another great Fall releasing game!
@@FBrachtwhat were the hardest one to let go
This is how I feel about dune 2019
Oath with way less commitment and Root with way less asymmetry? PERFECT for my play-group!!
Looking forward to my copy of Arcs. Love Oath and can’t wait for this!
Love this game a whole lot!! But my goodness. If you are conflict averse, risk averse, luck averse, like being in full control, don’t like the luck of trick taking…you may not like this game.
It has blown my mind personally.
Really good review thanks. I would hate this game but I can appreciate the design. But I'd still willing to try this over Root or Oath.
We fired our first play through this past weekend. We played without leaders and despite having what we deemed was a major flaw in the game on our first try - it is on the 'play again' list for sure.
Our 4 player group (We'll call them D, T, J and JR) had no problem with conflict games, as a matter of fact, the over aggressiveness between 2 players caused what we saw as an issue.
Conflict started at the end of Chapter 1. By Player D - a small ship on ship skirmish and worth noting, Player J played the Vox card that cause everyone to Outrage one resource - Materials was chosen (taking away building).
Chapter 2, player T decided he was going for warlord. During Chapter 1 and 2, he got some Vox and council cards that let his put down extra ships - so he went aggressive on Player D with early Chapter 2 ship on ship combat to build up his Trophies and in the end of Chapter 2, destroyed one of Player D's cities. Player T easily won Warlord.
Player J was focused at the other end of the board doing some Relic and Psionic stuff. Player JR was consolidating ships, had a couple of trophies for destroying ships, but was looking at securing more resources for next chapter Tycoon scoring.
At the before last turn of the chapter 2.
Player T had about 12 ships (3-4 damaged) on the board, 2 cities, 2 space ports.
Player D had 4 ships (2 damaged), 1 city and 1 space port (on the same planet)
Player J had 5 Ships, 3 cities and 1 spaceport (and had already cornered the Relic market to score that round).
Player JR had 10 ships, 2 cities, 1 spaceport
Player T was first player end of Chapter 2 and going into Chapter 3
Looking at the board, it was all obvious that Player T or JR, which would both play before Player D. Were in a position to destroy Player D's last city and\or starport. They both had a weaspons resource on hand and a fresh draw which very likely had a card that gave them access to Moving. We all discussed and without saying as much, since this was our first play through, there was a bit of a truce done so that Player D is not eliminated.
Then as we were looking at Player D's options to optimize - the cards he drew really made it impossible to ever be able to catch up on the board. The council and vox draws were not really helpful for him to look at. He did not have a build card in his hand on Chapter 3... He did have one material, but couldn't use it because of outrage from chapter 1. His remaining city produced weapons, which with his half destroyed 4 ship fleet, is barely worth it even to steal. By end of chapter 3, Player T, J and JR were into bonus points since they all had 3 cities down, and Player D still only had 1 city. T, J and JR each split one 1st place so they all scored the points +2. At the very very best, Player D could try to claim an Ambition - which he could not likely win, but he would slow down one of the other 3 players. Which is effectively being reduced to a kingmaker role in the game. Not that fun.
So, as mentioned, this sounds like it was a bit a of wild card game. We'll give it another go. But it really showed the biggest flaw in the lack of a rubber band mechanism - it really boils down to the cards your draw. In order to get an taxation OR combat economy going - he needed to build in Chapter 3 and he had 0 way of doing this (1st issue is he had no control over a planet with an open space, 2nd issue was no card he had had the build action, materials were outraged for everyone. His only chance was hoping someone would play a construction card he could clone late in the round once he would have moved his 2 remaining full ships into an empty system - which, well, didn't come to fruition).
I think I’ve learned, after all this time, I don’t mind aggression in games so much as I mind games that don’t know HOW to be aggressive. Road And Boats is a favorite and that game can be be devastatingly mean. Or friendly! Perfection.
But what ticks me off is many games that try to emulate that. They make a full euro game with some small piece of middle finger that pops up and that’s no fun. That’s like putting a combat mini game in my sand castle building it just feels out of place.
Honestly this game probably wouldn’t have been one I’d buy (yet to play) if not first the expansion. The idea that someone might not want me to lose that badly because I get leveled up the next game? That I HAVE to try
Tactics is basically “your opponent cant know your next step if you dont know your next step either”
How fitting he looks like Emanuel Zorg while reviewing a space game
I love it. I can totally attest to the don't play if you don't like mean games thing though lol. I was playing with my family and my mom was about to win the game if she was able to complete the chapter with the keeper ambition. I had one last aggression card and Hail Mary'ed her with raid dice and stole her relics at the last minute thus winning keeper and stealing her victory. She was so mad at me. Like I've never seen her get mad at me and she was like this close to flipping a board game for the first time in her life. lol She doesn't want to play me anymore though there's totally a part of her that wants to play for vengeance but is like no you're too smart you'll win! lol I introduced my brother to it today and he got dominated by only scoring like 3-4 power. But he said he liked it. And definitely thought it was interesting. So yeah it's a good game. It will divide people but good games generally do. And generally speaking Cole Wehrle games tend to do that. You either LOVE his games or really hate them.
“The rules are memorable” for real, I just do not care about rules being thematic please just make then memorable and not having to look up tons of exceptions.
Vicious is the right word!
Haaa another great review for Arcs 👍can’t wait to get it excited😊
If you are looking for a good mind puzzle, with often-narrow room for manoeuvre, with high interaction among players and with some luck-driven mechanics, that's what Arcs is.
If you are instead searching for a full immersion in a lore, or for a full emotional engagement in a space opera, you might get disappointed.
This because the rules at the base of the game system are just abstract shenanigans that make everything work, but that don't represent/evoke much the setting.
While playing, most of the time you will find yourself worried about card suits (or the number/ pips printed on them), rather than being immersed in the game setting.
For me, when looking for that kind of experience, the "briscola" card game is more than enough.
Another Cole Wehrle design
Is this the type of game that everyone at the table needs to have played a bunch and know what they’re doing for it to be fun?
To be fun? No. For them to have a real shot at winning? Probably.
I will say, though, that it takes only one or two games to get the hang of this one. That’s a lot fewer than Root or Oath.
I’ve played it twice and had a great time with each play. It’s one you appreciate more with every play as you learn more about it and see how well designed it is.
No
As the others have said, you definitely get more out of it from repeat plays, but I had fun my first time. There are pitfalls that you might stumble on, and because of how mean it can be, it's possible to have a less than stellar time if the other players are steamrolling you, but I think that might have more to do with your group than the game.
only had two games so far, but in the 2nd game one of the players that had never played it won by a mile. (around 52 points and everyone else ended way under 20).
I think I have this solidly in "love to play somebody else's copy"
How many times does he run his fingers though his hair ? 😂 jj
good video!
Does it work at 2 players? There are some people who think it doesn’t. Hope they are just not usual 2 player gamers. Thanks!
It's definitely different at two players, but it does work. It is however easier for one player to become a little unbalanced in how strong they are. With no other players to help you fight back, it's possible that a game can be more one-sided in a two player game. Personally I like it better at 3 than 2, but I have enjoyed it at 2.
2-players is the main way I play, and it's leaps and bounds more balanced than any other player count. That's because 2-against-1 will never happen.
To me, after demoing once at GenCon, it reminds me of Dune Imperium. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT game, but has the similarity of a medium Euro with simplified combat making it slightly heavier.
Playing with Leader cards and Lore cards is overrated. The base game without it gives plenty for people to think about for a dozen games, and the games will be faster and tighter. I have seen many a new player throw their game away trying to get value from Gate Ports or fumbled with Feastbringer. Leave those cards in the box. And for the love of god steer clear of the L&L expansion product. It's chock full of honeypot trap cards for new players.
Hard pass from me. I think there’s a ton of hype for this one.
Yeah, I love it, but I imagine a LOT of people will not enjoy this. At all.
is this a paid review? because you'd be the first non paid reviewer to say its a very good game
it is not a sponsored video
I mean that's also just plainly not true. You don't have to go far to find one, SUSD isn't a paid review of the game.
Arcs. What do we think?