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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
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;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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. 😊
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.
@@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 RUclips bullSH*T!
One of the main reasons I like boardgames over chess (I know, also technically a boardgame) is luck. I need luck because I’m too stupid to play chess. But damn, too much of a good thing it looks like.
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.
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.
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…
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)
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.
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
It just sucks they split this game. The “expansion” is the complete game. I don’t agree with this review and all the “luck” talk that is a garbage take but regardless I think the complete game is a narrative journey that the beginner base game doesn’t convey. But most reviews are on the base game so I get the negative impressions on an incomplete experience.
So everyone's point is valid, and one needs many games to experience few good games 😅 😂 Also, it's a war game. These kind of things are a part and parcel of most war games. It's not meant for everyone to love it.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
Easy to learn hard to master - love the game but it’s hard to introduce it to new players because they can feel frustrated if they don’t know how to play what they consider the weaker cards. Played two handed solo this week had an amazing time 🤤
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.
Thank you!!! I've seen quite a few videos about this game and everytime they explain the cards bit I always feel like that could be a complete f-fest... And you said it for one! Great review, as ever!
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.
Bloody hell, the overview of that game put me to sleep. Might give this one a miss. The effect of luck on the outcome should inversely proportional to the duration of the game.
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 agree, ARCS is NOT for me, its a luck fest, with limited agency, court cards are totally unbalanced and you have ZERO agency as a defender in combat.
I love the game, but might love this review more.
This guy is what the board gaming hobby needs.
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..👍🏻
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.
I love the camera work in this review.
👍🏻
Great to see a less overwhelmingly positive review of this game - always appreciate hearing different takes.
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.
Great review that I happen to disagree with and doesn't affect my enjoyment. Always glad to hear your take on a game.
I did NOT expect a yoghurt joke 😄..
Bless ya ..👌🍻
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…
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.
The vitriol was strong in this one. Love it! Those criticisms slap like a cold shower.
Phew. Thought I was the only one who didn't like this game.
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.
Best board game channel on youtube
This is the best description of Arcs I have ever heard.
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.
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?
“The channel where we talk bulshit about games” Yep! 👍
Nice try chump 👍🏻
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.
Couldn't agree with you more on this one...
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.
Favourite board game review site. Keep up the good work!
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.
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.
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.
Video liked, subbed. I like the game but your criticisms are spot on
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 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
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.
Hmmm interesting take. Never played the game, but I do like seeing different thoughts on the game
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
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…
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.
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.
I bought arcs all in kickstarter. Can’t get it to the table. Just feels overwhelming
Core games is quite simple. Start there innit…
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.
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…
LOVE YOUR INTRO BRO
Completely agree. I will not play this game again ever.
I thinks it’s a great game. It’s fun and my board game group loves it :)
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!!
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.
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
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…
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.
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.
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 😂
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.
Proably cost. The campaign box is bigger then the base box
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
As always, excellent overview and review!
I read some gamers said that Arcs is the GOTY. 😅
You’re the best! Thanks for an honest review of one of these bloated games. ❤
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.
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.
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 😂
Really love your honesty. Thank you.
Honestly is not determined by a negative reaction or positive. But could be a lie. Not sayinghe isn't honest. But important perspective to remember.
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.
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.
Fun. Informative. I like. 👍
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 RUclips bullSH*T!
One of the main reasons I like boardgames over chess (I know, also technically a boardgame) is luck. I need luck because I’m too stupid to play chess. But damn, too much of a good thing it looks like.
Chess is a memory game
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.
@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
Wow. I disagree, but I always respect your opinions. Great review, mate. But, I'm still buying a copy. 😂
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.
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…
Finally, a review of this game I completely agree with.
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)
Could you please review Tiny Epic Dungeons???????????????????????
If I can get a copy then yea
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.
@@JoeTheGons quackelope also didn't like it
@@TabletopFamily Nice shout. I'll have to check his channel.
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.
It just sucks they split this game. The “expansion” is the complete game. I don’t agree with this review and all the “luck” talk that is a garbage take but regardless I think the complete game is a narrative journey that the beginner base game doesn’t convey. But most reviews are on the base game so I get the negative impressions on an incomplete experience.
So everyone's point is valid, and one needs many games to experience few good games 😅 😂
Also, it's a war game. These kind of things are a part and parcel of most war games.
It's not meant for everyone to love it.
Couldn't agree more.
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 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.
Finally somebody that puts some criticism against the ridiculous "Arcs" hype.
My fav and 'plain direct' ARCS review 😂
Nice work, like always. 👊
When Dune: Imperium - Uprising? 🤔
Prob never. Too similar to the game I already own.
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.
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.
Thanks!
👍🏻🥳🎉
It sucks cause i cannot even listen to the rules
Hahhahaha love you bro.
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 :)
Rather good summation Mr B. I think fair and helpful. Je suis Bollocks.
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 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.
Played it once, will never play it again.
Easy to learn hard to master - love the game but it’s hard to introduce it to new players because they can feel frustrated if they don’t know how to play what they consider the weaker cards. Played two handed solo this week had an amazing time 🤤
My yogurt is so nicked!!
Played it for the first time this week and I have to say I agree. I didn't like it at all.
l think you just don’t like Cole Wehrle mate
You think?
yea yea yea yea yea yea
Fuckin yea
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.
Quality. I finally have some evidence to support my wholly unwarranted dislike for this game ;)
Thank you!!! I've seen quite a few videos about this game and everytime they explain the cards bit I always feel like that could be a complete f-fest... And you said it for one! Great review, as ever!
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.
Bloody hell, the overview of that game put me to sleep. Might give this one a miss.
The effect of luck on the outcome should inversely proportional to the duration of the game.
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
I agree, ARCS is NOT for me, its a luck fest, with limited agency, court cards are totally unbalanced and you have ZERO agency as a defender in combat.