Since you asked us to share our experiences with the game in the comments... I've lost track, but I've probably played Oath at least 30 times (almost entirely on TTS, though). One memorable game in recent memory, I picked the Long Lost Heir as my starting advisor. It was Oath of Devotion (the succession condition being to hold the Grand Scepter). I was one of 3 exiles, and there was a citizen. Due to events of the previous game, the Chancellor felt deeply indebted to their citizen, and used the Tinkers Fair to just straight up give their citizen the win condition from the start of the game. With the citizen firmly invested in the success of the empire (as they stood to win), and the chancellor taking every opportunity to help and support their citizen, things weren't going well for the exiles initially. The chancellor focused on mustering warbands and then transferring them to their citizen, who also put effort into mustering as well. With the combined effort of two players building up forces and joining them under the citizen's control, the empire was able to quickly amass a huge army which the citizen had entirely under their control. While I knew I could join the empire at any time, I'd have zero chance of securing the scepter while the empire was strong and stable. So, while the other exiles went about pursuing their various win conditions, I set out to weaken the empire in every way I could. I picked up Tyrant which allowed me to knock out key imperial sites just by traveling to them, I kept my army strong and attacked imperial forces when it was favorable, and I made sure to do whatever I could to help the other exiles become threats in order to force the empire into costly battles. With the three of us aggressively attacking the empire, the citizen's grand army dwindled and at one point late in the game they had as few as 5~6 warbands left. Around this time the yellow exile gave up on pursuing the oath after several failed attempts, and played Blackmail to steal the scepter from the citizen. This was the perfect opportunity for me as yellow's once-large army had been decimated by the empire's military efforts to stop them from usurping (at no small cost to both sides). As I now had the largest army at the table, with a bit of luck I was able to secure the scepter with minimal losses and reveal that I was the long lost heir. My sizable white army immediately turned purple just in time to save the empire from collapse. The other citizen soon came after me and our forces by now were fairly evenly matched, but without a clear military advantage to offset the +5 blue dice, +1 from the chancellor having the oathkeeper, and with a bit of luck from the dice their attack was soundly repulsed and they were left with few resources and manpower left. Amusingly, after this defeat they immediately mentioned possibly exiling themselves and even though they didn't follow through for a couple of turns I was able to use that to sway the chancellor over to my side by pointing out how readily they were willing to desert the empire (in contrast to the chancellor's previously unwavering support for their citizen). With my rival citizen not really sure what to do next and dithering for the rest of the game, I set about using my forces and the support of the chancellor to help secure the empire from the two exiles. They did manage to come close to toppling the empire before the game ended on the last turn but we managed to pull through. TL;DR I did everything I could to bring the empire to its knees just so that I could show up and save the day as the long lost heir (and steal the succession).
THIS...THIS is what makes this game so special and unique in my opinion. There are aspects of your experience that I can relate to from our sessions and other aspects that I haven't even remotely experienced. And yet we're playing the same game. That's an incredible accomplishment, truly. Thanks so much for sharing this! It sounds like you had an amazing experience and a great session! Did you chronicle all that in your Chronicle book? Haha.
First off, THANK YOU for including me in your games of Oath. This was a really great experience with you both and I hope we can do it more! Here's my personal one sentence summary: If you can get over the learning hump and play with the same group (of 3 or 4) Oath offers an amazing and memorable self-writing narrative experience.
Excellent summary. So glad you and Jake could join us for those games, thanks again! Even if we never get to play it again the 4 of us, those will probably stick with me as some of my fondest board game memories for a long time.
I feel that instead of die rolls starting after the 5th round , the chancellor should get warbands, instead. Maybe 2 after round 5, 3 after round 6…etc. instead of an arbitrary die roll, these warband bonuses would put extra pressure on the exiles. In fact, I may just change this to be the rule for my group!
Kingmaking really depends on the game. Inis, for example, is literally a game about kingmaking so it never really bothered me there. If you play very aggressively and make a bunch of enemies, it really doesn't bother me if those enemies stab you in the back later even if they can't win themselves anymore.
Definitely! I appreciate that it often makes sense for the game/theme, I just personally don't enjoy kingmaking, but I acknowledge that it was really well-done in Oath. - Carlo
True, it always felt like there was some way to either get back in the game, or at least try to set yourself up for a better position in the next game... depending how willing the Chancellor is to negotiate, of course. :)
Well we solved the problem of grouping up against one player by adding the rule that you must always go towards to win. No sacrifices and nothing like that. The result is that usually the last player in the round ( if he is able ) forced to stop the winning condition . If he is not able than the previous player. Or the one who is going towards the same winning condition .
Not a bad idea, maybe we'll try this if we play it again, but I worry that it might make the game feel too prescribed or remove the sense of agency that players have if there's this pre-arranged agreement about who has to stop the leader or who can go for the win. Maybe I'm not understanding correctly. Either way, thanks for sharing! - Carlo
@@AllYouCanBoard Well depends , this rule is not specific the rule also in the rule book but not specific " You must fight for your own race" i usually introduce this rule in the beginning when I'm talking about the world , everyone is ruller and there only can be 1 chancellor who's race will be happy . So that's a open rule , you can still group up but you can't do it becouse you are loosing and if you do group up both of the player's need to win something from it ,which could include a trade with anything ( even site's)
@@AllYouCanBoard Stoping the winner is always everyone benifit , ofcourse in the end there is still possible that noone is going to stop it ,the last player lose , or he decideing that fuck you guy's I'm not doing it ( never happened but it's possible )
Good luck! And don't forget to check the BGG Forums on the Oath page for some FAQ docs and clarifications on some of the rules. If you don't have the game yet, you might not need them, but if/when you get it and start playing, those are definitely a huge asset.
Cool thematic touch: if you make a mistake and go into battle you shouldn't have gone into and lose the game because of that... You're just roleplaying a bad warlard
Haha fair enough, there was a distinct lack of role-playing in our group when we played it, but if we ever revisit it maybe we'll try to lean into that!
@@AllYouCanBoard well, it's not that I feel that roleplaying is so fun But it is much fun to justify your actions with roleplaying, even if you are going against common 'norms' in board games Like it's one thing when somebody plays kingmaker out of spite and it's much cooler when an exile helps the Chancellor, pleading them to spare their family... Or yeah, my previous example with warlord, you can play competitively or tell the board you don't need to be the perfect general for a good story
First I really like it but after… is pretty limited game with many many small in my opinion unnecessary mechanics… is really masterpiece but I don't wonna play it because there is, many other game who give too same kind if quality but with much easy rules and more dynamic
Since you asked us to share our experiences with the game in the comments...
I've lost track, but I've probably played Oath at least 30 times (almost entirely on TTS, though).
One memorable game in recent memory, I picked the Long Lost Heir as my starting advisor. It was Oath of Devotion (the succession condition being to hold the Grand Scepter). I was one of 3 exiles, and there was a citizen. Due to events of the previous game, the Chancellor felt deeply indebted to their citizen, and used the Tinkers Fair to just straight up give their citizen the win condition from the start of the game. With the citizen firmly invested in the success of the empire (as they stood to win), and the chancellor taking every opportunity to help and support their citizen, things weren't going well for the exiles initially. The chancellor focused on mustering warbands and then transferring them to their citizen, who also put effort into mustering as well. With the combined effort of two players building up forces and joining them under the citizen's control, the empire was able to quickly amass a huge army which the citizen had entirely under their control.
While I knew I could join the empire at any time, I'd have zero chance of securing the scepter while the empire was strong and stable. So, while the other exiles went about pursuing their various win conditions, I set out to weaken the empire in every way I could. I picked up Tyrant which allowed me to knock out key imperial sites just by traveling to them, I kept my army strong and attacked imperial forces when it was favorable, and I made sure to do whatever I could to help the other exiles become threats in order to force the empire into costly battles. With the three of us aggressively attacking the empire, the citizen's grand army dwindled and at one point late in the game they had as few as 5~6 warbands left.
Around this time the yellow exile gave up on pursuing the oath after several failed attempts, and played Blackmail to steal the scepter from the citizen. This was the perfect opportunity for me as yellow's once-large army had been decimated by the empire's military efforts to stop them from usurping (at no small cost to both sides). As I now had the largest army at the table, with a bit of luck I was able to secure the scepter with minimal losses and reveal that I was the long lost heir. My sizable white army immediately turned purple just in time to save the empire from collapse. The other citizen soon came after me and our forces by now were fairly evenly matched, but without a clear military advantage to offset the +5 blue dice, +1 from the chancellor having the oathkeeper, and with a bit of luck from the dice their attack was soundly repulsed and they were left with few resources and manpower left.
Amusingly, after this defeat they immediately mentioned possibly exiling themselves and even though they didn't follow through for a couple of turns I was able to use that to sway the chancellor over to my side by pointing out how readily they were willing to desert the empire (in contrast to the chancellor's previously unwavering support for their citizen). With my rival citizen not really sure what to do next and dithering for the rest of the game, I set about using my forces and the support of the chancellor to help secure the empire from the two exiles. They did manage to come close to toppling the empire before the game ended on the last turn but we managed to pull through.
TL;DR I did everything I could to bring the empire to its knees just so that I could show up and save the day as the long lost heir (and steal the succession).
THIS...THIS is what makes this game so special and unique in my opinion. There are aspects of your experience that I can relate to from our sessions and other aspects that I haven't even remotely experienced. And yet we're playing the same game. That's an incredible accomplishment, truly.
Thanks so much for sharing this! It sounds like you had an amazing experience and a great session! Did you chronicle all that in your Chronicle book? Haha.
well told ,great story
First off, THANK YOU for including me in your games of Oath. This was a really great experience with you both and I hope we can do it more!
Here's my personal one sentence summary:
If you can get over the learning hump and play with the same group (of 3 or 4) Oath offers an amazing and memorable self-writing narrative experience.
Excellent summary. So glad you and Jake could join us for those games, thanks again! Even if we never get to play it again the 4 of us, those will probably stick with me as some of my fondest board game memories for a long time.
I feel that instead of die rolls starting after the 5th round , the chancellor should get warbands, instead. Maybe 2 after round 5, 3 after round 6…etc. instead of an arbitrary die roll, these warband bonuses would put extra pressure on the exiles. In fact, I may just change this to be the rule for my group!
That's a pretty neat idea.. Have you tried it in the end?
Kingmaking really depends on the game. Inis, for example, is literally a game about kingmaking so it never really bothered me there. If you play very aggressively and make a bunch of enemies, it really doesn't bother me if those enemies stab you in the back later even if they can't win themselves anymore.
Definitely! I appreciate that it often makes sense for the game/theme, I just personally don't enjoy kingmaking, but I acknowledge that it was really well-done in Oath.
- Carlo
I loved this game! its beautiful, and i never felt like I didnt have a chance to make a play, even at my lowest.
True, it always felt like there was some way to either get back in the game, or at least try to set yourself up for a better position in the next game... depending how willing the Chancellor is to negotiate, of course. :)
Well we solved the problem of grouping up against one player by adding the rule that you must always go towards to win. No sacrifices and nothing like that.
The result is that usually the last player in the round ( if he is able ) forced to stop the winning condition . If he is not able than the previous player. Or the one who is going towards the same winning condition .
Not a bad idea, maybe we'll try this if we play it again, but I worry that it might make the game feel too prescribed or remove the sense of agency that players have if there's this pre-arranged agreement about who has to stop the leader or who can go for the win. Maybe I'm not understanding correctly. Either way, thanks for sharing! - Carlo
@@AllYouCanBoard Well depends , this rule is not specific the rule also in the rule book but not specific " You must fight for your own race" i usually introduce this rule in the beginning when I'm talking about the world , everyone is ruller and there only can be 1 chancellor who's race will be happy .
So that's a open rule , you can still group up but you can't do it becouse you are loosing and if you do group up both of the player's need to win something from it ,which could include a trade with anything ( even site's)
@@AllYouCanBoard Stoping the winner is always everyone benifit , ofcourse in the end there is still possible that noone is going to stop it ,the last player lose , or he decideing that fuck you guy's I'm not doing it ( never happened but it's possible )
If you guys like it so much, I must get down to the rulebook soon!
Good luck! And don't forget to check the BGG Forums on the Oath page for some FAQ docs and clarifications on some of the rules. If you don't have the game yet, you might not need them, but if/when you get it and start playing, those are definitely a huge asset.
Cool thematic touch: if you make a mistake and go into battle you shouldn't have gone into and lose the game because of that... You're just roleplaying a bad warlard
Haha fair enough, there was a distinct lack of role-playing in our group when we played it, but if we ever revisit it maybe we'll try to lean into that!
@@AllYouCanBoard well, it's not that I feel that roleplaying is so fun
But it is much fun to justify your actions with roleplaying, even if you are going against common 'norms' in board games
Like it's one thing when somebody plays kingmaker out of spite and it's much cooler when an exile helps the Chancellor, pleading them to spare their family...
Or yeah, my previous example with warlord, you can play competitively or tell the board you don't need to be the perfect general for a good story
First I really like it but after… is pretty limited game with many many small in my opinion unnecessary mechanics… is really masterpiece but I don't wonna play it because there is, many other game who give too same kind if quality but with much easy rules and more dynamic
Yup, it's unique and special but it takes a lot of work/effort to really get the most out of it.