Arcs Review – Conflict and Collapse in the Reach

Welcome to this week’s review! This week I’m discussing the last game I picked up at PAX Unplugged last year and arguably one of the hottest games to come out in 2024. So without further ado, let’s jump into my review.

Arcs is designed by Cole Wehrle, best known for designing games such as Root, Pax Pamir: Second Edition, John Company: Second Edition, and Oath. This time, Wehrle is teaming up again with Leder Games and artist Kyle Ferrin (the same team behind Root and Oath). I’ll admit – I came into Arcs with a fairly open mind. I had seen the game receive plenty of positive praise, but the only other Wehrle design I’ve played is Root, and while I like that game, it doesn’t make it to the table that often. I’ve now played Arcs several times, and while I recognize that this is likely a game that rewards more repeat plays, I do have some thoughts about what I’ve experienced with the game so far.

Arcs is played over the course of five rounds or until one player reaches a certain number of power (victory points). In each round, players will take turns playing cards from their hand in a semi-trick taking mechanism. There are four suits with numbers one to seven (two to six in games with less than four players). In addition to the number of the card, each card has a number of action pips (lower numbered cards have more and higher numbered cards have less). Each suit also corresponds to a certain set of actions, and when the player plays a card, they can take any combination of the actions on the card up to the number of pips on that card.

The trick-taking element comes into play when whoever has the initiative (either the player who won the last trick or seized the initiative) plays one card and takes their actions. Then all of the other players can select from three choices – play a card of the same suit with a higher number than that of the lead card (surpass), play any card to either copy a single action of the lead card (copy), or perform a single action on the card they played (pivot).

In addition, when the lead player plays a card, they can choose to declare an ambition corresponding to the number on the card (the seven card can declare any ambition and the one card cannot). If the player declares an ambition, the number on that card becomes a zero, so all other players have an easier time following suit by surpassing the card. Ambitions are also the only way players score victory points in the game. There are five different ambitions and only up to three ambitions can be declared each round. Also, the same ambition can be declared multiple times. Declared ambitions are scored at the end of the round with the player(s) who have the most of that type of resources and icons, captives, or destroyed enemy ships receiving victory points.

Having grown up playing trick-taking games like Hearts and Spades, I generally enjoy the mechanism. In Arcs, I found this to be the most interesting part of the game since it requires a lot of tactical decision making, something I tend to enjoy in games. Also, since ambitions are the only way to score points and not all of them will score every round, there were a lot of tense moments in deciding which ambition to declare and at what time. If I declared an ambition early, while I may be winning that ambition at that moment, it also allows the other players time to compete with me, so I may not even win that ambition at the end of the round.

The production quality is fairly solid with my favorite component being the handy player aids. There’s even enough for each player (in a four person game), which is something that I wish was more standard these days. The player aid does a great job of walking players through all the important elements of the game, such as turn structure, the different actions, combat, and round-end structure including ambition scoring. With the player aids, I found that I rarely needed to reference the full rulebook and when I did, there was an easy-to-follow glossary and index at the back.

I talked about how I found the trick-taking mechanism interesting, but I also found it to be fairly frustrating at times. In the first game I played, I had multiple hands with very low numbers, and if you routinely can’t surpass the lead card, then you get a lot fewer actions than the other players. This doesn’t feel great, and while I could always burn an extra card to seize the initiative, doing so feels very punishing because it requires you to burn an extra card while the other players don’t have to, allowing them additional turns.

There’s also a fair amount of luck involved in the hands you’re dealt. I understand the game is all about adapting to the hand you’re dealt, but if in a previous round I set myself up to focus on a specific ambition and then I don’t draw a card that allows me to declare that ambition, then I’m just stuck and I have to switch strategies. This is fine if all players face this, but since the card draw is all luck, others might draw the exact cards that fit well with the strategy they are already pursuing. I already mentioned that I generally prefer games that reward tactical planning rather than strategic, but in this scenario, I found the tactical nature of the game more frustrating than rewarding.

With all this in mind, I think my biggest issue with the game is that the game feels very aggressive. Pretty much everything in the game results in a zero-sum gain, and the game pushes players toward conflict. One example is through resources. There are only five tokens for each of the five different types of resources. If one player declares an ambition that scores for having the most of one type of resource or icon, then players will want to pursue strategies to get more of that type of resource. Normally, you get resources by taxing your cities, but if there are no more of that resource in the supply, then taxing a city doesn’t allow you to gain that resource. The only other way of getting more of that type of resource or icon is by raiding other players and either stealing their resources or guild cards. So say I decide to raid another player, I may roll lucky and now I get to take that players stuff, but that player receives nothing in return and the only way they can fight back is by getting lucky on dice rolls or by raiding that player back on a future turn. But what if that player doesn’t have a card that lets them battle? Now we’re back to the issue with the cards dictating what actions you can perform.

In one game I played, we all started off fairly peaceful, but by the last couple of rounds, everyone was raiding and attacking each other, and I’m not sure that players were actually having fun doing so. It was more so that the game was forcing them down that path.

Finally, the base game comes with some leaders and lore cards that you can add during setup (there is an expansion that adds more) that allow for asymmetric abilities. Generally, I enjoy asymmetric elements in game, but in Arcs, I found the implementation a bit of a mixed bag. I found the lore cards to be very interesting, as they generally allowed players to break the core rules in unique ways. For example, one lore card allows that player to build starports in gates, while another similar card allows the player to build cities in gates. Neither are things you can do in the base game.

Whereas the lore cards are all positive, the leader cards give players a benefit along with a penalty. For example, I played a game where my leader card allowed me to influence before I took the secure action when copying or pivoting, but my penalty was that I had to give a player one of my guild cards whenever I declared an ambition. I thought the benefit outweighed the negative, but during that game, I actually think the penalty came up more often than I got to take advantage of my benefit. This was likely due to my playstyle in that game, but I do wish the penalties on the leader cards didn’t feel quite as punishing. For this reason, I’ll probably be a bit more hesitant to add the leaders to future plays, at least until I have more plays of the game under my belt, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend adding these cards to games with newer players.

Overall, Arcs is a bit of a mixed bag. I generally don’t enjoy games with a lot of aggressive, negative player interaction, and there is certainly a lot of it here. I thought I would enjoy the chess feeling of your player pieces acting as pawns that you are fine sacrificing, but I think the raiding mechanic brings the aggression up to a level I don’t really enjoy. I would be fine playing it again every now and then, with the caveat that I now know what I’m getting into when I sit down for a play, but I have a feeling that like Root, albeit for different reasons, I’ll have a hard time getting this to the table that often. Arcs really feels like the game that is best at the full four player count, but based on the lukewarm reception the game has received from others I’ve played with, I may struggle to find three others willing to play Arcs again anytime soon. 

With that, I’ll wrap up this week’s review! I’d love to hear your thoughts on any of the games I’ve mentioned or future content suggestions in the comments below. Happy gaming!

If you liked this post and want to be notified when new content is released, then follow me on Instagram @themeepledigest.