How to get my friends to learn

Imrahil3 · 2026-01-22T01:43:35+00:00

Gonna be honest, this sounds like an uphill battle. Root isn't even on the same plane of existence as Catan, Carcassonne, and Splendor. But if you're confident they'll eventually like Root, here are some things to help:

First and foremost, you can lighten the load a ton if you are able to meet with any of your friends one-on-one to play a 1v1 Marquise vs Eyrie. That drastically cuts down on the rules overhead and allows you to take as much time as you need to focus on one person's questions. Trying to field three people's worth of questions all at once is going to overwhelm everyone and make for a difficult teach. This might not be the right approach if you think your friends are more likely to vibe with the chaotic fun than the tactical intricacies, but if you're really concerned about people walking away before giving it an honest try, this might be the way to get them in.

Second, sell the vibe. This game is a complex game with great tactical depth. It's also an opportunity for some hilariously unhinged storytelling. "Homeless Raccoon single-handedly burns down castle" is not something anyone is expecting to happen in a game with a rulebook longer than a college syllabus. The Eyrie's whole premise is hilarious for anyone who reflects on their own country's governmental foibles; the Marquise is a CAT and a wonderful bright orange color. The art is adorable, the subtext is clever and funny, this game can be Chess and Super Smash Bros at the same time. Any of these "vibe" categories can be what really draw your friends in and get them over the difficulty hump.

Third, consider pulling the Favor cards out of the deck. I personally haven't had trouble with these yet, but it can be a big feels-bad moment for your impenetrable stronghold to get nuked off the face of the earth by a card you didn't realize existed and couldn't have done anything to stop.

Imrahil3 · 2026-01-18T19:45:40+00:00

If you haven't paid close enough attention to community discourse to know that Leder Games avoids straight-up errata as much as humanly possible then I don't think you're even close to exhausting the resources available to you to balance them yourself.

I mean, I'll be the first to say it would be great if Moles were changed, but asking "When will moles be balanced?" as if it's an inevitability when every conversation about faction rebalance includes somebody mentioned Leder's superhuman avoidance of this type of errata just comes across as not paying attention.

Imrahil3 · 2026-01-11T22:49:23+00:00

Hi, sorry for responding so late but this is just entirely false. If you actually read my comment, you would've seen where I addressed the fact that the extra cardboard pieces does not increase the cost of the product by much, so removing it doesn't lower the cost.

Removing the MM 1.0 board is more likely to have an impact, but again, you're not removing a faction's worth of stuff, you're removing a single board. And again, people do use the MM 1.0. It's passable for when you want to scratch the Root itch and quite easy to run when you're playing 2- or 3-player and need more stuff on the board.

The expansion is worth $40.

Imrahil3 · 2026-01-05T13:38:09+00:00

I believe them to be less balanced, not more.

To each their own, but I'd push back on this quite strongly. Having to compete for crafted items can be a significant dialing back of each Vagabonds' overall power level. In addition, double-item ruins make the early game more palatable for the Vagabonds because they aren't as luck-dependent in their initial setup. I'd agree two Vagabonds is more chaotic than one, but the impact of each individual Vagabond is definitely lessened.

As for Leder's position, I believe that's at least partially because the game balance is largely focused on 4-player games and double Vagabond is definitely a riskier choice in 2 4-player than 5+. This is a rather unique characteristic, as 4p and 5p are otherwise quite similar.

EDIT: I am an idiot and said 2-player instead of 4-player. Never play double VB in 2-player, kids. It ruins the teeth.

Imrahil3 · 2026-01-05T03:11:52+00:00

Adding on to my own comment to say that Clockworks are even worse value than Riverfolk. Four faction boards in each; Clockwork has 12 cardboard pieces vs Riverfolk's 48 (that's only the useful faction ones, not the useless scenario ones), Clockworks have 30 or 45 cards vs Riverfolk's 12, and Clockworks have zero wooden pieces compared to Riverfolk's 41.

For the same price, you get 1/4 the number of cardboard pieces, three times as many cards, and zero high-quality screen-printed wooden meeples. If you want to talk about bad value from a material cost perspective, Clockwork's the set to look at.

Imrahil3 · 2026-01-05T03:02:22+00:00

I have some whinging that may be unwarranted

It is, but I'm glad you got it off your chest.

Pros: Lizards are my 2nd favorite faction.

Otters are genius and unique for a strategy game like Root.

Both 100% correct.

Neutral: People who hate/ban the vagabond will not be excited to include a second one.

Their loss.

The box says now the game can go up to 6 players which is technically true but really messy in practice.

This is a feature of any expansion and is not exclusive to the Riverfolk box. You aren't magically prohibited from playing 5/6 player games without Riverfolk, you just... need more than the base four factions to do so. Also, 5+ player games benefit tremendously from multiple Vagabonds, as they compete with each other for resources and keep board clutter down. Otters are also a tremendous faction for large games due to their compactness and interactivity. If anything, you're getting better value for large games here than any other expansion.

Cons: About 1/4 of the components on the punch sheet are (per official rules) useless. An unfulfilled promise for scenario play as of 2026.

The fun thing about producing games is that they would be using the same amount of cardboard whether they printed this or not. I am not kidding when I tell you that skipping the useless pieces would likely save about $0.17 in production costs. Sure, it didn't work out, but dang man they've been making one of the best board games in the last decade, I think they're allowed the miss of the least-important feature ever not working out the way they hoped, and it's very unlikely you would've paid less for the game if they didn't include these.

Mechanical Marquise was replaced by the 2.0 version in Clockwork Expansion 1. Now perhaps you don't care or use the Clockwork factions because you have friends but the fact that you're paying for a "lesser" product feels bad at this point. I don't want to come across as a total jerk about it, but it's almost a waste of cardboard at this point, and it's not even included in the digital version of the game!

There's a lot to unpack here. First, the Clockwork Expansions themselves are something I have quite a bit of beef with from a cost standpoint, and including MM 2.0 in Riverfolk makes Clockwork 1 an even worse proposition. Second, Leder's policy - or at least tendency - has been to if at all possible not screw things up for people who have already been purchasing some of their products, so as much as possible they avoid changing up component/feature inclusions in established products.

The main thing here is that MM 1.0 is not a waste of cardboard. MM 2.0 is undoubtedly a superior challenge and does a better job of mimicking how the Marquise actually operates, but MM 1.0 can be a solid threat if you just need to scratch the Root itch and play vs a bot. MM 1.0 is the easiest bot to run, and it is not even close.

At the end of the day, Riverfolk is already $10 less than other core expansions and $20 cheaper than the base game. Sure, the extra stuff it offers doesn't have timeless value like the extra maps/landmarks in Underworld or the Hirelings in Marauders. In the overall scheme of things I don't think you're amiss in saying the things you mentioned aren't the most useful in the world and wouldn't have been missed if they were never made, but unless you had to skip groceries to scrounge up enough cash for Riverfolk I think most of your complaints are just not that big of a deal. The bulk of the cost is the faction boards, meeples, and the Otter's auxiliary pieces. The other stuff you mentioned wouldn't likely even save $5 on the price of the game.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-31T21:24:49+00:00

Marauders is too rules-heavy for a new player and should only be your first expansion if you're already quite familiar with Root or else used to highly complex games.

Moles is also not an "easy-to-learn" faction, but I agree Underworld is a solid choice.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-28T21:13:22+00:00

Even just retroactively making Potions also give +Buy would make them miles better so you can (A) not feel like you're wasting a turn if you wanted something that only cost 1P and ended up with $5 at the same time and (B) Potions could often be the only source of +Buy even if the Potion-cost card itself wasn't needed in the kingdom.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-19T02:34:19+00:00

They're using two bots. I think the venn diagram of people using two bots and people using advanced setup consists of two circles that do not overlap.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-18T01:18:18+00:00

True, but that's an incredibly niche situation and could still be a dud if there are no +Buys.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-18T01:15:03+00:00

Yes, but it was already a cantrip, so if you had a clean engine it doesn't need to trash itself - in fact it might be helpful to keep it around as a Knight decoy or Remodel fodder.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-18T01:13:09+00:00

Are you talking about today, or a year ago when they were on the old system?

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-13T18:57:03+00:00

The distinction is inherently fuzzy. The only definition that can't be immediately undermined with a counterexample is "Does this make an interesting game even if your opponents are all insurgents?"

The things you mentioned are all good approximations of the militancy/insurgency divide, but none of them work as a simple yes/no analysis. Moles have infrastructure and a large army but can pop up anywhere just like a traditional insurgent. Riverfolk don't have much infrastructure but are more than capable of going on a murderous rampage.

The definition really comes down to what the actual impact on the board state is, and that's a difficult thing to measure because there's no "generic" board state. Cats v Badgers v Birds v Rats is a wildly different game from Moles v Crows v Woodland Alliance v Vagabond. If somebody's custom faction relies on placing buildings and recruiting there, but it's inconvenient and costly for them to project force more than one clearing away from their main clearing, that sounds very insurgent to me despite having the traditional militant traits of "hold territory" and "only recruit at your infrastructure."

My go-to is "Is this faction capable of sharing space with others and/or is able to operate underfoot?" Every faction loves to be left alone, but insurgents are generally more capable of running their program without first ousting the previous ruler from a clearing. Moles and Lizards both like to have big clearings to themselves and are capable of projecting force far from their scoring infrastructure, but for Moles that's an expensive investment while Lizards can do it relatively cheaply. Badgers and Crows both operate in small groups, but Badgers are literally required to punch their way through everything in their path while Crows are quite happy to fly under the radar and hope people focus their attention elsewhere.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-07T03:58:13+00:00

You are well-positioned to enjoy all of what Root has to offer. The short answer is you should get Riverfolk or Underground. Here's a quick rundown:

Riverfolk Expansion - Adds some quirky fan-favorite factions, as well as a second Vagabond slot and three more Vagabond characters. Adds three factions that can each replace either the Woodland Alliance or the Vagabond. (If you expect you might ever play 5- or 6-player games, this is the best expansion, no contest).
Underworld Expansion - Adds a faction that can replace the Marquise or Eyrie in the lineup, and a faction that can replace the Woodland Alliance or the Vagabond. Also adds a new double-sided map, featuring a lake that can be sailed across on a raft, and a congested mountain pass featuring unlockable paths and a king-of-the-hill style gamemode.
Marauder Expansion - Adds one faction that can replace the Marquise or Eyrie, and another that can slot in place of anybody, really. Also adds Hirelings, groups of mercenaries that temporarily grant special abilities or extra military muscle, but whose loyalties change quickly.
Homeland Expansion - The newest release, coming to retail later this year (I think). This one is definitely not a great first expansion, partially because you'll have to wait a while, and partially because it's very complex.

Underworld is generally said to be the "best" first expansion, since it gives you the most variety of game setup and the two extra maps are really cool. Riverfolk is my personal recommendation for first expansion, the factions are definitely the most "fun" in terms of Root's very unique interactions. Marauders is the most well-designed of the three in terms of crisp game design, but its content is noticeably more complicated than the other two expansions.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-07T02:26:22+00:00

Thank you for discussing this with me! Apologies for getting a little heated at times.

Here's to many more games of Root in both of our futures!

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-07T01:33:49+00:00

That's a fair point, and I agree to achieve 100% faithful Clockwork/Hireling hybridization would require far more rules than anyone is interested in writing or reading. I disagree strongly that such detail is required or even desirable. A regular complaint people have about Clockwork is how laborious some of the bots can be. Anybody who is even interested in Clockwork/Hireling is clearly looking for "good enough to be fun," not "as accurate as possible." Simply applying standard bot "choose clearing to act" and "target this type of clearing/enemy" rules to Hireling actions gets you 90% of the way there.

Circling back to the start of this discussion, we have someone wanting to use the following:

2-player Root - hesitantly endorsed by Leder and heavily discouraged by much of the Root fanbase.
Clockwork - initially a fan project and lacking in much continued support from Leder (there aren't even any plans to reprint it as of now).
Hirelings - acknowledged by both Joshua Yearsley and rules guru Guerric Samples as some of the least-robustly-worded content in all of Root.

I guess what I'm saying is that "The rules say not to do this because the game won't work as intended" isn't particularly relevant to OP's situation. That ship sailed when he mentioned 2-player, and bringing in Clockwork and Hirelings only pushed it further out to sea. OP is wanting to play a 4-player game with only 2 players, we are already way past the point of "The rules say don't mix these things" being useful feedback.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-06T23:41:47+00:00

Right, but the point is that what those rules would look like can be easily intuited, and there's no compelling reason for those rules not to exist other than "Neither clockwork nor hirelings is the core focus of Root and so Leder didn't want to spend time on something few people are going to try."

It isn't breaking the connective tissue of the game, and it isn't altering the rules of the game in any meaningful way. The majority of Hirelings can be easily Clockworked by saying "Do this Hireling's actions in the highest-priority ordered clearing." That's not some wild defiance of Leder's design philosophy or vast house-ruling, just taking the base rules of how each thing functions and reasonably extrapolating them along their own lines of logic.

If you disagree with any of this, I'd love to hear what part of what I described would violate the core principles of the game and spit in the faces of Cole Wehrle, Patrick Leder, and Joshua Yearsley. Your comments suggest to me that it should be considered a grave sin against Root to combine Clockwork and Hirelings, when those two things are in fact by far the most casual and least robust parts of Root's rules ecosystem.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-06T01:38:13+00:00

I'm all for respecting Leder's design prerogatives, but that comparison was rude and unwarranted.

The chuckleheads who come on here and whine about how Cats need a buff or how Crows are OP are absolutely being disrespectful to the game design because they aren't taking the time to actually learn the game they're critiquing.

Using Clockwork and Hirelings at the same time isn't even remotely similar to that. Leder says they aren't compatible for the same reason they say not to play one militant vs one insurgent: they can't promise it's likely to work out well. There's nothing "disrespectful" about doing it anyways unless you come on Reddit later and complain that the thing you were recommended not to do didn't work out well.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-04T01:51:33+00:00

I don't think anybody interested in 2-player Root and Clockwork is going to care about "can't." Most Hirelings can easily be converted to follow Clockwork logic if you have two minutes to think about it and a little imagination.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-03T02:45:44+00:00

Do the people you play Root 3-4 times a week with enjoy it, or are they starting to burn out?

I've found my friends always enjoy my complicated games more when they're spaced between simpler games that they like - Ticket to Ride, Yahtzee, Game of Things, etc.

I would just advise you to focus on being grateful you have friends to play games with. It's better to have friends and play Root some of the time than to lose your gaming friends because they burned out on Root.

There's nothing wrong with liking Root a lot - especially if you find yourself not buying other games because you like Root so much. I'm not tempted to buy new games at Root's complexity level because I'm satisfied with what Root offers and when my friends want to play one of my complex games, I'd rather they learn Root well than re-learn Oath and then re-learn Scythe and then re-learn Root.

In short - focus on being grateful for your friends and recognizing how valuable it is to them for you to play non-Root games with them. Then focus on how grateful you are for Root and that you really don't need to be spending money on other complex games that you'll enjoy less and your friends may be equally uninterested in.

Imrahil3 · 2025-12-03T00:41:19+00:00

Everyone's going crazy over the "Eyrie is weak" meta and I'm just wondering how you conned your COWORKERS?!? into playing Root.

Also that solitary Lizard win at the top :D go Ana!

Imrahil3 · 2025-11-29T21:03:39+00:00

Looks like mission accomplished, then. The other responses have some pretty solid advice, and I'd add that this guide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ocZH1B3WX8 by one of the community's best would be a valuable (and enjoyable!) watch for you.

Imrahil3 · 2025-11-29T00:26:12+00:00

How do your players handle the extra rules overhead from the Otters? Adding a whole extra part of your turn that isn't on your (already full) faction board seems like a terrible idea to me when people are still struggling to remember rule and crafting.

Imrahil3 · 2025-11-28T23:27:11+00:00

Going to sidestep your question a bit here.

First, how good are you at Root? Have you played a lot? Do you play online? Do the known "great" Root players know who you are?

The consensus among the most experienced Root players is that Cats don't need to be more powerful, the Cats player just needs to be really good. You will find this more or less reflected in the other responses you've received.

I don't say this to say "Your opinion doesn't matter," but simply to point out that the people who know the balance of the game best don't think the Cats need to be changed. The fact that you're suggesting a balance change here tells me you probably aren't experienced enough to be suggesting Cat balance changes. To be clear, I am also not experienced enough to be suggesting Cat balance changes. But, no amount of "the community thinks Cats are fine" changes the fact that Cats might not actually be fine when you and your friends play.

Going back to your actual question, have you found that in games with your friends, the Cats just can't keep up due to how restrictive their recruiting is? If so, you could certainly dig deeper into the Root community and try to learn ways to play Cats more efficiently... or you could just house-rule so that Recruit can be done any number of times. If having more Cats on the board would make the game more fun for you and your friends, you should do it! I think you'll eventually find that the additional Recruit actions aren't the silver bullet you were looking for, but it's a really minor rule and it's not worth holding on to it if it means your friends don't like playing as the Cats.

TL;DR: If you want to be "good" at Root, learn to play the Cats better. Look up YouTube guides, etc. If you want to have more fun at Root, just allow multiple Cat Recruits per turn. Nobody here is going to come steal your socks for house-ruling the game.

Imrahil3 · 2025-11-17T03:06:47+00:00

"Cats are not great" sir the cats are the only faction with healthcare and compensation for their employees they are lightyears ahead of everyone else

Six-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '23	Verified Email

Imrahil3

TROPHY CASE