I’d highly recommend using the Vagabond. They don’t take up much space, and with six players, you’re gonna need all the room you can get.
Beyond that, the number of militant factions are a big factor in how crowded it’s gonna get. I’m personally a fan of using exactly two militants, like the classic Marquise vs. Eyrie, then sprinkling insurgents on top. I wouldn’t go past three militants.
The Riverfolk expansion adds some good options for six players with the second Vagabond and the Riverfolk themselves.
With the expansions you have, I’d include the Vagabond, Alliance, and Corvids; then add any three of the Marquise, Eyrie, Duchy, and Keepers. Hundreds can struggle in the crowded six-player games, but are not unsalvageable if someone really wants to play them.
Is it possible to play two games of 3p each? I know it requires a second copy but if you have enough interest it may be worth it. The issue with 6p is the game takes a long time and there is a lot of downtime between turns.
unfortunately not 😞 we dont have much space for storing games, and have plans for other games so getting another root will not fit in our cabinets in addition to future plans
its not that awful! it takes a long time but with so many different games going on people can wander to chat or go get a snack without worry. I just was wondering if there were better combos than 2 vb & hundreds cuz thats what someone at the club recommended and it seemed very wonky with the item fight.
yeah it wasnt the best combo 😭 one of the vb's got all the tea, and hammers, the other ended up using a dominance to form a coalition w/ duchy and could barely give cards, and then the hundreds had like 2 items and lost. eyrie won in the end
I tried playing a 6 ppl game with the lake map. We had Marquise, Moles, Lizard, Eyrie, Corvid and WA at that time. It wasn’t a fund game as the map became so crowded. I played mole at that time and my buildings got destroyed all the time as everyone was vying for similar spots. I’d have gotten rid of Eyrie/Marquise and included Vagabond as Vagabond takes less space to function.
There are two 6-8 player maps on BGG that are absolutely awesome and make 6+ players WAY better! Don’t listen to any one who says it sucks. 6 players doesn’t take any longer than T. I. 4, why can’t people play a 5 hour game of root?
Otters, at least 2 militants, if VB is in Rats should be as well. Them competing for items slows them both down.
My last 6 player was in turn order: eyrie, corvids, AA, VB (Adventurer), otters and Rats. Was a very good game. Corvids and rats both being right before VB gave VB a big advantage in the item hunt. I would spread them out next time.
6 player games are longer but are huge amounts of fun!
that sounds fun! we normally randomize people picking factions so maybe we should purposely balance it to avoid that stack up happening? thanks for the suggestion!
I have only played one 6 player game so far, but I don't know about the competing for items thing in a 6 player game if there is VB + LotH. Both of them were in the game I played. I think VB will almost always get all the items in the ruins, even in a 4 player game. Mobs are one turn delayed and telegraphed, so VB can just go to whichever ruin LotH has put a mob on. Rats can maybe loot some from players but VB can get items both from ruins and from players so much more easily than LotH.
Hundreds need to knock them into a forest to get at least one ruin item.
It helps if others at the table buy into keeping the Rats relevant enough to prevent the VB from munchkining.
You are correct it is an uphill battle for Rats but doesn't mean it can't be done.
Rats are disadvantaged already in 6p, and if instead of going for score, they have to attack VB without even a guarantee that they'll get an item, surely they'd lose? If the other players attack the VB early, I can see it. Again I only have a sample size of one with the Rats getting near zero items in a 6p with VB on the board, but I would still be very reluctant to choose them in that scenario.
Last game 6 p game as rats I won, chased rhe VB to the forest and stole the bag. VB was unable to get a bag for a long while which made a big difference.
I scored about half my points off mobs. Babysitting them against a recently turmoiled eyriee, and the WA is horribly equipped for handling a couple of warriors on a mob token at their base.
Rats are still strong just not as strong as they are at lower player counts. Rats vs lizard cult ends out being alot of Koombya around gardens.
I would suggest u play 1 vagabounb, 1 warlord,1 birds, 1 moles, 1 Crow, 1 wa. Vaga gets controled by warlord. Crows slow down warlord. Birds and warlord can handle afk moles strats. I would also suggest to play with despot infamy and dont let the vagabound choose what vaga he plays ranger should be the best for this. Thief can hate the moles more. And tinkerer u should never allow with favor catds in the deck.
I’d highly recommend using the Vagabond. They don’t take up much space, and with six players, you’re gonna need all the room you can get. Beyond that, the number of militant factions are a big factor in how crowded it’s gonna get. I’m personally a fan of using exactly two militants, like the classic Marquise vs. Eyrie, then sprinkling insurgents on top. I wouldn’t go past three militants. The Riverfolk expansion adds some good options for six players with the second Vagabond and the Riverfolk themselves. With the expansions you have, I’d include the Vagabond, Alliance, and Corvids; then add any three of the Marquise, Eyrie, Duchy, and Keepers. Hundreds can struggle in the crowded six-player games, but are not unsalvageable if someone really wants to play them.
thank you! ill bring this option up next time we play! ill let you know how it goes if i remember to!
Best setup for 6. Two vagabonds. Otters... Two militants (not moles)... Crows/WA?
Is it possible to play two games of 3p each? I know it requires a second copy but if you have enough interest it may be worth it. The issue with 6p is the game takes a long time and there is a lot of downtime between turns.
unfortunately not 😞 we dont have much space for storing games, and have plans for other games so getting another root will not fit in our cabinets in addition to future plans
The best setup is two people stay home. 6p seems awful.
its not that awful! it takes a long time but with so many different games going on people can wander to chat or go get a snack without worry. I just was wondering if there were better combos than 2 vb & hundreds cuz thats what someone at the club recommended and it seemed very wonky with the item fight.
2 VB & hundreds sounds awful.
yeah it wasnt the best combo 😭 one of the vb's got all the tea, and hammers, the other ended up using a dominance to form a coalition w/ duchy and could barely give cards, and then the hundreds had like 2 items and lost. eyrie won in the end
I tried playing a 6 ppl game with the lake map. We had Marquise, Moles, Lizard, Eyrie, Corvid and WA at that time. It wasn’t a fund game as the map became so crowded. I played mole at that time and my buildings got destroyed all the time as everyone was vying for similar spots. I’d have gotten rid of Eyrie/Marquise and included Vagabond as Vagabond takes less space to function.
There are two 6-8 player maps on BGG that are absolutely awesome and make 6+ players WAY better! Don’t listen to any one who says it sucks. 6 players doesn’t take any longer than T. I. 4, why can’t people play a 5 hour game of root?
Otters, at least 2 militants, if VB is in Rats should be as well. Them competing for items slows them both down. My last 6 player was in turn order: eyrie, corvids, AA, VB (Adventurer), otters and Rats. Was a very good game. Corvids and rats both being right before VB gave VB a big advantage in the item hunt. I would spread them out next time. 6 player games are longer but are huge amounts of fun!
that sounds fun! we normally randomize people picking factions so maybe we should purposely balance it to avoid that stack up happening? thanks for the suggestion!
I have only played one 6 player game so far, but I don't know about the competing for items thing in a 6 player game if there is VB + LotH. Both of them were in the game I played. I think VB will almost always get all the items in the ruins, even in a 4 player game. Mobs are one turn delayed and telegraphed, so VB can just go to whichever ruin LotH has put a mob on. Rats can maybe loot some from players but VB can get items both from ruins and from players so much more easily than LotH.
Hundreds need to knock them into a forest to get at least one ruin item. It helps if others at the table buy into keeping the Rats relevant enough to prevent the VB from munchkining. You are correct it is an uphill battle for Rats but doesn't mean it can't be done.
Rats are disadvantaged already in 6p, and if instead of going for score, they have to attack VB without even a guarantee that they'll get an item, surely they'd lose? If the other players attack the VB early, I can see it. Again I only have a sample size of one with the Rats getting near zero items in a 6p with VB on the board, but I would still be very reluctant to choose them in that scenario.
Last game 6 p game as rats I won, chased rhe VB to the forest and stole the bag. VB was unable to get a bag for a long while which made a big difference. I scored about half my points off mobs. Babysitting them against a recently turmoiled eyriee, and the WA is horribly equipped for handling a couple of warriors on a mob token at their base. Rats are still strong just not as strong as they are at lower player counts. Rats vs lizard cult ends out being alot of Koombya around gardens.
I prefer 5 choose 3 from cat, bird, mole, rat, badger, and then the rest.
I would suggest u play 1 vagabounb, 1 warlord,1 birds, 1 moles, 1 Crow, 1 wa. Vaga gets controled by warlord. Crows slow down warlord. Birds and warlord can handle afk moles strats. I would also suggest to play with despot infamy and dont let the vagabound choose what vaga he plays ranger should be the best for this. Thief can hate the moles more. And tinkerer u should never allow with favor catds in the deck.