I don't think that we will see any more single-country-based expansions like an "England" expansion (Egypt being the big exception for understandable reasons). If there will be more big expansion sets they probably will be more "region"-based, however "region" can mean New England or the entire South Pacific with Australia. An European expansion would perhaps include most of continental europe and the British Isles, with cities being Paris, Berlin (far more important in the 1920ies than Vienna) and a third one and wilderness locations like Stonehenge. Since the Dreamlands 7 locations are at least possible on one board.

Stonehenge is already part of Strange Remnants though. Weimar Berlin would be very interesting for the time frame. I always thought they didn't do enough with the politics of the time. There's a few mentions of Mussolini and the fascists in Rome, but not much more. I can't think of any mentions of the revolution and the wars in China, for one.

Are there any cults who are into infiltrating governments?

27 minutes ago, Eldan985 said:

Are there any cults who are into infiltrating governments?

An apt question for the American population these days:)

On 22.8.2017 at 7:41 PM, Eldan985 said:

Stonehenge is already part of Strange Remnants though . Weimar Berlin would be very interesting for the time frame. I always thought they didn't do enough with the politics of the time. There's a few mentions of Mussolini and the fascists in Rome, but not much more. I can't think of any mentions of the revolution and the wars in China, for one.

Are there any cults who are into infiltrating governments?

Not exactly, if you play SR, the London field is used as Stonehenge as well BUT with a seperate Europe map, Stonehenge itself could become a genuine location as well. The same with Easter Islands in a Pacific Map, at the moment field 3 is used as Easter Islands and as R'yleh, in a Pacific map both could be different locations.

I don't think another "region" map is really needed. We've got plenty of them. I would rather they focus on more thematic elements like Disasters.

Plus, we're almost out of investigators.

I don't think it's against the law to create some additional new investigators for a game that is more successful than it's predecessor and get's more expansions too.

3 minutes ago, GBI said:

I don't think it's against the law to create some additional new investigators for a game that is more successful than it's predecessor and get's more expansions too.

There are already 5 new investigators added to the arkham horror files which were never in arkham horror.

22 hours ago, GBI said:

I don't think it's against the law to create some additional new investigators for a game that is more successful than it's predecessor and get's more expansions too.

Arkham Horror exists since 1986. You'll be able to say that EH is more successfull than AH the day the game will have been available for 30 years as well

23 minutes ago, Julia said:

Arkham Horror exists since 1986. You'll be able to say that EH is more successfull than AH the day the game will have been available for 30 years as well

Wasn't it first published in 1987? FFG have just done a 20th anniversary edition of twilight imperium and a 30th anniversary edition of star wars RPG. Is it too much to hope for an 30th anniversary edition of arkham horror as well?

Oh purleeese, have you seen the original Arkham Horror from 1987? It is terrible, looks cheap, is very small, completely different from the FFG version.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/34/arkham-horror

You can't even remotely compare this one with the FFG release, I count the running time for AH from 2005.

On 8/26/2017 at 1:56 PM, Julia said:

Arkham Horror exists since 1986. You'll be able to say that EH is more successfull than AH the day the game will have been available for 30 years as well

Just because a game is old and has sold well doesn't make it better than something newer. Otherwise, we should all just be playing Monopoly.

On 09/09/2017 at 10:23 PM, GBI said:

Oh purleeese, have you seen the original Arkham Horror from 1987? It is terrible, looks cheap, is very small, completely different from the FFG version.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/34/arkham-horror

You can't even remotely compare this one with the FFG release, I count the running time for AH from 2005.

well , for a game in 1987 i cant say the game is horrible. Ofc the new one is much better looking and etc.
as for expansion, i don't see anything new about Lovecraft since the announcement of MoM 2nd edition expansion, so i doubt they will bring something new here..

I started with Eldritch Horror, but we just picked up Arkham Horror and are going to play that one as well. We are loving the games and certainly hope we get a new expansion at some point down the road. We still have to try Carcosa and Under the Pyramids before Cities of Ruin, as we only add one expansion at a time thus far.

15 hours ago, goncardoso said:

well , for a game in 1987 i cant say the game is horrible. Ofc the new one is much better looking and etc.
as for expansion, i don't see anything new about Lovecraft since the announcement of MoM 2nd edition expansion, so i doubt they will bring something new here..

Not counting Arkham Horror: The Card Game, I assume?

Hmmm...so if we have the four from MoM, and the one from the card game, I wonder which three occupations could be left?

Gonna go out on a limb and say...a pilot? A banker? Anyone else got any ideas.

I could think of a few more kind of scientists. We don't have a biologist, that could be something? Something along the lines of "gain a clue when someone else kills a monster on your space".

On 9/14/2017 at 6:53 AM, Eldan985 said:

I could think of a few more kind of scientists. We don't have a biologist, that could be something? Something along the lines of "gain a clue when someone else kills a monster on your space".

Actually, we already have a scientist in Kate Winthrop which automatically shuts down gates on her location and gets a clue when she does. She can also use her action to discard a monster < her observation stat.

I guess a pilot seems like a decent choice in the Arkham Files, with a travel type of action.

Speaking of big board expansions, I still do hope FFG visits back Arkham, since most other FFG's Arkham Files has the core set or expansion based in Arkham (ES Gates of Arkham expansion, AH LCG , AH BG, MoM starts in Arkham). Though a good mechanical (and theme heavy) sideboard should be the priority, as Cities in Ruin set a gold standard for EH as a good, game changing mechanic from a small box.

I know there is "a" scientist. That's why I said "more kinds of". We have... what is she? Physicist? Engineer? We have an astronomer, too, and an unspecified "researcher". I'm just saying there's more scientific disciplines. A biologist could analyze the monsters, a chemist could... okay, I have no idea what a chemist could. But this setting has Herbert West, so chemistry can do amazing stuff.

As for Arkham, I still think it's not really necessary. There's a lot of games set there already, let's see something new.

I don't think it will work merely because of Devastation in Cities in Ruin. Arkham can turn into a wasteland.

I see things more on the lines of small boxes, although the Amazon might work with Chaugur Faughn. I think maybe Y'Golonac could be an Ancient One, with his Doom effects revolving around Tomes. Or Cthugha, hitting you with travel action penalties. Yibb-Tstll could also require spending more Clues to do certain things, since she sees all, and stuff.

I don't really like action penalties. One reason why I find Cthulhu mostly annoying, it leads to players just sitting there.

You know what would be really interesting? Australia. No one ever does anything with Australian myth, and the Great Race is just sitting there. Lots of possibilities there. Encounters focused on the Past or the Future, travel to another world...

4 hours ago, Eldan985 said:

One reason why I find Cthulhu mostly annoying, it leads to players just sitting there.

You do know that if you get Delayed during the Action phase (when you move to a space containing an Eldritch token) you do not actually get "Delayed" you just lose your remaining actions.

If you Travel to the space containing an Eldritch Token as a second action, you do not lose any actions (apart from the 1 Sanity).

15 hours ago, Runko said:

You do know that if you get Delayed during the Action phase (when you move to a space containing an Eldritch token) you do not actually get "Delayed" you just lose your remaining actions.

If you Travel to the space containing an Eldritch Token as a second action, you do not lose any actions (apart from the 1 Sanity).

Huh. I suppose one does learn new things, even after two dozen plays. I mean, we still killed Cthulhu, but only after he had woken up, with two characters remaining and one of them only surviving thanks to copious amounts of whisky.

On 10/9/2017 at 11:45 PM, KBlumhardt said:

Just because a game is old and has sold well doesn't make it better than something newer. Otherwise, we should all just be playing Monopoly.

This doesn't mean either that the new and the "better" (in your opinion) makes it a classic.

EH has a ton of problems. Now I get we're on the EH board, and there's a ton of fans of the game. But being fans doesn't mean necessarily being unable to understand the flaws in the game. First of all, it has a repetitive structure. Mysteries come in three types only once they are removed from flavor fluff (kill epic monster; gain clues to put on mystery equals to half the investigators in play; gain something equal to the number of investigators in play). It has a series of embarassing cards that were not properly balanced (the mystery requiring Hydra to be killed for example, or the rumor spawning the twins of Cthulhu in two different oceans: these are suicidal to solve if you run solo or 2p and have bad luck, and you're able to stomp through them if you play full 8p), and a series of cards that are just luck-based. Going blindly in the OWs is stupid because you can't plan in any way any strategy to deal with what lies beyond, and the number of OWs in play could accelerate easily game end. Not all options to encounter defeated investigators allow for doom recovery, so, you just risk wasting time. Some conditions are badly designed, chain, and in the end could transform one of your characters in a cripple that sucks the entire game trying to be killed to have some fun. Some other situations are badly designed because they allow for too much of a power creep. Some encounters are simply hilarious (we only miss the Pope casting a Fireball at Azathoth. C'mon).

So, technically, for me, from a game-designing perspective, the game lacks of fantasy (see repetiveness of the mysteries), and has a huge series of problems that are becoming more and more relevant with each passing expansion. And this doesn't make the game a classic, it just make the game a product that's been very well marketed and has found an audience, which is a completely different kettle of fish (just to make an example, "Catcher in the rhye" will always be a classic even if mr. Martin's GoT sells a lot more. Martin's a talented narrator, but he's not making literature).

Please use some perspective when looking at games. Or just go with "I'm a fanboy", which is fine, but doesn't mean you're right.

Speaking of Arkham Horror BG, It would be my next purchase if FFG released a v2.0 of it with updated graphics (its one of the issues I'm holding back the purchase of AH BG, simply because EH looks so much better visually).

One the side note, I hope CIR sets the standard for the next expansions with its devastation mechanic.

New mechanics that impact the board and improves the visual story for the players will be exciting (the art and randomness of the disaster cards is very thematic and immersive), perhaps some optional legacy/scenario rules? (i really like the adventure cards because it tells a bit of story. maybe something more to tie in to the loose, random story?).

Or just a suggestion for the developers : have some "engine building" mechanics to be tied in the game, maybe some puzzle pieces to collect around the world , or some mechanic to build a "HQ/Safehouse" for the investigators to camp in and improve (e.g Dead of Winter The Long Night's HQ upgrades)

There is still a lot of possibility to expand and I'm loving the game, and its the only game I bought all the expansions for!

18 hours ago, Julia said:

This doesn't mean either that the new and the "better" (in your opinion) makes it a classic.

EH has a ton of problems. Now I get we're on the EH board, and there's a ton of fans of the game. But being fans doesn't mean necessarily being unable to understand the flaws in the game. First of all, it has a repetitive structure. Mysteries come in three types only once they are removed from flavor fluff (kill epic monster; gain clues to put on mystery equals to half the investigators in play; gain something equal to the number of investigators in play). It has a series of embarassing cards that were not properly balanced (the mystery requiring Hydra to be killed for example, or the rumor spawning the twins of Cthulhu in two different oceans: these are suicidal to solve if you run solo or 2p and have bad luck, and you're able to stomp through them if you play full 8p), and a series of cards that are just luck-based. Going blindly in the OWs is stupid because you can't plan in any way any strategy to deal with what lies beyond, and the number of OWs in play could accelerate easily game end. Not all options to encounter defeated investigators allow for doom recovery, so, you just risk wasting time. Some conditions are badly designed, chain, and in the end could transform one of your characters in a cripple that sucks the entire game trying to be killed to have some fun. Some other situations are badly designed because they allow for too much of a power creep. Some encounters are simply hilarious (we only miss the Pope casting a Fireball at Azathoth. C'mon).

So, technically, for me, from a game-designing perspective, the game lacks of fantasy (see repetiveness of the mysteries), and has a huge series of problems that are becoming more and more relevant with each passing expansion. And this doesn't make the game a classic, it just make the game a product that's been very well marketed and has found an audience, which is a completely different kettle of fish (just to make an example, "Catcher in the rhye" will always be a classic even if mr. Martin's GoT sells a lot more. Martin's a talented narrator, but he's not making literature).

Please use some perspective when looking at games. Or just go with "I'm a fanboy", which is fine, but doesn't mean you're right.

My comment said nothing about EH, much less anything "fanboyish". You actually make some decent points in this post ... which just accentuates why I made the comment in the first place, as my issue was your comment that AH was more successful (with the implication that it meant it was better) simply because it's been around longer. That's simply a ridiculous comment, and I stand by calling it out as such.

All that said, while I appreciate how much of an abassador you are for various games on these forums, I have to admit, your habit of hanging around this subforum seemingly with the sole purpose of trashing EH seems to run counter to the immense good you do for the other Arkham games (I for one love your crazy analysis of Elder Sign!!). I do admit to being a bit of a fanboy for EH... but that's the point of this subforum. It's a place for fans of the game to discuss it. I don't see how your love of trashing EH and constantly reminding everyone how flawed and random you think the game is helps. If anything, you're likely just driving potential new players away.

I, for one, think AH has some pretty significant flaws as well. However, you're not going to find me hanging out in the official AH subforum crapping on that game and attacking people who love AH for being "fanboys" simply because they dare like the game more than I do.