Still not seeing any reasons why you should set aside 6 and not 5 or 4. 6 were all the cultists available at the moment; possibly cultists can be added in further expansions simply because there was space on the punchboard. My suggestion is to ask directly FFG via the Rules Questions option on the site.

The reason to set aside 6 cultists is because the card says "set aside 6 cultists".

Still not seeing any reasons why you should set aside 6 and not 5 or 4. 6 were all the cultists available at the moment; possibly cultists can be added in further expansions simply because there was space on the punchboard. My suggestion is to ask directly FFG via the Rules Questions option on the site.

The reason to set aside 6 cultists is because the card says "set aside 6 cultists".

(facepalm)

Ok, let's try it again: I don't see any reason why you need to set aside exactly six cultists and additional cultists released in future expansions are not to be set aside as well. And I'm talking gamewise, not grammar: I understand the difference between a printed 6 and any other printed number. Six meant "all" at the time FS was released, and I don't see any reason related to the game why it should be considered more probable that additional cultists are to be treated differently rather than thinking that possibly no one developing FS was considering future possible cultists arriving. Especially because Yig's cultists have very peculiar rules, and have a huge impact on the game.

This said, considering that there are no elements allowing to judge which interpretation is the correct one, I'd suggest to ask directly FFG via the Rules Question option of this site and see what's Nikki's view of this issue. Regardless of who's right, we'd have an official ruling to follow (also for the future in case a similar conundrum repeats with a different AO)

I just received a reply from FFG. I took Julia's advice and asked them directly about this. Their reply: "take all instructions literally. When using Yig as the Ancient One, set aside 6 cultist monsters, no more, no less. Any extra cultists will remain in the monster cup. If a cultist is removed from the game board, set it aside unless there are already 6 set aside, in which case, it is returned to the cup."

Ok, thanks a million for asking! Good to know then!

Actually that way how I play ffg game. always try to understand rules as is say. No more no less

I just received a reply from FFG. I took Julia's advice and asked them directly about this. Their reply: "take all instructions literally. When using Yig as the Ancient One, set aside 6 cultist monsters, no more, no less. Any extra cultists will remain in the monster cup. If a cultist is removed from the game board, set it aside unless there are already 6 set aside, in which case, it is returned to the cup."

Interesting solution and a good way to avoid the whole "Where the hell did this one come from?" issue.

If there aren't 6, put one aside, if there are toss it in the cup. Solves all the issues really (and any future issues with 'extra' monsters that are left in the cup during setup).

Still not seeing any reasons why you should set aside 6 and not 5 or 4. 6 were all the cultists available at the moment; possibly cultists can be added in further expansions simply because there was space on the punchboard. My suggestion is to ask directly FFG via the Rules Questions option on the site.

The reason to set aside 6 cultists is because the card says "set aside 6 cultists".

(facepalm)

Ok, let's try it again: I don't see any reason why you need to set aside exactly six cultists and additional cultists released in future expansions are not to be set aside as well. And I'm talking gamewise, not grammar: I understand the difference between a printed 6 and any other printed number. Six meant "all" at the time FS was released, and I don't see any reason related to the game why it should be considered more probable that additional cultists are to be treated differently rather than thinking that possibly no one developing FS was considering future possible cultists arriving. Especially because Yig's cultists have very peculiar rules, and have a huge impact on the game.

This said, considering that there are no elements allowing to judge which interpretation is the correct one, I'd suggest to ask directly FFG via the Rules Question option of this site and see what's Nikki's view of this issue. Regardless of who's right, we'd have an official ruling to follow (also for the future in case a similar conundrum repeats with a different AO)

Why would there be any question at all? The rules say to set aside 6. Not "all" or "as many as there are in the base game plus this expansion" or anything like that. We've gotten an official answer, so its kinda moot at this point...but I just don't understand why there was any confusion to begin with, when the rules text is very clear and explicit.

Still not seeing any reasons why you should set aside 6 and not 5 or 4. 6 were all the cultists available at the moment; possibly cultists can be added in further expansions simply because there was space on the punchboard. My suggestion is to ask directly FFG via the Rules Questions option on the site.

The reason to set aside 6 cultists is because the card says "set aside 6 cultists".

(facepalm)

Ok, let's try it again: I don't see any reason why you need to set aside exactly six cultists and additional cultists released in future expansions are not to be set aside as well. And I'm talking gamewise, not grammar: I understand the difference between a printed 6 and any other printed number. Six meant "all" at the time FS was released, and I don't see any reason related to the game why it should be considered more probable that additional cultists are to be treated differently rather than thinking that possibly no one developing FS was considering future possible cultists arriving. Especially because Yig's cultists have very peculiar rules, and have a huge impact on the game.

This said, considering that there are no elements allowing to judge which interpretation is the correct one, I'd suggest to ask directly FFG via the Rules Question option of this site and see what's Nikki's view of this issue. Regardless of who's right, we'd have an official ruling to follow (also for the future in case a similar conundrum repeats with a different AO)

Why would there be any question at all? The rules say to set aside 6. Not "all" or "as many as there are in the base game plus this expansion" or anything like that. We've gotten an official answer, so its kinda moot at this point...but I just don't understand why there was any confusion to begin with, when the rules text is very clear and explicit.

It's good to have an official reply. I think the worry was about the probability alteration on Ancient One mechanics being supplied more often than normally required (read: intended) as future expansions are released and more monsters are added to the monster cup/pool.

I can't remember the cultist abilities for each AO, but dilution of components and alteration of mechanics due to addition of expansions is a big "problem" for other FFG titles (particularly Arkham Horror).

Even though it is a moot point, I like that this was pointed out by people in this Thread. It sounds like Yig (and maybe others) will become either slightly more or less difficult as expansions are released and cultist triggers become possible to activate via random monster draws from the Monster Cup/Pool.

I think the AO specific research deck and mysteries, as well as the fact that you build a Mythos deck for every game (instead of just putting them all in a huge pile), will help tremendously with avoiding the expansion bloat seen in Arkham Horror. There, all the story flavor came from the, ever growing, Mythos deck, where in EH it comes from the mysteries and research decks.

I still would have preferred not having extra game boards, but I can't make a final judgement on that, until I have played MoM a few times..

I think the AO specific research deck and mysteries, as well as the fact that you build a Mythos deck for every game (instead of just putting them all in a huge pile), will help tremendously with avoiding the expansion bloat seen in Arkham Horror. There, all the story flavor came from the, ever growing, Mythos deck, where in EH it comes from the mysteries and research decks.

I still would have preferred not having extra game boards, but I can't make a final judgement on that, until I have played MoM a few times..

MoM is great fun. But I personally found the story flavor in arkham came more from the combo of encounters/OW Encounters/Investigator Personal Stories than the Mythos deck.

I personally don't feel in EH that the AO-specific research encounters add much "story." Maybe flavor, but not story. Since they Research Encounter have to provide clues no matter which mystery you are working on, they don't seem like narrative. They just feel like "things that happen." There is not really any progression, in my mind.

You just look for as much info about the AO as you can until all of a sudden the mystery is solved.

I honestly think the "extra deck" mysteries provide much better story/narrative than research encounters.

I don't really know where any of these thoughts came from or how they are on-topic, but I had to get them out, haha. Feel free to ignore this. Basically I just wish the story in EH was stronger. It seems like it should be, but it is not tight enough to feel like story to me.

Regarding the OP, it seems clear that the designers had expansions in mind from the beginning. It looks like all cards (not specific to an Ancient One) and gate tokens in the expansion are intended to be shuffled into existing decks (e.g., Mythos cards, Conditions, Common Items, Allies, Spells, American/Eurpoean/Asian Encounters, and General Encounters). Cards specific to the expansion are isolated into their own decks. Most effects are based off of keywords (e.g., "Gain a MADNESS condition" or "Gain one TOME artifact") and the additional content of the expansions do not seem to be introducing a lot of new mechanics. Forsaken Lore does not introduce any major rule changes from the core game, and Mountains of Madness does not add much complexity to the game:

1. Preludes modify the initial setup, but require little to no maintenance after that

2. Focus tokens are new, but they are easy to manage

3. Some new rules were added to specify how to travel between the main board and Antarctica side board, but those also are not difficult to learn

4. Items and cards that require the side board are isolated into their own decks, and these decks are only referenced by things that require the side board (e.g., an ancient one or prelude that specifies that a certain side board is in play)

The only cases I know of where mixing everything is less than desirable are with clues and gates. Clues and gates specific to the sideboard either need to be separated out (preferable, but requires a bit of extra setup/cleanup time) or those clues/gates need to be set out of play and redrawn if you choose one for a sideboard not in play.

This is much different from Arkham Horror, where every major expansion introduced a new mechanic that added new things to manage or check each turn and added new ways to add tokens to the doom track.