I strongly oppose any potential new rule that would make this game harder than it already is, be it a rule for during the main body of the game or the Final Fight portion of the game or both. And this includes opposition to the proposed rule for the Final Fight where you cannot spend more clue tokens per round than there are seals on the board.

One argument that is sometimes used in favour of this - and equivalent - rules is that it is "not thematic" to be able to shoot Cthulhu with a Shotgun. I think there are two valid responses to this argument, the first being simply ... so what? It's not thematic for a game about war to have the Queen as the most powerful figure on the battlefield, but Chess is still exceedingly popular. It's not thematic, in a game about property tycoons, to win $10 in a beauty contest but I don't know anybody who refuses to play Monopoly because of this. Arkham Horror is first and foremost a board game, not a roleplaying game - therefore adherence to the setting and the "theme" should be secondary concerns to the game play and, simply put, the enjoyability of the game itself.

Secondly ... I actually also disagree with it being "not thematic". I think it IS thematic. For me, this game is about H P Lovecraft's stories (and August Derleth's stories, too) and having read several of them it is VERY thematic to physically assault the Ancient Ones. *quick spoiler warning for the original Call Of Cthulhu short story* Cthulhu himself, in his only actual in body appearance, is driven off by having a steamship rammed into his head. So I fail to see why dynamite or a magic sword would not be thematic. I realise that some people want this game to be a board game equivalent of the Call Of Cthulhu roleplaying game, to which I say why? Why should it be based on a spin off of the original stories and not the stories themselves? Personally, I've played the roleplaying game a few times and, while a good game, I much prefer the original setting where you do actually have some chance against the Ancient Ones. Not much of a chance, I admit, but some. Which bring me back to my point about about the theme needing to take second place to the playability of the story and/or theme.

Moving on from the "not thematic" arguments, I would argue that this game is already hard enough. Even in the Final Fight. If you look at the results stats that Tibs has been accumulating for quite some time now (and hopefully will continue to do so for quite some more time, too!) you'd see that for 20 of the 24 Ancient Ones, Final Fights against them result in defeat for the Investigators more than 50% of the time. For some of them it's over 90! How much harder should it be? As I said above, nobody wants to play a game in which they have no chance of winning. I think the stats already show that this game is hard enough. I can't fathom why some think it should be harder.

But they want it harder, so OK ... the idea of house rules or variant rules can be used to accomodate their wishes. But this game is already hard and complex, teaching it to new players is already an uphill struggle. Adding in more rules is only going to make it harder for them and make them less inclined to want to play. As it is, Innsmouth was so hard that some regular players I know refuse to play with it unless it is heavily diluted with lots of other expansions. For them, this game is ALREADY too hard. I can't imagine how they'd react if a new rule was introduced that made it even harder - and with no way to dilute the effect of the new rule.

I would imagine that those who have been playing this game for a while now have had games where, during the main body of the game, nothing has gone their way. Gate bursts have ripped away the few sealed locations you've managed, multiple "double doom" mythos cards have come along, rumours have added even more doom tokens, and the Innsmouth Look suddenly rips away your best hope ... so despite all your best efforts, you get to the Final Fight with 1, or even less, Elder Signs on the board. You're only hope is to make this Ancient sucker pay ... but you can't because you're not allowed to spend the necessary amount of clue tokens. So you all die. Gee, what a fun game. I'm so glad I spent 3 hours this evening just getting whipped over and over and over again ... That's not a fun way of spending an evening with friends. Having a tough challenge, yes. Having an impossible no-win three hour slug-fest, no.

All the arguments I've outlined above are general arguments I would apply to any attempt to make this game harder than it already is. The following argument is specific to the proposed "clues per elder signs" rule. As far as I can tell, this rule is being proposed because of the shotgun and/or Joe Diamond. If that's the case, then create rules to deal with those two cards. Don't create a rule that makes it harder for EVERYBODY. It's taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Ban the shotgun, errata Joe Diamond, fine ... but hurting every Investigator with every weapon just because they COULD be Joe Diamond and that weapon COULD be the shotgun? Overkill ...

I don't claim to be an expert but from what I had seen in the other posts, I thought the clues per elder sign rule was proposed to prevent investigators from spending the entire game tooling up for the final battle rather than trying to seal gates?

I didn't realise it had been proposed to nerf any particular item or inv, more that it was supposed to limit a particular playing style that some people thought wasn't within the spirit of AH?

Well even if that's the case, I'd argue that that eliminates the final paragraph of my original post but leaves all the rest of my arguments in place.

Why wouldn't you want to try and seal gates in game? Heck, you might actually win by seals (or closing). If you don't, then, GOO wakes up while you have the Clues to seal a gate, at least you can use more than 1 Clue a turn (with the suggested Variant), because you've put in the effort during the game. It gives you more leverage for actually putting in the work before the GOO wakes up. Why is that a bad thing?

Stenun said:

Stenun said:

I mean, it's not as if you had to actually use any of those rules in your game. E.g. last time I looked, using Epic Combat cards was optional. And the house rules you've mentioned are there for those who feel there's a problem with the rules as is. If you don't feel there's a problem don't use 'em.

Nobody's forcing you to use Heralds, either. If you have BGotW, use the difficulty cards - or don't. Use a Guardian in every game - or don't. Choose you investigators after selecting an AO - or don't. Remove cards from your decks that you feel aren't fun. Don't like gate bursts? Remove 'em!

It's your game and your rules.

Dam said:

Sometimes it's not possible to win by seals. Sometimes, try as you might, you reach the Final Fight with 2, 1 or even 0 sealed locations. Sometimes gate bursts will rip you of all your seals, sometimes you just never manage to seal a gate through repeated bad luck, sometimes the Ancient One will just wake up (especially with Innsmouth) before you've even had a chance to seal a gate.

Why should you be penalised for all of these eventualities that are not your fault?

Or if you reach a stage where the Ancient One is just 2 doom tokens away from waking up and you have only 1 sealed location. I think most people in that situation would accept that the chances are the Ancient One is going to wake up. So you can either spend the next two turns preparing for that or you can keep plugging away at a lost cause. Switching tactics depending on the state of the game isn't a bad thing and should not be penalised.

And if a group of players want to just spend the entire game gearing up for the Final Fight ... well, so what? Why is that of concern to you? This is not a versus game where we can talk about one side having an unfair advantage, there are no world rankings, no tournaments. If one group plays the game differently from how you play it, why should that matter enough that you have to bring in a rule to stop them? Why not just let them play the way they want to play and you can play the way you want to play and then everybody's happy.

jhaelen said:

I am arguing for no new rule(s) that make the game harder. I am specifically appealing AGAINST the proposed rule of "no more clue tokens in each round of Final Combat than there are seals on the board" but in general I am appealing against any rule that penalises some people from playing the game a certain way.

As you say, a lot of the rules are optional - a lot of the ways to make the game harder are of a "take it or leave it" variety. But this specific proposed rule might not be presented like that and even if it is, future rules might not be.

I am more than happy with the idea of proposed house rules or varient rules or other optional ways to play the game. What I am opposed to is a blanket rule being introduced that covers everyone. i.e. a rule that in future printings of the game will be presented as a fait accompli. This game is already very hard and does not need to be made any harder. Whether in the Final Fight or otherwise.

The problem with a set rule - i.e. non-optional - is that it becomes part of the game whether you like it or not. If you play with a new group of players, they might be using it even if you feel it kills the game. If you teach the game to some new players, do you teach them just your cherry picking of the rules or all the rules as they actually are? etc.

I would be quite happy for a Herald to come out with this "clues per seal" rule on him, or even an Ancient One or difficulty card or whatever. What I am opposed to is it being shoe-horned into the game just because some people still don't think the game is hard enough. My position is that it is already as hard as it needs to be and if the only expansion you use is Innsmouth then it's already too hard ...

Stenun said:

I question why they play AH in the first. You can find plenty of mindless zombie (and other) shoot 'em up board games where you hardly have to think at all (which is basically what they've reduced AH to), so why play AH? Very hard to believe it's the theme that hooks them in.

Also, if the all-game gearers keep saying how ridiculously easy the game is (which it IMO would be with that approach), then a new player plays the game trying to close/seal gates and loses badly, said new player might get discouraged, wondering why people would claim the game is easy. Or a new player plays a game in the gearer group, but wants to experience the theme, people just tell him to gear up, "gates, pfft, we never bother with them, just get your guns and Clues", might be a possible player gone bye-bye.

Dam said:

AH is still the best Co-op game on the market. That's why a lot of people play it. Other games either have traitor mechanics (e.g. Battlestar Galactica, Shadows Over Camelot) or don't have the depth of Arkham Horror (e.g. Pandemic, A Touch Of Evil) or require at least one person to take on a "GM" type role (e.g. every RPG). Arkham Horror is the only fully co-op in-depth board game there is. And if players want to turn that into a "shoot 'em up", well so what? You don't have to play that way ... why penalise them because that's how they want to play?

That's not the way I primarily like to play either (I normally prefer winning by seals) but even I, half way through a game, have once or twice gone "sod it, let's gear up and **** the f****r!". And then had a laugh gearing up for the Final Fight and taking on the Ancient One with everything we could through at it. And you know what? It's fun to do that once in a while. And why is that so much skin off your nose that a rule needs to be introduced to stop me?

For example, when I saw on Tibs's stats page that no one had ever beaten Chaugnar Fagn in a Final Fight. Well to me that was a challenge so I set up the game specifically to do so. And why not? What's the problem with that? What's wrong with a game where you decide to just see if you can use Jim Culver, Wendy Adams and Harvery Walters against Cthulhu and beat him in the Final Fight? No one's saying you have to play that way but there is fun to be had by setting yourself a specific challenge and going for it. And if a challenge I set MYSELF is beating up an Ancient One, how does that detract from YOUR enjoyment of the game?

And yes, game-gearing can be easy but it can also be quite hard. Taking Joe Diamond with the Fight skill and the Shotgun against Cthulhu is completely different from taking Wendy Adams with Evade and Wither. Just because "game gearing" CAN be too easy, doesn't mean it should be stopped because more often than not, it's NOT "too easy".

As for your hypothetical newbie ... well when I first played The Descent I hated it because of the players I played with. I then found a different group of players and played it again. And I now like it ...

Stenun said:

It skews the stats !

Stenun said:

But if you hadn't, you wouldn't give Descent the time of day? I know if my first game had been with a gung-ho crew, I'd never wanted anything to do with AH again.

And we all know that would've been a horrific loss to the AH community !

Dam said:

I think you're gonna need slightly better arguments thatn "it skews the stats".

And actually no, the reason I played The Descent a second time with another group of players was because I could tell that part of my reaction to the game - if not all of it - was because of who I had been playing with. So I made a point of playing it with other people.

Stenun said:

If you'd read the story properly, you'd have noticed that ramming Cthulhu with a steamship only inconvenienced him for a few minutes. If several thousand tonnes of metal running into Cthulhu at 20 knots doesn't kill him, what the heck is a piddly little shotgun or a stick of dynamite going to do?

Jedit said:

I did say "driven off", not "defeated".

It shows that physical violence against the Ancient Ones is a valid tactic.

I feel you on the overcompensating difficulty. I always thought the only original ancient one that was blatantly too easy was Ngyaryalalothoeopteopexxustep, or some very specific combos (Michael Glenn vs Ithaqua). Rather than balance those out or leave it at the final battle cards, they introduced nigh-impossible ancient ones with a 0.3% chance of victory.

And I have no clue why. The hardcore players who know every mechanic and probability are welcome to throw in whatever rules they want to make the game challenging (lord knows how the black goat variant cards and Richard's house rules aren't enough), but designing all the new ancient ones to specifically cater to that level of play is getting silly. The other 95% of the player base is left in the dust. No offense, but 10 people make up 40% of the stat page submissions. That's not really representative of your average Arkham experience.

GrooveChamp said:

::Shrug:: FFG did create Guardians for players who find the increasing difficulty too hard. No one says you can't use Hypnos, Nodens, or Bast. They also added some decrease-difficulty cards in BGotW.

Avi_dreader said:

True.

And those looking to make it harder have Heralds and difficulty cards and varioius alterante and house rules.

No one says you can't use Ghroth, or Hydra and Dagon, or even The Dunwhich Horror Herald with the King In Yellow Herald if you want. The options are there for those who want to make it more difficult. Changing the rules, however, makes it more difficult for EVERYONE; even those who don't want it more difficult. Unless we start ignoring the rules. Will if you're happy with us ignoring the rules, surely you'd be just as happy with yourselves having optional rules. So why not go with that route?

I'm curious as to the "new rule" problem you are having. Are you urging against House Rules?

You don't have to use anybody else's House Rules. You don't have to use any rules or rules variants that you find here. You can totally ignore the FAQ if you care to. The only rules you need to go with are the ones already published in the rulebook you purchased with the game. Hell, you don't even have to pay attention to errata unless it's published in expansions you have purchased.

If there are rules questions, you go with what the First Player says, not what any of us say. Okay, so the Bootlegger starts out with a Bank Loan... does that mean he starts out with an extra $10? It does if your First Player says it does, no matter what anybody else including the makers of the game claim the intention was.

Don't want it to get harder? Don't buy expansions. Easy enough. So...

What exactly are you appealing?

Kkat

There are very few games that are more modular than Arkham Horror anyway. Simply put; you play it a few times, try differant rules out, and then keep in what you like and take out what you don't. In my case, I took out the Kingsport board - as I find the rift mechanics a little too clunky - but kept many of the cards and characters from that expansion. I also took out all of the gate burst Mythos cards; because I found them to be a pain in the hole. Nobody is forcing anyone to play with any particular rule or other. Some gaming groups might be quite hardcore and enjoy all the various rules together, and a long, complex game with the difficulty cranked up to 11. My friends tend to be a more casual bunch and don't tend to appreciate that so much.

You play the game the way you want to play it. Which is one of the reasons it's so good.

vandimar77 said:

As I said before: I don't get what this appeal is all about. It's not as if some secret police would invade your home and confiscate the game if you don't play it exactly by the rules. Don't like a rule? Ignore it or replace it with your own!

Kkat said:

So, screw official errata/clarifications? Why limit the First Player omnipotence to just iffy stuff, why can't he also overrule the rules as well? Why play with rules at all?

Screw anything that's not printed in the rules I purchased with my game and expansions, yes.

If I need to go someplace other than the printed, hardcopy rulebook to find a rule, it's not a rule. The rules do not change just because I have access to the internet.

I play the game I purchased. Not the game somebody thinks they should have sold me.

Kkat

Dam said:

The rules are a great place to start! But I for one will not be limited by them. I doubt that there's a player on this board that doesn't use house rules either on purpose or accidently. I'm usually pretty formal in my house rules and write them up on a strange eons template. Most are designed to make the game more thematic and usually a little more difficult but not all of them. (Mostly because I don't want the skew the stats very much.

The house rule I know you play with is that when you randomly your Characters you "mulligan" one if you played in the last game. I think you also do that with Ancient Ones, but not sure. Sometimes your mulligan will make that particular game easier and sometimes harder.

My gaming group particularly HATES any rules that makes it harder for us to do final combat. We totally IGNORE the seal=clue rule. We never bother with sealing, heh, we find final combat the most fun, though we'll still close gates for trophies and kill monsters for fun.

Kkat said:

So I guess you only choose from 16 investigators, as that's what the AH base rules say. Sure, you may have up to 48, but rules don't say you can randomise or from all 48, only 16. Corruption cards will probably run out quite fast in a BGotW game is you play as printed (8+8, should be 16+16).

mageith said: "The house rule I know you play with is that when you randomly your Characters you "mulligan" one if you played in the last game. I think you also do that with Ancient Ones, but not sure. Sometimes your mulligan will make that particular game easier and sometimes harder."

Or you could set aside those used in the previous game. Like I say above, base AH says you choose/randomise from 16 investigators. Anybody choosing from more than 16 is playing by houserules according to Kkat.

Kkat said:

As I have said before, I am NOT arguing against House Rules or Optional Rules. I am arguing against any new non-optional Rule that would make this game harder. Certain people want to make the Final Fight (or possibly even some other part of this game) harder, to which I say fine. Go for it, but don't do it in such a way that it becomes part of the set rules. Don't make the rest of us feel like we are not playing the game properly if we don't do it on ultra-hard mode that some people want. I know some people who already refuse to play with some components of this game because they feel it is too hard, having to now ignore set rules we don't like too would just be insanity. By all means have House Rules, by all means have Optional Rules, by all means bring out new difficulty cards. But do not make the rules to make the game harder compulsory.

And your argument that you ignore the official rules and errata of the game if the First Player says so is not a solution I find workable at all. For starters you'll have no consistency from one game to the next, let alone from one group of players to the next, but what do you do if the First Player decides there's a rule that says he gains 3 Clue Tokens every turn? How is ignoring that "ruling" any different from ignoring his ruling about Finn getting an extra $10 at the start of the game?