Hello, all. I realize that Arkham Horror isn't strictly like the other LCGs that FFG has put out in the past, and is still relatively young so we might not have answers to what I'm about to ask. But I thought I would try anyways. Haha.

So, first of all, I know the standalone scenarios ("Curse of the Rougarou," and "Carnivale of Horrors"), when used in a campaign, cost the Investigators some EXP in order to embark on the adventure. Like, Curse of the Rougarou costs each participating investigator 1 EXP just to play the scenario as part of a larger campaign. I'm sure there is a reason for this, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. Can someone please explain to me why there is an EXP cost to play this scenarios in campaign play as opposed to just playing them normally?

Second question, also in regards to ongoing campaign play. Suppose my friends and I play through Night of the Zealot from start to finish, and we decide we want to continue playing the same characters (upgrades, trauma, and all) into The Dunwich Legacy. At what point do The Dunwich Legacy player cards "unlock?" Meaning, would we be able to use EXP earned from completing The Devourer Below to purchase new player cards from The Dunwich Legacy before actually embarking on any of the new scenarios? Or would we have to complete the first new scenario in order to have access to the new cards for upgrades? Same thing with Mythos Packs moving forward; can we use previously earned EXP to upgrade with new player cards before actually completing the scenario contained in an individual pack, or do they become available after the scenario completes?

Thanks in advance.

1. I would say it costs exp because there is a chance you can earn cards to add to your deck. So for balance issues mainly.

2. not sure

The non-campaign side quests costs XP to enter because the rewards you get for completing them (their own XP plus any encounter cards) would otherwise boost you over the XP limit for what the design team thinks you should be for a campaign.

As for having Dunwich Legacy cards in your deck...technically, once Dunwich Legacy releases (or any future full release, not an adventure-only release), all player cards are legal for any Arkham Horror adventure. So you'll be able to play Jenny as an investigator in The Night of the Zealot, or buy Charisma as an upgrade after playing The Gathering.

Some players (such as myself) enjoy a "legacy" style format now and then for this game (and Lord of the Rings) in which you only get access to the player cards if you're playing a scenario in which they had been released, but that's strictly a house rule, and not even something I do all the time; it's just fun to solve the puzzles with only the tools you had available at the time now and then.

But otherwise, once new player cards release, you can legally use them in any Arkham Horror campaign or one-shot. They have entered the card pool. Enjoy!

I could be wrong here but i dont think the intent is to be able to carry over characters between campaigns. I assumed you would start over at 0xp from the character you like and work your way up again.

It is much easier to build for balance within a single campaign and furthermore wouldnt want to rely on needing xp chars going into it as when you lose someone you are even further behind than you would be otherwise when you need to substitute someone in.

For the record, if you play The Dunwich Legacy progression-style, you can access all cards from the deluxe and the core set as soon as you start (so you can include the deluxe's player cards and investigators as part of the initial deckbuilding). Progression-style means you include any cards released up to and including the set with the scenario you're playing.

It seems to me that, if you wanted to do a progression-style mega-campaign, you'd unlock each set of player cards right before doing the scenario. Thus, if you've just completed <i>Night of the Zealot</i>, you can immediately purchase Dunwich Legacy deluxe cards (and replace any fallen or retired investigators with Dunwich ones) in preparation for the first scenario of the new campaign. Again, though, there aren't any official progression campaign rules, so you can do whatever you want.

ETA: And, yes, chaining campaigns is itself a deviation from the default rules, though the game does support it.

I could be wrong here but i dont think the intent is to be able to carry over characters between campaigns. I assumed you would start over at 0xp from the character you like and work your way up again.

It is much easier to build for balance within a single campaign and furthermore wouldnt want to rely on needing xp chars going into it as when you lose someone you are even further behind than you would be otherwise when you need to substitute someone in.

ETA: And, yes, chaining campaigns is itself a deviation from the default rules, though the game does support it.

Being able to carry characters over to a new campaign is actually specifically mentioned in the rules. In fact I was under the impression that that was why scenario 3 in the base set almost universally gave some mental (and possibly physical) trauma. You might even have more weaknesses than standard. If that's the case then yeah you're coming into the new campaign with higher XP, but there was also a cost for it. Why else would they do the most lasting damage to all characters during a resolution when the scenario is already over?

What I mean is that the scenarios are designed with the assumption that you start each campaign with a fresh investigator. They support chaining campaigns together, but that's not the experience they're directly catering towards.

I realize that doing the "Continuous Campaign" model is not the intent behind this game, but rather an option. My group of friends and I are really into tabletop RPGs, but we don't have a lot of time anymore to sit down and run through roleplaying sessions, but something like this might be a suitable substitute, which is why we're interested in playing the Continuous Campaign model. Haha. It'll be fun to see how characters grow and change, not only from scenario to scenario, but campaign to campaign (assuming they survive at all).

Also, by the way it sounds in the Rules Reference, your stock of characters seems to be the lifeblood of the campaign. I seem to remember saying something along the lines of if you need to bring in a new character to replace a fallen one, but there aren't any left available in the pool, then you've essentially lost the campaign. Sure, that might seem realistic now, with so few Investigators available, but as the game grows and we earn more potential to switch out and change investigators from one scenario to another, a longer-running Continuous Campaign might be more intuitive. Just a thought.

For an ongoing campaign, I'd suggest the following houserules:

Start at Standard difficulty. Before starting a new scenario, count up the total XP earned by all Investigators, including XP spent to purchase cards, but not XP spent to begin side stories (that's effectively been "taxed").

If the total is 10-19 XP per Investigator, increase difficulty to Hard. If it's 20 or above, increase it to Extreme.

If an Investigator dies/goes insane, their experience is lost, and may cause the difficulty level to lower. They may bequeath one earned story asset per slot (including up to two hand slot assets or one two-hand slot asset) and one slotless asset (excluding *Innate* or *Talent* assets; some things can't be inherited) to their successor in order to help them keep up with the other Investigators.

Speaking of on going campaigns would it be horribly bad taste AH Society community wise to not kill off investigators? I mean sure if they gain more or exact horror/health and pass out from that they get one trauma sure but would it be bad taste if they get max trauma and die die to just like 'cool down' for them? I'm just kinda paranoid that I'll get my investigators permanently killed easily just doing the first three encounters....

Speaking of on going campaigns would it be horribly bad taste AH Society community wise to not kill off investigators? I mean sure if they gain more or exact horror/health and pass out from that they get one trauma sure but would it be bad taste if they get max trauma and die die to just like 'cool down' for them? I'm just kinda paranoid that I'll get my investigators permanently killed easily just doing the first three encounters....

It would be incredibly unlikely that any single investigator permanently gets killed going through the first three scenarios, in fact, it may actually be impossible - not enough trauma can be generated. Now, if you're rolling from Night of the Zealot into the Dunwich Legacy, it is much more likely, but at that point you have 10 investigators, and you should be able to get through all 11 (or 13 if you add in the two side quests) with at least one still alive at the end.

It would be incredibly unlikely that any single investigator permanently gets killed going through the first three scenarios, in fact, it may actually be impossible - not enough trauma can be generated.

Stacked Trauma might be the usual way to killed an investigator, but it's not the only way (for instance, game effects, especially Resolutions, can kill them -- and with only a small spoiler, at least one Resolution in the starter campaign can kill you).

Still be bad taste to like have them in like critical condition for like two quests then they come back fully healed?

Still be bad taste to like have them in like critical condition for like two quests then they come back fully healed?

It is your game, I say go for it, but for me I'd add the caveat that I'd bring them back with a 0 xp starting deck. As if they were a new character. Trauma and weaknesses balance out the XP we gain to make our decks stronger, so if you let Roland rack up a bunch of XP and then sit him on the bench for a scenario or two and let him back in without his trauma, he'll be on a different power scale than other investigators. To me, Trauma and Weaknesses are what make it that a new character could jump in on a late scenario with a second investigator that has been there since the beginning. He might not have the really good cards, but he won't have the detriments that go with it either.

It is your game, I say go for it, but for me I'd add the caveat that I'd bring them back with a 0 xp starting deck. As if they were a new character. Trauma and weaknesses balance out the XP we gain to make our decks stronger, so if you let Roland rack up a bunch of XP and then sit him on the bench for a scenario or two and let him back in without his trauma, he'll be on a different power scale than other investigators. To me, Trauma and Weaknesses are what make it that a new character could jump in on a late scenario with a second investigator that has been there since the beginning. He might not have the really good cards, but he won't have the detriments that go with it either.

Oh no I know it's my game do whatever you want. I just wanted to see how people would react to that idea. What I was thinking if my investigator dies then for like two scenoris they could not be used but on hird they come back with same deck and no exp but maybe lose all cards in play from the moment they were killed. So they'll have to use zero cards but anything not in play when they bit it is still in deck.

With the rules as written, Roland isn't going to make it very far if you take him from one campaign to the next.

If you're looking forward to playing the same Investigator through all the campaigns, you're going to need some relaxed trauma house rules (especially when playing characters with low Sanity scores like Roland).

As far as I seen only 3 investigators look fun they can't survive 12 or more encounters xD

On ‎09‎.‎12‎.‎2016 at 7:42 PM, VermillionDe said:

Being able to carry characters over to a new campaign is actually specifically mentioned in the rules. In fact I was under the impression that that was why scenario 3 in the base set almost universally gave some mental (and possibly physical) trauma. You might even have more weaknesses than standard. If that's the case then yeah you're coming into the new campaign with higher XP, but there was also a cost for it. Why else would they do the most lasting damage to all characters during a resolution when the scenario is already over?

Can You help me find that in the rules?

We have the same question. Where is the carrying over from investigators from campaign to campaign described?We want to start Dunwich on Thursday. We have chosen our (0 level) investigators. But one of us tree wants to play "Night Of The Zealot" over the weekend with Roland Banks.

His question now is if he could carry the then "experienced Roland" over to our Dunwich campaign. We the would start with Jim Culver (level 0), Skids O'Toole (level 0) and Roland (level ? from Zealot).

4 hours ago, adrian142 said:

Can You help me find that in the rules?

We have the same question. Where is the carrying over from investigators from campaign to campaign described?We want to start Dunwich on Thursday. We have chosen our (0 level) investigators. But one of us tree wants to play "Night Of The Zealot" over the weekend with Roland Banks.

His question now is if he could carry the then "experienced Roland" over to our Dunwich campaign. We the would start with Jim Culver (level 0), Skids O'Toole (level 0) and Roland (level ? from Zealot).

It's on the last page of the Night of the Zealot campaign guide, and presented as a variant.

It's probably not going to be fun for anyone to have one investigator so thoroughly outclass the others.

It gives you access to many powerful cards much earlier in the campaign than the scenarios are designed to support, and in one case, a story asset that is positively game-breaking for some scenarios outside of the campaign for which it's intended (one of which is fairly pivotal for The Dunwich Legacy).

It's been said that the trauma awarded at the conclusion of campaigns is to make you feel the weight of your experiences. My suspicion is that its second intent is to discourage continuous campaigning.

In any case, here's the text from the campaign guide on the variant mode:

Quote

At the end of a campaign, the experience, trauma, and weaknesses granted by the final scenario resolution allow the players to feel the full consequences of their actions. The investigators’ many decisions and actions (as recorded in their Campaign Log) form the outline of their story. Players are encouraged to share the results of their story and their investigators’ final decks online at the fantasyflightgames.com forums or on social media.

Now that you have completed the introductory campaign of Arkham Horror: The Card Game, try playing the campaign again with new investigators or at a higher difficulty level!

Future expansions of Arkham Horror: The Card Game will introduce new campaigns for the players to embark on. Typically, a deluxe box expansion forms the foundation for a new campaign, followed by six Mythos Packs that continue and conclude the campaign. The standard rules dictate that players start each campaign with new decks and 0 experience. However, intrepid players who wish to embrace the chaos may transfer investigators who have completed one campaign into a different campaign by carrying over each investigator’s deck, trauma, and experience.

On 12/9/2016 at 0:56 PM, GrayJester32 said:

Also, by the way it sounds in the Rules Reference, your stock of characters seems to be the lifeblood of the campaign. I seem to remember saying something along the lines of if you need to bring in a new character to replace a fallen one, but there aren't any left available in the pool, then you've essentially lost the campaign. Sure, that might seem realistic now, with so few Investigators available, but as the game grows and we earn more potential to switch out and change investigators from one scenario to another, a longer-running Continuous Campaign might be more intuitive. Just a thought.

While it is a rule, it's as much a practical limit. If all the investigators have been killed or driven insane, how are you supposed to continue whether this rule exists or not? It just clarifies the point.

Of course, if you're keeping up with releases, it is (by now) very difficult to actually lose this way, since there are 16 investigators in the pool. It's really a core box issue, as 3 or more players definitely can lose the core campaign in this fashion if they only have the core five investigators. Add in another 5 investigators, and it's impossible to lose the core campaign this way, and narrowly possible to lose Dunwich this way.

2 hours ago, BD Flory said:

Of course, if you're keeping up with releases, it is (by now) very difficult to actually lose this way, since there are 16 investigators in the pool. It's really a core box issue, as 3 or more players definitely can lose the core campaign in this fashion if they only have the core five investigators. Add in another 5 investigators, and it's impossible to lose the core campaign this way, and narrowly possible to lose Dunwich this way.

While I agree with your point, there are 17 investigators in the pool. I assume you excluded Marie Lambeau.

1 hour ago, Khudzlin said:

While I agree with your point, there are 17 investigators in the pool. I assume you excluded Marie Lambeau.

Ah, yep. Forgot about her.