I guess it also depends which "end" of the Arkham hybrid you've come from. I have zero experience of the LOTR LCG, kind of tempted to try it after enjoying Arkham so much, but that's a whole different topic... As a result, I can't speak for how the randomness compares to that, but as a long time table top role player, this is totally in my happy place for randomness. Many pen and paper RPG's have some kind of critical failure and critical success in addition to sliding scales of difficulty. Even if you have max score in a given skill, there's always a chance something will go wrong. So from that perspective, the chaos bag is just a more interesting, and flexible, dice mechanic. It even has an analogue for the critical fail token, which makes me feel at home. Nervous, but at home.

14 hours ago, shosuko said:

You can just use a lower difficulty on the Chaos Token bag - The default bag gives you about 20-35% chance to pass a test you are equal to, and about 60-80% chance to pass a test when you are +2 on the test, but the symbol tokens really effect this, often Skulls are a 0, but the tablet and totem icons can be -4 or worse. The lower difficulty level changes this so that you have about a 35-50% chance to pass a test you are even with, and 75-95% chance to pass a test you are +2 on. I can't stress how important it is to consider how + you need to be to reliably pass a test, but also not to over-commit for a test that is less essential.

Also - I strongly recommend using a Chaos Bag App instead of actually drawing tokens. I found the randomness of really drawing from a bag was quesationable with these cheap cardboard tokens.

There is nothing wrong with creating house rules, but I would recommend using the lower difficulty chaos bag rather than change rules, as you can transition back more easily as you become accustom to the game. I think that it is definitely a change from what you are used to, but compared to games these days that include blank sides on dice, this game is a lot more forgiving and less random than you may believe.

It's not that I find it hard or easy, it's that I find it extremelly annoying. Everything in the game is a test and hence a gambling. It doesn't give me any kind of satisfaction having to guess the number on the chaos bag every action I do. I want to play with my cards and find synergies between them, not gamble them on dice rolls. I feel that most of the time my cards are just stat boost for skills to achieve the +2 threshold and their text could be blank for all that matters. That's not something I'm looking for on a card game. It leaves me extremelly unsatisfied.

But I still have hopes though. The potential is there to make the game more consistent for me. There are cards that allow you to progress without testing (exhaust enemies, deal damage to deal, gather clues, etc.) and others that can make tests almost meaningless (those that lower the shroud on a location for example, or those that give you a boost when you fail to try to change the outcome). So in time, I believe that decks that don't rely on tests to progress will be possible.

Quote

It may seem like a bold statement but I doubt any player of LOTR LCG finds randomness so problematic - considering the Shadow cards in LOTR could be any of many extremely punishing options in the deck. The times I've thought "There are two of such a shadow effect, and 3 of this other shadow effect. If it's either of those I'm screwed, if it's not then I'm fine." Well this is basically the same way. In LOTR you could count cards to see which ones you may deal with, but in this game there are more finite options in better balance with more benign penalties so simply having enough + on a skill check can make you extremely confident in your success.

I found the Shadow sytem more enjoyable and fun. It has the power to surprise you and catch you off guard similar to how a real oponent playing against you would. A specific card can screw you up, but that's a risk you calculate and decide to take or not in a few ocasions. And even then, you have ways to deal with them after they are revealed (cancels).

I understand why it had to go though, as it requires a lot of investment by the design team (balancing the effects of both the normal effect and the shadow effect, balancing the odds of pulling the card as an enemy or a shadow, balancing the number of shadow effects on an encounter deck, etc). How the encounter deck is contructed now is a lot easier and flexible from the design point of view. You can add or remove a card more freely and you don't have to add extra text or checks to make sure a card shows up as an enemy and not as a shadow. Still, I wished they had explored another option than just an uncovered random dice roll and see if you guessed the number that was going to show up or not.

11 hours ago, General Zodd said:

I guess it also depends which "end" of the Arkham hybrid you've come from. I have zero experience of the LOTR LCG, kind of tempted to try it after enjoying Arkham so much, but that's a whole different topic... As a result, I can't speak for how the randomness compares to that, but as a long time table top role player, this is totally in my happy place for randomness. Many pen and paper RPG's have some kind of critical failure and critical success in addition to sliding scales of difficulty. Even if you have max score in a given skill, there's always a chance something will go wrong. So from that perspective, the chaos bag is just a more interesting, and flexible, dice mechanic. It even has an analogue for the critical fail token, which makes me feel at home. Nervous, but at home.

Absolutelly true. I come from the card games side, so I'm not that used to roll a dice to determine the outcome. If a competitive card game wants to use dice as their resources (Ashes or SW Destiny for example), they need to have ways to alter the outcome to mitigate the luck involved on the rolls (discard a card to reroll or change a die to a face of your choice), otherwise it feels like a completelly random experience.

I don't see a Magik clone where the outcome of a fight is determined by rolling dice after gambling power ups prior to the roll ever making it. People will just quit after a couple of plays due to frustration.

34 minutes ago, xchan said:

It's not that I find it hard or easy, it's that I find it extremelly annoying. Everything in the game is a test and hence a gambling. It doesn't give me any kind of satisfaction having to guess the number on the chaos bag every action I do. I want to play with my cards and find synergies between them, not gamble them on dice rolls. I feel that most of the time my cards are just stat boost for skills to achieve the +2 threshold and their text could be blank for all that matters. That's not something I'm looking for on a card game. It leaves me extremelly unsatisfied.

I also think that the shadow card mechanic feels much less powerful and especially pervasive (doesn't happen that often and doesn't happen at every step in the game) and therefore much easier to circumvent or deal with than the chaos bag. From the core set and the first cycle onward, there are (several) ways to just outward cancel a shadow card and there is nothing just like it in AH. There are things that can deal with a bad chaos bag draw (Wendy, Lucky, Grotesque statue etc.) but even if there are, there are so many tests throughout a game (many more than you will face shadow cards) that you need a hell of a lot of these to have as much control over the game as you have in LOTR.

Finally another important point for the "game experience", I think is that when a shadow card has an effect, it usually means something, something will happen: Maybe you get some damage but can still carry out the initial plan, maybe a character dies but you planned for this or you have to rethink, etc. That is often fun. A failed test in AH many times just means that the action was wasted and you are at the same exact point as before - moreover you often also wasted a lot of resources (aka skill cards or resources spent on talents) that you had to commit before you knew what was going to happen. For the most part in LOTR, you can save those resources until you know what the shadow card looks like.

I haver to say, I enjoy both games very much but they do indeed feel very differently. I would advise any new player to just try both and see what they like.

One additional point that I am not sure was mentioned here is that while both games are deck building games, I would argue you can get away with a little less deck building in AH but that may or may not remain true as the AH cardpool expands...

13 hours ago, xchan said:

...I want to play with my cards and find synergies between them, not gamble them on dice rolls.

...

Absolutelly true. I come from the card games side, so I'm not that used to roll a dice to determine the outcome. If a competitive card game wants to use dice as their resources (Ashes or SW Destiny for example), they need to have ways to alter the outcome to mitigate the luck involved on the rolls (discard a card to reroll or change a die to a face of your choice), otherwise it feels like a completelly random experience.

I don't see a Magik clone where the outcome of a fight is determined by rolling dice after gambling power ups prior to the roll ever making it. People will just quit after a couple of plays due to frustration.

It's funny how differently I view these things.

While I too want to play my cards and find synergies between them, the trend in game design of giving cards secondary effects is an excellent one. It makes you make more choices - is this test important enough to throw that card for a skill check? Or do you save it for its actual use? This has been a major trend in most of FFG's recent card games, and it's a good one. And to the second paragraph, this is often the mechanic used to mitigate die rolls - one of the most interesting things about Destiny is that any card can be used for a reroll, which is VERY valuable, and often outstrips the card itself. And, of course, you do so before you reroll and know what you've gotten out of it.

For the last... well, since that's basically what Destiny is, and the biggest threat to the game right now is bad publicity because they can't print enough for everyone who wants to play, I'd have to say that your estimation of the general reaction is off. It may certainly not be what you want out of a game, which is of course fine... but given the rather enthusiastic response to both Destiny and Arkham I think you're projecting a bit more than may be justified.

Well - I'm enjoying this game so much more than LOTRLCG. I didn't think I would enjoy the chaos bag, but I do, the tension when you have a really important draw, just makes this game!

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:46 AM, xchan said:

It's not that I find it hard or easy, it's that I find it extremelly annoying. Everything in the game is a test and hence a gambling. It doesn't give me any kind of satisfaction having to guess the number on the chaos bag every action I do. I want to play with my cards and find synergies between them, not gamble them on dice rolls. I feel that most of the time my cards are just stat boost for skills to achieve the +2 threshold and their text could be blank for all that matters. That's not something I'm looking for on a card game. It leaves me extremelly unsatisfied.

But I still have hopes though. The potential is there to make the game more consistent for me. There are cards that allow you to progress without testing (exhaust enemies, deal damage to deal, gather clues, etc.) and others that can make tests almost meaningless (those that lower the shroud on a location for example, or those that give you a boost when you fail to try to change the outcome). So in time, I believe that decks that don't rely on tests to progress will be possible.

I wouldn't hold out too much hope. There will always be a mix of effects, but the chaos bag is core to Arkham's design.

The designers, Matt Newman in particular, have discussed how Arkham is in large part a game of risk management, and of planning for what happens if you fail.

I love risk management games -- it's the same reason I love Doomtown's core design -- but taste is taste. It's possible Arkham just isn't your bag.

On 21/4/2017 at 1:03 AM, Buhallin said:

And to the second paragraph, this is often the mechanic used to mitigate die rolls - one of the most interesting things about Destiny is that any card can be used for a reroll, which is VERY valuable, and often outstrips the card itself. And, of course, you do so before you reroll and know what you've gotten out of it.

Well, that's what I'm doing when I mentioned I house ruled how commiting works. I commit them after I pull the token. They keep the additional functionallity, but I have bigger control over them. Less wasted "draws" than how the official rules work, which is exactly why the second functionality is usually implemented.

And regarding Destiny, the game doesnt play like what I was describing. You know what your resources (your rolls) are before you take your actions. You dont go blind hoping you get lucky with the rolls and the cards you chose to play will actually work.

4 hours ago, BD Flory said:

I wouldn't hold out too much hope. There will always be a mix of effects, but the chaos bag is core to Arkham's design.

I'm not so sure about that. There are already a good number of cards that dont require a test to work and we are just half way through the first cycle. I dont see them stopping that in fear there might be decks that can exploit that. There will allways be some mandatory tests, but if I can eliminate most of the non compulsory ones, then the mechanics will become more tolerant for me.

32 minutes ago, xchan said:

Well, that's what I'm doing when I mentioned I house ruled how commiting works. I commit them after I pull the token. They keep the additional functionallity, but I have bigger control over them. Less wasted "draws" than how the official rules work, which is exactly why the second functionality is usually implemented.

That sounds like it would completely destroy the balance of the game, and be even easier than easy mode. Your game, of course, but at that point why bother with the bag at all? Why not just declare every test successful, since it will be anyway?

34 minutes ago, xchan said:

And regarding Destiny, the game doesnt play like what I was describing. You know what your resources (your rolls) are before you take your actions. You dont go blind hoping you get lucky with the rolls and the cards you chose to play will actually work.

That may be true for some cases, but by no means all. You spend cards to reroll without knowing the result. Many cards trigger on certain rolls. None of that is guaranteed, and much of it requires spending resources before the roll. Nothing worse than Scrambling your opponent only to watch them drop an even better set of dice.

4 hours ago, xchan said:

Well, that's what I'm doing when I mentioned I house ruled how commiting works. I commit them after I pull the token. They keep the additional functionallity, but I have bigger control over them. Less wasted "draws" than how the official rules work, which is exactly why the second functionality is usually implemented.

I was a bit surprised at this, so I buzzed back through the first page of the thread to review your posts on the chaos bag. You realize this makes the game vastly easier, right?

At any rate, if you don't recognize the strategy in managing skill tests and risk -- and I don't mean understanding it and playing it well, but even acknowledging that it is both core to the strategy of the game and very manageable with the tools we have -- this is definitely not the game for you.

You may eventually be able to assemble a deck with lots of test-free effects, but you'll pay exorbitant costs for it. See effects like Sneak Attack for an example, or Dynamite Blast, or Cunning Distraction.

But really, I feel like you'd have a lot more fun with a game that's more to your taste.

On 21-4-2017 at 10:15 PM, BD Flory said:

It's possible Arkham just isn't your bag.

Pun intended?

Allow me to offer my two cents. Although the two games have their similarities (both are cooperative for two players out if the box or up to four players with two cores, the construction and use of encounter decks, and a similar cycle system for expansions), there is quite a bit of differences. Rounds are simpler in Arkham Horror than in Lord of the Rings. In Lotr, there are 7 phases. Some are carried out as a simultaneous fashion, like everyone committing heroes to quests or traveling to locations. Others are carried out in a turn order like combat. In Ah, there are 3 phases. Two are simultaneous (mythos and upkeep) and one is turn order (player).

In LOTR, you have one resource pool for every color in your deck. In AH, you have a single resource pool that take on different uses (ammo, spell casts, uses, ect). Skill checks are different. Lord of the Rings uses cards from the encounter deck, Arkham Horror uses tokens.

The biggest contrast is the campaigns. Lord of the Rings scenarios have a more finite feel to them. You start the game, and if you win, co gratulations. If you lose, better luck next time. You do have the option of stringing the scenarios together, but there is little to no consequences between scenarios. This allows for more freedom in deck building. Just keep in mind your heroes build your resource pools to pay for card, no more than 3 copies, and at least 50 cards in a deck. Arkham Horror, on the other hand, is designed to act as a roleplaying game. The scenarios mesh together to create a solid campaign. It is possible to play the scenarios as stand alone games, just read the intros and conclusions up until you reach the chosen scenario, and adjust your decks accordingly. Because you step into the role of one of five investigators, you are limited to how you go about building your decks. Each investigator has instructions on the back of his/her cards. This contains deck size, classes of cards, and card levels allowed, and character specific cards (assets and at least one weakness). The latter does not count towards the required deck size.

Lord of the Rings allows for building new decks between scenarios, while Arkham Horror requires you to start with all Level 0 cards, with the ability to purchase new cards using experience between scenarios.

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 2:07 PM, cheapmate said:

Pun intended?

You can't prove a thing!

@player630555 There are 4 phases in Arkham: you forgot the Enemy phase.