The group I play Arkham Horror have all the ekspansion, except Innsmouth Horror and I find the diffrent ekspansions themes is strongly dilluted the more ekspansions you use at once. We have tried some diffrent stuff and find that 1 board ekspansion and one card ekspansion is the max.

What are your ideal combinations of ekspansions to use at one time?

I use one big box and one little box at a time myself, but that's really just for Mythos cards and Gate cards. For location encounters, monsters, investigator cards, etc, I leave everything in.

There is mechanical dilution (odds of something change in a way against design intention/not good) and thematic dilution.

For monsters, isn't there a danger of mechanical dilution since some mythos cards reference all of a type (undead) or particular ones (gugs, and this and that). Assuming added monster cards don't reflect the same distributions of all these, the relevance of those mythos cards decreases - no?

Rob

I play 2 at most (in terms of Mythos cards) but since I roll dice to determine which Mythos card I read, the expansions are never diluted, though Arkhamtown itself is. I can also choose to overemphasize a particular expansion with this method too.

@Barl There is still dilution of theme and effects if you shuffle in even just two expansion Mythos decks.

Most of the times I play with all the expansions. The only time I play with less is if I introduce a new player or I play the game at someone who does not have enough table space.

In my opinion dilution is not much of a problem. Everything of the expansions comes by once in a while. For me it is part of the game.

I play with only one expansion at a time, except I combine Kingsport and King in Yellow. I don't own CotDP or BGoW.

I've tried many times to play all in and I really want to like it, but I hate it. I've even tried Tibs' Anti-Dilution variant, and I still hate it. Different strokes for different folks.

Though I occasionally enjoy a focused game of Akham + a specific expansion, generally I mix everything (with the exception of Kingsport, which I tend to leave out for the most part - though the monsters and items are in).

I manage my Mythos by organizing the cards as two separate decks: The Innsmouth + Dunwich cards in one deck, the Arkham + small boxes in another. I randomly draw 15 cards from each deck and shuffle them together, creating a 30 card Mythos deck at the beginning of each game. This guarantees a relatively even chance of seeing big box expansion cards in every session, though Arkham still remains the focus as many of the IH and DH cards open gates on the big board. Once the game is over, I separate the 30 cards back into their respective decks for storage. Considering how many Mythos cards are played in an average session, I find a single, towering Mythos deck both ridiculous and useless.

I keep the Gate deck mixed and towering, but I've implemented the house rule wherein you draw until you find the proper color as usual, but if you're OW isn't listed, you are then allowed to re-draw again until you find a second card of the correct color. If that card also fails to list your OW, you then resort to the "Other" encounter. This has worked well for us, resulting in a relatively even mix of specific and Other OW encounters.

I've considered playing with half decks for common and unique items and spells, but I have yet to try it. To combat shuffling these tiny cards, we no longer draw off the top of each deck. Instead, we give each a very loose "shuffle" (basically we cut it a few times). We then cut the deck at random each time we require a selection, after which the deck is given an additional lazy cut-shuffle. Spent cards are kept in a face up discard pile (unless returned to the box) to keep from drawing repeats, though of course players may take from the discard pile when "searching the deck" for specific items.

I'm also toying with ways to reduce dilution of the monster cup (bag), but I've yet to come up with a method that doesn't require a ton of fiddly sorting each and every time.

I'm currently playing a series of games with the expansions Dunwich and The King in Yellow. Believe me, the Doom Track, Gate openings, and the Terror Track remain quite lively! Throw-in the Blights, and the fun just doesn't end. I'm playing a 12-game series, with four Investigators vs. a different GOO. The four investigators are randomly chosen, and then are not played again until I've played the first six games (1/2 of the GOOs)

In terms of house rules, I do permit one additional gate opening in addition to that which is "allowed" per the rules. Thus, the GOO awakes upon the eighth gate, vice seventh gate, opening.

The Professor said:

I'm not really sure why you're allowing that. It just means that you should tighten your game. Keeping gates down is an important part of Arkham. I guess if you want to house rule it to make it easier, that's fine, but I don't know why you don't just try to increase your skill level so you can deal with the extra gate. Once you get a hang of lower gate number timing, it's not much of a problem.

Avi_dreader said:

Over on BGG, people have been posting threads on this very subject, they keep whining/crying about "boo-hoo, too many gates open too fast with DH board in the mix" and have done houserules just like Prof. In each of the threads, my advice has been, hit the gates earlier, problem solved.

www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/483886/7-open-portals-for-3-players-still-valid-and-funny

Really? That's how I felt when I first got Dunwich. Then I grew a pair and realized that Arkham is supposed to be hard, and I can no longer play with only two investigators total.

My group plays with base Arkham and all the Horrors (Dunwich, Kingsport and Innsmouth). It makes for a pretty lively game and relatively minimal dilution of the decks; Dunwich is often a bit slow gatewise, but other than that things are great. Admittedly, using all four boards does give you a lot of ground to cover, but that's part of the challenge and fun, in my opinion.

Dam said:

::Laughter:: when I first got Dunwich I used to play only two investigators, then I found it too hard to win with seals. So I added in a third investigator. Several months later, problem solved ::shrug:: I think part of the problem is people expect the game to be a pushover because they spent too much time with the base game.

just read their posts:

O... M... G...

I want to smack myself in the face (I can't reach them through the internet, and my malice must be vented somewhere).

Barl said:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=5&efcid=1&efidt=283973&efpag=0#284384

I always play with all expansions at once. It does dilute some gameplay elements (the acts for example) but does add complexity and variety. Overall I prefer it this way.

Dam said:

Just read that... the guy says: "sometimes (not so rarely) the game is ruined by an unlucky draw of mithos cards." (Mythos)

I could not help reflecting that I actually have been enjoying this game more when I get my butt kicked. Ruined is how I should be... driven insane and running around underpantsless in the street being chewed on by a Hound of Tindalos is my idea of a good time... I don't even want to win...

Well... ok, every now and then it is nice... I want it to be possible...

Shub-Niggurath said:

With my method you can have complexity, variety, and theme. The Chaos is only slightly more focused :')

I really don't understand Arko-massochism. I mean, given:

Arkham is a game with a learning curve, it is possible for some Arkham players to be "better" than others.

Arkham is "more fun" when players are losing / when players lose (a commonly expressed opinion)

-

Therefore: Playing with 'worse' players is "more fun". I mean, do you guys like to round up noobs who spend 8 clue tokens on getting a unique item just so that you can feel the horror?

If you (the arko-massochist) get better at Arkham, is the game now less fun?

I'm guessing that the second axiom is the problem, which leads me to believe that people here say that, but they really mean something else. Maybe you want a hard level of difficulty so that a win feels more gratifying. This sentiment I can understand, but it isn't the one commonly expressed.

Furthermore, in HPL, encounters with the mythos are frequently survived, and not all those who survive are horribly insane either. Many of the survivors have complex post-traumatic stress disorder, but that's about it. Nothing a little therapy couldn't cure (theoretically, at least, if your psychiatrist didn't commit you permanently for telling them about the kinds of things you saw).

I think the arko-massochism comes from the Call of Cthulu rpg, where, as is so typical of this game, Cthulu devourers 1d4 investigators per round, and there isn't anything they can do in their own defense. Imagine how the protagonist in HPL's Call of Cthulu story would have fared, alone on his boat, against Cthulu in the RPG system. Not past one round, I'll wager, and even then, only if he won initiative. Wheras in arkham, a character by themselves against Cthulu at least stands a chance to banish the evil back beneath the waves for another few melenia (like what happened in the story) Point is, Call of Cthulu rpg is a game, just like arkham horror, and it's level of difficulty isn't any "truer" than Arkham's.

A game is less and less fun when the outcome is determined more and more by chance. Arkham is probably the only game I enjoy that has randomness in it, but when you have to be completely lucky to get the gates under control every time, it's not that fun anymore.

::Laughter:: Arkhamasochism is a great word. I'm tempted to start my posts from now on with, "Greetings, fellow Arkhamaniacs and Arkhamasochists!"

I don't think the point of the game is for investigators to always lose, but I don't think players should tilt the board to insure victories either. I mean, obviously they can, but it's definitely not to my taste.

I think if a player is getting more than 60-70% wins they love their character's life too much ;')

awp832 said:

I just want to be chewed on by a giant alien squid from another dimension and die in a pool of my own excrement, ok? My needs are simple!!!!!

Also, I think that the dilution problems might be a bit overstated/over-argued insofar as it requires, compulsorily, crunching the numbers. Mythos deck is where the shiz goes down, and there is a small number of the g-zillion of these that gets played each game, so, get the stuff you want to experience in the game in what ever percentage seems enjoyable. Use a system like Avi's or the one of the other's if you want to think it through, or wing it, I don't see that it matters so much if you even dig out even such a low figure as, say 40 - 50 mythos cards you think make a good game and shuffle the b-jesus outa em. That is my 2 cents - maybe lame - probably. I will be trying many methods of play personally...

... as long as in the end i loose, violently and horribly, in a way that leaves me mentally scarred for life, i am open to all methods and variations as a path to variety...

Okay, triple-teamed by Avi, Dam, and Tibs!

I get it ~ no more "make it easier" strategies; just take my lumps.

The last game ended well, despite the fact that the Investigators could not control the Gate openings and the Doom Track went out of control...

The Professor said:

::Laughter:: I'd be more worried about DrDr's posts. But seriously, there's nothing wrong with improving your strategy (or adding in more investigators if you need them). And if you're *really* desperate for a win, you could preselect your investigators ;') But just adding in extra gates to the limit, well, that just strikes me as the moral equivalent of using a Guardian ;') or wearing an adult diaper (which the Dr implies we should probably stock up on).