Well, there certainly has been a lot talk this week about Return to the Night of the Zealots. As of yet, however, none of it has been about the principal feature of the product: the new gameplay.

For reasons, principally social, I sit here without a copy of my own. So I ask of the community, how does it rank?

Without ruining twists or specific cards and with the assumption that we have all played the original campaign, let us discuss the new alternative gameplay. Is it worth picking up? Is it more difficult? Would you rather play this version, or the original? I assume it will feel similar to the original narrative, but does it? Which of its scenarios feel best changed? Should we play with a mix of both editions?

There are already topics about the player cards and about the box so only add things about them if you're describing the product as a whole.

What are your thoughts?

I started writing a post about this, got sidetracked and didn't finish... but I'm back. I think it's because this topic is in fact probably the most germane to how most people experience the game. At the end of the day, the shape of the box or the quality of the player cards will pale in comparison with the actual experience of playing. So... how does it play? In a spoiler-free fashion...

My first impression was one of consistency. In the Return to the Gathering, it felt as though more cards were pulling in the same direction. Even from a few turns you can see how the scenario is targeting you, and it's doing so in a direct, punishing way. I think it's the scenario that's best able to be changed because the original Gathering so clearly caters towards new players and introducing mechanics. This one doesn't! It's a nice twist on a well-worn story.

My second impression was one of randomness - in a good way. Some of the new cards add new locations or other random elements which mean that scenarios are less predictable. In particular, Midnight Masks is now kitted out with more unique cultists and more locations, meaning you can't rely on playing the map or the game to the same degree. I think that's for the good, as weighing up possible outcomes and making educated decisions based on that knowledge is, to my mind, a more challenging (and rewarding) way of playing than simply having an optimised path through each scenario.

To answer your questions: I think it's worth picking up to round out a collection, and I've already played through it a few times and only felt like I've begun to scrape the surface of what it offers in terms of gameplay. Because it's harder, in the main, I'd say that it might not slip into that 'buy this after your core set' spot that a few people (myself included) were predicting. It could still be a nice second investment for a new player, but probably I'd still recommend Dunwich first, for the player cards and the longer campaign experience.

I would definitely play this over the original. The increased challenge, the thematic and gameplay consistency, the added complication of randomness: these things pull together to make a very enjoyable experience. The narrative is in the main very similar - it's mostly the same acts and agendas, and it's the same campaign log (you just had a small card for alterations to each scenario) but strangely it feels more immersive all the same. Best changed scenario? Well, I definitely don't want to spoil something from Devourer. I think they all have benefitted from the tweaks.

I don't think playing with a mix would be rewarding - I mean, the Return is a mix, as it were, of the original, a remix!

Hope this is a helpful reply. Interested to see what other people think!

I very much agree with Zooeyglass on each of the points here. The gathering is great. One of the main reasons I didn't play NoZ often before is because that first act is so boring. Now it feels like it should (although the original Act is useful as a very very basic way to teach mechanics to super-noobs ). I'm happy about that major shift.

Masks is just more variety. My playthrough was a bit brutal though as I had several multi-clue gathering cards auto fail. Our fully available Deciphered Reality was boosted to where only an auto-fail would thwart it, and of course that's exactly what I pulled. I had at least two other gain 2 clue investigations auto fail as well. We also pulled a lot of the locations and cultists that were previously available.

Devourer fixes the biggest exploit available to 'cheesing' the scenario though I won't say how. I'm thinking this is what Zooeyglass was referring to that he didn't want to spoil.

Overall, not a purchase I regret. It actually sets the NoZ up to be it's own little campaign mode for when you have people that are interested but not THAT interested in sticking out something longer. It does make leveling your decks a little awkward however. There is definitely enough available XP to get some nice cards, but if you can't reliably pull them in the next 2 scenarios, it can make chunking large xp cards into your deck regrettable. It might actually be better in this case to buy several small xp cards so you have more of chance of pulling them and getting use out of them before the end of the campaign rather than taking those expensive lvl 5 cards that you may not even find in your hand. This depends on how you build your cardpool too though as you may have ways to tutor for them.

I bet surivors with exile cards feel very worthwhile in these scenarios.

I own RttNotZ as well and concur with what has been previously said (But i dont know which way there is to "cheese" the devourer-scenario. And i dont want to know). The thing I liked the least about the Night of the Zealot is that investigators didn't earn enough XP for the amount of trauma they ended the campaign with (if they weren't devoured or went insane). Somehow i believed there would be included another campaign guide which "rewrites" the story.

Of course, there is a bit more XP to be earned, but still, it feels too little. For me personally, i only play (Rt)TNotZ when i test new investigators/decks.

I have to assume that the "cheese" is taking the option to sacrifice Lita, which I define less as cheese and more as an emergency ejector seat. If it's anything else, I too don't want to know.

This warms my heart - which is impressive as Fate of the Elder Gods (created by the same person who created Arkham Horror the board game first edition & Elder Sign) proved my heart to be that of Ithaqua. I am very excited to revisit the scenario I have played so may times.

I was actually talking about a slightly different way of approaching Devourer! And I think Soakman is referring to a different one too, so yeah, not the Lita route!

And totally agree on xp; I actually ran Ashcan through it last night and bought nothing more expensive than a charisma. Lots of A Test of Will / lucky II, etc!

The person who unleashes a Great Old One and tries to fix it by locking you in your house with ghouls and trying to burn you alive with them -- usually, that's the bad guy. Emergency ejector seat or happy ending?

I haven't played my copy yet but I'm hoping Lita gets a better story.

17 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

The person who unleashes a Great Old One and tries to fix it by locking you in your house with ghouls and trying to burn you alive with them -- usually, that's the bad guy. Emergency ejector seat or happy ending?

I haven't played my copy yet but I'm hoping Lita gets a better story.

The story changes are very insignificant. It's almost all mechanical rebalances with very few act/agenda altered. You use the same Flavor text and resolutions from the original box. And no, I wasn't talking about Lita.

15 minutes ago, Soakman said:

The story changes are very insignificant. It's almost all mechanical rebalances with very few act/agenda altered. You use the same Flavor text and resolutions from the original box. And no, I wasn't talking about Lita.

No, I know what the cheese is.