Hello!

Could someone point me to rules for playing scenarios independently of the campaign? Can't seem to find info.

Also, I'm a lotr lcg player. So I'm used to playing a scenario over and over. It's strange to me to play it once and go to the next. Especially if something happens (Have a bad draw, ect) that will color the whole scenario and carry over to the next 7 scenarios. Just have to change my mode of thinking. I'm enjoying it so far but wouldn't mind any input from lotr players who play both like I do.

Thanks so much!

Ok I found the rules part, what a lot of work haha, to set up the choices for all earlier parts!

Still interested in the second part of the question though

I would invest in the stand alone scenarios (Curse of the Rougarou, Carnivale of Evil, Labarynths of Lunacy). Each scenario also contains a stand alone set up. If you are up for a challenge, check out the article "They Multiply".

So, the first scenario of any campaign has the same setup for campaign and one-shot modes. For every other scenario, there should be a green box labeled "Standalone Mode" which yields its differentiating setup.

The base campaign (Night of the Zealot) doesn't have an explicit standalone mode. Its sister campaign (Return to the Night of the Zealot) uses the same campaign rules, thus also does not have a standalone mode. You should still be able to play any other them without explicit rules (just answering the check your campaign log questions as you please). The chaos bag doesn't change during those campaigns (unless I missed something in Return).

Otherwise, the normal rules still apply. You just don't need to write anything in your campaign log.

@player1683311 regarding your second point, about being used to replaying scenarios from lotr: part of the reason not to here is the story, and settling in for the ride no matter how bumpy. Sure, if you're raging about how a scenario's gone, it's your game to replay as you will. But part of the enjoyment (for me at least, but I don't think I am alone) is in seeing how decks develop, how you come back from adversity, all of those things. Most (but not all) scenarios, even have outcomes for failing pretty hard that might adjust the story or provide other surprises. So it's not often just win or loss but sometimes more about the journey....

Thanks guys!

So when a new scenario comes out you play it as part of your campaign, but if you want to play it again you have multiple campaigns going?

On 7/30/2018 at 7:39 AM, player1683311 said:

Also, I'm a lotr lcg player. So I'm used to playing a scenario over and over. It's strange to me to play it once and go to the next. Especially if something happens (Have a bad draw, ect) that will color the whole scenario and carry over to the next 7 scenarios. Just have to change my mode of thinking. I'm enjoying it so far but wouldn't mind any input from lotr players who play both like I do.

The big difference between Arkham and LOTR in this regard is that each scenario of LOTR is like a puzzle. It's possible to make a general-purpose deck that can handle most scenarios, but you'll struggle against a scenario with nasty treacheries or high threat gain if you don't have Spirit, certain scenarios need you to have good card draw while others punish you, and so forth. You shouldn't approach Arkham with that mindset. It's like a Saga campaign only moreso, each full cycle is like a self-contained saga campaign except with exp instead of deck changes. While certain Arkham scenarios do favour certain approaches and will be easier or harder for certain decks and investigators, they aren't designed to require you to change your deck every time, and the player cards themselves are often more versatile (for instance, every class has some way of dealing with treachery cards, and there's nothing like Sleeping Sentry where you cancel it or you lose). I found Arkham easy to get into from LOTR because I generally played LOTR while making thematic but powerful decks and tried to make as few changes as possible from one scenario to the next - and in Arkham that style of play is baked into the core mechanics.

3 hours ago, player1683311 said:

Thanks guys!

So when a new scenario comes out you play it as part of your campaign, but if you want to play it again you have multiple campaigns going?

Essentially yes. I'll often take photos of my deck(s) (splayed out) so that I can tear the deck(s) apart to try a different campaign, a different character, or run through with a different group. The campaign log saves all of our outcomes, and the decks save all of our decisions (XP expenditure & campaign cards).

If I screw something up bad enough (play error or misread rules), I may replay the mission. Otherwise, I run through the full campaign – not reading any other resolution if I can help it – and discover where I end up by the end. A second pass at a campaign, I may read outcomes for best options. For some of them, however, "best" is very subjective. In some of the campaigns there are options for you to profit in the given missions (and maybe beyond) by making a choice, but if you do then you'll add something awful to the chaos bag. Maybe for a mission like that, success is defined as, "not adding a thing to the chaos bag." However, what if it gives you a card that you add to your deck for all future missions? Is it a success then? And, what if you have to make a choice in-between missions and either choice could potentially be optimal? What is the best success there?

There is nothing I hate more in a game than the illusion-of-choice – a decision that you make believing that there are alternate outcomes, but in the end results in the same (or a slightly tweaked) outcome. But real choice? I can't get enough. The appeal to me of the AH:LCG is more than just story, it's player-driven narrative. I'm not great at this game (yet), so I often don't get "enough" XP and I don't often kill all of the bad guys and I don't usually get all of the best outcomes. And that's fine by me. My failures make me choose suboptimal decisions latter in a scenario or even in a campaign. That's really interesting to me. The punishment makes for interesting gameplay.

I'm guessing that you're new to Arkham LCG and that you're starting with the core campaign. (Reasoning that it's the only one without Standalone-Play setup.) I have heard tell of people beating the second mission perfectly, but I haven't done it. I suggest trying the whole first campaign (3 scenarios) and then trying to optimize it. This isn't a knock against you, I am genuinely suggesting it because there are Arkham-lessons in it.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing how you try Night of the Zealot and the Dunwich Legacy (it has options for choices). Best of luck!

Also, using the Arkham DB site to store card lists for decks and naming them something to keep track of them is very useful if you want to play multiple campaigns at once and need to tear apart and reconstruct decks often. I highly recommend it.

https://arkhamdb.com/

There's even a feature that lets you input how much XP you earn in a scenario and update the deck. It notes what cards were added and removed etc.

On 7/31/2018 at 11:02 AM, player1683311 said:

Thanks guys!

So when a new scenario comes out you play it as part of your campaign, but if you want to  play it again you have multiple campaigns going?

One of the nice things about An Arkham Campaign is that they are self contained cycles. Carcosa had no story references to the Dunwich cycle. If you want to, you could go back and play each cycle with a different investigator, and have a newish experience.