Hi folks, I love Eldritch Horror (just got into it). What's the difference in Arkham Horror? After watching some playthroughs they seem essentially the same but on different scales. I'm guessing that if I like EH I'll also like AH?

Also, how does AH play as a solo game? Thanks, loving this series of games.

They Are mechanically both similar and different. I like both games. Some people not, so you have to try before desiding by yourself.

What I like in ah3 is that you have more controll of what is happening, less in 6 players than with 2 players. I like the story aspect of AH3 that is somewhat lacking in EH IMHO. In EH I really like those two sided cards and I am missing them in AH3. I personally like the smaller town scale game of Arkham games compared to whole world aspect of EH, but that is just personal preference, and most likely originated from AH2.

Some people says that the story hinders replayability, I personally don`t think so because the story unfolds differently each time. But that is a thing that diverse some peoples opinions.

The ah3 scales better with different amounth players via time usage. It is Also very different feeling if you have few or more players. EH the game get longer when there Are more players, but the feeling is not so different between player counts, except that it may be a Little bi easier with more investigator, because it is easier to controll the huge map.

The AH3 is more modular, so expansions causes (most likely) Little bit less bloat than They cause in EH. The first expansion was just announced, so it is interesting to see how it works in practice.

Finding right monster to each scenarion can get tedious? When there will be Many expansions in AH3, in EH you just throw all in. That makes EH more random and AH3 less random and more thematic, like AH Lcg vs other mythos games. But in the same time can get fiddly in AH3.

I feel like I will enjoy 3rd edition much more when there are more scenarios and investigators to choose from. Right now, with the core scenarios and limited pools of encounter cards, I really do not feel like replaying most of them. It's strange really because I replay Arkham the Card Game regardless of the fact that there is a bit of a linear story.

I think the real problem for me are some of the stats. It feels as if you only need Observation, Lore, and Combat. The other two do very little and so investigators who have high will or influence simply feel worse than other investigators. They are not better at different things... they are just worse at the things that matter.

I want to see unique ways to use influence and willpower to some effect that is useful whether that is picking up clues, researching them, or removing monsters or doom. Maybe there could be some kind of action that disrupts the power of a gate burst by playing with the mythos discard or something. I dunno.

I love the smaller microcosm present in AH over eldritch, but something just feels a bit bland to me in 3rd ed. Like I noted, it's probably just the variety of encounters or the fact that each investigator starts out with very viable options to finish the scenario. There's very little need to explore and look for new items etc so there is very little feeling of increasing your character's ability to deal with things. They're just kind of flat and your success mostly relies on token pull luck (and tracking what has been pulled already etc).

I've noticed in some reviews that players feel like they're contributing very little in AH3, like they're just watching the game rather than playing it. How true is this? I love EH so if the games are similar I don't think this would be an issue for me.

2 hours ago, 1mikethebuilder1 said:

I've noticed in some reviews that players feel like they're contributing very little in AH3, like they're just watching the game rather than playing it. How true is this? I love EH so if the games are similar I don't think this would be an issue for me.

The narrative is a lot more cohesive, so some players may feel like the game is 'on rails' so to speak compared to Eldritch Horror. They are similar in theme, but 3rd edition has a tighter and more controlled story, but less choice about how to accomplish those goals. There is a lot to manage on the board so you are often choosing which fires to prioritize putting out, but there aren't all that many ways to go about putting them out.

I would personally recommend that you try to find a store or a person to let you demo a playthrough before you decide. It feels quite different to me. It's almost closer to Mansions of Madness 2nd Edition than it is Eldritch in some ways to me (and I don't get a ton of replay out of Mansions either, even though I love my first plays through scenarios).

Skip Arkham Horror, stick with Eldritch.

My regular gaming group loves EH. We were very excited by AH (I preordered it) and loved a lot of the new mechanics - in many ways it was an improvement. Unfortunately, it's also horribly broken - at least at four players (YMMV if you play at different counts) - we played three of the four scenarios and got trounced in all of them. We put up a good fight, but all it takes is one gate burst in the wrong place and you're pretty much done.

This game is just too much of a time investment for us to bother trying again. I had some slight hope they would try to fix it with the first expansion, but I don't see any mention of it so ... oh well.

I don't think it's a time investment compared to other FFG games (this one is probably the shortest to be honest). But it does not scale particularly well, that is true. It sort of scales well in some regards, but it becomes much more 'swingy' at different player counts.

The Azathoth scenario can be particularly difficult on lower player counts due to one of the final archive scenario cards.

The games have a different feel, but I like both of them.

Arkham Horror 3ed is more local and story focused. We had to play it a few times to learn the play style of the game. First few games we played as if it was Arkham Horror 2nd (or Eldritch Horror for that matter). Focusing on exploring, trying to get items, spells etc from locations to improve our investigators. And we got slaughtered by the scenarios since we didn't focus on the objective of the scenario the first few rounds. I was even toying with the idea of having an startup-round where no tokens were drawn from the bag in the Mythos phase, just to give us more time to improve our investigators and explore. But it would probably make the game too easy.

3 hours ago, varradami said:

We put up a good fight, but all it takes is one gate burst in the wrong place and you're pretty much done.

I think that it is one of the defining aspects of Arkham Horror series: no matter how good ti it going at the moment, Mythos can always screw you in several different ways...

I have not played 3rd edition yet, but if it is at all similar to previous ones, then it should be game that you do not win so often, and sometimes lose due to reasons absolutely out of your control. If you do not like this kind of game and feeling, then maybe Arkham Horror is not game for your group

10 hours ago, Soakman said:

It feels as if you only need Observation, Lore, and Strength.

It doesn't "feel": it is so. Influence and Will are somehow used in encounters, but truth is that you can fail encounters and still win the game whereas if you start losing research actions and combats you're soon overwhelmed / you cannot progress the story. I understand that the idea is to have asymmetry in the game by having a differential use of stats, but it's not actually a fully successfull attempt.

A friend of mine (Bleached Lizard) had a few ideas on how to fix this; possibly you can reach out to him on BGG and exchange opinions on the matter

On 6/12/2019 at 1:49 AM, Julia said:

It doesn't  "feel": it is so. Influence and Will are somehow used  in encounters, but truth is that you can fail encounters and still win the game whereas if you start losing research actions and combats  you're soon overwhelmed / you cannot progress the story. I understand that the idea is to have asymmetry in the game by having a differential use of stats, but it's not actually a fully successfull attempt.

Yeah, I really liked the acquire assets action from Eldritch. It made Influence important, opened up plenty of fun characters like Charlie Kane, plus hanging out at the general store and hoping you get the chance to buy something isn't nearly as fun (besides, how often can you afford to hang around at a specific location?). I feel like the reserve in AH 3e is kind of nonexistent.

Exactly. At the moment the only way to gain items in Arkham is by means of encounters, which means that you need to build proper encounter decks to allow players to rely on this as a resource. This was done to avoid the issue 2nd edition had, where players simply used the special ability of locations in lieu of having an encounter there, which alas lead to a much more pressing problem, i.e. that those decks of cards, when expanded, must either guarantee the same statistical distribution of cards (thus, not only the average, but also the other descriptors) or result in the possibility of clusters of cards not giving any item. This could have been solved in many ways; possibly having the acquire assets action from Eldritch and something special coming from the shops (for example, encounters allowing you to gain items during the encounter phase), or just going with "after resolving an encounter in a shop space, if still in that space, you may buy an item from the display" could have been better.

As for the Will stat, it'd have been enough leaving a Horror check when the monster engages you (or you engage it). The design instead followed the lead of the LCG; too bad that in that game Will is actually used a lot by the Mystic class (the LCG makes a very great use of all stats)

I agree with all points that have been made, and would add that I've also been slaughtered by the Azathoth scenario playing with four investigators each time (about four times now). I've defeated the Feast for Umordhoth scenario twice, after last night's somewhat (relatively) easy victory, but never once have defeated any of the other scenarios. I've played around 12 games total now. It's most certain that the Will stat has been relatively marginalized, in stark contrast to Arkham Horror Second edition, Arkham Horror the Card Game, Eldtritch Horror and even Mansions of Madness, and this does seem very odd. Occasionally I've wished for higher Will on an investigator after getting slammed hard by a Headline, but that's really about all. So you can get burned by neglecting it at the wrong time, but it's so random and you have so many other higher priorities. Influence feels almost completely unnecessary, and I never focus that stat.

What I think AH 3rd edition most excels at is the compelling narrative aspect it creates. I always wished for more of that in AH 2nd edition and you could manipulate the encounter and mythos decks to sort of trend the game in that direction. (Don't get me wrong, I still was hopelessly in love with that game.) But AH 3rd edition totally succeeds at creating a cohesive narrative with the brilliant use of the codex and monsters that are specific to the scenario, while also maintaining replayability, at least for me. And while I do agree with each criticism that has been made of AH3 above, I still love it and happily play it nonetheless... It has shoved Eldritch Horror to the side for now. I do fully expect it to get even better with the addition of more encounter cards and, well, just more of everything, as additional expansions are added to the mix, as Soakman alluded to.

So Mikethebuilder, I think you would certainly like AH3 if you like Eldritch and also I find it to be an outstanding solo game! It can be easier to just let your imagination run free and get immersed in the story when you're not squabbling with another human being over what is the best strategy to employ or whatnot.

Lastly, I think there is definitely something to be said for a game where winning doesn't come easily and you feel like it's a notable accomplishment when you do actually manage to win, and for me, this is certainly (obviously) such a game.

16 hours ago, Schmiegel said:

I agree with all points that have been made, and would add that I've also been slaughtered by the Azathoth scenario playing with four investigators each time (about four times now). I've defeated the Feast for Umordhoth scenario twice, after last night's somewhat (relatively) easy victory, but never once have defeated any of the other scenarios. I've played around 12 games total now. It's most certain that the Will stat has been relatively marginalized, in stark contrast to Arkham Horror Second edition, Arkham Horror the Card Game, Eldtritch Horror and even Mansions of Madness, and this does seem very odd. Occasionally I've wished for higher Will on an investigator after getting slammed hard by a Headline, but that's really about all. So you can get burned by neglecting it at the wrong time, but it's so random and you have so many other higher priorities. Influence feels almost completely unnecessary, and I never focus that stat.

What I think AH 3rd edition most excels at is the compelling narrative aspect it creates. I always wished for more of that in AH 2nd edition and you could manipulate the encounter and mythos decks to sort of trend the game in that direction. (Don't get me wrong, I still was hopelessly in love with that game.) But AH 3rd edition totally succeeds at creating a cohesive narrative with the brilliant use of the codex and monsters that are specific to the scenario, while also maintaining replayability, at least for me. And while I do agree with each criticism that has been made of AH3 above, I still love it and happily play it nonetheless... It has shoved Eldritch Horror to the side for now. I do fully expect it to get even better with the addition of more encounter cards and, well, just more of everything, as additional expansions are added to the mix, as Soakman alluded to.

So Mikethebuilder, I think you would certainly like AH3 if you like Eldritch and also I find it to be an outstanding solo game! It can be easier to just let your imagination run free and get immersed in the story when you're not squabbling with another human being over what is the best strategy to employ or whatnot.

Lastly, I think there is definitely something to be said for a game where winning doesn't come easily and you feel like it's a notable accomplishment when you do actually manage to win, and for me, this is certainly (obviously) such a game.

Many thanks. I'm also inclined to agree that one can become more immersed in the story if played solo as you don't have all the distractions with a group. As far as winning goes, I like a game to be difficult but not frustratingly impossible. I figure if I can get one win out of four games, that's a pretty good difficulty level that keeps you coming back for more. I don't mind getting my butt kicked if it makes for a good story and adventure against the Ancient Ones. I'll be giving this game a serious look as well as the new expansion coming out soon.

Many thanks to all for the responses.

On 6/14/2019 at 11:33 PM, rsdockery said:

Yeah, I really liked the acquire assets action from Eldritch. It made Influence important, opened up plenty of fun characters like Charlie Kane, plus hanging out at the general store and hoping you get the chance to buy something isn't nearly as fun (besides, how often can you afford to hang around at a specific location?). I feel like the reserve in AH 3e is kind of nonexistent.

Don't fully agree with you, gaining assets in AH is fairly consistent. For example, 7 out of 8 encounters at Ye Olde Magicking Shoppe provide you with spells, while 7 out of 8 encounters at the General Store result in being able to purchase items. Even event encounters allow you to buy (or just give) spells, items, etc. on those locations. Most of the encounters don't even require a success, usually just money. So I don't see the need having out at any given location.

In my experience, only having a small combination of items, spells and allies is enough to give you the edge you need. That's my main issue with games like Zombicide, where you are forced to search for better weapons in the first turns of the game in order to have any chance of winning, which really makes every game quite similar.

One of the biggest issues I had with the previous AH was the fact that you normally already started out with 4-6 items/spells/skills/etc. and it only added up during the game (also, I never could picture these investigators dragging all this stuff through the streets of Arkham on top of that pile of monster trophies), which became unwieldy and an administrative hassle.

And as for Charlie Kane, I would not call him fun to play. He was incredibly useful to have in EH, but he had the tendency to end up being just an item buy & distribution mechanism, which was not so much fun for his player. He is more fun in Elder Sign.

There a different in scope.

For me EH is about deal with the huge conspiracies. I would love for EH to have it where each player is a team of investigator.

While AH is more like what happen in each city of EH. The Location encounters.

On 7/11/2019 at 8:18 AM, cheapmate said:

Don't fully agree with you, gaining assets in AH is fairly consistent. For example, 7 out of 8 encounters at Ye Olde Magicking Shoppe provide you with spells, while 7 out of 8 encounters at the General Store result in being able to purchase items. Even event encounters allow you to buy (or just give) spells, items, etc. on those locations. Most of the encounters don't even require a success, usually just money. So I don't see the need having out at any given location.

In my experience, only having a small combination of items, spells and allies is enough to give you the edge you need. That's my main issue with games like Zombicide, where you are forced to search for better weapons in the first turns of the game in order to have any chance of winning, which really makes every game quite similar.

One of the biggest issues I had with the previous AH was the fact that you normally already started out with 4-6 items/spells/skills/etc. and it only added up during the game (also, I never could picture these investigators dragging all this stuff through the streets of Arkham on top of that pile of monster trophies), which became unwieldy and an administrative hassle.

And as for Charlie Kane, I would not call him fun to play. He was incredibly useful to have in EH, but he had the tendency to end up being just an item buy & distribution mechanism, which was not so much fun for his player. He is more fun in Elder Sign.

Sry for revisiting this thread, i don't own AH, only EH, and i wanted to chime in about Charlie Kane being interesting. From a mechanical point of view if you are playing solo and having some characters, yeah he is fun to use. If you are playing with other players, it's boring as ****, and i say this as someone who is the person who uses him when we want to try to beat with no easy (mostly because my friends don't really understand what makes him good and suddenly start chasing flies when they feel like people is equipped decently enough), or only hard mythos.

He is there to cycle through your assets deck. If you are playing optimally, many of your turns will be only acquire resources followed by cancel debt, and then city encounters, to attempt to even cycle the asset deck even harder. That way you get 3-5 success on average and you can start cycling your asset cards, looking for the stuff that you want for your team's characters. I buy useless stuff which require 1 success only to see what else is coming next, there are many items that change completely the flow of the game and turn it into a cakewalk, but you need to find them. Last game i played for example i got a city guide (dunno the name on english, the one that gives +1 dice to tests when you are in a city) quickly and the Jacqueline's player got the spell that allows you to gather clues from wherever. We were literally sitting together on a city, gathering clues, cycling even harder the deck, while diana was just crazy well equipped, with some holy water, making the mission because Jacqueline can give her the clues she needed for some misteries, protect her from harm when dealing with elites.

Really, my games with Charlie Kane are the most annoying thing to witness, most people end up with 7 or 8 assets on 6-7 turns, it doesn't matter they don't overlap with something else, or if they have to discard them afterwards, i am just a cycling card engine to fuel the rest of the party. If it costs 1, i am going to push it down your throat, and you will thank me later when i give you a two barreled shotgun, some holy water, or that crazy good book that allows you to rest and learn one spell.

Ah well, sry for the offtopic. Anyways i am buying AH 3rd edition tomorrow. I can't get enough of these games