So I've bought most of the expansions, including Miskatonic Horror, and am working on integrating the new cards as much as possible into the other sets.

I understand how most of the multi-expansion cards work, as in why they need both marked expansions. This makes sense for cards that require the geography of one expansion but a game mechanic from another, or combine new mechanics from 2 different expansions.

But I here's what I don't understand. MH contains 8 new encounter cards for each area in Innsmouth, with a golden anchor symbol on them. But it also contains an additional 2 encounter cards for each Innsmouth area which have the anchor AND the Lurker at the Threshold mage symbol. So by the general explanation from the MH rules insert, you would only include those if you are playing a game with both the Innsmouth and Lurker expansions.

But the Lurker set actually contains several mechanics, which can be introduced piecemeal - such as the Lurker herald, the alternate gate markers, the Mythos cards with gate bursts, and the various new investigator cards (including Relationships). Which aspect(s) of LatT should one be using in order to warrant inclusion of the double-marked (IH & LatT) encounter cards? Are these cards to be added specifically if one is playing with the LatT herald card? (There is nothing on these cards that requires a LatT mechanic, and many of the encounters duplicate existing ones).

I presume they are there to somehow balance the encounters. The main thing I'm wondering is, is there any reason for me not to just include them as if they were simply Innsmouth cards? Or should I keep them out unless playing with the LatT herald?

Any insight is appreciated.

Lord F'zzy said:

In My Opinion, just completely integrate Lurker (except the Herald and maybe Gates) into all your games. The expansion isn't terribly thematic, and all expansion elements (save the Herald) can be integrated into every game with out anyone noticing anythings been really added. You can do the same with Black Goat (and it has the bonus that using the Black Goat components in all games makes it more likely for you to get some use out of those dumb Cult cards).

Basically the only purpose of the Miskatonic Lurker components is for very specifically themed games. All they do is mention Gates slightly more often. There's no real reason not to permanently integrate them all.

Generally speaking, Location Encounters can be always kept in, regardless of the expansions you're playing with. Most of the double icon cards uses elements (theme, Allies, this stuff here) from the matching expansions, so, if you play with decks formed by all small cards of the game, you should be safe. And in case you draw a card asking you to do an action with something you don't have in play, discard the card and draw again. I'd be more careful with OW encounters; I use them only in all-in games. The only thing I've found difficult to integrate in every game are the Skills: some of them are very specific (Egyptologist, I think, giving you bonuses during Exhibit encounters from the revised CotDP, and Informant, which forces you to use Innsmouth, and (maybe?) Criminal, giving you a Sheldon Gang Membership at the start of the game). But as for the encounters, yeah, I'll keep them in

They are there entirely a balancing issue. I've seen "combo encounter" cards that don't even mention their respective expansion, let alone to utilize an expansion mechanic.

Tibs: To be fair, it's pretty difficult to mention certain expansions (i.e. Lurker). Not to refute your point, just wanted to point it out.

No, I believe you. Especially since Black Goat and Lurker both have a loose theme. I just recall a preview of an Innsmouth/Dark Pharaoh card, or something, where none of the three encounters even mentioned anything pharaoh- or Egypt-related.

What confuses me more is that the skill card that corresponds to Lurker is the only one that does not require its intended expansion:

Once per skill check used to close a gate, re-roll all dice showing a 1.

I wish, at least, that it would have also done something like: when being dealt your relationship card, you receive a second one and you choose which to keep. Or, effects of Lurker gate tokens don't affect you. That would have been expansion-relevant while also fair in power.

Yeah, I was disappointed in a couple of the Miskatonic skills too.

I really wish there had been a "Traveler" skill that gave a person a Rail Pass or functional equivalent. In games with low money counts, merely getting to (or back) from an expansion board can be a pain.

Master Fwiffo said:

Yeah, that's a good one. Otherwise, it should be allowed to buy a Rail Pass for 3 bucks in any Station / Depot of the game (which is btw realistic. You can certainly buy a pass in a place where you can buy an ordinary ticket)

Julia said:

I sense a new house rule being added to my future games!

At least make it $4 or $5; that way the $3 encounters will be more appealing.

The "Clairvoyant" skill is sort of Lurkery (mostly in terms of mechanics, though there's a case to be made that clairvoyance is themed more to Yog-Sothoth than to any of those other dudes) given that the expansion includes not only the herald's gate-check penalty, but also those high-modifier double gates.

A relationship skill would have been great though, but preferably one that isn't only useful if you have it at the start of the game. Maybe one that you can discard (or exhaust, with a high cost to refresh) to redraw a relationship--or, if your character is a post-devouring replacement, have a relationship at all. Call it "Social Chameleon" or "Fast Talk" or something.

subochre said:

I think "Clairvoyant" might even have continued to work as a name with the "draw 2 relationships pick one, additionally a replaced partner comes with a relationship" clauses in there.

Opportunity lost, I guess.

Master Fwiffo said:

I'm glad I've been of some help :-) But yeah, Tibs made also a good point, if Encounters offer you a Pass for 3$, it should possibly cost you a little more (4 or 5). Not that bad, anyway!

Julia said:

in the backwards country i'm from we have several railroad stations (on major railroad lines) where you cannot buy tickets, but you can go aboard the train from there. and when you're on the train, you can buy ticket for that specific trip, but no monthly cards or similar.

but i do agree; having a way to buy them as an encounter should cost more.

Thanks for the feedback, but I'm still a wee bit confused, so I'll re-state the crux of the matter.

In the Miskatonic Horror expansion-expansion, there are 8 (per neighbourhood) Innsmouth encounter cards with the anchor symbol (in gold, as this is MH). So it's a no-brainer to simply add those to my existing IH set. But there are also 2 that have both the IH anchor AND the Lurker wizard (again, both in gold). Presumably there was some reason to stamp these with Lurker as well as IH, implying that they only be used with a game that involves both IH (required for those locations) and LatT. But what part of LatT is considered "using the expansion"? The herald? The gates? The Mythos cards? If I'm using IH but not LatT, I should keep out these 2 (per neighbourhood) encounter cards? There's nothing on them that seems to specifically relate to a LatT mechanic or the herald, so all I can guess is that they somehow correct game balance.

I realize I can just throw them in, but I'm trying to figure out what FF was thinking when they put the 2nd expansion symbol on.

Julia said:

5 is probably most reasonable. It's a decent amount of cash, but worth it if you plan to travel a lot, and the Encounters make it appealing. Yeah, I'm implementing that for all future games.

Lord F'zzy said:

Ok, basically if I'm assuming correctly, they were thinking "We want two encounters per expansion that work specifically with two sets". Even though Lurker doesn't have anything really to impliment, it's there for flavor. You should use it if you use both the Lurker Arkham Encounters and Innsmouth.

In Miskatonic, FFG pretty much assumes that you're using a particular expansion wholesale (that is, everything) or not at all. If neither is the case, I'd say it's up to you. As people have said, though, the Lurker encounters don't actually involve any mechanics. I would go with Master Fwiffo's advice.

Lord F'zzy said:

I think in some cases they did it just to balance the card numbers. You could leave them in and then ignore any that call for components you don't have.

There's certainly a balancing with respect to the numbers. Each big expansion neighborhood got 20 new cards. Of these, 6 cards were just for the relevant expansion and the other 14 were dual (2 for each of the remaining expansions).

Most of the time the dual cards don't make use of the other expansion, but their exceptions. In particular, a lot of the dual cards that refer to CotDP refer to gaining an ally from that expansion.

For my part, I don't bother sorting out the cards by expansion. As others have noted, it's easy to just draw another card if you pull one that references a component that's not in play.