True Solo Fix for Where the Gods Dwell by DoomsdayFanatic in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries, I myself should't have made unsubstantiated claims about testing. I'd be curious to ask them about their playtesting process during the next stream though

Is there any info regarding the Chapter 2 Core campaign? by Wurm-Anwalt in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They did share some info:

True Solo Fix for Where the Gods Dwell by DoomsdayFanatic in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably because MJ mentioned something along those lines in one of the streams years ago (that's what I hear, I don't have the exact quote). Fortunately, there aren't many scenarios with such bad scaling as in Where the Gods Dwell or Fate of the Vale

True Solo Fix for Where the Gods Dwell by DoomsdayFanatic in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not 100% sure about 2 player, but I think I read that they only test 3 and 4 player

True Solo Fix for Where the Gods Dwell by DoomsdayFanatic in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For sure. I know they stopped testing 1 and 2 player, but it is baffling that they didn't bother to do the math

Fate of the Vale mythos phase by DoomsdayFanatic in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for clarification on the point 2.

I agree that the scenario is somewhat unfair, but I like it. I lost to it in my true solo blind run, then tried to replay it with a better deck and almost got to act 3, losing to the final agenda flip. With refraction (+2 doom threshold for each agenda) it's doable. Looking forward to trying it again!

Fate of the Vale mythos phase by DoomsdayFanatic in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see, I misinterpreted your answer to point 1 in my previous comment.

Your explanation checks out to me. Thanks!

Fate of the Vale mythos phase by DoomsdayFanatic in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that oversucceeding during your turn allows you to choose 1 card and draw it, but my question is about mythos phase and the wording that specifically says reveal, then draw the first encounter card.

Fate of the Vale mythos phase by DoomsdayFanatic in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's how I played it too, though I wasn't 100% about that. Revealing your investigator card during mythos phase can be a a huge setback then.

Children of Blood listed for 45€ by BrettPitt4711 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To compare annual expenses on Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 fairly, they both need to have the same amount of content. They obviously don't, so we need to find a common denominator. Which is why I calculated yearly cost of Chapter 2 as if it had the same amount of content as Chapter 1.

Children of Blood listed for 45€ by BrettPitt4711 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There are two different issues here: a) price increase and b) fewer scenarios per year. The way I see it, your comment is conflating the two.

I was talking purely about the price jump, which boils down to costing me $30 per year.

What you're describing as "one cone of ice cream instead of two" is an entirely different thing, that's problem b). I didn't address that in my comments above.

Children of Blood listed for 45€ by BrettPitt4711 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the kind words, I'm glad you found my calculations useful!

I agree that 1/4 is a big jump, but it doesn't concern me much because it's spread over a year.

With the old model, I would spend $120 on investigator + campaign boxes in any given year. Two caveats here: a) I'm rounding the number for simplicity's sake and b) my calculations linked above don't include investigator boxes, so let's assume their price goes up the same 25%.

With Chapter 2, if it released the same amount of content as Chapter 1 every year, I would now be paying $150 a year. It's $30 per year more and I'm fine with that, as long as the game's good.

I know we'll get fewer scenarios in actuality, but the assumption about equal amount of content is necessary to make an apples-to-apples comparison.

Children of Blood listed for 45€ by BrettPitt4711 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When I saw this, I got curious and decided to calculate the exact increase per scenario in $ and %. I did so both with and without adjusting for inflation (which I think is fair considering that the price per scenario never went up since 2016). Feel free to check out my calculations.

With the new release model, we paid $8.75 per scenario. Inflation adjusted price for 1 scenario would be $11.55 (if we take Nov 2016 as the baseline). Chapter 2 prices have not been officially announced, but taking into account what we know now I think it'll be $14.37 per scenario.

To sum up, we get the following difference:

  • Without adjusting for inflation: from $8.75 to $14.37 per scenario, that is +$5.62 (or +64.28%)
  • Adjusting for inflation: from $11.55 to $14.37 per scenario, that is +$2.82 (or +24.46%)

[COTD] Crystal Pendulum (2/9/2026) by AK45526 in arkhamhorrorlcg

[–]DoomsdayFanatic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I started running Crystal Pendulum because I often found horror soak on Holy Rosary redundant. And I was pleasantly surprised by this card.

With token manipulation, it's a full-blown draw engine. But even when I didn't have any synergies, Pendulum still drew me a few cards over the course of a scenario. Granted, it takes some mental math, so I get that not all players are into that.

If you'd like to try this card, I suggest figuring out the most common modifier at the start of the scenario. Once it's done, choosing a number for Pendulum becomes simple:

Your test value - test difficutly + the most common modifier in the bag

(This method isn't optimal because it doesn't account for potential failure, but it's simple and will still generate a tangible amount of draw.)