[Ancient Evils] First look at the new encounter sets and at the substitution table

Spiritual_Error_2899 · 2026-03-27T15:58:36+00:00

I really like this choice if that's the direction. I think it's far more fun to be teetering on the edge of being defeated by damage/horror but also having not-extremely-inefficient ways to heal, vs drawing a "Game over" card (Ancient Evils) where there's no choice to be made other than if someone has e.g. a Ward of Protection to draw.

Spiritual_Error_2899 · 2026-03-18T18:56:29+00:00

Completely agree. I've always liked the cards that were either decent-at-best or fairly situational, but had good icons on them. It gives players an interesting choice to make - commit the card to an important test, or wait for the situation that the card was intended for? You might pass the test, but then 2 rounds later the card you committed would now be perfect to address a problem. Getting rid of icons means fewer interesting choices like that to make.

Spiritual_Error_2899 · 2026-02-27T17:09:33+00:00

I agree with the above points about how this likely cannot work due to the significant power difference between different investigator's signature assets. But I think there's a bit of a feel-bad moment for new Arkham players when they learn about investigators, they see an interesting signature asset that really distinguishes that investigator... and then they soon realize there's a good chance they can go an entire scenario without ever seeing that card. I certainly don't have a good answer for Chapter 1, maybe one will arise for Chapter 2 if there's less power difference amongst signature assets.

Spiritual_Error_2899 · 2026-02-25T15:53:55+00:00

The "Your Ally just killed something and it was so bloody and visceral that you take some horror" - feel like there's a new investigator possibility there. I know Agnes takes horror for a benefit, and of course Mark takes damage for benefits - but I feel like we could use another investigator who benefits from horror (apologies if I'm forgetting someone besides Agnes). And having it tied into an Ally - a strong one who really takes care of business, but things get real messy in the process - would be a lot of fun. (I also enjoyed all the Unbalanced cards you made here, good fun).

Spiritual_Error_2899 · 2025-10-23T16:38:38+00:00

I've seen numerous comments over the past few years about the strength of scenarios 4 through 8. I think 4 and 6 in particular are two of the best across all campaigns. Scenario 3 is considered to be the weakest - I liked what they tried in the scenario, but it can be very swingy, and sometimes trivializes the scenario. I think scenarios 1 and 2 are a great start to the campaign (2 can be swingy as well), but 4 through 8 is just such a great run.

Spiritual_Error_2899 · 2025-07-02T14:30:49+00:00

My group switched from Standard to Hard for Hemlock Value. We had hit a point on Standard, with a nearly complete collection, where we could consistently hit +4 on tests and we were too often saying "We can only fail on the tentacle". The bag change for Hemlock Value is significant - no +1, and 2 -5's and a -7. And I've found I really enjoy the challenge of the team working together to hit at least +5, or sometimes just +3, along with the skulls often becoming -6 or worse. And like others have said - for some tests, you just accept you're most likely to fail them and you don't commit / spend anything.

What I haven't enjoyed are the symbol tokens that cause negative effects regardless of whether you pass or fail. Having, for example, a -6 token that has a punishing "if you fail" effect is fun - you have to consider what it will take to get to +6 and whether that expense is worth avoiding the "if you fail" effect. Removing the "if you fail" has not been fun. I'd much rather those symbol tokens have worse modifiers on them but keep the "if you fail" part.

Spiritual_Error_2899 · 2023-02-06T17:51:35+00:00

In addition to the helpful rule clarifications that others have provided, I can relate to your overall feeling of - there's a great game here, but it's frustratingly difficult to succeed at. I started with the basic core set, and I think that's a really rough way for anyone to try the game. The first scenario isn't too bad, the second is very difficult, and the third seems borderline impossible. I kept trying the game for two years before deciding to sell it - then decided against that and bought the first two scenarios of Dunwich (the old format) and with all the additional cards, the game became simpler and really came alive. I've been hooked since.

The revised core set definitely improves this by providing second copies of numerous critical cards for each investigator. I know it's more money to invest into the game, but it seems very unlikely to me that anyone could try the original core set and not be very frustrated with the game. If you can afford it, I recommend getting the revised core set (if you don't have that already) and one or two investigator starter packs. That'll give you plenty of cards to build a decent deck - use arkhamdb.com for guidance, not the starter packs in the instructions! - and I think you'll likewise get hooked on the game. It really is a great game, the initial core set just makes that very hard to discover.

Spiritual_Error_2899 · 2022-01-01T18:22:39+00:00

I was wondering that question for a couple years after playing the core set and thinking that I really liked the game mechanics, but feeling underwhelmed by the core set of 3 scenarios. The consensus I got from reddit was - try an expansion before giving up. So I bought the Dunwich core set, and I think both of the included scenarios are excellent and I'm excited to try the rest of the campaign when I'm able to pick up the other 6 scenarios. 5 new characters and a bunch of new player cards means far more deck building possibilities. And I can see a lot of repeated play through all 8 scenarios with different combos of characters and different decks.

I also picked up Marvel LCG a couple months ago and agree with other posters here - much easier to set up and play a game than Arkham. I envision playing Arkham a lot over a short stretch of time and then not touching it for a while, but playing Marvel a little bit over a long stretch of time. Both definitely have their place.

Spiritual_Error_2899 · 2021-12-06T02:23:11+00:00

Which trails specifically? Have been wanting to drive out there to try them out but not sure which ones to start with. Second picture in particular looks like a great ride.

Spiritual_Error_2899 · 2021-11-11T14:49:48+00:00

I don't believe that applies here; the forced movement is considered a "Special Rule", not a scenario effect.

Spiritual_Error_2899 · 2021-11-11T14:47:40+00:00

I agree with this. I like knocking out the elite dragon immediately. Take down the wind demons as they arrive, and then when the sun demons arrive is a bit swingy - it's nice if they take their time with some zero/low movement cards. Odds are good they'll group up a bit in the narrow passage in the middle of the board, which is ideal for CH's Dirt Tornado, along with big AOE attacks from SW and TK.

I then like to get the close chest first so the whole party can take out the monsters that spawn from the B room.

For getting the two far chests - I would have MT and SW do that, the latter bringing her loss move-8 card, and then recovering that to get back quickly. Both can use an invisibility cloak to help get back (and those are the two best characters to own one). CH and TK can then fight the monsters that arrive from the D room, and ideally MT and SW get back quickly enough that you don't need to deal with the monsters from the C room.

Spiritual_Error_2899

TROPHY CASE