Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ricedwlit

  1. On a separate note: There are now over 350 entries (not bad for a game with no expansions yet). For those who looking to accomplish a first: we've yet to have a win recorded for a six person game!
  2. Yup, happened to my in my second play through with Azathoth. 😡
  3. That you have such a high win rate doesn't surprise me. I suspect that you are an outlier regarding "grokking" the game and seeing what needs to be done to win. I know that for my part it took a while to completely grasp what to focus on in AH 3rd edition and my personal stats reflect this: 13 games with 6 victories, distributed across all scenarios (plus rotating through all investigators). Now that I've played each scenario multiple times I have a better sense on what to do to win. Coupled with selecting best investigators I'm sure my win rate will rise to above 75% (and for the Unmordoth it will likely hit 95% or more). However, right now stats are dominated by people discovering them and perhaps recording their first game. And Approach to Azathoth is not easy - if you lose control of doom and let things escalate it will be hard to win (even more so if you had just spent clues to take a certain action).
  4. For those of us who love the game, it may help for you to specify a few things you didn't like. Then we can determine if those are things that go away with more plays (e.g. you needed to look up a lot of things in the rules) or not (e.g. you absolutely cannot stand the chaos bag).
  5. No error on your part, instead the error is on FFG's part. It was discussed in this thread in this forum and a question was sent in that Matt answered (see this post). For those too lazy to click through, the key part of the answer is:
  6. I noticed that as well. Either they planned to do something and it was dropped or there will be something in Return to TFA ...
  7. Thanks all for submissions to date (as of this post, 188 games)! Some new stats have been added to the Scenarios tab (based on data from the info already present in the various spoilers tabs) regarding how often each scenario proceeds to the point where it become markedly different to win (and what the % loss if that point is reached)*. This roughly corresponds to the "Ancient One Awakens" or "Final Mystery" in AH (2nd ed) and Eldritch Horror respectively). *: Well, this isn't true for all four scenarios - but to be consistent I didn't want to mark any scenario as special.
  8. Supplies are associated with an investigator, so if that investigator doesn't continue for whatever reason (insane, killed, just didn't want to play with) the supplies are lost.
  9. As noted in another thread I’ve decided to take on the challenge of collecting data on Arkham Horror (3rd ed) game plays. Of course the work is not fully my own since I cribbed liberally from the work Tibs did for Arkham Horror (2nd ed) and Eldritch Horror. You can submit you play session information here You can view submissions and derived statistics here. Note: tabs that contain spoilers include "spoilers" in the name (with one exception, namely the tab containing the submissions - but then it should be obvious that it will contain spoilers. For those of you curious as to what was submitted who want to avoid spoilers there is a "Spoiler Free Submissions" tab). If you have any questions / concerns please post here or contact me at arkhamrel@me.com
  10. I think this is posted to the wrong forum. The 3rd edition game does not have Professor Harvey Walters as a character (at present - if it does well with expansions I'm sure they will add him). Here is the link to the forum for the 2nd edition of the game: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/forum/15-arkham-horror-second-edition/
  11. The input form as it now stands will initially ask which scenario you played and depending on your answers some follow up questions specific to just the one you played, including did you win/lose. For some scenarios if you win there will be some additional questions (that you can skip if you wish) where you can provide more details. The stats page that I'll be sharing will minimize spoilers, with the main page just breaking out 'win vs. lose' and no scenario specific details. Those who are interested can go to a specific tab in the sheet (marked as having spoilers) to learn more if they wish.
  12. Quick update: Incorporating feedback from the BGG forum the form should be ready to share in another day or so - just working on making sure all the data that is collected is can be analyzed properly. If anyone has some last thoughts please share them. When the form is ready will post in a new thread.
  13. To the best of my knowledge there isn’t yet an online form that people can use to record play stats for Arkham Horror 3rd edition like the ones Tibs currently runs for AH 2nd ed. (If there is please let me know). The possibility of having one was raised in a separate post for this forum but as best I can tell never reached a resolution. Since I’m not a novice at working with Google Spreadsheets, I figured I’d take a try at creating a form (shamelessly cribbing from the style Tibs used for Eldritch Horror). Most of the work is already done with just one major item left to figure out. Namely, how to categorize “victory”? In AH 3rd edition the victory really varies by scenario and there is no cut and dry “we won by doing X”. One option would be to just have a single “Victory” option. But I feel that this doesn’t really do justice to calling out when the investigators do really well versus just barely managed to scrape by. For example: In Eldritch Horror victory could be easily segmented: you either won before the Ancient one awoke or not. Something similar could be done here: Have a “Victory (without facing Epic Monster)” and “Victory by defeating Epic Monster”. However this is still not perfect. But at least it allows us to divide victories into types. One option I considered and rejected would be to have branching questions depending on which scenario was played. But that would be a lot of work and there is still the problem of summarizing the results without spoilers. So, if you have read this far and have any thoughts I’d love to hear them. To recap, the main question I am grappling is whether to have a single option for reporting victory vs. multiple. Of course all other thoughts are welcome (things to add, etc). Thanks in advance! Note: this is cross posted to BGG. I will be reading replies to both so no need to answer in both places.
  14. FFG has had problems before with the Upcoming page not being correct for items. In this case, perhaps Huntress was updated to on the boat when it should have stayed at awaiting reprint.
  15. I too find this hard to believe. I hold to another point of view: the books sold much better than expected. Perhaps to the point where they hadn't lined up future product offerings. As such, they are waiting to re-offer the older items until such time as they can also bring out new content. Something along the lines of "We've lined up some new content but it will take some time, in the meantime we've reprinted the older stuff".
  16. Just finished a first run through with Mark and Sefina (each with 19 XP of upgrades). Was totally crushed. This is definitely the hardest one yet. That said, it was a lot of fun and I look forward to trying it again.
  17. This has been addressed in a thread on BGG: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/2096139/official-ffg-rulings Specifically: QUESTION: Regarding Marie Lambeau's 'Witch Blood', does 'this action' refer to the action on Witch Blood or the action taken via Witch Blood? RESPONSE: 'This action" refers to Witch-Blood’s component action: "Perform an action you have already performed this turn." It does not allow the other investigator to use the action that Marie performed twice, but rather to use an action that they themselves used earlier this round.
  18. For what it's worth, I don't think you should get points for all three of the back rooms (in particular, no XP for the one leading to the alley) in this case, due to the fact that when you resign the investigator drops their clues on that location, per the rules: Rules reference p. 17 for resignation: "When an investigator resigns, the investigator is eliminated by resignation (see “Elimination” on page 10.)" Rules reference p. 10 for elimination: "All clue tokens that player possesses are placed at the location the investigator was at when he or she was eliminated" This is a mistake I made many times until reading a correction on BGG. Other than, keep up the reports: I am really enjoying reading them
  19. For the initial seeding of spectral deck they could do something like: Start with one copy each of <N named cards>. Randomly select <N-2> to form the spectral deck, shuffle the remaining 2 back into the main encounter deck.
  20. For now it is flavour. For those running through the campaign the first time it also serves as a red herring. Also, it may serve a purpose in Return to the Dunwich Legacy.
  21. Another interesting fact (which is supposition at the moment, but at some point I'll check the cards to confirm): when a event card is shuffled into a neighborhood, each space in the neighborhood for that card grants you the opportunity to get a clue. So, all things created equal (e.g. there is no monster to avoid or all spaces have the same amount of doom), select your space based on what you main gain in case you don't draw the event card with an opportunity to get a clue - this way you still get an acceptable backup option. For example, if the space is likely to heal damage, don't stop there if you are already at full health - pick a spot where you may get an asset instead.
  22. Slight counterpoint to Rex: if you lower expectations to "passing one test a turn and only by one", the he's not so bad, given that he can focus after failing a test. So once he has a skill at +1, he can test that skill, lose the focus to re-roll if he doesn't succeed, and then immediately refocus that one skill he lost. (And if he passes, then he can focus another skill for a potential later re-roll). So, have him ward some doom. If he gets good clues/items have them pass off to someone else. He can also engage monsters to free up other investigators. And if he gets the right equipment, then he can go out with a blaze of glory - in my one play he was lucky enough to get some dynamite and that proved useful in the end game.
  23. Drive by calculations! Likelihood if not blessed/cursed (or Rex) to get one or more success with One die: 33.3% Two dice: 55.5% Three dice: 70.4% Four dice: 80.2% Five dice: 86.8% So going from one to two gives you a 22.2% boost whereas going from four to five only gives you a 6.6% boost. Aside: If blessed, then you hit even odds (50%) with just one dice; if cursed (or Rex) then you need four dice (51.7%) to beat even odds. Last note: all of this assumes you roll all these dice at once. Re-rolling a die (due to focus, asset, whatever) is an independent event.
  24. ricedwlit


    If Tibs isn't up for it I'm willing to take on the challenge (and for this it would be a challenge, giving the varying ways to win etc). ?
  25. I also play games almost 100% solo. I also own all the games you list, except for Descent, and your points about difficulty for a single investigator are valid. But my response has been simply to control more than one investigator. For Eldritch Horror I tried with a variety of investigator counts (1, 2, and 4) and ultimately settled on 4. This is a lot to keep track of and ideally I'd go with fewer; in particular 3 may be a better if I use either the official revised reference cards (or one of the community created alternatives). I haven't much played Mansions of Madness (just didn't click for me), but when I was playing it I also controlled 4. In this case there is the issue of hidden motives when people go insane; I just house ruled to stick to the ones where the insane investigator isn't actively working against the others. For AH:TCG (my current favorite game) I've played controlling both a single and two investigators, with a preference for controlling two. Yes, information is shared that normally shouldn't, so this isn't "rules as written". But most importantly I get to have fun. I've also played Arkham Horror (2nd edition) in a similar fashion, varying from one investigator up to five. Totally enjoyed it. So, bottom line, while FFG could incorporate rules to make a solo investigator to compensate for one investigator having to it all, because these are co-op the alternate is to just control more then one. I find that while one investigator can best capture the Lovecraftian "doomed to fail but will go out trying", working with two still captures a large part of that feel, as in "we will still likely fail, but maybe against all odds one of us will make it out".
  • Create New...