Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ignatz_Von_Zwakh

# of expansions one plays with at once?

Recommended Posts

There is no objective answer. It is a question of subjective pleasures. Some people like one flavour, another hates it, a third likes to mix them up. Arkham generously - hungrily! - embraces all.

Personally, I love the chaos of all-in-one, but I also love the focus and theme of concentration, and the fun that can be had in seeing how X expansion interacts with Y and maybe Z.  1-2 boards, preferably 1, and 1-2 small boxes works as a nice medium.

Find your flavour!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally play witht wo expansion boards, one of those being always Kingsport. And complete encounters and small cards decks.


If you add another board (or play with just two boards, but those are DH and IH), you'll start playing "speed Arkham": 20 unstable locations could mean a new gate opening each round, and you tend to have games very, very short. It could be a strategically good thing (if you're playing Atlach or Shudde) but it cuts off also some fun (IMO).


As for the small boxes... the point is that the more expansions you add, the more diluted the flavour of each expansion will be (the expansion dilution is solved by Miskatonic Horror, but the flavour dilution... there is nothing you can do at this regard).


So, as Dj said, the best thing you can do is trying to play some different combo. Maybe a series of "one big box and one small box " games, and see what fits better your needs.


One important thing you can do is playing a series of "one expansion at the time" games, in order to see what a specific expansion can add to a game. Knowing the elements, it's easier creating a good blender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect because Kingsport's board mechanic is undilutable.  Dunwich may be sleepy, and Innsmouth may be deserted, but Kingsport will activate almost EVERY turn.  But whether or not one finds the Rifts threatening will determine if one even cares that in all of Arkham, this was the one single expansion mechanic that NEVER needed "fixing".

You have to figure out for yourself how you want to play Arkham, because it will gleefully accommodate any combination you come up with.  Play each expansion with just the base game at least once.  Try each small box with your favorite expansion board in play (but just one).  Tibs has a great "opening gauntlet" regimen for rookies, highlighting each expansion on its own; I'm sure he can point that out somewhere around here.

I prefer flavor to mechanics, so I'm firmly in the One-Big-One-Small camp.  I will rotate through Dunwich-Kingsport-Innsmouth one at a time, with either King in Yellow, Revised Dark Pharaoh, or Lurker mixed in.  But I always include just the Lurker Mythos in EVERY game, as it is the best of the few expansions that has Gate Bursts without requiring any other specific expansion board in play.  (If that doesn't make sense, someday it will, and by then you'll probably have a good idea about how YOU want to play Arkham.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question for the community on a similar subject; how do you manage your decks? I have all of the cards from all of the expansions mixed into all of the decks (yes, the other world encounters and mythos decks are ENORMOUS and difficult to shuffle) and generally only ignore a drawn card if it specifically interacts with a mechanic not in play (example: a mythos card requiring a gate or clue to appear on a board that I'm not using, a headline that banishes monsters in a street area not in play, an encounter that says to travel somewhere inaccessible, etc.) (and in that case I re-draw). However, after coming here and learning about the over-saturation problem that multiple expansions introduce in Dunwich and Innsmouth, I am going to begin ignoring mythos cards altogether if they are from an expansion that I'm not using. Do most people do things this way, or do you prune the deck before a game and remove the cards not needed/wanted? Also, do you do this with items and Arkham encounter decks as well?

I'm a big fan of the thematic element of the game, so I want as many cards in as many decks as possible so that I can enjoy all of the horrible things that can happen to my investigator, so I'm hesitant to trim the Arkham encounters decks.

 

[EDIT for the OP: I just ordered the last of the expansions that I didn't own (except for the original CotDP) and they should be here tomorrow. I am planning a game with my friends to play with all eight expansions. This will be a special occasion and certainly is not how I normally play. I anticipate the game to be very short. I usually play with one board and cherry pick features from the small expansions, like using the relationship deck and the injury/madness cards, but not having a herald, etc.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jgt7771 said:

I suspect because Kingsport's board mechanic is undilutable.  Dunwich may be sleepy, and Innsmouth may be deserted, but Kingsport will activate almost EVERY turn.  But whether or not one finds the Rifts threatening will determine if one even cares that in all of Arkham, this was the one single expansion mechanic that NEVER needed "fixing".

Excellent, Jgt. That's the main reason.

Plus, I love the theme of Kingsport encounters, and having an additional threat to deal with. And Kingsport is absolutely different from any other board, thus is kinda exciting.

And finally, even for a strategical reason: my games are kinda short, so it happens I don't have to take care of Kingsport for most of the game. And this allows me to play one investigator more (for the multiple board reduction factor) without having the annoying "two monsters per gate" thing to deal with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

00000100 said:

Another question for the community on a similar subject; how do you manage your decks? I have all of the cards from all of the expansions mixed into all of the decks (yes, the other world encounters and mythos decks are ENORMOUS and difficult to shuffle) and generally only ignore a drawn card if it specifically interacts with a mechanic not in play (example: a mythos card requiring a gate or clue to appear on a board that I'm not using, a headline that banishes monsters in a street area not in play, an encounter that says to travel somewhere inaccessible, etc.) (and in that case I re-draw). However, after coming here and learning about the over-saturation problem that multiple expansions introduce in Dunwich and Innsmouth, I am going to begin ignoring mythos cards altogether if they are from an expansion that I'm not using. Do most people do things this way, or do you prune the deck before a game and remove the cards not needed/wanted? Also, do you do this with items and Arkham encounter decks as well?

I'm a big fan of the thematic element of the game, so I want as many cards in as many decks as possible so that I can enjoy all of the horrible things that can happen to my investigator, so I'm hesitant to trim the Arkham encounters decks.

 

[EDIT for the OP: I just ordered the last of the expansions that I didn't own (except for the original CotDP) and they should be here tomorrow. I am planning a game with my friends to play with all eight expansions. This will be a special occasion and certainly is not how I normally play. I anticipate the game to be very short. I usually play with one board and cherry pick features from the small expansions, like using the relationship deck and the injury/madness cards, but not having a herald, etc.]

Basically, I keep all items and small cards mixed together, and I sort out the Mythos / OW decks after every game

As for "all expansions in" games... you should try Avi's Advanced League (follow the link in Avi's or mine signature), it's a complete new experience of the game, and it's great in theme. Plus, if you want to really experience the horrors of the Mythos... well, when you reach the last Scenario, you'll be delighted by your discovery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

00000100 said:

I'm a big fan of the thematic element of the game, so I want as many cards in as many decks as possible so that I can enjoy all of the horrible things that can happen to my investigator, so I'm hesitant to trim the Arkham encounters decks.

I'm going to throw this out with the caveat that it requires a specific insanity to do this, but I know I have this insanity.

Every game, I shuffle in what I'm going to specifically play with, and separate it all out for storage in its original box.  (I gave up trying to cram everything into 1-2 boxes with Ziplocs and rubber bands, and instead went to Target for a cheap duffel bag that would hold all 4-5 big boxes comfortably.)  What goes into any game is: 

  • All Arkham Mythos, Encounter, Gate Encounter
  • All Mythos, Encounter, Gate Encounter relating to one Expansion Board
  • All Mythos, Encounter, Gate Encounter relating to one Small Expansion
  • All Lurker Mythos (if they are not already in there)
  • A specific selection (4 per neighborhood) of Arkham Encounters from Dunwich relating to Rail Passes, Sheldon Gang Memberships, or the three Allies not found in Arkham Encounters in Innsmouth cards, plus a few to round out all neighborhoods (Wow, OCD much?)
  • Any Encounters and Gate Encounters properly symboled from Miskatonic (sometimes Mythos too but not always)

And then every Investigator card possible from all expansions.  Plus, I shuffle my Encounter Decks in neighborhoods of three each (for a smaller footprint): North Arkham, Mid-Arkham, South Arkham, Dunwich, Kingsport, Innsmouth.  When I draw, I draw just like the Gate Encounters: take the first card that matches the correct card back.  Great for recycling Encounters decks.

If I'm playing solo, I may not separate after each specific game; I'll just leave the game up on the table and play (for example) Dunwich 2 or 3 times.  If I'm playing with my Cult, I'll shuffle everything together the day before the game, and all four of us separate all the cards out during the "after-party".

I generally rotate Dunwich-Kingsport-Innsmouth-repeat, and I wonder how really different and random are your games from my games.  If there are, let's say, 20 Mythos per game, how many cards out of your 60 and my 60 will be from Dunwich?  Kingsport?  Innsmouth?  Must it matter that any of them might be played consecutive to each other?  Frankly, the height (and shuffling) of such a monster deck turns me right off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julia said:

you should try Avi's Advanced League (follow the link in Avi's or mine signature), it's a complete new experience of the game, and it's great in theme. Plus, if you want to really experience the horrors of the Mythos... well, when you reach the last Scenario, you'll be delighted by your discovery

I've looked into it, and I'm really interested! The only problem is that I have little free time as is, and what little I get I usually spend training for Street Fighter tournaments. I love Arkham, and I'd love to play it more often, I just can't find the time.

 

jgt7771 said:

I wonder how really different and random are your games from my games. If there are, let's say, 20 Mythos per game, how many cards out of your 60 and my 60 will be from Dunwich? Kingsport? Innsmouth? Must it matter that any of them might be played consecutive to each other? Frankly, the height (and shuffling) of such a monster deck turns me right off.

Yeah, I agree. However, I can say that I don't very often see the same cards. Shuffling the giant decks is a hassle, but I use the strategy of dealing them out into six piles and then stacking them up. It gets the job done pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I like to play with all expansions because it saves you the trouble of having to choose what to include!

However, many users prefer to use one small expansion and one large expansion.

In any case, I created a user poll on this topic and this is what they said:

9aGSv4dNDpJQ9HnAVb6JEEi2ktAmXENjQR8t-1Wp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"eidm=631186I'm a big fan of the thematic element of the game, so I want as many cards in as many decks as possible so that I can enjoy all of the horrible things that can happen to my investigator, so I'm hesitant to trim the Arkham encounters decks."

I am big fan of the theme and that's why I use mythos cards from 1 expansion at time plus base plus MH + Lurker

For the location decks I use the cards from the small expansion I'm using mixed in in with an equal number of cards the big boards.  The big board location cards aren't as thematic as the small expansion location cards are.

For the Other Worlds I have a deck for each other world, too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

00000100 said:

I've looked into it, and I'm really interested! The only problem is that I have little free time as is, and what little I get I usually spend training for Street Fighter tournaments. I love Arkham, and I'd love to play it more often, I just can't find the time.

I see. Yeah, time is a major issue, sadly. But thanks for giving it a look!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julia said:

I generally play witht wo expansion boards, one of those being always Kingsport. And complete encounters and small cards decks.

Julia said:

 the expansion dilution is solved by Miskatonic Horror

That statement is incorrect, by the way.   At least if you play with either the Dunwich board or the Innsmouth board, but not both together.  If you play with the Dunwich board and no other expansions, then your chance of drawing a Dunwich gate is 25.51% and your chance of drawing an Arkham gate is 75.49%.  If you add all the expansions including Miskatonic, but you still don't use the Innsmouth board (which sounds like your style), then your chance of drawing a Dunwich gate goes down to 15.44%, but your chance of drawing an Arkham gate only goes down to 72.97%. 

so, with Miskatonic...

25.51% becomes 15.44% (Dunwich gates)

75.49% becomes 72.97% (Arkham gates)

That don't seem right.

 

If you play with the Innsmouth expansion and no other expansions, then your chance of drawing an Innsmouth gate is 33.33% and your chance of drawing an Arkham gate is 64.71%.  If you play with all the expansions, including Miskatonic, but don't use the Dunwich board, then your chance of drawing an Innsmouth gate is 20.52% and your chance of drawing an Arkham gate is 68.28%.

with Miskatonic:

33.33% becomes 20.52% (Innsmouth gates)

64.71% becomes 68.28% (Arkham gates)

Hmm.

 

However, Miskatonic does work pretty well when you use Dunwich board and the Innsmouth board together:

25.51% becomes 13.65% (Dunwich gates)

33.33% becomes 18.77% (Innsmouth gates)

approx 70% becomes 57.34% (Arkham gates)

That seems fair, since all three boards should "shrink" proportionally if they're going to be used together. 

 

Miskatonic doesn't even come close to solving the dilution problem UNLESS you use both the Dunwich board and the Innsmouth board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely nice to have the the exact numbers in mind, but I guess it's an open question what counts as "solving" dilution.  I don't see anything particularly sacrosanct about the maximally undiluted ratios.  And given the way various elements of the game interact (consider how silly Tulzscha gets when heralding for Rhan or even Glaaki), it's not the end of the world if, for example, certain combinations of expansions make Dunwich or Innsmouth disproportionately busy or quiet. ...Well, okay, if it's busy enough that there are monster surges at Y'ha-nthlei, then that probably is the end of the world. But in any case, as long as I don't ever go "God this town is boring, why did I bother including it," then I consider the dilution problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

subochre said:


It's definitely nice to have the the exact numbers in mind, but I guess it's an open question what counts as "solving" dilution.  I don't see anything particularly sacrosanct about the maximally undiluted ratios.  And given the way various elements of the game interact (consider how silly Tulzscha gets when heralding for Rhan or even Glaaki), it's not the end of the world if, for example, certain combinations of expansions make Dunwich or Innsmouth disproportionately busy or quiet. ...Well, okay, if it's busy enough that there are monster surges at Y'ha-nthlei, then that probably is the end of the world. But in any case, as long as I don't ever go "God this town is boring, why did I bother including it," then I consider the dilution problem solved.



Yeah, that's the point.


Avec, I wasn't talking maths. Even if numbers could be interestng, I was just saying that very often I had games (before adding MH) where one of the expansion boards had no activity at all. You could simply ignore Falcon Point for the whole game. Then, after adding the MH Mythos, this doesn't happen anymore. Most of the DH only games I played, I had at least three gates opening there. In an Abhoth game I lost, I had all 5 unstable locations in Dunwich with a gate. Something I've never seen before. And this thanks to MH.


This for me solves the problem. And the problem for me is "I'd love to see activity on all boards", not "we want to have the very same odds of a gate opening in every board regardless of the number of expansions played". Before MH, this rarely happened. With MH, this rarely doesn't happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avec said:

Miskatonic doesn't even come close to solving the dilution problem UNLESS you use both the Dunwich board and the Innsmouth board. 

I've come to a compromise on this. After all is said and done, having Dunwich and Innsmouth drop to half frequency isn't so bad considering everything else is mixed in. Really, the Act cards were more important and they were solved adequately. So I'd say that the expansion solves dilution, so long as any future expansions (?) continue to adopt the dual-gate concept on Mythos cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julia said:

subochre said:

 It's definitely nice to have the the exact numbers in mind, but I guess it's an open question what counts as "solving" dilution.  I don't see anything particularly sacrosanct about the maximally undiluted ratios.  And given the way various elements of the game interact (consider how silly Tulzscha gets when heralding for Rhan or even Glaaki), it's not the end of the world if, for example, certain combinations of expansions make Dunwich or Innsmouth disproportionately busy or quiet. ...Well, okay, if it's busy enough that there are monster surges at Y'ha-nthlei, then that probably is the end of the world. But in any case, as long as I don't ever go "God this town is boring, why did I bother including it," then I consider the dilution problem solved.

  

Yeah, that's the point.

Avec, I wasn't talking maths. Even if numbers could be interestng, I was just saying that very often I had games (before adding MH) where one of the expansion boards had no activity at all. You could simply ignore Falcon Point for the whole game. Then, after adding the MH Mythos, this doesn't happen anymore. Most of the DH only games I played, I had at least three gates opening there. In an Abhoth game I lost, I had all 5 unstable locations in Dunwich with a gate. Something I've never seen before. And this thanks to MH.

This for me solves the problem. And the problem for me is "I'd love to see activity on all boards", not "we want to have the very same odds of a gate opening in every board regardless of the number of expansions played". Before MH, this rarely happened. With MH, this rarely doesn't happen

 

 

Deep breath.  Count to ten.

I'm not just doing this because I love numbers.  Being able to ignore Falcon Pt the whole game IS math.  Having unstable locations open in Dunwich is math.  As I hope you realize, unstable locations can open in Dunwich even without MH.  And Dunwich can be quiet even with MH.  It's not a matter of what can happen or what can't happen.  It's a matter of what tends to happen.  Everything you're describing is math. 

This is what MH contributes:

If you play with all the expansions except MH, and you use only the Dunwich board, the chance of drawing a Dunwich gate is 11.57%.  If you add MH, the chance increases to 15.44%.  Now, if you play with just Dunwich and no other expansion, the chance is 25.51%. 

So, what you're saying is, when the chance is 11.57%, Dunwich sometimes has "no activity at all."  But, when the chance increases to 15.44% (just 4 percentage points), then "this doesn't happen anymore."  I'm skeptical.  As you can see, if you play with just the Dunwich board, adding MH to all the expansions results in barely any change at all to the activity in Dunwich.  Dunwich activity should be 25%.  Before MH, it was diluted down to 11%.  After MH, it was increased up to 15%.  Problem solved?

If you're using only the Innsmouth board, it's the same story.  With just the IH expansion, Innsmouth activity is 33.33%.  Before MH, with every expansion in play it got diluted down to 15.11%.  MH "solves" the problem by increasing the activity to 20.52%.  That's still a far cry from the 33.33% it was playtested at. 

Please, somebody, check my numbers.  Tell me I'm doing the math wrong.

 

Tibs:  "I've come to a compromise on this. After all is said and done, having Dunwich and Innsmouth drop to half frequency isn't so bad considering everything else is mixed in. Really, the Act cards were more important and they were solved adequately. So I'd say that the expansion solves dilution, so long as any future expansions (?) continue to adopt the dual-gate concept on Mythos cards."

 

I agree that MH solves dilution for KiY, but not DH or IH.  I don't agree that dilution never mattered for DH or IH.  Before Miskatonic came out, a lot of people were quite concerned about dilution of the expansion boards and were hoping that MH would solve the problem.  And it does, but only if you use both expansion boards at the same time.

 

This seems like as good a place as any to post my solution to the dilution problem.

If you're playing with the Dunwich board, but not the Innsmouth board, use these cards:

  • The Story Continue
  • Old Debts Come Due
  • 24 randomly selected Dunwich location cards
  • 72 randomly selected Arkham location cards
  • 5 randomly selected other cards

If you're playing with the Innsmouth board, but not the Dunwich board, use these cards:

  • The Story Continues
  • 32 randomly selected Innsmouth cards (potentially including Plans in Motion)
  • 64 randomly selected Arkham cards
  • 6 randomly selected other cards

No more dilution.  Plus, the Dark Man of Wizard's Hill actually gets scary again. 

I didn't just pull those numbers out of the air, by the way.  If you want to know where they came from, I'd be glad to tell you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avec said:


Deep breath.  Count to ten.


I'm not just doing this because I love numbers.  Being able to ignore Falcon Pt the whole game IS math.  Having unstable locations open in Dunwich is math.  As I hope you realize, unstable locations can open in Dunwich even without MH.  And Dunwich can be quiet even with MH.  It's not a matter of what can happen or what can't happen.  It's a matter of what tends to happen.  Everything you're describing is math. 



Avec, I'm not sure I get your tone. Deep breath? Count to ten? C'me on, I don't think I've insulted you! :.laughter::


First of all, I'm not saying counting the odds isn't math.


I'm saying this: "when I say it solves the problem of dilution I'm not referring to the math, I'm referring to the fact that:


a) before Miskatonic, it was unlikely to have a real activity on all expansion boards. Because of the way Mythos deck were constructed, and no interaction between the boards were considered, and tons of other good reasons


b) after Miskatonic, this is not so unlikely"


Hence, please, don't do some number lawiery saying "hey, there is a 0.3% difference between before and after", since this is not was I was talking about. Or better: feel free to do all the math you want, and post it. Just don't say "you can't say this" when this is not what I'm saying / interested in saying.


As I've said, for me MH solves the dilution problem. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it better? Yes. The general experience improves? Yep. Expansion boards are more threatening? Yep. For me, that's "solving".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avec said:

I didn't just pull those numbers out of the air, by the way.  If you want to know where they came from, I'd be glad to tell you.

 

I'm curious; post away! I'm also curious about dilution in general, but I know that this is covered more in-depth in other threads.

 

Julia said:

Avec, I'm not sure I get your tone. Deep breath? Count to ten? C'me on, I don't think I've insulted you! :.laughter::

 

I think he was saying, "Whoo, let me prepare myself for the wall of text that I'm about to post." Not, "Oh boy, I sure am pissed off, I better take a deep breath and count to ten so I don't rage." But then again, I'm new here and I could be wrong =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julia said:

 

 

Avec, I'm not sure I get your tone. Deep breath? Count to ten? C'me on, I don't think I've insulted you! :.laughter::

First of all, I'm not saying counting the odds isn't math.

I'm saying this: "when I say it solves the problem of dilution I'm not referring to the math, I'm referring to the fact that:

a) before Miskatonic, it was unlikely to have a real activity on all expansion boards. Because of the way Mythos deck were constructed, and no interaction between the boards were considered, and tons of other good reasons

b) after Miskatonic, this is not so unlikely"

Hence, please, don't do some number lawiery saying "hey, there is a 0.3% difference between before and after", since this is not was I was talking about. Or better: feel free to do all the math you want, and post it. Just don't say "you can't say this" when this is not what I'm saying / interested in saying.

As I've said, for me MH solves the dilution problem. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it better? Yes. The general experience improves? Yep. Expansion boards are more threatening? Yep. For me, that's "solving".

 

 

Okay, I owe you an apology.  If you feel that MH solves the dilution problem, then you have just as much right to post your opinion as I do. 

But hopefully you can understand my frustration.  On the one hand, you're saying that your aren't referring to math.  But then you go on to say that gate activity become less unlikely than it was before. Likelihood is math.  You can't talk about likelihood without talking about math.  Based on your comments, I'm not sure you understand that.

From my perspective, hearing the opinions that you just posted is like hearing someone say that seatbelts don't make people any safer, because they knew someone who got hurt in an accident once even though they were wearing a seatbelt.  That is, blanket conclusions are being made on the basis of heresay and a very limited set of experiences. 

If you want to say that MH solves the dilution problem for you, then no one can tell you you're wrong.  But if you tell other people that MH solves the dilution problem, and you state it as if it's a fact (and your opinion carries a lot of weight around here), then people like me might post a rebuttal. 

 

@  00000100:  Thanks!  I'll post it when I get a chance, probably tomorrow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside and answering another question:

When playing solo, I'm add cards etc. exactly by the expansion. So if I'm not playing with Dark Pharoah, nothing in the Dark Pharoah box is used. Exceptions for erratas.

When playing with my friends, I'm less anal as they prefer to play with any AO, any investigator and all monsters. Everything else on a 'only if playing that expansion basis'.

It does mean I have to seperate everything out after each game but i don't mind. It's made easy by some cheap toolboxes bought at the hardware store - modular compartments that are just bigger than the large cards in area or just wider than the small cards length so you can fit two large and two small expansions in each one nicely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avec said:


Okay, I owe you an apology.  If you feel that MH solves the dilution problem, then you have just as much right to post your opinion as I do. 


But hopefully you can understand my frustration.  On the one hand, you're saying that your aren't referring to math.  But then you go on to say that gate activity become less unlikely than it was before. Likelihood is math.  You can't talk about likelihood without talking about math.  Based on your comments, I'm not sure you understand that.


From my perspective, hearing the opinions that you just posted is like hearing someone say that seatbelts don't make people any safer, because they knew someone who got hurt in an accident once even though they were wearing a seatbelt.  That is, blanket conclusions are being made on the basis of heresay and a very limited set of experiences. 


If you want to say that MH solves the dilution problem for you, then no one can tell you you're wrong.  But if you tell other people that MH solves the dilution problem, and you state it as if it's a fact (and your opinion carries a lot of weight around here), then people like me might post a rebuttal. 



Avec, my friend, sorry if my previous post was a little harsh.


I know there is math behind everything. Trust me, I know it very well (I'm not a matematician, but my fiancé is an engineer, and in the last six years we lived together he kept on stressing the beauty and the importance of physics and math. He'd say: define "solves" in a statistic way: H0 = the dilution is fixed, H1 = the dilution is not fixed, now decide the significance and perform some tests (this for me is like listening to somebody speaking in ancient egyptian, no idea what he's talking about; if you want to chat about this, I'll PM you his e-mail))


Anyway, the key point is what you mean by "fixing a problem". Let me ask you a math question: is it possible to create a Mythos deck able to grant the same odds of gate openings on every expansion board, regardless of the numbers of expansions in play (small and big ones?). Or every time we change something, a different Mythos would fit best the "fixing" issue? This could bring us to a different question: is it possible to really fix this with only one Mythos deck of a fixed number of cards?


Maybe I misused the word "solving" (sorry, but as you all know, I'm not a native speaker, so for me nuances in the language are kinda difficult to capture) and if it has an "absolute" meaning, I didn't get it; but still, I strongly believe that anything "improving" the past condition leads to a good solution of the problem (and of course there are numbers behind this). And when the equilibrium is "more or less restored", it could be considered "problem solved".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the original topic: I always play with all expansions.  It's completely crazy and can be overwhelming, but it's a ton of fun.  You should give it a try at least once.

To 00000100's question: I always keep them all mixed together, since I always play with all expansions.  The Mythos and Gate decks are absurdly tall, but there's something sort of inspiring about just looking at the enormous stack and considering that you'll be playing with all of it.  Of course, that's...probably just me, as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Julia.  And sorry if I was little harsh myself.  I'm not necessarily looking for the perfect solution to dilution.  When you play with both the Dunwich board and the Innsmouth board, Miskatonic doesn't totally fix things, but it's really close, and it's good enough for me.  Basically, there are three "builds" of mythos decks, depending on whether the Dunwich board and/or the Innsmouth board is in play.

If both boards are in play, then you can use all the mythos cards.  MH will take care of dilution.  Otherwise, you can use the builds that I posted earlier. 

 

If you're playing with the Dunwich board, but not the Innsmouth board, use this build:

The Story Continues
Old Debts Come Due
24 randomly selected Dunwich location cards
72 randomly selected Arkham location cards
5 randomly selected other cards (cards that don't have gates on them)

The deck works because it preserves the balance between Dunwich gates and Arkham gates, but it also includes other types of mythos cards (which were missing from the DH expansion).  The deck is the same size that you'd get if you played with Dunwich (103 cards), which means that Old Debts Come Due and The Story Continues show up as often as they were intended to. 

The trick is preserving the balance between Dunwich gates and Arkham gates.  Dunwich was designed so that 24.51%* of the cards are Dunwich gates, 75.49% are Arkham gates, and 0% are other cards.  I'd like to have some "other" Mythos cards in the deck, so I figured it would be good to have 4.83% of the deck be "other" cards, since that's the percent that you get when using the DH and MH expansions together.  The trouble is, 24.51% plus 75.49% plus 4.83% is more than 100%.  However, if you shrink each of those values to 95% of what they used to be, then the numbers add up to 100.    The cards above are the closest approximation to those "shrunk" numbers.  So, the balance between Dunwich and Arkham is maintained and you get to play with other mythos cards. 

*earlier I said 25.51%. That was a typo.

 

If you're playing with the Innsmouth board, but not the Dunwich board, use these cards:

The Story Continues
32 randomly selected Innsmouth cards (potentially including Plans in Motion)
64 randomly selected Arkham cards
6 randomly selected other cards

This deck works in basically the same way as the Dunwich deck.  It doesn't matter if Old Debts Come Due is in the deck, since you won't meet the Dark Man of Wizard's Hill.  I'm counting Plans in Motion as an "Innsmouth" card even though it doesn't have a gate on it, since it advances the DOR track.  There's an extra "other" card in this deck because (unlike Dunwich) Innsmouth has a couple "other" cards (a Strange Sightings card and The Innsmouth Plague). 

 

In case it isn't clear, you can add as many expansions as you want and it won't affect either of these builds.  The only thing that matters is whether you're using the Dunwich board, the Innsmouth board, or both.  (Or neither board, I guess, in which case there's nothing that could get diluted). 

Hopefully that clarifies what I mean by "solving the dilution problem."  If you build the Mythos deck before the game starts, then the balance between the main board, the expansion board, and "other" cards is preserved.  It doesn't matter how many small box expansions you have in play, and you don't need to go back and forth between multiple mythos decks during the game.  There's some extra shuffling during setup, but once the game starts there's nothing that you need to keep track of. 

If anyone wants all the probabilities that I used at each point in the process, let me know and I'll post them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...