>>43740304
>Worth a buy?
That is a good question. If you do buy it do not forget the dunwhich expansion. That expansion is important.
Anyhow there are a lot of problems with AH. The most important one is the fact that you will quite quickly learn how to actually play the game. That is, your PCs will revisit the same locations, etc. Not only that but you will quickly figure out what characters to play, the system, etc. In the end it has to be said that AH is basically a poor mans RPG.
>Fun time?
Sure, the first two (?) times perhaps.
It depends. Sometimes it is.

>>43740304

Arkham is awesome. Just be aware that your first 4 player game could be 4-6 hours if you dont use Yig and if you check the rules a lot.

The previous response is by an asshole who says stupid dumbfuck things like "figure out which character to play" as if "choosing the most OP character" is a gameplay mechanic.

Ignore him and all people like him.

>>43740435
>The previous response is by an asshole who says stupid dumbfuck things like "figure out which character to play" as if "choosing the most OP character" is a gameplay mechanic.
"your PCs will revisit the same locations" that is probably my most important criticism of AH. There is no reason whatsoever to go to certain locations. If you do play RPGs every so often with a group then there is no reason whatsoever to get AH as far as I am concerned.

>>43740304
It's a fun game, but if this is your first time you and your friends will be playing "serious" board games, I recommend something that doesn't take so long to get through, only to get collectively wrecked by an eldritch horror at the end.

>>43740484

There's lots of reasons to go to every location - you as a player haven't been there before and want to check out, or you are roleplaying your character and they would go to that place, or (if you had ever actually played the game) you get cut off from other areas due to monsters.

And OP told you why he wants to play - on the nights where someone in his RPG doesnt show up. Board games are perfect for that.

Stop trying to min-max everything douchenozzle.

>>43740592

He said he played Twilight Imperium enough to get tired of it. That means he can handle Arkham.

>>43740652
>There's lots of reasons to go to every location - you as a player haven't been there before and want to check out
After either the first or the second you will have.

>or you are roleplaying your character and they would go to that place
That's larping. It has nothing to do with the system but rather with ignorance.

>And OP told you why he wants to play - on the nights where someone in his RPG doesnt show up. Board games are perfect for that.
Yes, but is AH the game for that? What about Chaos in the old World for instance? It has a lot of replay value unlike AH (as far as I am concerned).

>Stop trying to min-max everything
You don't need to min-max in AH whatsoever. After you have played the game once you will realize strictly by intuition what class to play to beat the game. Min-maxing isn't needed.

>>43740373
>>43740484
>>43740702
I would like to add OP,

>>43740435
asshole who says stupid dumbfuck

, that if you do enjoy the so called "Cthuulu mythos" to the extent that you believe that it will carry the gameplay experience for you, then yes, I would recommend it. But, unless you are a fanboy, play something else.

>>43740702

>After either the first or the second you will have.

If you're playing a 4 player game, it is very possible that even if the squad goes to every location, that you yourself haven't. been to a location.

>That's larping. It has nothing to do with the system but rather with ignorance.

Wtf? Role-playing at a table isn't larping. Its making it more like an RPG if anything. D&D isnt larping asswipe. And how is it ignorance to play a game the fun way? Because it shits on your idea of min-maxing efficiency?

> Yes, but is AH the game for that? What about Chaos in the old World for instance? It has a lot of replay value unlike AH (as far as I am concerned).

Lots of games can fill in. Even Settlers. But OP is clearly looking for something RPG-liteish and that's what Arkham can do better.

>You don't need to min-max in AH whatsoever. After you have played the game once you will realize strictly by intuition what class to play to beat the game. Min-maxing isn't needed.

Tomato. Tomatoh? You keep saying "what class" you need to play - WTF are you talkng about? Take all the characters, shuffle and deal them. How do you not see that choosing the same characters every game is min-maxing?

OP here, thanks for the responses. I just kind of liked the premise since it seems different from usual space or sword and sorcery stuff. When I played Twilight Imperium, the house rule(I think that was a house rule) that before the game starts, all playable races are placed face down and each player can draw two and choose one of the two to play, for the exact reason not to play the same races over and over again, so that might help.

As for expansions, if I like the game I'll certainly invest into expansions, but I don't think that should be necessary for the begining, right?

>>43740813
>Role-playing at a table isn't larping.
If you do role-play a table you are indeed larping. Because in what system is the "table" class interesting? None. And that means larping.

>Tomato. Tomatoh? You keep saying "what class" you need to play - WTF are you talkng about?
You are correct. I shouldn't use the term class but rather the term character.

>How do you not see that choosing the same characters every game is min-maxing?
Because min-maxing demands more of my time then intuition? I don't need to min-max in AH. You realize what to play intuitively. You don't need a calculator nor a book in logics do you?

>>43740842

Like most FFG games, the game is built with expansions in mind.

You might think that there's a limited number of location cards in the deck, and you might occasionally see a duplicate paragraph, but it will take a long time to see all the options.

One of the reasons why Dunwich is deemed "necessary" is because of the injury/madness cards which are a better/morefun/easier solution to being knocked out than losing half of your stuff.

>>43740842
>As for expansions, if I like the game I'll certainly invest into expansions, but I don't think that should be necessary for the begining, right?
It is. Dunwich is a "core" expansion. There is no reason whatsoever to get AH without Dunwich. It would be far too easy. No matter what you think of my opinion that is the truth.

>>43740905
Well, that would strain my wallet a bit too thin, especially if I buy locally. Alright. I'll give it some thought.

>>43740975
>Well, that would strain my wallet a bit too thin, especially if I buy locally. Alright. I'll give it some thought.
You should give it some thought. I didn't. I got AH + Dunwich Horror last year and I would not recommend it. CoC is better if the Cthulu Mythos is the reason you want to get it. If that is not the case, then there are better COOP games out there.

>>43741180
Name a few that are good, and are not too fast to finish. I had a Game of thrones(the core game at least) and I kind of liked it, but it was done entirely too fast. Maybe it was a mistake to start with Twilight where each game takes 5+ hours to finish.

>>43740304
It is a solid game, with a good longevity by itself that increases greatly with the expansions. Dunwich Horror and Innsmouth Horror are the most important ones.
>>43740373
I wouldn't say it is a 'poor mans RPG'. You can play a game of Arkham Horror even without a GM having spent the last days preparing a session and even if one or two of your players aren't showing.
Yeah, of course there's only this much options and encounters to play, but I and my group have played literally hundreds of games and still use it every now and then.

Also,
>There is no reason whatsoever to go to certain locations
Sometimes you've got to. Not enough movement to reach your destination, monsters you want to avoid block the path, clues to collect ... And you know what? Often useless locations have very useful encounters, even if the place by itself doesn't have any special rules.

>>43741226
>Name a few that are good
A few... Maybe I said too much... Sorry... I probably did say too much. COOP games are a bitch if you are a "veteran" RPG player. But, I would recommend Shadows Over Camelot (not the expansion). Because there may be a betrayer. That fact changes the mood and gameplay instantly.

>Maybe it was a mistake to start with Twilight where each game takes 5+ hours to finish.
It was a mistake to start Twilight because there are more complicated 4x computer games out there aren't there? Dominions for instance? Why play Twilight instead of Dominions? As for actual boardgames I would recommend "Blood Bowl", "Chaos in the Old World", or for instance "Paths of Glory".

Are you only after COOP-type of games? Any other type of genre you enjoy? This would be so much easier "via chatting" to be honest.

AH is stuck trying to be two things and isn't very good at either. Is it a good game? Not really. A lot of what ends up happening is decided by luck, with only so much you can do to influence the outcome. That's fine for a short game, but AH is built to take up most of an evening. Is it a good experience of the cthulu mythos? Not really. Most games I've played of it end up with a nun shooting cthulu with a flamethrower to send him back where he came from, which, while a fun image, isn't really representative of Lovecraft's stories. I've heard good things about Eldritch Horror, which has a similar idea and is made by the same people. If your looking for an RPG lite experience, and don't mind something a bit more space themed, Imperial Assault has a campaign mode where one player runs the enemies and everyone else is the heroes which has been fun for my group so far.

>>43741375
I'd like to stay away from the Warhammer stuff. Seems to intimidating to be fair. And I don't really have an answer, just something to fill the void or stir things up when it's game night and we can't get enough players for the usual kind of sessions we have.

I prefer something out of fantasy, but it does not have to be sword and sorcery, as my initial post suggests. So, basically not stuff like Settlers of Catan or anything in that universe, though to be fair I'm a neophyite when it comes to board games. I played Twilight(and enjoyed it, especially with the expansions), Game of thrones, played runequest(one game, I think that's the name).

>>43741375
Battlestar Galactica seemed to me a good COOP game with 'traitors' as well, although I haven't played it enough to give a complete opinion.

>Blood Bowl
You mean Team Manager right? If so, I agree, it is good and fun, but in my opinion it hasn't AH's same longevity. Also some teams are definitely better than others, and also it is a humorous fantasy sport/team managing game, which doesn't give exactly the same 'RPG'ish feel of AH.

>>43740304

Arkham Horror has a lot of components, some unintuitive rules that make it tough to bring a new group into and some unintuitive strategies that will nevertheless carry you through most every game.

Then FFG brought out Eldritch Horror, which is basically Arkham Horror with those issues reduced or removed. In particular, EH takes some of the concepts from AH's expansions (injuries in particular) and incorporates them smoothly into the base game. It is a sexy fucking game and although I loved Arkham Horror, I's still recommend Eldritch Horror over it.

>>43741484
>I'd like to stay away from the Warhammer stuff. Seems to intimidating to be fair
There is nothing intimidating about them. Nothing, besides the price tag that is. Twilight Imperium is "more scary" rules wise to be honest.

I would personally recommend "Chaos in the old World". It is a great game, it has a good price tag, and with a good replay value because of its highly asymetrical play.

If you would like a COOP games I would recommend Shadows over Camelot, strictly because of the traitor concept. Otherwise play more RPGs!