Comments

I'm not usually into the 'magic the gathering' kind of games but this one really has got me into it :D Sure there are lots of complicated rules and everything but you actually feel like you're fighting instead of simply shuffling cards around. 9/10 from me, -1 because there are so much rules you need a few games before it flows. A definitive buy!

I prefer the 1987 edition of Arkhram Horror. The more I play it, the more I like it, while the more I play the 2005 version, the less I find it worth even just a minute of my time.

the 1st edition has less rules, which in my opinion is already a good reason to play it, and they're not so difficult to understand as rumors say: you just read them once, play, read them again and realise whether you have misunderstood something or not.

A game with the new edition lasts up to thrice the 1st's length... but mainly just because you have to deal with all those annoying rules: upkeep, draw event, do this, do that...

I really don't give a damn about graphics: they're the last thing a gamer should look at... "the 1st edition doens not look scary", is isaid. Well, don't you tell me the 2005 one is scary instead!

And look at the dice rolling: one simple die in the old one (and by the way I think that rolling for movement and using tacies WAS JUST GREAT!), a bucket of'em in the new one. why did they spoil the game with that cr*ppy Vampire-like rule of "roll and keep success"

Last point is money: in the 1987 ed. Money did actually had impact on the game, as taxis were commonly used, and items were more likely to be looked and purchased in shops.

There are only a few things I find great in the 2005 ed: -characters have fixed equipment (in the 1987 ed. you could happen to start with an equipment powerful enough to let you win the game alone, or you could find yourself starting with the most useless items at all) -Allies are well made and regulated: they were a rare nice bonus in the 1st ed, but they are now really cool.

What a pity that characters are now godly powerful: Just look at the Gangster or Professor Walters: they reduce all stamina or sanity losses by 1... being virtually immune to lower threats: I've seen friends surviving hordes of monsters thanks to that.

my personal ranks are: 9/10 1987 Edition: quick, simple and overally well made: always a fun! 4/10 2005 edition. some nice ideas, very bad development. simply boring. I don't regret having bought it anyway.

I haven't played the 1987 game, but the 2005 is probably my all time favorite game and I own a lot of games. I agree some of the complaints are annoying, but they far from move this game below exceptional. Looking at the rules does not make a game less good, on the contrary, it makes the game better. I get bored of games I can master over a weekend.

The extra dice is always a good thing in a gamers world, and I always use the money, in fact we have used bank loans in almost every game we have played.

I think MB is mad that they changed his game, and that is fine, but especially for people who have never played the original this is one of the best games out there.

Yeah, the groups/people complaining about the rules must really be fairly stupid. It's not that hard to figure out after only one or two games.

Alan: I completely agree with the rules manual opinion. I love Red November but spent 5 minutes looking up a rule for people and just could find the f*ing section where they hid it. I think the rule was what conditions cause death if you are unconscious or something like that.

Another gem is the Lord of the Rings Board game, there is a rule hidden in the back of the manual, that if you cannot pay a levy, you loose the game. Its in the lose game section, not the 'pay levy' section. So, completely invalidated previous 'win's.

Thanks for the article, it was cool to see the differences. The original AH actually reminds me of Touch of Evil (graphics and style-wise).

A few observations. After a half dozen games the rules become much easier to handle, the turn sequence, and combat proceedure become secound nature forcing one to turn to the book only when looking up the more obscure rules (monster movement, special abilities vs game effects, ect). Win or lose this is when the game becomes enjoyable. As to the many many decks, well these will allways be a hassle. As Desmet points out having to sort through the cards then shuffle the deck afterwards bogs down play, and it would be easier to put the encounters in a series of tables within a rulebook. However the decks allow for the easy incorporation of the expansion games. Believe it or not there will come a point when you have seen most of the monsters and will be able to figure out the encounter at hand after having read the first sentence written on the card. Being able to change it up by adding an expansion to the mix keeps things interesting.