My Mark Guide, Hard/Expert Difficulty, Chapter 2, Legacy

Chapter 2 Adjustments. This is a deck built for after the Evergreen Chapter 2 products are released. The following are simply stand-ins and should be replaced:

• 2x .45 Automatic, replace with 2x M1911 (0) [19 from Arkham Horror: The Card Game Core Set and 5 from Tommy Muldoon Investigator Deck]
• 2x Emergency Aid, replace with 2x Physical Fitness (0) [14 from Tommy Muldoon Investigator Deck]

The following cards should be added to the side deck:

• 2x Physical Fitness (2) [24 from Tommy Muldoon Investigator Deck]
• 2x M1911 (2) [21 from Tommy Muldoon Investigator Deck]

Legacy Format Notes. I am playing with all cards at my disposal, however, I and those I play with are ruling that if a card receives a reprint with different rules text, the most recent printing is the current "errata" on the card. The old Machete and Overpower are replaced with their new rules text from their Chapter 2 printing.

Introduction. Mark Harrigan is a very powerful Guardian on Hard/Expert where you want to be three to five above the target. I've been playing him for the better part of a decade now and so I'd like to think I've learned what works on him and what doesn't. The last time I published this deck was more than three years ago so it's about time for an update.

The introduction of Crowbar did change the deck markedly. Mark can really do it all these days. .45 Thompson and Runic Axe look less and less attractive.

40 XP Upgrade Path.

• 1x Ace of Swords [1 XP, cutting 1x Glory
• 1x Ever Vigilant [1 XP], cutting 1x Glory
• 1x Stick to the Plan (Ever Vigilant, Emergency Cache, Practice Makes Perfect) [6 XP]
• 1x Emergency Cache [2 XP]
• 1x Beat Cop [2 XP], cutting 1x Shortcut
• 1x Charisma [3 XP]
• 1x Beat Cop [2 XP], cutting 1x Shortcut
• 2x Stand Together [3 XP each]
• 1x Hallowed Mirror [3 XP]
• 2x Overpower [2 XP each]
• 2x Vicious Blow [2 XP each]
• 2x Second Wind [2 XP each]
• 1x Physical Fitness [2 XP)

The Chaos Bag and How To Use Sophie and His Investigator Card's . Keeping in mind we are building this deck for the first scenario of a campaign and permitting the most inconsequential of spoilers, as a case study, let's say you have the starting Expert bag in "The Innsmouth Conspiracy" campaign and you are playing the Scenario 1, "The Pit of Despair." The bag will be as follows: 0, -1, -1, -2, -2, -3, -3, -4, -4, -5, -6, -8, , , , , , , , , , . The reference sheet for the scenario reads as follows.

• : -2 (-3 instead if your location is flooded; -4 instead if your location is fully flooded).
• : -2. If your location is flooded, take 1 damage.
• : -2. If you control a key, take 1 horror.
• : -3. If The Amalgam is in the depths, put it into play engaged with you.

Since this scenario's reference sheet is quite generous as far as modifiers are concerned (the random damage and horror isn't pleasant on Mark,) let's assume the location is fully flooded, (-4 is a frequently seen number on Hard/Expert reference sheets.) This would mean that in the bag functionally contains the following.

• Elder Sign: 1 of 22 (4.55%) tokens
• +0: 1 of 22 (4.55%) tokens, 9.1% chance of this result or better.
• -1: 2 of 22 (9.09%) tokens, 18.19% chance of this result or better.
• -2: 6 of 22 (27.27%) tokens, 45.46% chance of this result or better.
• -3: 4 of 22 (18.18%) tokens, 63.64% chance of this result or better.
• -4: 4 of 22 (18.18%) tokens, 81.82% chance of this result or better.
• -5: 1 of 22 (4.55%) tokens, 86.37% chance of this result or better.
• -6: 1 of 22 (4.55%) tokens, 90.92% chance of this result or better.
• -8: 1 of 22 (4.55%) tokens, 95.47% chance of this result or better.
• Automatic Failure: 1 of 22 (4.55%) tokens.

Let's assume you are an investigator attempting to get clues using basic investigate actions. In the abstract, what you stand to lose from a failure is an action, which is wasted attaining no positive or negative result (besides the "loss" of an action.) Each asset or committed card grants a certain percentage of a "successful action" equal the the difference of the likelihood of success before and after the advantage. The most valuable "jump" then is from requiring a -1 to succeed to requiring a -2 to succeed, but considering there are a limited amount of actions you can take, the game is not won on the back of 45.46% percent. What's more, is that often more is at stake than the waste of an action, one use of a Fingerprint Kit for example. So you want a higher percent chance, but how high? The only notable increases in the odds of achieving a favorable outcome is improving from requiring a -1 to succeed to requiring a -2, requiring a -2 to succeed to requring a -3, and -requiring a -3 to succeed to requiring a -4. Requiring a -4 or better to succeed and a -5 to succeed is so similar as to functionally be identical. It is not worth investing any resource to get a mere 4.55% advantage. The difference from succeeding on a -3 to a -4 is greater than that of succeeding on a -4 to a -8. We could perform case studies on a number of campaigns, but I ask you to suspend your disbelief and trust that this is roughly representative of the larger field.

The goal is not to succeed on anything but the . If you are playing on Hard/Expert, the goal is to play to your outs and roll with the punches, using the resources at your disposal to maximum effect. Since Mark can draw once per phase, and since Treachery cards are often very impactful skill tests, Sophie will often be used in the Mythos phase. Ideally, you will only use Sophie once in the Investigator phase and you should never use Sophie merely to draw if she is not offering a meaningful advantage.

Deckbuilding Notes. On Hard/Expert, do not build Arkham Horror decks for what they will be when they have experience. Theory crafting is fun, but all Arkham Horror campaigns are designed to reward success immediately which will avalanche into more success and so on. I could make a deck that evolves into something more powerful, but it is unrealistic when rubber hits the road on Hard/Expert. Your foremost consideration should be making the most powerful experience 0 deck you can make. Your deck will not be meaningfully different after the first and second scenario.

Deckbuilding changes from difficulty to difficulty because the difference is innately the modifiers on skill tests and, when you are talking about the most dramatic jump, that from Normal to Hard, certain effects of symbolic chaos tokens that do not simply modify the result. Think about how the and are the same across difficulties while , , , and only have an "Easy/Normal" and a "Hard/Expert" reference card. This means that drawing the latter symbolic chaos tokens is most unfortunate on Easy and Hard, where they are most different from the numeric tokens, and least detrimental on Normal and Expert, where they are most similar to the numeric tokens. The Black Cat and Jim Culver are thus best on Easy and Hard and worst on Normal and Expert. If you are playing on Easy, one might look at a card like Scene of the Crime and say "Why would I take this? I could just pick up the clues with an action or two?" then look at a weapon like a Shotgun and say, "My God! this just evaporates any enemy." The game could've been designed such that, say, during the Mythos phase, each investigator draws one encounter card on the basic difficulty and two on the challenge-mode. That would also affect deckbuilding but in a much different way. The increase in enemies per round would make cards like Evidence! and Scene of the Crime or Dynamite Blast, Mk 1 Grenades, and Cunning Distraction better. It's worth considering that on Normal, many Treachery cards with skill tests can be succeeded on chance a reasonable percentage of the time on the merits of an investigator's base skill values without committing cards or having relevant assets in play. Since it takes so much in a stat to be reliable on Expert, often you just have to accept suffering the worst effects of Treachery cards. This makes cards like Counterespionage and Ward of Protection much better and mitigates the downside of an investigator like Preston Fairmont's statline. Since most investigators would fail a random (3) check, it's less bad to have a of only 1.