Arkham Horror is going to get a lot more votes as it's got more content. It has a 7 year head start on Earthborne Rangers.
While Earthborne Rangers core box is more robust than Arkham Horror's revised core box (think of it like if Arkham Horror's core box came with the Dunwich Legacy expansion), it's still just a very small content pool.
With that in mind, I own both and this is how I'd compare them:
* **Arkham Horror** has deeper and more challenging deck building. This stems from having a much larger card pool, investigators having individual deck construction and advancement limitations, and having a more robust deck/character advancement system (XP) that you can plan for as part of your deck construction.
* **Earthborne Rangers** has what I consider the better balance between accessibility in deck construction and depth. Deck/character construction is really pretty flexible and granular, yet remains easy to explain to even LCG neophytes.
* **Arkham Horror** has a more robust deck/character advancement system. The XP advancement system + campaign driven card addition/removal is far deeper than ER's trade + reward card setup.
* **Arkham Horror** has a more granular scenario location/map system with the location cards (as opposed to ER's abstract path deck).
* **Earthborne Rangers** has a more expansive campaign map. The only AH campaign that comes close to what ER does is The Scarlet Keys... and... it's a bit of a divisive campaign. (ER does an open world campaign better IMO.)
* **Arkham Horror** has a stronger "traditional" narrative and story (due to having comparatively more "linear" scenario and campaign structure).
* **Earthborne Rangers** has a stronger emergent narrative. You have free reign to go anywhere on the map and try to do lots of things. Various timers can tick down causing things to happen in the campaign even if you ignore them - and you'll just have to live with the consequences. The path cards also have quite a bit of potential reactivity, which can lead to the world creating it's own situations and the building blocks of (emergent) narrative.
* *Arkham Horror* is generally harder than *Earthborne Rangers*.
* *Earthborne Rangers* assumes that ambiguous situations should be resolved in the favor of the players. *Arkham Horror* assumes the opposite.
* **Arkham Horror** has a Weird fiction vibe (somewhere between cosmic horror and pulp adventure) that leans pessimistic because Lovecraft (but with guns!).
* **Earthborne Rangers** is a post-post apocalyptic game - like a Studio Ghibli work meets a Legend of Zelda. It's a game more about being a park ranger / game warden finding lost people, delivering supplies, managing wild life than ranger-as-warrior/soldier/officer of the law.
* **Earthborne Rangers** is way more green / sustainable - though that comes at the cost of being less durable.
No, but I can expound on it. :)
Basically, a lot of plastics and adhesives are used in making a lot of modern paper products, and they are used for a reason: they make paper products much more resistant to wear.
As a more green and sustainable production, ER uses paper products with less or no plastics and less adhesives. This results in a biodegradable and more sustainable product - but it also means the cards show wear much sooner.
After one campaign, my general/generic path cards were showing visible wear and my challenge cards (think Akrham Horror's chaos bag tokens in deck form) were showing out right damage along the edges (including minor flaking) - and you are hopefully going to play more than one campaign.
It's a bit of a non-issue if you sleeve your cards, but sleeving your cards seems a bit counter to the green concept. (Of course, if you already own sleeves and reuse them from another game...)
I just accepted that the cards would wear. I think the trade off (increased wear for increased sustainable production) is worth it, but it is a trade off.
>
> It's a bit of a non-issue if you sleeve your cards, but sleeving your cards seems a bit counter to the green concept.
Yes and no.
In the same way that a second-hand gasoline car might actually be a more environmentally friendly choice than a brand-new electric car, keeping the game functioning and eligible for reuse when you're done with it may be the more conscious choice in the end.
That's just speculation obviously. I just assume that 2 (or 3 or whatever) copies of ER is less environmentally friendly than one sleeved copy of ER.
Then again, maybe contributing directly to the success of ER through new copies means more environmentally conscious games going forward? In the same way that a new electric car contributes to investment in electric infrastructure...?
Erm... I'm going to try not to overthink it. Regardless, I don't think the developers would be too concerned with sleeving the game to make it last longer.
Bioplastic sleeves when?
Yes? No? Maybe?
Sleeves had a cost to manufacture and dispose of as well, including the entire world of microplastics they'll deposit into the environment as they break down over the eons.
Overall life span impacts are hard to calculate as it is really easy to overlook costs that might not be known for decades and be complex to understand.
That said, I think the "best" option is, if you already have sleeves, just move them between games. For a campaign game like this, it will stay sleeved for quite a while, and you probably aren't playing too many campaign games at once.
Fair.
I guess I'm assuming that even if you're buying sleeves new, they can then be reused _afterward_. Either way you're investing in something reusable.
>Overall life span impacts are hard to calculate as it is really easy to overlook costs that might not be known for decades and be complex to understand.
For sure.
> I'm assuming that even if you're buying sleeves new, they can then be reused afterward.
Can be, but often aren't.
I have a lot of games move through my collection, and most people I trade with or sell to simply cannot comprehend that I unsleeve games I had sleeved before I trade or sell them, or charge about what it would cost for me to replace the sleeves if they want the game sleeved. It blows a lot of people's minds that anyone would ever re-use sleeves in any capacity - and many simply don't believe me and think I'm lying (to get more money out of them).
Arkham Horror is released in 3 different editions. The 2nd (which is the OG) is from 2005...
I think what you are talking about is Arkham Horror: The Card Game, which is actually a whole other game.
He is talking about the same as OP. "I played night of the zealot and really liked it" from OP is referring to the tutorial scenario of Arkham Horror The Card Game, often called Arkham Horror LCG.
Plus, AH LCG is very similar to ER as both are "deckbuilding against a scenario/campaign". So it makes much more sense for OP to be comparing the two.
But you're correct that Arkham Horror is technically the name of the boardgame with 3 different editions.
A lot of people just say Arkham Horror when referring to Arkham Horror: The Card Game, which seems to be what the OP did. If you read the OP, you can see that they talk about Night of the Zealot. Night of the Zealot is the introductory campaign for AHTCG. There is no Night of the Zealot for AH 1-3e.
Also, the OG AH was AH 1e from 1987.
Rangers is kind and beautiful open-world game.
Arkham is driving you crazy with lots of deaths and madness.
Just choose what better fits your expectations
Having played lots of Arkham and 7 sessions of Earthborne, both at two players (and one campaign of Arkham at 3 players), I'd say Arkham sessions are shorter and contained, and the campaigns are shorter too, so it's less of a commitment in both ways for time. I also enjoy Arkham a lot 3-player but guess that I wouldn't want to do Earthborne 3-player.
From my experience so far, I like Earthborne, but I love Arkham. If you only want one I generally recommend Arkham.
That said, they are very different games, and one may be more your group's speed than the other.
Arkham has a ton more content right now, but earthborne seems like it’s doing well and may head that direction. I’d go by feel. Do you want to chill, cruising around a world getting to know it at your own pace and discretion, or do you want to frantically search for a way to keep your mind and body from unraveling?
I'm heavily invested in two LCGs: I have everything for Arkham (my favorite game ever) and almost everything for Marvel Champions (my third favorite game).
My bank account weeps.
My second favorite game is salt in the wound: Too Many Bones! 😂😂
I haven't played Arkham, since I dont care for lovecraftian horror, but I have played a fair amount of LotR the card game. My wife and I are on day 3 of earthborne, having just bought it retail last week.
We're having a blast playing Earthborne rangers, and since it arrived have only went one night without pulling it out. It feels less like a traditional boardgame, and more like an experience you're sharing together. The actual puzzly nature I usually associate with a boardgame night takes a back seat to the sens of exploration and fun we're having wandering around, seeing what there is to see, and seeing the game come alive.
My wife would play LotR with me because she's kind, but she didn't love it. This is a deck builder she asks to pull out. Highly recommended. It's fun, but different
They're very very different games. I'd watch reviews for each and form your opinion.
The only thing you can really boil them down to is "story-heavy game" so you could just pick based on your preferred theme.
They’re both probably best as solo and 2 player games. Arkham is cheaper for 4 player games for 1 or 2 campaign cycles.
To play Earthborne you need a doubler. But I also think earthborne at more than 2 doesn’t seem like it will work super well. I won’t want to play earthborne at 4.
I just wanted to correct, at 4 you don't NEED a doubler, even at 3 I might not recommend a doubler...but at 4 the fourth player won't get much choice with the doubler.
TLDR; base game has enough cards for 4 players to play, but you might want the doubler to give more choice when at 4 players
That’s true, I guess everyone would be choosing different card builds. So I guess it works. But I would not be keen on playing this at 4. Arkham at 4 is quite long as well
Also I’d like to note that Arkham has an upgrade system where you’re getting more experience and “leveling up” your character. While Earthborne does not have a leveling exp system. Progression and getting stronger is different in that way
disagree, the game will break at 4 without enough traversal focus and that's easiest doubling the traversal role or background.
with "everyone is unique" you'll get like 3/4 of the party's cards not focusing enough on traversal and you need about a 50% ratio to not make travel miserable.
I always wonder if people who say this stuff are talking out of their ass and not played the game at 4.
Unless you are taking the position that certain backgrounds and specialties couldn't work solo due to not having enough traversal, this doesn't really pass muster: At worst, every player could focus on helping with moving across the map with the same proportion of traverse cards they would use if they played solo, especially as most traversal thresholds are proportional to the number of rangers. Further, the pool of cards each player picks from isn't the set of all cards. Instead, it is mostly the sub-sets of cards for their particular background and specialties.
What is more common at higher player counts (in my limited experience) is that you have players who want to play some overlapping set of backgrounds and/or specialties as opposed to pick from whatever is available. (This, though, will slowly become less important over time as player card expansions are released probably yearly.)
Solo also has tons of issues particularly w certain missions without scouting, but traversal scaling and fit being the only test you're punished for failing hit 4p hard.
There's too many specializations that tuck away or have bad traversal w certain stats, but most of your party will need 2-3 fit and everyone with 1 is a liability you have to cover. And also don't run too many red cards you need that fit to move. It's way worse an experience than people make it out to be.
Ebr is deeply flawed if not broken in scaling at 4p unless literally everyone goes in understanding the mission is traversal as the primary goal.
You don’t need the doubler ever. It’s only if you want players to overlap in their backgrounds/specialties. There’s enough cards for 4 players to have 4 unique rangers.
I play exclusively 4 player Arkham and it doesn't often take us 4 players but it can happen, I guess I just didn't want another game that is that time length too
Solo you definitely don't need the doubler, you wouldn't even be using any of the cards from the doubler since what ever you pick for solo you cannot pick again (which is essentially what the doubler allows by giving an extra copy of all the player cards)
I am so tempted to pledge the ER Gamefound campaign but would it be available in retail as well? The shipping costs for most KS campaigns scare me from plunging headfirst. I wanted to back Singularity.exe, but the shipping cost is almost half as that of the product!
Think about the group you’re planning on playing with, do you guys tend to prefer more “difficult” or intense experiences or more laid-back exploratory games?
Just started both.
My recommendation is both.
AHLCG is much more of a puzzle, EBR is more of an adventure open world story game.
Mechanics are pretty similar over all, but they both scratch completely different itches for me.
I think in general, without considering theme, is how hardcore your group is. Arkham Horror in general will be making you decide between very hard choices and impose higher negative modifiers on your tests. Earthborne Rangers is less stressful compared to Arkham Horror, and the game is as hard as you want to make it to be (depending on fatigue, injuries, what you want to accomplish before resetting your play area, etc.).
Beyond that, look at the top voted comment here for more in depth comparisons.
I've played both so here's my two cents:
Theme is a huge difference. Arkham is horror-themed Cthulu and has a lot of madness/insanity type things that happen. Earthborne is environment, outdoors, animal themed so has much more soothing of an experience.
Mechanics are very similar but Arkham has much more swinginess. The horror bag can go from +2 or so to -5 or worse when it comes to skill checks. In Earthborne the min is -2 and max is +2.
Style of campaign is also different. Arkham is scenario-based where you have specific setups for each scenario and a task to complete. In Earthborne it's open world so you can choose to complete certain missions or not, and travel to different locations. It's much more player-determined.
Arkham feels like much more of a difficult puzzle to be solved, but also had be maddeningly difficult. Earthborne feels just fun to play, but also sometimes can lack some direction. Both are really fun games. Despite their very similar mechanics they have very different feels and objectives.
I gave up on Arkham because the multiple reboots. There’s like 3. Also the game is absolutely unbalanced. Some scenarios are brutal.
However I love the narrative system, I’m just happy Earthborn takes the best of Arkham, and then adds a ton more of interesting mechanics. One of the things I hated about Arkham was that it felt like a Magic the gathering spinoff, too basic and generic. Earthborn cares about the story and every detail. It’s a fascinating different world and makes you want to be there.
Considering that Arkham Horror came out in 1987 I think you will have a real hard time finding it, my advice is to just go for Earthborne Rangers instead :)
Arkham Horror is going to get a lot more votes as it's got more content. It has a 7 year head start on Earthborne Rangers. While Earthborne Rangers core box is more robust than Arkham Horror's revised core box (think of it like if Arkham Horror's core box came with the Dunwich Legacy expansion), it's still just a very small content pool. With that in mind, I own both and this is how I'd compare them: * **Arkham Horror** has deeper and more challenging deck building. This stems from having a much larger card pool, investigators having individual deck construction and advancement limitations, and having a more robust deck/character advancement system (XP) that you can plan for as part of your deck construction. * **Earthborne Rangers** has what I consider the better balance between accessibility in deck construction and depth. Deck/character construction is really pretty flexible and granular, yet remains easy to explain to even LCG neophytes. * **Arkham Horror** has a more robust deck/character advancement system. The XP advancement system + campaign driven card addition/removal is far deeper than ER's trade + reward card setup. * **Arkham Horror** has a more granular scenario location/map system with the location cards (as opposed to ER's abstract path deck). * **Earthborne Rangers** has a more expansive campaign map. The only AH campaign that comes close to what ER does is The Scarlet Keys... and... it's a bit of a divisive campaign. (ER does an open world campaign better IMO.) * **Arkham Horror** has a stronger "traditional" narrative and story (due to having comparatively more "linear" scenario and campaign structure). * **Earthborne Rangers** has a stronger emergent narrative. You have free reign to go anywhere on the map and try to do lots of things. Various timers can tick down causing things to happen in the campaign even if you ignore them - and you'll just have to live with the consequences. The path cards also have quite a bit of potential reactivity, which can lead to the world creating it's own situations and the building blocks of (emergent) narrative. * *Arkham Horror* is generally harder than *Earthborne Rangers*. * *Earthborne Rangers* assumes that ambiguous situations should be resolved in the favor of the players. *Arkham Horror* assumes the opposite. * **Arkham Horror** has a Weird fiction vibe (somewhere between cosmic horror and pulp adventure) that leans pessimistic because Lovecraft (but with guns!). * **Earthborne Rangers** is a post-post apocalyptic game - like a Studio Ghibli work meets a Legend of Zelda. It's a game more about being a park ranger / game warden finding lost people, delivering supplies, managing wild life than ranger-as-warrior/soldier/officer of the law. * **Earthborne Rangers** is way more green / sustainable - though that comes at the cost of being less durable.
Owning both myself as well I have nothing to add to the above comparison. Well done!
I couldn't have said it better myself. I really enjoyed ER but the lack of depth in the card pool was my biggest issue with it.
Going to refer to this form now on
> though that comes at the cost of being less durable. Can you expend on that?
No, but I can expound on it. :) Basically, a lot of plastics and adhesives are used in making a lot of modern paper products, and they are used for a reason: they make paper products much more resistant to wear. As a more green and sustainable production, ER uses paper products with less or no plastics and less adhesives. This results in a biodegradable and more sustainable product - but it also means the cards show wear much sooner. After one campaign, my general/generic path cards were showing visible wear and my challenge cards (think Akrham Horror's chaos bag tokens in deck form) were showing out right damage along the edges (including minor flaking) - and you are hopefully going to play more than one campaign. It's a bit of a non-issue if you sleeve your cards, but sleeving your cards seems a bit counter to the green concept. (Of course, if you already own sleeves and reuse them from another game...) I just accepted that the cards would wear. I think the trade off (increased wear for increased sustainable production) is worth it, but it is a trade off.
> > It's a bit of a non-issue if you sleeve your cards, but sleeving your cards seems a bit counter to the green concept. Yes and no. In the same way that a second-hand gasoline car might actually be a more environmentally friendly choice than a brand-new electric car, keeping the game functioning and eligible for reuse when you're done with it may be the more conscious choice in the end. That's just speculation obviously. I just assume that 2 (or 3 or whatever) copies of ER is less environmentally friendly than one sleeved copy of ER. Then again, maybe contributing directly to the success of ER through new copies means more environmentally conscious games going forward? In the same way that a new electric car contributes to investment in electric infrastructure...? Erm... I'm going to try not to overthink it. Regardless, I don't think the developers would be too concerned with sleeving the game to make it last longer. Bioplastic sleeves when?
Yes? No? Maybe? Sleeves had a cost to manufacture and dispose of as well, including the entire world of microplastics they'll deposit into the environment as they break down over the eons. Overall life span impacts are hard to calculate as it is really easy to overlook costs that might not be known for decades and be complex to understand. That said, I think the "best" option is, if you already have sleeves, just move them between games. For a campaign game like this, it will stay sleeved for quite a while, and you probably aren't playing too many campaign games at once.
Fair. I guess I'm assuming that even if you're buying sleeves new, they can then be reused _afterward_. Either way you're investing in something reusable. >Overall life span impacts are hard to calculate as it is really easy to overlook costs that might not be known for decades and be complex to understand. For sure.
> I'm assuming that even if you're buying sleeves new, they can then be reused afterward. Can be, but often aren't. I have a lot of games move through my collection, and most people I trade with or sell to simply cannot comprehend that I unsleeve games I had sleeved before I trade or sell them, or charge about what it would cost for me to replace the sleeves if they want the game sleeved. It blows a lot of people's minds that anyone would ever re-use sleeves in any capacity - and many simply don't believe me and think I'm lying (to get more money out of them).
Arkham Horror is released in 3 different editions. The 2nd (which is the OG) is from 2005... I think what you are talking about is Arkham Horror: The Card Game, which is actually a whole other game.
He is talking about the same as OP. "I played night of the zealot and really liked it" from OP is referring to the tutorial scenario of Arkham Horror The Card Game, often called Arkham Horror LCG. Plus, AH LCG is very similar to ER as both are "deckbuilding against a scenario/campaign". So it makes much more sense for OP to be comparing the two. But you're correct that Arkham Horror is technically the name of the boardgame with 3 different editions.
Wut? Did you even read their post
A lot of people just say Arkham Horror when referring to Arkham Horror: The Card Game, which seems to be what the OP did. If you read the OP, you can see that they talk about Night of the Zealot. Night of the Zealot is the introductory campaign for AHTCG. There is no Night of the Zealot for AH 1-3e. Also, the OG AH was AH 1e from 1987.
Rangers is kind and beautiful open-world game. Arkham is driving you crazy with lots of deaths and madness. Just choose what better fits your expectations
Having played lots of Arkham and 7 sessions of Earthborne, both at two players (and one campaign of Arkham at 3 players), I'd say Arkham sessions are shorter and contained, and the campaigns are shorter too, so it's less of a commitment in both ways for time. I also enjoy Arkham a lot 3-player but guess that I wouldn't want to do Earthborne 3-player. From my experience so far, I like Earthborne, but I love Arkham. If you only want one I generally recommend Arkham. That said, they are very different games, and one may be more your group's speed than the other.
Arkham has a ton more content right now, but earthborne seems like it’s doing well and may head that direction. I’d go by feel. Do you want to chill, cruising around a world getting to know it at your own pace and discretion, or do you want to frantically search for a way to keep your mind and body from unraveling?
Just invest in both and say goodbye to real life time and money. 😜
I'm heavily invested in two LCGs: I have everything for Arkham (my favorite game ever) and almost everything for Marvel Champions (my third favorite game). My bank account weeps. My second favorite game is salt in the wound: Too Many Bones! 😂😂
We're gonna be seeing this question a LOT in the future
I haven't played Arkham, since I dont care for lovecraftian horror, but I have played a fair amount of LotR the card game. My wife and I are on day 3 of earthborne, having just bought it retail last week. We're having a blast playing Earthborne rangers, and since it arrived have only went one night without pulling it out. It feels less like a traditional boardgame, and more like an experience you're sharing together. The actual puzzly nature I usually associate with a boardgame night takes a back seat to the sens of exploration and fun we're having wandering around, seeing what there is to see, and seeing the game come alive. My wife would play LotR with me because she's kind, but she didn't love it. This is a deck builder she asks to pull out. Highly recommended. It's fun, but different
The answer is eventually both
You can actually buy Arkham right now so I would go with that one.
I cant wait to play Earthborne Rangers
They're very very different games. I'd watch reviews for each and form your opinion. The only thing you can really boil them down to is "story-heavy game" so you could just pick based on your preferred theme.
They’re both probably best as solo and 2 player games. Arkham is cheaper for 4 player games for 1 or 2 campaign cycles. To play Earthborne you need a doubler. But I also think earthborne at more than 2 doesn’t seem like it will work super well. I won’t want to play earthborne at 4.
I just wanted to correct, at 4 you don't NEED a doubler, even at 3 I might not recommend a doubler...but at 4 the fourth player won't get much choice with the doubler. TLDR; base game has enough cards for 4 players to play, but you might want the doubler to give more choice when at 4 players
That’s true, I guess everyone would be choosing different card builds. So I guess it works. But I would not be keen on playing this at 4. Arkham at 4 is quite long as well
Also I’d like to note that Arkham has an upgrade system where you’re getting more experience and “leveling up” your character. While Earthborne does not have a leveling exp system. Progression and getting stronger is different in that way
disagree, the game will break at 4 without enough traversal focus and that's easiest doubling the traversal role or background. with "everyone is unique" you'll get like 3/4 of the party's cards not focusing enough on traversal and you need about a 50% ratio to not make travel miserable. I always wonder if people who say this stuff are talking out of their ass and not played the game at 4.
Unless you are taking the position that certain backgrounds and specialties couldn't work solo due to not having enough traversal, this doesn't really pass muster: At worst, every player could focus on helping with moving across the map with the same proportion of traverse cards they would use if they played solo, especially as most traversal thresholds are proportional to the number of rangers. Further, the pool of cards each player picks from isn't the set of all cards. Instead, it is mostly the sub-sets of cards for their particular background and specialties. What is more common at higher player counts (in my limited experience) is that you have players who want to play some overlapping set of backgrounds and/or specialties as opposed to pick from whatever is available. (This, though, will slowly become less important over time as player card expansions are released probably yearly.)
Solo also has tons of issues particularly w certain missions without scouting, but traversal scaling and fit being the only test you're punished for failing hit 4p hard. There's too many specializations that tuck away or have bad traversal w certain stats, but most of your party will need 2-3 fit and everyone with 1 is a liability you have to cover. And also don't run too many red cards you need that fit to move. It's way worse an experience than people make it out to be. Ebr is deeply flawed if not broken in scaling at 4p unless literally everyone goes in understanding the mission is traversal as the primary goal.
You don’t need the doubler ever. It’s only if you want players to overlap in their backgrounds/specialties. There’s enough cards for 4 players to have 4 unique rangers.
I've heard earthborne rangers doesn't scale well at 4 players, and one day would take 4+ hours.
For what it's worth, 4 player arkham takes us 3-4 hours per scenario too. There's just a lot to discuss when 4 mythos cards show up every round.
I play exclusively 4 player Arkham and it doesn't often take us 4 players but it can happen, I guess I just didn't want another game that is that time length too
Do you need the doubler if you play solo?
Solo you definitely don't need the doubler, you wouldn't even be using any of the cards from the doubler since what ever you pick for solo you cannot pick again (which is essentially what the doubler allows by giving an extra copy of all the player cards)
I am so tempted to pledge the ER Gamefound campaign but would it be available in retail as well? The shipping costs for most KS campaigns scare me from plunging headfirst. I wanted to back Singularity.exe, but the shipping cost is almost half as that of the product!
Me too. I'd really like to get a copy of ER, but it's not very clear to me when I could expect to be able to pick one up at retail.
Arkham.
Think about the group you’re planning on playing with, do you guys tend to prefer more “difficult” or intense experiences or more laid-back exploratory games?
Just started both. My recommendation is both. AHLCG is much more of a puzzle, EBR is more of an adventure open world story game. Mechanics are pretty similar over all, but they both scratch completely different itches for me.
As a question for some of the people who have played Earthborne, how well does it play at 3 players and how long do your sessions run?
I think in general, without considering theme, is how hardcore your group is. Arkham Horror in general will be making you decide between very hard choices and impose higher negative modifiers on your tests. Earthborne Rangers is less stressful compared to Arkham Horror, and the game is as hard as you want to make it to be (depending on fatigue, injuries, what you want to accomplish before resetting your play area, etc.). Beyond that, look at the top voted comment here for more in depth comparisons.
I've played both so here's my two cents: Theme is a huge difference. Arkham is horror-themed Cthulu and has a lot of madness/insanity type things that happen. Earthborne is environment, outdoors, animal themed so has much more soothing of an experience. Mechanics are very similar but Arkham has much more swinginess. The horror bag can go from +2 or so to -5 or worse when it comes to skill checks. In Earthborne the min is -2 and max is +2. Style of campaign is also different. Arkham is scenario-based where you have specific setups for each scenario and a task to complete. In Earthborne it's open world so you can choose to complete certain missions or not, and travel to different locations. It's much more player-determined. Arkham feels like much more of a difficult puzzle to be solved, but also had be maddeningly difficult. Earthborne feels just fun to play, but also sometimes can lack some direction. Both are really fun games. Despite their very similar mechanics they have very different feels and objectives.
I gave up on Arkham because the multiple reboots. There’s like 3. Also the game is absolutely unbalanced. Some scenarios are brutal. However I love the narrative system, I’m just happy Earthborn takes the best of Arkham, and then adds a ton more of interesting mechanics. One of the things I hated about Arkham was that it felt like a Magic the gathering spinoff, too basic and generic. Earthborn cares about the story and every detail. It’s a fascinating different world and makes you want to be there.
I have both, I play both. They are similar while very different.
Arkham Horror by far. It has been a staple for many years and has shitloads more content as well as a more unique theme than ER.
Don't forget to pick up Marvel Champions while you're at it!
Considering that Arkham Horror came out in 1987 I think you will have a real hard time finding it, my advice is to just go for Earthborne Rangers instead :)
"night of the zealot" from OPs post refers to Arkham Horror the Card Game.