I understand that they are both derived from the Arkham Horror: LCG system, but has anyone compared NH and EBR and can highlight the differences?
The ones that stand out are the removal of three tokens and its grid system.
In addition, it appears characters gain tools, but there is not pregame deck construction to create your character.
The ticking down of the pentagon which means your hand draw drops as you get more tired is different from other fatigue mechanisms.
Cheers!
I passed on Neon Hope—nothing in the preview content really grabbed me. I’m not seeing the strong comparison to Arkham Horror: LCG (which I love). That said, Arkham varies wildly from scenario to scenario, and we’ve only glimpsed a sliver of what Neon Hope might eventually offer, so I’m keeping an open mind.
Earthborne Rangers, on the other hand, I backed big during the last pre-order. It’s been a long wait, but I’m still keen as mustard to dive in. The open-world concept really caught my eye and I’m curious to see how well they bring that to life.
A ChatGPT TLDR breakdown of how the three games compare.. i think it did a pretty good job, but I can only vouch for its description of Arkham 
| Feature | Arkham Horror: LCG | Neon Hope | Earthborne Rangers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deckbuilding | Pre-game + upgrades | Fixed, tool-based | Player-built, evolving |
| Structure | Scenario-based | Scenario/grid-based | Open-world, ongoing |
| Randomness | Chaos bag | Fewer chaos tokens | Mostly deterministic |
| Fatigue System | Sanity/health trauma | Shrinking hand size | Deck cycling, status effects |
| Tone | Pulp horror | Sci-fi adventure | Hopeful post-apocalypse |
| Replayability | High via decks/scenarios | Moderate | Emergent, based on choices |
A note on replayability for Earthborne Rangers… We found it kind of slim in its current form. Maybe with more releases and if they decide to add another layer of mechanics. But the one campaign we played had so much repetition while walking around the map that we haven’t much desire to pick it up and play again. Whereas I’d absolutely go another round in an Arkham Horror campaign. I’m hoping Neon Hope is closer to the latter…
Earthborne Rangers was a miss for me, and it only took me about 5 sessions to say to myself “this is nothing but constructing the same terrain decks over and over, mixing in 3 new cards each time.” I felt like I was constructing a new deck just to try and explore as fast through it possible over and over. I thought the whole story element to a card game was neat, but the turn to turn game play just killed it for me. Not hating on anyone who likes the game, just wasn’t for me.
Yikes 
Going from hot English to a tepid French— mustard that is.
A lot of folks really enjoy it, so don’t let us cool your mustard. But don’t go in with Arkham Horror LCG expectations either. It felt to us like it was targeting an audience less familiar with deckbuilding overall. Which is why my hope was that future releases would add more layers of mechanics to have players grow alongside the game. And give you more to think about during the generic traveling encounters (which make up a good 80% of your time, maybe more).
