The rules for Pandemic call for shuffling the Player deck and distributing the initial cards to each player. The remaining 50 or so cards are then seeded with epidemic cards by this rule:

Divide the remaining Player cards into a number of piles according to how difficult you’d like to make the game. Make the piles as equal in size as is possible.

Shuffle an Epidemic card into each pile. Stack the piles on top of each other to form the Player Draw Pile. (If the piles aren’t exactly the same size, stack them so that the larger piles are above the smaller piles.) Put any excess Epidemic cards back into the box.

In practice this is the longest setup step for a game which already has a substantial setup phase. Does anyone have any tips or tricks for getting this done faster?

4 Answers 4


I've done this in the past, and it tends to work well.

Roughly divide the piles into the # of Epidemics you want (just eyeball the piles, don't count). Stick an Epidemic card at the bottom of each pile. Stack the piles.

This makes each epidemic come up fairly predictably, which helps even out the randomness of the game, but since the piles themselves are rough, it doesn't make it exactly predictable.

Plus, it avoids the silliness of the occasional double-epidemic, which more often than not makes the game easier instead of harder.

  • 5
    I like this option. I'll have to try it out the next time I play. However, I think I would add a cut of the deck after combining the piles. That way you don't know that the first epidemic is not near the top. It does open up the possibility of a back-to-back epidemic, though.
    – Todd
    Sep 9, 2011 at 3:17
  • 5
    @Todd actually since the epidemic card will never be the top card, a normal cut will keep the distribution (no doubles) while randomizing the very first. Good idea! Sep 9, 2011 at 15:58
  • @Neal Oh yeah, good point. I was thinking wrong. That makes it better.
    – Todd
    Sep 10, 2011 at 15:47
  • 4
    I dislike this approach as it makes epidemics too predictable. Epidemics are not supposed to be this predictable.
    – Matt
    Oct 17, 2012 at 16:08
  • 1
    Agree with Matt; additionally at the bottom makes the game the easiest possible. I like the cut method or maybe alternate top/bottom (or all top, from easiest to hardest;D).
    – joedragons
    Feb 17, 2017 at 15:42

Multithread! While one player handles the Player cards, another handles the Epidemic cards and the starting diseases.

Also, it's a little faster to set up the Player cards if you calculate the cards per pile before you get going, letting you deal out the piles one-at-a-time.


We combine dealing and making the piles. Deal a round of cards, deal a couple into each pile, iterate. Then shuffle each pile with an epidemic. Meanwhile, another player shuffles the infection deck and sets up the initial infections.

If we're playing with new(ish) players we have the most-experienced players do the setup so the less-experienced have more time to study their initial cards and the board.


Old question, but as I'm setting up, I lay out the epidemic cards I am using (4, 5, whatever) and once I've dealt the user cards, I continue to deal out the rest of the cards on top of the epidemic cards, thus giving me about equal stacks of cards with one epidemic at the bottom of each stack. I then put the bottom card (the epidemic) in the middle. If I'm not playing with my kids or beginners, I'll then shuffle each stack (usually using the top / bottom / top / bottom pattern a few times to truly mix everything up).

The advantage of dealing out a card at a time to the piles is that it helps shuffle the deck of cards one more time, because you really want these cards to come out even, yet you tend to have groups of cards in the same color from the last time you played, so it helps make the game a bit more even.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .