What happens when 2 cards conflict each other? We had the following situation arise in our game earlier,

The rumour card Terrible Experiment was in play that states 'Fail: ....raise the terror level to 10 and place the monsters that were on it into the Miskatonic U. Streets' but we also had the Environment card Happy Days are Here Again in play that states that 'the terror level cannot increase'.

So if the investigators fail the Terrible Experiment (and we did!) what happens? Which card wins out?

Sorry if this has been covered before but I couldn't find anything.

Cheers!

As there probably isn't a good answer to this question you might end up with a house-rule.

Suggestions:
Good case: If you remember which card entered play first let that one decide or choose the one that actually benefit the investigators (as they usually have the odds against them anyway)

Bad case: You might argue that by failing the experiment the terror-level does not actually increase but immediatly jump to 10 instead. Sure it may be to twist the words around a bit.

I would play the rumour-card. They are designed to be nasty work and so the enviourment-card might be a good one but in this case lack the power to stop the evils in Arkham.

"Can't" always beats "can". This is how it is in every existing game, and in Arkham too.

Svavelvinter said:

There probably isn't a very good answer. I asked a similar question a couple of months ago and there wasn't much of a consensus.

I say the Environment card stands, keeping the terror level from rising. The Environment card already interferes with a normal game mechanic (that of the terror level going up), whereas the Rumor card is just accelerating a normal game mechanic, not imposing a new rule or interfering with an existing one. Plus, the Environment card is meant to be a benefit to the players - one of the very few. And since Environment cards get replaced so quickly, it's probably not going to be able to make this much difference in most games.

Yeah, the terror level can't go to 10 if it can't rise. A bunch of other forum Old Ones—including ColtsFan IIRC—will agree.

kroen said:

I raise your unwritten rule with "The harsher the better" another unwritten rule.

But actually:

"TIMING CONFLICTS
If two or more game effects happen simultaneously, the
players choose the order in which they occur. If the
players cannot agree, the first player decides."

Page 23.

In my games everything is decided by the roll of the dice.

Let's do say the environment (Urban) takes effect and the terror level doesn't raise, then the monster limit isn't ended and the monsters all go to the outskirts (or most of them) and then back to the cup, raising the terror level again, but then it can't. Ugh. There's no good answer.

mageith said:

This isn't actually a timing issue though. The environment is already in play and has been for a little while (at least from the previous Mythos phase), whereas the Rumour is being triggered NOW. This isn't a case of two effects trying to resolve at the same time, it's a case of one effect trying to resolve when another, already in effect, explicitly prohibits it.

Normally I'm in favour of ruling against the investigators whenever a rules dispute like this arises, but in this case I think I'd say the environment blocks the terror level from rising. Reason being because if one card can ignore the environment, then all cards that try to raise the terror level should, by the same logic, ignore the environment. That means the environemnt card won't have nearly as large an impact as I think it was meant to. In our group's games, the terror level rarely rises if not for a card being drawn (we're pretty good about keeping the streets clean most of the time.)

kroen said:

Wisdom from Mr. Kroen there. One of the core "meta-rules" that's implicit in a lot of board games (and it certainly seems to be the case in AH) is that there's a sort of hierarchy of effects. Prohibitions override permissions. If that doesn't resolve the situation, the next way of looking at it is that specific one-time events can usually only override very 'general' game states.

Except that in some cases they don't, and in most cases the only very 'general' game states come from the core rulebook anyway, which is at the bottom of the hierarchy. In a game as complex as AH there are a lot of degrees of specificity and it's seldom clear what should trump what. For example, some types of card are clearly a more fundamental part of the rules of a particular game than others. The during-play abilities on Ancient Ones often seem to be ground-level changes to the game rules. Sorry for wittering on, I find this stuff fascinating - altough it may ultimately be irresolvable.

In this case, Kroen's right though.

Steve-O said:

Not Timing? You're using words like "little while" and "NOW". Two things are trying to happen (or not happen) at the same time. They are both Mythos Card special effects, so they are exactly equal. In addition, the environment only stops one of the effects of the rumor (Terror Level doesn't) go up but doesn't stop the monsters from being released. But if the Terror Level doesn't go up, there's other unresolved issues. For example how do you determine which of the monsters from the Terrible experiment go to the outskirts, if any?

It's not really a big deal for me, since I do all things randomly anyway. But the game gives the answer and a final arbiter. But even if the game didn't give the answer, it's still the answer. The players must somehow determine what happens and go on or put the game aside.

"If two or more game effects happen simultaneously, the
players choose the order in which they occur. If the
players cannot agree, the first player decides."

Page 23.

The rules are clean on this conflict, regardless if you see it as a Timing issues or not.

Two or more effect that override each other the players chooses the order of the effect.

There are a lot of simultaneously actions triggering and you get to choose which order that suits you. I would pick Terrible Experiment first and then Happy Days to stop the Terror level from rising.

Fireblaze said:

I'm gonna have to be a pain here and say that I just completely disagree. The fact that this isn't a timing issue means that the paragraph on p23 doesn't apply.

A continuous 'state' card (like Happy Day Are Here Again) does not 'trigger' when a condition is met. The effect is always in play (just like many game rules are) and it prevents certain events from occuring at all - but it doesn't constitute an 'event' in itself whenever it stops something. The Happy Days prohibition is in no way 'simultaneous' with a rise in the Terror level.

Obviously the players have discretion to handle the rules any way they want, but a continuous state like the Happy Days Mythos card is not the type of thing which the players "choose to apply" - except insofar as they choose whether it overrides other cards, which is exactly what we're arguing about.

The Happy Days card obviously overrides the rules which cause the Terror level to rise - monsters in the outskirts - but the question is purely whether another card has the "authority" to cause a Terror increase anyway.

thecorinthian said:

I read the rules again trying to find the 'state', 'trigger' and 'event' that you referr to, and I'm unable to find those terms used in the rules, Perhaps you can point me to the page that uses those words?

thecorinthian said:

That's OK because the rule doesn't refer to timing issues. Either does Fireblaze.

You appear to attempting to apply terms that don't exist in our game such as "continuous state" and even "timing issue" and "choose to apply" and "authority" of cards.

All that's happening is that you have two cards that affect the same game mechanism--Terror Level. I don't believe there is any outside authority, other than the author, who can tell you how its supposed to work, and chances are he's hasn't thought about it, but at least he has the power. Even though the Mythos cards are from the same basic set, they contradict.

So its up to the players. The can use any criteria they want. Can't or can, or harshest, or continuous state vs trigger event. If the vote is a tie, then the final authority is the first player. This is the only thing the game adds and you don't agree that it even adds that. It not, then it gets decided on whatever basis other lesser conflicts get decided on.

I know no one likes lack of clarity, but sometimes it happens. BTW, I think we'd vote the sameway, that the terror level doesn't rise, but I just wouldn't be as sure as you.

No terror level increase because the card Happy Days says so... but there will be allot of monsters running around and the AO will most likely awake due to to many monsters.

mageith said:

(Yeah, I knew that those aren't official AH terms and I wasn't trying to imply that they were. I was just trying to provide a logical reason why I believed in that particular interpretation. I put those words in inverted commas because I was being figurative, not because I was trying to make it look like I was quoting. You say that terms like 'continuous state' don't exist in Arkham Horror - which is true - but they do apply to it. You did understand what I meant by them, right? By the "authority" of cards, I meant the implicit rules structure whcih allows cards to overrule each other and make exceptions to the main game rules - which they need to do, because that's all they do. And so on.)

Here's where it gets a bit abstract: I think that there is an implicit qualifiable distinction between a one-off effect and an on-going "you shall not do X" prohibition. The key word is 'implicit' - while the rules don't address the point directly, the mere fact that the cards are phrased the way they are seems to imply that one particular resolution is favoured. For example, the Happy Days mythos card could have been phrased as "Whenever the Terror level increases, it does not increase instead" - but in terms of the rules mechanisms, there is a difference between that effect and the Terror level simply being prohibited from rising.

As I understand the above posts, the idea being put forward seems to be that the Happy Days effect applies whenever the Terror level goes up, and since it applies at the same time as the Terror level increases, it's a simultaneous effect, whcih is therefore covered by the decision-making process that's described on page 23.

But if Happy Days DOES have a simultaneous effect, then what exactly IS that effect? If you take the card at face value, the effect is "The terror level cannot increase" - but once you have to shuffle that effect into a sequence of other effects, it becomes meaningless. You could put it first - in which case it goes off first, then the terror-level-increase happens afterwards and does happen - or you could put the "Terror level cannot increase" effect second, in which case the terror level would already have increased.

Sorry, I'm going to drive myself mad trying to find the words to explain this, but: the words "the Terror level cannot increase" are meaningless unless that ability is capable of being in effect (or taking effect, whatever you want to call it) simultaneously with another ability that increases the Terror level. If you force the Happy Days ability to take effect 'in sequence' with another ability, it becomes completely irrelevent - and therefore (it seems to me) this is probably not how it's meant to work. It has to happen 'simultaneously', because all it does is prevent other effects. If there's no other effect going off at the same time, there's nothing to prevent.

The only way to eke a tiny drop of sanity out of the way these two cards interact is to draw a distinction between an active and a passive ability - whcih is why I think the rules implicitly expect us to do this. We can use whatever terminology you want for these two types of effect, but they do exist, and there is a difference between them. I have no problem with the idea that the players have power of veto over any rule or card they want, but I think the AH rules are written in a way which implicitly deals with the clash already. A general prohibition (Happy Days) overrides a specific permission (the Terrible Experiment clause).

The Fonz would be turning in his grave.

thecorinthian said: But if Happy Days DOES have a simultaneous effect, then what exactly IS that effect?

It becomes a simultaneous effect at the moment the 8 monster is put on the Terrible Experiement.

thecorinthian said: Sorry, I'm going to drive myself mad trying to find the words to explain this,

I don't think that's necessary. Your argument is sound. It's just that the opposite argument is sound too. Sometimes that happens. Neither answer makes sense to me, so I'm OK with a little insanity.

thecorinthian said: I have no problem with the idea that the players have power of veto over any rule or card they want, but I think the AH rules are written in a way which implicitly deals with the clash already. A general prohibition (Happy Days) overrides a specific permission (the Terrible Experiment clause).

Logically wouldn't that be just the opposite? A general law (almost always prohibitive), such as speeding, can be overridden by a specific permission (cop car with lights blazing and siren in hot pursuit.)

Another Approach: Happy Days are here again because of the rise in prosperity. The terror level raises because 8 terrible monsters that veteran investigators couldn't handle have escaped from the university. Does prosperity trump being invited to (be) lunch by aliens? Maybe this is part of the problem. The general metagame unwritten rule, indicates that the terror level doesn't rise. Reading the cards and applying it to a semi-role playing game indicates the opposite. I''m a semi-role player.

mageith said:

Fairly sound arguments both, although I think we usually get into problems when we start trying to rationalize the game rules in terms of the real world (and even the background of the Mythos itself)...

What you said about general and specific rules makes sense on principle, but the only really 'general laws' of AH are the ones in the rulebook. All the cards provide exceptions to them. The Happy Days mythos card is a sort of specific exception too; it prevents one particular thing (the Terror level) increasing. So it's tricky to give priority to the cards on that basis.

Looking back at this thread, I think Steve-O had it right. If all we're doing is trying to second-guess what the card was meant to do, surely it's pretty clear that Happy Days was meant to block Terror level increases that are caused by other cards, as well as those that are caused by the outskirts overflowing.

Although I still stubbornly stand by my earlier remark: the game's normal way of resolving timing disputes doesn't apply to this particular clash. This is one problem that it just won't solve...

I would say Environments overrule everything as it is describing a current condition. It does not matter if a Rumor or a Headline says to raise the terror level. The Environment overrules it.

However, everything else of the Terrible Experiment occurs including the dumping of the monsters.

mageith said:

I'd go so far as to say the trouble arises because of the thematic effect - Happy Days means that a lot of people are busy working, and otherwise occupied - while the Terrible Experiment by the University is clearly meant as a horrible panic causing event.

But even thematically (roleplaying?), I see two possible interpretations: either the panic does indeed happen because the experiment is meant to cause it - rules wise meaning that rumor card fail beats just about every protection there is? - or alternatively the terrible experiment is covered up by media, mayor's office, ... to not disturb the prosperity - effectively saying that if there is a protection against a negative effect in play it will work. Sometimes the human mind is a marvel it what it can not notice in order to stay sane...

I think both arguements are sound - both sides make sense, rule-wise and thematically.

Personally, I tend slightly towards Terrible Experiment (rumor card fail) overriding Happy Days (environment) and setting the terror level to 10, but I could easily be persuaded to the opposite.

mageith said:

What I mean by it not being a timing issue is that its not a case where two effects are trying to resolve themselves at the same time. The Environment effect is already in play and in effect before the Rumor effect triggers. Please keep in mind this is all IMHO. If you disagree, that's your right and I wish you all the best in finding your own solution to the quandary.

This is how I think of it: A timing issue is like two cars trying to enter the same intersection at the same time. Who goes first? You need to consult the rules of the road to find out who has right of way (in the case of Arkham that would be the aforementioned timing rule on pg23.) This specific issue is more like one car (rumor effect) trying to enter an intersection where a tractor trailer (environment effect) is already parked and blocking off passage. It's not really a question of which effect happens first, it's a question of "can the car get around the tractor trailer somehow?" In my opinion, no. The car (rumor effect) is blocked.

If some sort of card were trying to raise the terror level during the Mythos Phase *at the same time* that the environment card was being drawn, that would be a timing issue. I don't know if that situation could even occur, but that's how I see it. It's a small, but in my opinion important, difference.

Gamemaster said:

Nothing's more current than Today's Headlines!

As for the newspapers media (radio) covering up the release of 8 monsters at the university that veteran investigators couldn't contain is probably unlikely in a town of 20,000 people.

Personally, I think the cards are merely just a conflict that FFG never caught and never came up before. Both cards are meant to effect the normal events of the game. And normally, the terror level raises (at least in the basic game) when the Outskirts fill. A little prosperity might prevent feelings of terror for that. But a major event, like the the rumor of terrible experiments getting loose at the University in a small town coming to pass would be different. How many citizens have to be eaten before your extra money doesn't mean as much as you thought it did?

I agree with the majority of posters that the weight of the legal arguments would indicate that the environment overrides. And I already indicated that if it came to a vote, I'd probably vote that way.

I just don't think its conclusive. My main counter argument is that thematically it doesn't make sense. That is, if you read the actual background text of the two cards, there's no way a little prosperity is going to overcome a major monster breakout in the streets for anyone to see.

If you saw The Mist recently, you'll remember that there were several groups in the grocery store. One group just refused to believe that there was anything unusual in the Mist (weather environment) and rumors of tentacled monsters released at the army base were just "rubber snakes". Acting upon their steadfast beliefs they entered in the environment, never to be seen again.

Anyway, this has been a great discussion and I bow to the majority.

One minor thing is also to consider...

rules p. 18r: "Important: If the terror level reaches 10, Arkham is overrun and the monster limit is removed for the rest of the game. See “The Terror Track,” below."

... so if the Terror Level was set to 10 - the 8 monsters would actually be on the board. If it isn't, it's very, very likely more than one of those 8 monsters head to the outskirts.

You want to know something funny... both of these cards are from the same set and that set is the base game... so would have thought this issue would have been addressed long ago.

@noth1ng there is no monster limit when the terror lv is ten... the AO awakes when there are twice the normal aloud monsters in Arkham.

As a side note: I might be wrong about this, but once the Terror level is at 10, don't you add a Doom token whenever it tries to rise further?