I imagine that most people have encounter the situation where it is better to fail a check than to succeed. (The best example I can think of is being dragged through a gate by a Nightgaunt.) Is there any provision for failing a skill check? The rules suggest not, and it makes sense that the characters would try to succeed at doing something rather than fail, because they don't know the outcome. Of course, I recognize that if I am making a skill check, say a combat check versus the nightguant, I don't need to use all of my best weapons; I can just submarine my Fight skill, use no weapons, and roll 0 or 1 die. Thoughts on this, and whether this kind of mechanic is a useful house rule?

Tiamat said:

There's no rule which allows you to intentionally fail a skill check. Against Nightgaunts, you could always jack up your Speed and then fail the Evade check.

Of course, you are free to use whichever weapons you do or do not want to use in combat.

How about items such as the Lantern, which grant a persistent stat boost? We have usually played that they can't be "turned off" in order to not count for whatever reason, since one doesn't have to declare their use in the same manner as weapons. In a similar vein, what about the Brass Knuckles and Alien Device? Always on, or can they be put away if desired as well?

mattherobot said:

I don't think its that easy. In order for the Nightgaunt to take you for a ride, you must fail a combat check. If you merely fail an evade check, the nightgaunt delivers combat damage which is none. So then you face its horror and then attempt a combat check (without weapons) and then you get your ride.

Can you make a similar "free" evade check against monsters that devour you or cause other unpleasant effects when you fail a combat check? I see where you're coming from and we've ruled it that way before, but I'm just wondering how this would play out.

mattherobot said:

Good point. We'd have to play it consistently. However I can't think of the monsters that do that. I looked up the Shan and Moonbeast but they aren't quite on point.

I think there are 3 monsters that when you Evade and fail need official clarification: Nightgaunt, Dimensional Shambler and the Dunwich Horror. Last the least likely, due to the +2 Awareness, but still. NG and DS are the same, neither has Stamina loss as combat damage, one tosses you into a gate, the other LiTaS you.

Until then, I think I'll go RAW on all of these. I did find the Wailing Writher that specially says if you fail an evade check you are devoured. But combat is normal.

mageith said:

What's your RAW on those? I read them as having "text" as combat damage, whether failing an Evade or combat. DH causes a problem, would need to draw a card to see what exactly its combat damage is.

Dam said:

You didn't fail a combat check, so so there's no combat damage. There's just nothing. Failing an evade check also avoids the horror check all together too. That's just not right in regards to the nightguant and even for the shambler.

The text specifically refers to failing a combat check. That just didn't happen. That's what I meant by Rules As Written.

However I can see the clarification going either way.

This came up for me when I was playing one of the scenarios which had no clues starting on the board and (possibly, I can't remember) no clue generation. I had an item that gave you a spell if you passed the check or two clues if you didn't. The clues were currenly more valuable so I was hoping to fail but I couldn't see anyway to automatically fail the test, i.e. not roll any dice and say, "oh well". Of course I passed. I would like to know for sure. The assumption is always that you want to pass the test, not that anyone would ever want what's behind door number two.

mageith said:

It is that easy. The rulebook specifically addresses Nightgaunts (and by extension the other creatures with similar wording):

Note that some monsters have abilities that add some special effect to their combat damage. For example, the
Nightgaunt drops the investigator through the nearest open gate instead of causing the investigator to lose
Stamina tokens. [Page 15]

Note that the effect (being dropped through a gate) is added to their combat damage (of 0 Stamina).

This is just another example of the designers using inconsistent wording (like 'delayed' and 'stay here next turn') to refer to the same event. What the Nightgaunt should read on the back, in order to bring it in line with what the rulebook states, is when you 'take combat damage' rather than when you 'fail a combat check'.

squad said:

Like I said, I can see a clarification going either way. This may very well be an example of inconsistent use of language or it may be an intentional method to make the nightgaunt seem more like a nightgaunt. Even if the nightgaunt is "friendly", its hardly a pet* and being picked up by one and taken to another world would seem like it should have some horrorfying aspects to it, even more so being lost in time and space. Every other failure to evade requires an eventual horror check unless unconsciousness occurs first.

*even though they sometimes tickle people into submission with their claws and barbed tails.

mageith said:

Sure, they could go either way if they choose to address it in the FAQ. It may be more thematic to force a horror check first.

I'm just arguing that there technically isn't a need for a clarification, as Rules As Written specifically state that the nightgaunt's combat damage just is to throw you up a gate. The inconsistency only occurs if you treat the nightgaunt as having no combat damage, but the rule on page 15 says to treat the text on the nightgaunt (and monsters with similar wording) as part of its combat damage. True, it inflicts no stamina damage, but that's not the same as inflicting no combat damage.

This issue came up in our gaming group just this past week, when we realized that we hadn't been playing consistently with respect to the nightgaunt and dimensional shambler, which is what led me to comb through the rules looking for a clarification. There's one other monster like this that hasn't been mentioned and that's the Elder Thing. It has the same "if/when you fail a combat check against . . " text - the only difference being that it also deals stamina damage. These special effects are added to the monster's combat damage, so they trigger whenever a monster deals combat damage (including when you fail an evade check).

One other point that came up when our group was discussing this ruling was that some of the more recent monsters, like the Servitor of the Outer Gods and the Child of the Goat, have text that triggers when you fail a combat or an evade check. These could be treated as counterexamples, except that the 3 monsters in question (NG,DS,ET) were all printed in the base set which contains the rule about treating their text as part of the combat damage. It's definitely a move in the right direction on the more recent monsters to mention both combat and evade checks in the text, though I still think the simplest way to represent this is just with a "when you take combat damage" clause.

Although I really enjoy this game, the inconsistency in language has always been one of the more frustrating aspects of it.

placeboeffect said:

This?

http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Ancient_Tablet

I'm always SO hoping to fail those dice! Note that that's not a skill check, just a straight up die roll (helps if you're Cursed ).

As for the original question: No, you cannot intentionally fail a check. But you can decide to not use any items that would give you a bonus.

kilrah said:

It's debatable whether that only applies to Weapons or does it include stuff like Lanterns. Weapons are the only thing mentioned in the rules with this regard (being optional). I recall a thread which touched on this and ColtsFan was of the opinion that Lantern isn't an optional.

I think items are optional. Skills and allies are not. A Luck skill has to help you with your skill check, and you can choose not to use the Lantern. Just my opinion though.

Also, I play that combat damage and failure to evade are the same. So failing to evade a Nightgaunt gets you thrown into a gate, and failing to evade a D.S. gets you lost in time and space. Failing an evade check against the Dunwich Horror means nothing happens, because a Dunwich Horror stats card has to be drawn to give it combat penalty. You would enter combat and then a new card would be drawn. Of course, subsequent failures to flee during that combat will incur its drawn combat penalty.

Tibs said:

I can live with failure to evade = combat damage IF it requires a the horror check in addition to the combat damage. Otherwise it is just a cheep and cheesy way to avoid the danger of sanity loss.

No investigator over the age of two ever fails an evade check by shutting their eyes: "if I can't see them..."

Well, ok maybe hank...

- Mariana the ex-nun cultist

Mariana the Ex-Nun Cultist said:

That seems a valid point, though a brutal house rule...

Mariana, is that how you play it? How has it worked out?

Tibs said:

Skills I agree with, but allies? I'd think their advice would be optional. "Shut up Ryan, I'm not going to tiptoe through the shadows if I don't want to!"

Mylo said:

Er,, I hadn't really thought about it until this thread , because it has never really cames up in this form . I never think of clever things like trying to fail evade vs nightgaunt at the relevant time . I've always gone the fight without weapons route which has usually been effective, but definately includes a horror check.

On other occasions when I have failed evade checks (pretty rare, I usually only go for evades if I have a good chance of making the roll or zero chance in combat) I've taken combat damage and then if still conscious gone straight into combat requiring a horror check. Agian it hasn't occured to me that you could attempt to flee (is that the right term) after taking the first combat damage for a failed evade but without making a horror check (And I'm not sure if the rules allow this).

On the occasions where an evade check has failed resulting in something bad happeing like unconsciousness through combat damage or LiTaS through dimension Shmabler etc. Then the horror check hasn't occured to me as an issue as something bad has alreday happened.

It is only this deliberate (well hoped for) evade failure against a nightgaunt with a positive outcome that has made me think about this. And to be perfectly honest, when I read your quoted message I thought: brutal house rule, why is that?

I hadn't really considered that my point would logically apply to the other cases outlines above (sent to the hospital or LiTaS) Because again I was only thinking in terms of the nightgaunt deliberate failure. It would arguable make logical sense for me to also enforce a horror check in the other cases outlined above. But it seems like less of an issue for me when the inevtsigator has alreday been slapped about in an undesirable manner.

I don't think it would have a major impact on the game though.

- Mariana the ex-nun cultist

In regards to all the questions about failing evade checks, taking combat damage, and special text like the nightgaunt has . . .

What questions still remain after reading this excerpt from page 15 of the rulebook?

"Each time an investigator fails to evade or defeat a monster,
the monster deals its combat damage to the investigator.
The amount of combat damage a monster deals is
printed below its combat rating. The investigator loses
Stamina equal to this number. The player discards the
appropriate number of Stamina tokens from his investigator
sheet. An investigator reduced to zero Stamina
tokens is knocked unconscious (see page 16).

Note that some monsters have abilities that add some
special effect to their combat damage. For example, the
Nightgaunt drops the investigator through the nearest
open gate instead of causing the investigator to lose
Stamina tokens."

Doesn't this clear up the issue? Isn't it just a matter that some of us (myself included) have been playing it slightly wrong? It seems that the only issue people have is just not liking the idea that you don't have to face a horror check when facing the nightgaunt, and only then because sometimes you want to be thrown into a gate (unlike being LiTaS from the dimensional shambler or having to lose an item against an elder thing).

Either the wording on the back of the Nightgaunt chit overrides the rules on page 15 (specific rules override general rules) or it confusingly only reiterates part of them. If we assume it overrides the rules on page 15, then the nightgaunt acts more like we'd expect. If the words on the back of the nightguant are only (incompletely) emphasizing the rules on page 15, it leaves open another chance to game (IMO) the rules.

Being a thematic AH player rather than a RA(mis)W player I hope the FFG intended the former. Very few of my rather large group will figure out the gaminess anyway, so I'll just keep quiet during the games. When it comes to rules disputes we either let the first player decide or, more often, leave to the player to reasonly interpret what is supposed to happen.

Also, I've had occassion where being LiTaS is better than facing certain devourment at the hands of another monster that moved into my space.

mageith said:

I definitely agree that specific rules override general rules, but I don’t think that it applies in the case of the nightgaunt. The reason being that the rule in the book specifically addresses how the nightgaunt works, and so isn’t a general rule. The problem with treating the rule in the book (which says to treat the text of the nightgaunt as its combat damage) as a general rule which is overridden by the specific rule on the nightgaunt itself, is that you would have a general rule that never actually applied. For it to be a general rule, it has to apply some of the time. So either the rule in the book about nightgaunts is just 100% wrong (because nightgaunts never deal combat damage) or the text on the nightgaunt itself is just misleading (because it mentions failing combat checks but not evade checks).

I don’t mean to keep belaboring the point, but you originally defended your position as being according to RAW, and I think RAW leads to a different conclusion. I want to settle the RAW issue because of its implications for how other monsters work. I have no problem with people playing it differently for thematic reasons.

squad said:

Not quite true. I just mentioned that as I read the rule on the back of the nightgaunt, its different than the rule in the book. Even though the nightgaunt is mentioned in that rule, it doesn't specifically address the case at hand. In my most recent post above, I gave the two possibilites that I see. If you only see one possibility, so be it.