Intentionally Failing a Skill Check

By Tiamat4, in Arkham Horror Second Edition

Posted at

squad said:

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).

Yeah I think that's it. The only issue I have is missing out the nightgaunt horror check. And even then, it only occured to me as an issue as it was being done deliberately, which feels a little cheap. I've failed (but not deliberately) evades against a nightgaunt and the fact that the horror check didn't happen hasn't occured to em as I've been too bust thinking: bummer thrown through a gate with no clues when I really wanted to <whatever>.

Whenever I've wanted to be escorted by a nightgaunt, I've always gone down the route of hoping to fail an unarmed combat roll, and therefore made the horror check. The failed evade idea didn't occur to me.

I'm not sure that the elder thing wouldn't be a problem as you're still stuck in the same location as it and once evade has been failed.

It does seem to make sense to me though that failed evade should require a horror check in addition to the combat damage (as opposed to failed flee, where a horror check should alreday have been made).

I might raise this in parallel on BGG. Be interesting to see what guys like coltsfan who don't visit here think.

- Mariana the ex-nun cultist

Posted at

Mariana the Ex-Nun Cultist said:

I might raise this in parallel on BGG. Be interesting to see what guys like coltsfan who don't visit here think.

- Mariana the ex-nun cultist

I think he pops in, just not in the AH section (mostly I think a certain poster whose nick starts with "kr" is to blame).

BTW Mariana, you should go with Sister Diane Mary Stanley cool.gif .

Posted at

Dam said:

Mariana the Ex-Nun Cultist said:

I might raise this in parallel on BGG. Be interesting to see what guys like coltsfan who don't visit here think.

- Mariana the ex-nun cultist

I think he pops in, just not in the AH section (mostly I think a certain poster whose nick starts with "kr" is to blame).

BTW Mariana, you should go with Sister Diane Mary Stanley cool.gif .

You keep your filthy fantasies to yourself Mr Dam, indeed! <insert ouraged smiley>*

- Mariana the ex-nun cultist

*is it just me or does FFG have the weirdest array of smileys?

Posted at

I think they "borrowed" the forum design from another site or something like that. That's why all the page URLs are in Spanish. Probably came with the odd smilies too.

I've sort of warmed up to the new forums, but having an indefinite "edit" button would still be welcome. Oh yeah, and personal avatars.

Posted at

Tibs said:

I think they "borrowed" the forum design from another site or something like that. That's why all the page URLs are in Spanish. Probably came with the odd smilies too.

I've sort of warmed up to the new forums, but having an indefinite "edit" button would still be welcome. Oh yeah, and personal avatars.

I'll see your improvement ideas and raise you with a GOOD Search function (at least gimme search by subforums or something).

Posted at

Dam said:

Mariana the Ex-Nun Cultist said:

I might raise this in parallel on BGG. Be interesting to see what guys like coltsfan who don't visit here think.

- Mariana the ex-nun cultist

I think he pops in, just not in the AH section (mostly I think a certain poster whose nick starts with "kr" is to blame).

For what it's worth, ColtsFan says "Fail the evade against DS, you are LiTaS. Fail against the NG, go through the nearest gate." in this thread:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/393219

Edit: Here's where ColtsFan addresses this issue in a previous FFG post:

http://app.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/list/12248.page

Posted at

mageith 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.

It's not that I don't see two possibilities, it's that I don't think one of the possibilities is actually plausible. I'm arguing that it's not plausible to think that the text on the Nightgaunt is a specific rule that overrides the general rule that I previously cited. That general rule says to treat the special text as part of the combat damage, and specifically references the Nightgaunt as a monster that follows this general rule. Those two paragraphs I cited are enough to address the case at hand - the first says if you fail an evade check then you are dealt combat damage, and the second says combat damage includes the special text.

By itself, the text on the Nightgaunt is ambiguous. It's possible to read it in a way that follows the general rule I cited, and possible to read it as an exception to that general rule. Yes, there are two possibilities here, but they are not equally likely possibilities. Since the general rule specifically states that the Nightgaunt follows the rule, that gives us a definitive answer on how to interpret the Nightgaunt.