I chose to undertake a task. At the point on the board where I found myself, I was positioned between the required locations to visit. One was up-board from me, and two were down-board.

I moved up-board to the first required location, with three movement points still remaining for my turn. I then used my remaining movement points to reverse direction so as to head for the opposite side of the board. In this manner I was able to use all five of my allotted movement points.

Is this permissible?

No - you need to have an encounter at the location for a task before that location is considered done.

You do not have to have an encounter, you have to be there during Arkham Encounters (otherwise the street areas on some tasks would be impossible, no encounters) The net result is the same, however, since you have to be in the location/street listed during Arkham Encounters phase, you're going to have to stop moving.

BTW: missions, IIRC, you have to make the sacrifice the following Upkeep, so no getting kicked to the street.

crockejm said:

Some even point to the rule example regarding Missions that you need to be at the location during Upkeep, even though you don't need to sacrifice anything.

"Had Jim been working on a Task instead of a Mission, he would not have
needed to make a sacrifice at each location. Instead, merely being present
in the location during the Upkeep Phase would have sufficed." (DH, p. 5)

But no kicked to the street with Tasks or Missions, only KH and Rift-investigation lets that crap fly.

Thanks all for correcting the mistake in my hasty response.

A question of my own: what if there is a gate at the location? For mission, you could argue that once you are back from the OW, then you will satisfy the condition of being there for the upkeep phase. What about for tasks though? Do you satisfy the condition on the turn that you are drawn through the gate, or do you need to wait until the turn where you are back and are (presumably) closing the gate?

Same thing, really. You need to be there during the Upkeep Phase - something you can usually only do after coming back out of the gate.

For tasks, you need to be there for the Arkham Encounters phase, not the Upkeep phase. If there's an open gate at the location, then your "Arkham Encounter" is to move to another world. As far as completing tasks are concerned, that type of encounter would be essentially the same as having an encounter that moved you to the street. I don't see how either type of encounter would prevent you from making progress on a task.

And if I remember correctly, a gate replaces a location. Can't remember where it is stated, but I'm pretty confident it's somewhere. Unless, of course, I have missed some important official ruling.

QuickEdit: Referring lightly to the post above.

Dam said:

On the same p. 5 of DH rulebook, it says, "For tasks, merely spending an Arkham Encounter Phase in the listed areas is enough to complete each step."

Though on the diagram, it says, "...merely being present in the location during Upkeep Phase would have sufficed."

Is that contradictory? Or you have to be there from Encounter Phase through Upkeep (If a gate pops on you in Mythos Phase would you have to do it over?)?

The Dunwich rulebook uses poor wording to casually describe Tasks. Tasks and Missions are identical in execution: you complete a step by being in the location during the Upkeep phase; the only difference really is that with a Mission, you also have to make a sarcifice during that Upkeep; with a Task, you make a sacrifice of "nothing."

Tibs said:

I'm surprised to hear that. Are you sure? The rules are very clear that you complete each step of a task during the arkham encounters phase. (DH, p. 5).

They're actually not very clear. The only indication that a task could be completed in the AE phase is the phrase, "simply being in a location during the Arkham Encounters phase." However, the mention of the AE phase is a distraction, and there is an example that more specifically explains that the Task is meant to operate at the Upkeep phase, as Dam pointed out earlier:

(DH pg 5):
"Had Jim been working on a Task instead of a Mission, he would not have needed to make a sacrifice at each location. Instead, merely being present in the location during the Upkeep Phase would have sufficed."

Tasks and Missions were meant to be identical: but missions have a sacrifice and a bigger potential reward, which suits their locations in their respective decks: Tasks are mundane accomplishments, with clues/items/allies/money as payoff (common item deck); Missions are arcane accomplishments, with mostly cosmic effects (unique item deck).

It's probably the intention of FFG that tasks and missions have the same turn phase associated with them. It's just the RAW that state otherwise. I usually put more weight on a description than on an example, since descriptions usually generalize more "cleanly" than examples.

Ive always played tasks and missions as being dealt with in Upkeep, and disregarded the suggestion in the rulebook that tasks are dealt with in AE as an ambiguity or error. Seems to me part of a task/missions challenge is you have to survive the AE phase (and mythos) and not be moved to elsewhere before Upkeep and thats they way I have always played: Upkeep.

northburns said:

A gate does replace any encounter or interaction with a location (that's in the FAQ last I checked). Meaning that you cannot go to a location and then have an encounter or perform an action as printed on the board if a gate is present. I'm fairly confident, however, that the location itself still exists when a gate is present. If all you need to do is "be at the Unvisited Isle" then I wouldn't think an open gate would negate that condition. Provided, of course, that you are actually at the Isle in the required phase and not sucked through the gate to another world.

Which kinda brings me to a question that arose last night. If an (arkham) encounter says "Go to location x and immediately have an encounter there" and location x has a gate on it, do you:

a) go through it and have an OW encounter?

b) have a location encounter, then go through to the OW and have an OW encounter as well?

c) have an Arkham encounter there and then wait until next turn before going through to the OW?

Mylo said:

You get sucked through the gate. Good thing about this method of OW-entry is that A) you're not delayed and B) you don't need to deal with any monsters on the gate. Bad thing? Umm, have to get lucky and draw the right encounter (maybe even pass a check) to benefit.

Steve-O said:

Gate not replacing the location altogether makes thematic sense to me, since I find it hard to believe the gates to be 100 feet tall cracks in the veil of space and time (sightings like that would certainly raise terror and panic in any enviroment). If they are just big enough for an investigator or a monster to crawl through (say 10 feet ), then I believe that you are right. The gate doesn't replace the location, but it's encounters and special texts.

The gate replacing locations encounters might be harder to explain in in-world terms? If the gate is just a portal in the Witch House's basement, what is stopping investigators from ignoring it and snooping around other rooms of the house? But then again, it is a good mechanic, so I'm not complaining

northburns said:

Gate not replacing the location altogether makes thematic sense to me, since I find it hard to believe the gates to be 100 feet tall cracks in the veil of space and time (sightings like that would certainly raise terror and panic in any enviroment). If they are just big enough for an investigator or a monster to crawl through (say 10 feet ), then I believe that you are right. The gate doesn't replace the location, but it's encounters and special texts.

The gate replacing locations encounters might be harder to explain in in-world terms? If the gate is just a portal in the Witch House's basement, what is stopping investigators from ignoring it and snooping around other rooms of the house? But then again, it is a good mechanic, so I'm not complaining

FAQ, p. 4:

"Q: What happens to a monster that emerges from a gate
that appears at a closed location? Or if a location closes
while there is a monster and a gate at the location? Is the
monster trapped inside the closed location?

A: The gate replaces the location, so while the gate is open
there is no closed location for the monster to be “trapped”
in. Put the gate over the closed marker. If the gate is later
closed, then resolve the effects of a closed location – i.e.,
any monster or investigator at the location that appeared
with the gate is tossed out into the street."

Dam said:

northburns said:

Gate not replacing the location altogether makes thematic sense to me, since I find it hard to believe the gates to be 100 feet tall cracks in the veil of space and time (sightings like that would certainly raise terror and panic in any enviroment). If they are just big enough for an investigator or a monster to crawl through (say 10 feet ), then I believe that you are right. The gate doesn't replace the location, but it's encounters and special texts.

The gate replacing locations encounters might be harder to explain in in-world terms? If the gate is just a portal in the Witch House's basement, what is stopping investigators from ignoring it and snooping around other rooms of the house? But then again, it is a good mechanic, so I'm not complaining

FAQ, p. 4:

"Q: What happens to a monster that emerges from a gate
that appears at a closed location? Or if a location closes
while there is a monster and a gate at the location? Is the
monster trapped inside the closed location?

A: The gate replaces the location, so while the gate is open
there is no closed location for the monster to be “trapped”
in. Put the gate over the closed marker. If the gate is later
closed, then resolve the effects of a closed location – i.e.,
any monster or investigator at the location that appeared
with the gate is tossed out into the street."

I see, yes, so it was in the FAQ.

But just to make sure you know what I meant with my post (As I read my post, I see that I was too tired to write), I'm going to think outloud here:

[my_interpretation]When a gate opens in a location, all of that locations "properties" are "nullified": It is no longer closed, it doesn't have a special text, it doesn't contain any Arkham Encounters, and what not. Instead, the gate adds two Arkham Encounters to that location: Move to the indicated Other World and try to close/seal this location's gate. But the location is still itself (ie. Woods with an open gate is still Woods, there is just not much to do there, except to go to Other World, and you can still go to that location with encounters such as "Go to the Woods and have an encounter there").[/my_interpretation]

Does that sound like a good explanation of the rules regarding locations with gates?

northburns said:

Absolutely. That's how I see Gates too. It also explains simple things like how two Investigators can be at the same Location and face the same monster separately: Pete sneaks away from the Gug outside the Historical Society, so it goes inside and fights Joe.

That's pretty much every episode of Scooby Doo, isn't it?

I don't know. If a location with special text also has a gate, can you use the Summoning Glass to use that location's special ability?

Tibs said:

Well, Summoning Glass's target location can't have a gate, but I see what you mean. If there were an item / spell / whatnot to let you use location's special text without actually being in there and allowing there to be a gate, what would happen to my explanation. My explanation would crumble, that's what would happen

Let's not say "nullify", instead "disabled (unless otherwise stated) options during arkham encounter phase" is better.

northburns said:

See, I don't know if this is necessarily true. Sure, the rules say that a gate replaces a location, but does that mean that the location doesn't exist anymore until the gate is closed? If there is a gate at the Woods, the gate replaces the Woods. If you draw a mythos card that says a gate opens at the Woods, you don't disregard the gate location because there is no "Woods." A player can still locate the Woods and declare that there is a monster surge.

I'm not saying that a gate doesn't negate the alternate encounter text of a location for the purposes of the Summoning Glass; I'm just not sure that the negation is implicit.

Tibs said:

Northburns is referring to the text on SG, which mentions the location targetted can't have a gate on it.