URGENT: The Long Awaited FAQ is Nigh (post more questions here).

By Avi_dreader, in Arkham Horror Second Edition

cim said:

Avi_dreader said:

re: funnel clouds — what we probably just need is a general ruling stating that "End of movement effects (i.e. picking up clues, martial law evade check, environment effects) take place prior to combat in the order of the player's choosing." [see how nice and short that was Tibs? ;') ]

I thought there was already a ruling that clues was definitely after dealing with monsters?

Prior to combat is an unclear point, too, since failing an Evade check enters combat involuntarily.

"This huge monster spotted me, but before it could hit me, the cops drove up and threw me in this cell." (The Innsmouth cops, of course, would let the combat damage for failing the check be taken, and then arrest the Investigator)

If it should be read "End their movement +phase+" when it says "End their movement" that seems a reasonably simple general clarification, and I can't immediately think of anything that interpretation breaks.

Mmm... The monsters/clue order has shifted around (I don't actually remember what's the official ruling now). The problem with changing the text to End their movement phase (even though that would be ideally rational) is that you'd then have to errata *loads* of cards.

Hrm... You're right [i just checked the proto-FAQ, it's monsters first then clues— I just edited the above comment to reflect that, I'm going to suggest it be changed for the final version since it's leading to three different definitions for "end of movement" and it has almost no bearing on game mechanics anyways].

------

Okay, got it :')

It could be "All end of movement effects except martial law take place after combat in the order of the player's choosing." There :') Very simple. [Tibs, that will make the question about an area with monsters and Clues redundant— actually shortening the FAQ. This sentence could be put in Rules Changes and Clarifications, actually :') that would *also* kill the question about fighting monsters before or after martial law in Innsmouth Miscellaneous pg 25].

Why "except martial law"?

And if it is except that, if you're walking around a monster with enough movement points remaining to move on, but then fail your Evade check, does the martial law check happen?

- immediately when you fail the Evade check?
- immediately after taking combat damage assuming it wasn't a Nightgaunt?
- immediately after resolving that combat, assuming the Investigator remains in that street?

cim said:

Why "except martial law"?

And if it is except that, if you're walking around a monster with enough movement points remaining to move on, but then fail your Evade check, does the martial law check happen?

- immediately when you fail the Evade check?
- immediately after taking combat damage assuming it wasn't a Nightgaunt?
- immediately after resolving that combat, assuming the Investigator remains in that street?

Martial law was ruled to take place prior to combat (in the proto-FAQ), we should find out how it works with a failed evade check (it wasn't specified).

Avi_dreader said:

Martial law was ruled to take place prior to combat (in the proto-FAQ), we should find out how it works with a failed evade check (it wasn't specified).

Why? That's stupid! So I can run up to the God of the Bloody Tongue as fast as I possibly can, and the Innsmouth cops can arrest me BEFORE I have to face It? What kind of let's-use-the-Nightgaunt-to-escape kind of bull$#!% is that???

I've always treated the "End of Movement" thing like a Spell Check: you are ATTEMPTING to end your movement in this space, but before you can successfully do so, you must deal with this monster. Then you must make this Evade Check. And if you pull all that off, you may officially end your movement (and take your Clues) in this space.

Tell you right now: if the Proto-FAQ insists on printing that, I'm going to ignore it.

Avi_dreader said:

Why not? re: eating Spawn monsters (vortexes can)

Assuming enough Investigators and things are generally under control, then this could provide a useful way to take out Riots and the Dunwich Horror, then, since they can sit there until the end of the game unable to cause further trouble (Riots wouldn't even come back if the rumour was passed). Putting Glaaki or Abhoth's creatures on it is probably a worse idea, though.

Putting them in a vortex is a bit different (though still a possible way to clear up Riots, I suppose, if you don't mind the terror increase putting another Blight out) since they come back to being able to reappear immediately in that case.

Another reason they might not: I thought it had already been clarified that Spawn monsters weren't affected by Feds Raid Arkham and other Mythos card effects that might remove them from the board. Why should this Mythos card be an exception?

jgt7771 said:

Avi_dreader said:

Martial law was ruled to take place prior to combat (in the proto-FAQ), we should find out how it works with a failed evade check (it wasn't specified).

Why? That's stupid! So I can run up to the God of the Bloody Tongue as fast as I possibly can, and the Innsmouth cops can arrest me BEFORE I have to face It? What kind of let's-use-the-Nightgaunt-to-escape kind of bull$#!% is that???

I've always treated the "End of Movement" thing like a Spell Check: you are ATTEMPTING to end your movement in this space, but before you can successfully do so, you must deal with this monster. Then you must make this Evade Check. And if you pull all that off, you may officially end your movement (and take your Clues) in this space.

Tell you right now: if the Proto-FAQ insists on printing that, I'm going to ignore it.

::Laughter:: well... It does make the game harder... So... I'll use it. Reluctantly.

cim said:

Avi_dreader said:

Why not? re: eating Spawn monsters (vortexes can)

Assuming enough Investigators and things are generally under control, then this could provide a useful way to take out Riots and the Dunwich Horror, then, since they can sit there until the end of the game unable to cause further trouble (Riots wouldn't even come back if the rumour was passed). Putting Glaaki or Abhoth's creatures on it is probably a worse idea, though.

Putting them in a vortex is a bit different (though still a possible way to clear up Riots, I suppose, if you don't mind the terror increase putting another Blight out) since they come back to being able to reappear immediately in that case.

Another reason they might not: I thought it had already been clarified that Spawn monsters weren't affected by Feds Raid Arkham and other Mythos card effects that might remove them from the board. Why should this Mythos card be an exception?

Vortexes can't get DH or Riots (unless you move Riots with a Migo Brain Case).

Avi_dreader said:

Vortexes can't get DH or Riots (unless you move Riots with a Migo Brain Case).

Implant suggestion should also bu useful for this dirty job, shouldn't it?

Here's my take on it:

Vortexes are designed to eat monsters, but the Uptown Streets were not (they are not a dead-end). If a spawn monster somehow works its way into a vortex it is eaten; if the Dunwich Horror manages to do it, it returns to Sentinel Hill because the three DH tokens are still on the track and they can only be removed by "defeating" the Horror.

Julia said:

Avi_dreader said:

Vortexes can't get DH or Riots (unless you move Riots with a Migo Brain Case).

Implant suggestion should also bu useful for this dirty job, shouldn't it?

Well, the thing is you'd need to get Riots into Dunwich (it'd work for the DH in theory, but I think it would just reawaken it since the track's still full— I'm not sure).

Avi_dreader said:

Well, the thing is you'd need to get Riots into Dunwich (it'd work for the DH in theory, but I think it would just reawaken it since the track's still full— I'm not sure).

Why not bringing them to Innsmouth? Sometimes it's easier to deal with DOR track rather than the Dunwhich Horror track

Julia said:

Avi_dreader said:

Well, the thing is you'd need to get Riots into Dunwich (it'd work for the DH in theory, but I think it would just reawaken it since the track's still full— I'm not sure).

Why not bringing them to Innsmouth? Sometimes it's easier to deal with DOR track rather than the Dunwhich Horror track

Eh, my point was that the only way to move them would be by Migo Brain Case (I think).

Avi_dreader said:

Eh, my point was that the only way to move them would be by Migo Brain Case (I think).

Ah, ok! got it :-)

Avi_dreader said:

Eh, my point was that the only way to move them would be by Migo Brain Case (I think).

Lure Monster Spell should work as well.

Dam said:

Avi_dreader said:

Eh, my point was that the only way to move them would be by Migo Brain Case (I think).

Lure Monster Spell should work as well.

Yeah. Sorry, I was exhausted last night and didn't have time or energy to think about which spell moves monsters. There's also Milk of Shub, if you don't mind the terror hitting ten ;'D

Avi_dreader said:

Yeah. Sorry, I was exhausted last night and didn't have time or energy to think about which spell moves monsters. There's also Milk of Shub, if you don't mind the terror hitting ten ;'D

I was actually going to ask "Got Milk?", but then remembered Milk only works on non-Spawns.

Dam said:

Avi_dreader said:

Yeah. Sorry, I was exhausted last night and didn't have time or energy to think about which spell moves monsters. There's also Milk of Shub, if you don't mind the terror hitting ten ;'D

I was actually going to ask "Got Milk?", but then remembered Milk only works on non-Spawns.

Oh. Blast. ;') I guess FFG caught that one (hell, I should have caught that considering I used the Milk/Flute combo to win last game *while I had two servants of Glaaki on the board).

Speaking of Servants of Glaaki ... if all 5 are on the board, and one of them falls in a vortex, does it go back to Glaaki's sheet before or after the terror level increase? (i.e. does Glaaki wake up or does the servant reappear somewhere else). It looks like a "timing, first player chooses" issue, but I may have missed some detail in the rules that says which order they must happen in.

cim said:

Speaking of Servants of Glaaki ... if all 5 are on the board, and one of them falls in a vortex, does it go back to Glaaki's sheet before or after the terror level increase? (i.e. does Glaaki wake up or does the servant reappear somewhere else). It looks like a "timing, first player chooses" issue, but I may have missed some detail in the rules that says which order they must happen in.

Nope. No rule on order there. So you could play it in players' favor.

heh, I just realized that this "URGENT" thread is now 17 pages long

avec said:

heh, I just realized that this "URGENT" thread is now 17 pages long

Yeaaaah, we were originally given an approximate date for it's release ;') we know better now.

As much as I would love to see this FAQ I am getting the feeling that it is never go to happen.

diablo666 said:

As much as I would love to see this FAQ I am getting the feeling that it is never go to happen.

I disagree with that. But honestly, it'll be a while (re: the official FAQ).

Well, that'll give time for the inevitable Lurker questions to be added.

Another one about personal stories - I assume that if Trish goes somewhere, gets "A monster appears" and it's a warlock, that counts as a personal story pass if she defeats it?

cim said:

Well, that'll give time for the inevitable Lurker questions to be added.

Another one about personal stories - I assume that if Trish goes somewhere, gets "A monster appears" and it's a warlock, that counts as a personal story pass if she defeats it?

Um... I would assume she wouldn't, but the truth is I have no idea. I'd guess the intent was 2 clues from an encounter. I'm not sure though. Does anyone know of any parts in the rule books where combat in "a monster appears" is described as part of an encounter?

http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Image:PsTrishScarboroughFront.png

Hrm... You could be right. I really don't know. It's badly worded in my opinion. But it's possible a random Warlock would count as a pass for her.