Perplexed . . . . Tommy Muldoon

By Glasgow Scotland, in Arkham Horror Second Edition

We find the "personal challenge" cards a bit perplexing for the Rookie Cop, Tommy Muldoon. These are new cards that arrived with the Innsmouth Expansion set.

In order to attain his personal challenge, Tommy has to be devoured before doom token #6 is placed. If he loses his challenge -- e.g., is still above the ground at this point -- he loses one maximum sanity. Since he starts with 6, this just means he is now maxed at 5. In other words, the reward is awful, and the punishment is just a wrist tap,

If Tommy succeeds (gets devoured), he is gone, of course ------- the investigator the player next takes will have a bonus of 5 additional clue tokens added to his starting items list.

We find this rather perplexing from a viewpoint of game strategy, since this "succeed" card seems more negative than his "fail" card. Most of us would probably prefer to fail this one.

Second question: Suppose the player who has Tommy Muldoon decided to "succeed" in his challenge -- e.g., get himself devoured. Unlikely, but -- what the heck. What are some good ways to get yourself devoured? One possibility ---------->

One of the new monsters that came with Innsmouth Expansion states, "you are devoured if you fail your horror check." I suppose a person could deliberately move their focus slider to minimize their will, and refuse to use any bonus card to enhance the will check. Thus they could pretty much succeed in getting themselves devoured.

Does anyone else find it rather weird how the game designers set this up for Tommy Muldoon -- or is it just me?

I think you're underestimating the consequences of his passing the story. 5 clues = One seal on a gate. A doom token is removed (could be crucial if the track is short) and the terror won't go up the next time it should. The key to understanding Tommy if you play him is that you should not expect to keep him to the end of the game (Silas is that way too). He wants to be a hero - so let him be one and get ready to play another investigator afterwards.

Innmsouth really increased the rate at which investigators get devoured. What I like is that that they did this is a both good ways (like Tommy and Silas stories) as well as bad ones (Innsmouth look). I place solo (4 investigators) so this may slant my view somewhat, but I find that after getting Innmsouth I'm willing to put my investigators in situations I would have avoided before since I'm getting used to bringing in replacements. My last game I had someone (Ursula in this case) give here all by using her last sanity and stamina to place an elder sign. First time ever I'd had a character devoured that way. Turns out her replacement was Tommy (who didn't get to fufill his story since we managed to get the sixth seal down just a few turns later).

Also, Tommy doesn't care about the doom track for his PS Fail clause, it's about the Terror track.

Glasgow Scotland said:

One of the new monsters that came with Innsmouth Expansion states, "you are devoured if you fail your horror check." I suppose a person could deliberately move their focus slider to minimize their will, and refuse to use any bonus card to enhance the will check. Thus they could pretty much succeed in getting themselves devoured.

That's exactly what I did. I used a Servitor of the Outer Gods, and easily failed an Evade Check. I didn't know exactly what I was getting into--that is, I never read ahead to know what Tommy's "reward" would be--but it was late in a game that looked hopeless, and there just HAD to be an awesome benefit to "sacrifice in the line of duty" to be worth throwing Tommy to the wolves. Not only did Tommy gain us some time on the doom clock and another seal...but he was replaced by Wendy (who must have been watching Tommy get torn apart from behind a dumpster), who almost won the game for us single-handedly with the help of Tommy's legacy.

Kingsport has a couple monsters with "devour" clauses: Shan (failed Horror Check) and Moon-Beast (reduced to 0 San or Stam). Almost half of Nyarlathotep's Masks can devour you as well.

Personal Stories have always been more directed towards flavor than towards the reward/penalty. Often the reward is weak or pointless, or the penalty is...well, weak or pointless. But sometimes they're not. Now that we've picked them apart and memorized them, and we generally know which ones to pass, which ones to fail, and which ones don't matter, they are too often easily reduced to strategies and tactics. I prefer to avoid playing them that way...but I can't unlearn what I have learned. I kinda wish I didn't know how Tommy's ends, because his PS makes for an awesome story! (Or Mary's, or Rex's, or Roland's, or Tony's...)

Or maybe FFG can make a few more Stories per Investigator...

Glasgow Scotland said:

We find the "personal challenge" cards a bit perplexing for the Rookie Cop, Tommy Muldoon. These are new cards that arrived with the Innsmouth Expansion set.

In order to attain his personal challenge, Tommy has to be devoured before doom token #6 is placed. If he loses his challenge e.g., is still above the ground at this point he loses one maximum sanity. Since he starts with 6, this just means he is now maxed at 5. In other words, the reward is awful, and the punishment is just a wrist tap,

If Tommy succeeds (gets devoured), he is gone, of course - the investigator the player next takes will have a bonus of 5 additional clue tokens added to his starting items list.

We find this rather perplexing from a viewpoint of game strategy, since this "succeed" card seems more negative than his "fail" card. Most of us would probably prefer to fail this one.

Second question: Suppose the player who has Tommy Muldoon decided to "succeed" in his challenge e.g., get himself devoured. Unlikely, but what the heck. What are some good ways to get yourself devoured? One possibility >

One of the new monsters that came with Innsmouth Expansion states, "you are devoured if you fail your horror check." I suppose a person could deliberately move their focus slider to minimize their will, and refuse to use any bonus card to enhance the will check. Thus they could pretty much succeed in getting themselves devoured.

Does anyone else find it rather weird how the game designers set this up for Tommy Muldoon or is it just me?

I was going to suggest send him to Innsmouth... But apparently he can't be arrested ;') Yeah... You had the right idea. Feed him to the Moonbeast, Servitor of Outer Gods, or The Beast. You can deliberately have him fail multiple combat checks against monsters (knocking him unconscious each time) Once you draw doubles of an injury he will die (that's probably the best way to consistantly kill him). The truth is, his pass conditions are better than you think— first off all, monster trophies and gate trophies pass on to the new player, second, you *get* a new player (filled with new items and cash), third the time spent knocking him unconscious will be balanced by the removal of a doom token, and you still get the perk of keeping terror down by one, and *5* clue tokens. It's not a bad trade.

Oh... Heh... I just read the other comments, I forgot about Elder Sign sacrificing, I haven't done that for a while. Another easier way is using Flute of the Outer Gods (it does three sanity and three stamina damage to you, so with a little bit of planning it will cause you to be devoured while also letting you claim monster trophies).

Ah.... And I forgot about Shan, Wailing Writher, The Black Man, and The Skinless One.

While there is at least one personal story I would say is at least sometimes better to fail than pass, I don't think Tommy's is one of them. The bonus is good enough that you should be actively trying to get him devoured.

Avi_dreader said:

Another easier way is using Flute of the Outer Gods (it does three sanity and three stamina damage to you, so with a little bit of planning it will cause you to be devoured while also letting you claim monster trophies).

I don't think that would work, since in order to claim the trophies you have to pass a combat check after losing the Stamina and Sanity.

avec said:

Avi_dreader said:

Another easier way is using Flute of the Outer Gods (it does three sanity and three stamina damage to you, so with a little bit of planning it will cause you to be devoured while also letting you claim monster trophies).

I don't think that would work, since in order to claim the trophies you have to pass a combat check after losing the Stamina and Sanity.

Nope. You only need to pass a horror check.

http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Flute_of_the_Outer_Gods

hm, bit of a play difference here. I don't usually set up tommy to get devourered, whereas I *do* pursue that strategy with Silas. I think the difference is that for Silas, it's merely a matter of spending trophies so his getting devourered is, for a large part, incidental. Tommy must actually be 'legitimately' devourered, which is a lot harder to do. Without Nyarlathotep, auto-devourering monsters are rare. There are a handful of AO abilities that can 'help', like QU's, but only if the player order is right, Ghantathoa's as well, but even tempting fate every turn, it may still take a while before Tommy hits the mark, worse, you've likely eliminated a lot of clues from the board, marginilizing the effect of passing the story in the first place.

Not only that, but I find Tommy to be a darned useful investigator. Easy deputization, and the ability to lure monsters is really quite a plus, can't be arrested to boot. I can't imagine 'wasting' several of Tommy's turns up in innsmouth (the look) trying to kill yourself, that just doesnt seem like a good use of his time when there are so many other neat things he could be doing. Silas, on the other hand, while a great investigator, need only spend 1 turn for his payoff, which is just as good as Tommy under the best of circumstances, and better in most. Silas' payoff, an automatic seal, is in many ways much preferable to another investigator getting 5 clues, since it saves time (of going through OWs), although a doom removal and a terror stop is a plus in Tommy's direction.

So, to finish up here, I would just reccoment playing Tommy as a normal investigator and not worrying about his story. If the game goes to final combat, getting him killed then is often much more helpful (granted, sometimes it isn't), and it seems far more heroic for tommy to go out agianst the AO than for him to snoop around Innsmouth, wondering if he has the Innsmouth Look.

jgt7771 said:

I didn't know exactly what I was getting intothat is, I never read ahead to know what Tommy's "reward" would be

right on! This is the funnest way to play. There are still some I havent passed, and the surprises are a lot of fun. First time I passed Akachis was against Yibb...3 doom from waking...luckily, the group had a deputy on hand, and a player at Devil Reef at the time, but even so, there were about 20 clues out there...

jgt7771 said:

Now that we've picked them apart and memorized them, and we generally know which ones to pass, which ones to fail, and which ones don't matter, they are too often easily reduced to strategies and tactics. I prefer to avoid playing them that way...but I can't unlearn what I have learned.

Or maybe FFG can make a few more Stories per Investigator...

Oh, yes, please! A few more stories that could be used by any investigator perhaps, to avoid redundancy for those who dont have all expansions? Say, 500 gran_risa.gif

Avi_dreader said:

Nope. You only need to pass a horror check.

http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Flute_of_the_Outer_Gods

Eh? To quote the page you cited, "Lose 3 Sanity and 3 Stamina and discard Flute of the Outer Gods before making a Combat check to defeat all monsters in your current area." The clarification on that page only means that you do not need to make more than one horror check.

Right, but it's before making a combat check, which means you don't have to make one.

Argh, I remember this conversation now. Though the way it's worded, "to defeat" could just as easily refer to "making a combat check" as it does to "lose 3 Sanity and 3 Stamina." That is, both "making" and "lose" are verbs that could easily support the implicit "in order to" clause in the statement.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.