This came up in another thread, and after thinking about it for a while, I wanted to make a poll about the possible solutions already suggested. However, as this silly forum doesn't seem to allow polls, I'll have to do this "the old-fashioned way".

The general consensus of the experienced players here on the forum is that getting an Investigator devoured mid-game has very little negative effect on the players' chances of winning. Even if the players don't try to abuse the system (by sending naked Investigators to their deaths while collecting their equipment for others to use), having an Investigator devoured is often less harmful than having them unconscious/insane. I think this should be corrected, and a list of proposed suggestions follows. My original suggestion of kicking the player of the devoured Investigator permanently out of the game is indeed too harsh for that player, so on second thought I decided to omit that idea.

The following suggestions were made by some innovative players on this forum. Every time an Investigator is devoured outside the Final Battle, you should:

1. Increase the Investigator count by one for all game purposes (Monster/Outskirt/Gate limits, number of hits needed against the Ancient One, etc.)

2. Add one Doom token

3. Increase the Terror level by one

4. A combination of 1 and 2 above

5. A combination of 2 and 3 above

Please, let us know what you think of this.

And if anyone from FFG reads this, please consider making this official.

-Villain

Villain said:

Errr... I wouldn't go so far as saying that getting an investigator devoured mid-game has little effect on a player's odds of winning. Losing all the equipment and clue tokens of a player is a significant penalty. ::Shrug:: I just want some sort of added penalty to prevent exploits and make devouring a greater threat than it already is (it's kindof anti-climactic when a character gets devoured with no effect on the game, or actually gets devoured to the benefit of the team— it can happen).

Perhaps devouring should increase doom and terror by one, while retirement should only increase doom by one (I'm sorry, retirement just doesn't seem as terrifying as being eaten).

Adding to investigator count excessively penalizes small teams and underpenalizes large teams (and besides, there's no number higher than eight for player number).

::Shrug:: my main problem with the way the rule works now is that there are certain occasions when a member of the team is eaten, and people cheer. It's kindof a mood spoiler. Errr, a moody mood spoiler :')

I play solitaire and in my house rules (you can find them on BoardGameGeek) devoured investigators don't spawn another investigator... they're just DEAD.

It's a nice penality, I think

CptWasp said:

::Shrug:: of course if you're playing with a set up designed to be challenging, a dead investigator is basically equivalent to a game over (i.e. lets say you're doing a three player game with Kingsport and Dunwich, there's no way you can cover everything, the rifts will open, and your team is screwed with only two investigators. I suppose it's theoretically possible to still eke out a win, but it's doubtful, unless you're fairly close anyways. If that were my house rule :'P I'd just forfeit. Just curious, how often do you manage to win games when you get an investigator devoured?

I'm not sure what the problem is. There are several exploitations of the game that are available and if folks want to play that way, then they will. I've probably only had six investigators devoured in over 200 games, but recently three were devoured in one game--through no fault of either their or my own. One of them was Daisy. She was only in the game for 2 turns. No rejoicing there. Yog-Sothoth is not very forgiving of investigator error.

We still won, but its one of our most memorable games. Had any of your rules in been effect, we would have probably lost and summarily.

I don't have a problem with replacing investigators without penalty. But then we tend to play the game as straight (realistically ) as possible and the death of an investigator usually results in some good items being lost. On the other hand, that deceased investigator is replaced by a perfectly well and themed investigator so I'd agree the penalty is essentially a wash with the benefits.

Even though we win most of our games, few are easy.

The effect of the penalty is probably a function of how exactly how one plays the game, ie, house rules or house choices. We give our players of choice of twice as many investigators as there are players. So if we are playing with three players, six investigators are laid out. So there is some investment in the investigator chosen. The replacement investigator is then chosen randomly and is likely less powerful than his or her ancestor (Daisy being a major exception).

We also tend to play a campaign and a devoured investigator is lost for the duration of the campaign. Mandy was devoured in the opening battle in our second campaign. No rejoicing there either.

Avi_dreader said:

It is pretty harsh, but then getting devoured midgame is a very rare event. In almost 40 games it happened 4 times, IIRC:

• once vs. Yog-Sothoth because of getting lost in time and space
• once vs. Nyarlathotep while encountering the Black Man
• once because an investigator sacrificed himself to seal a gate (Other World encounter)
• once because an investigator felt too crippled after getting a third injury/madness and retired

Anyway, it's probably true that the increase in difficulty is higher for small teams than for large teams, but I think that's fitting the way difficulty decreases generally if you have many investigators (with the odd bump when increasing from four to five invetigators).

Regarding the problem of what to do once the investigator count reaches 8, I'm still undecided. I thought of adding a doom token and extending the doom track by one at the same time but that's probably not sufficiently inconvenient

Let's have a look again at what happens when increasing the number of investigators:

1. for every investigator added, the number of successes required to remove one doom marker in final combat increases by on
2. for every investigator added, the monster limit is increased by one (and the max # of monsters in the outskirts decreased by one)
3. for every investigator added, the number of gate trophies required to win the game by closing all gates is increased by one
4. for every two investigators added, the max # of open gates is decreased by one
5. for 5-8 investigators, the number of monsters appearing when a gate opens is increased by one

Anything else?

• rule 1, and 3 could be applied for 9+ investigators without changes
• rule 2 is problematic because of the max # of monsters in the outskirts cannot decrease further
• rule 4 could be extended until you reach 18 investigators, at which point the AO awakens even if there aren't any open gates
• rule 5 could be extended by applying it for every four investigators added beyond the first (i.e. 9-12 investigators: three monsters, etc.)

To increase difficulty regarding rule 2 for 9+ investigators, maybe increase the number of terror markers added when a monster enters the outskirts by one?

What other options would there be to make the game harder for large investigator teams?

• drawing additional mythos cards
• increasing the AO's combat modifier
• ...
• ?

Yeaaaaah... That's why I'd just go for doom token or terror track... Lets make it a sentence, not a page of rules :')

Avi_dreader said:

I don't see investigators devoured all that often, but it doesn happen. Usually it is near the beginning of the game or in the middle. I've never seen it happen at the end. I've also never seen it happen intentionally. I have intentionally gotten a character that I really hated to get two madness/injury cards so I could retire them. Sorry, there are just a few investigators that I don't enjoy playing, not because they are weak or whatever, I just don't like the theme of the characters. Retirement should continue penalty free.

I still think that adding a doom token is the minimum penalty for being devoured. Increasing the relative number of investgators for game purposes amy actually be too harch. The doom token, plus loss of gear is pretty nasty. I can live with that.

I think I will try a few games with option 2 and a few with option 4, just to see if it really is to harsh. Of course, those will probably be games where no one gets devoured and I won't get to test the house rules. :-)

Nghtflame7 said:

I agree.

I have also come to think that option 2. Add one Doom token every time an Investigator is devoured is the best way to handle this - it is simple, easy to remember and should make the players think twice before sending Investigators to their deaths.

-Villain

I don't think any rules change is necessary. If you don't like the way things are at the moment then use a house rule to change it.

It appears to me that your main problem with the rules at the moment is that people exploit them. Well, OK, so what? YOU don't have to exploit them. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. If you don't like players exploting the rules then don't do it. Simple as that *g*.

Players exploit all sorts of rules, from the bank-loan-shuffle to camping in the Curiositie Shoppe waiting for an Elder Sign. Must we demand a rules change for all of them, too? The first group I played the game with thought that Michael McGlen was too powerful and demanded a rules change; one player would refuse to actually play a game with him in it unless he was used with modified text. They never got the rules change they wanted but they still play the game with a house rule so Michael McGlen's text can only be used once per turn. I fail to see why they felt it necessary to impose their house rule on other players and I have to confess I fail to see why you think other players shouldn't use the mechanics as they are now.

For most people it's not a problem - I've been playing this game since it first came out (I have a first edition printing of the game and the board is almost falling apart I've played it so often) and in all that time I've never seen anyone use the exploit you're concerned about. For myself and my friends it is always a MASSIVE deal when a player gets devoured and very, very annoying - we lose all sorts of items and money and tokens, no one has ever set out to be purposefully devoured. To make it even worse than it already is would be absurd.

Stenun said:

Errr... Camping in the Curiositie Shoppe for Elder Signs isn't a game exploit, it's part of game design (it's why the rules have it so that you *must* buy an item while shopping if you have enough money to do so).

Michael's ability is powerful? On what planet? Bleh... I almost never lose combat checks, horror checks are another matter though.

Your board's falling apart too, huh?

::Shrug:: besides, it would be fun if a doom token was added when a player is devoured. It's not a devestating penalty, but it's something to mark the special occasion ;') and then there's the exploit factor, and the possibility of devouring being a positive effect. Feh. Give me the doom token please.

Stenun said:

No, it's not just the possibility of exploiting it. As I said before, getting an investigator devoured is oftentimes less harmful than getting him/her insane/unconscious (an example will follow). It just bugs me too much. I give you that simply house ruling it would be the easiest way, but as the comments on this forum clearly illustrate, I'm not in the minority in this - of all the experienced players of Arkham Horror I know, the vast majority of them share my opinion that getting an investigator devoured mid-game is rarely a big deal. Thus, my request for the official rule change - it is better than having everyone house rule it differently.

Think of this example from a game I played a couple of months ago: Due to horrible luck with dice, Amanda Sharpe got devoured in R'lyeh. She had a .45 Automatic, a Gladius of Carcosa, a Find Gate Spell (which she had failed to cast) and the Ruby of R'lyeh - rather good equipment, but nothing "extra" (she had used Food to stay conscious on the previous turn, though). She didn't have any money, and she used all her Clue tokens to avoid getting devoured, to no avail (really crappy rolls). She also had one gate trophy and some monster trophies, worth something like 7 toughness by now (she had just beaten a Gug on the previous turn).

So, the weapons, the spell and the Ruby were lost with Amanda, and a new Investigator now emerges on full health and equipment - plus all of Amanda's Trophies! A turn later this new Investigator has already become the Deputy and is on his way to the Curiositie Shoppe to spend his money.

Now, had Amanda gone insane or unconscious instead (Madness / Injury cards were not used in the game, btw), she would've lost two of her items, leaving her rather poorly equipped. Also, she would've gone LiTaS and spent her next turn there. Then she'd have returned to Arkham, dangerously low on both Stamina and Sanity - and no money to pay for treatment. So she'd had to waste several turns and possibly her trophies just to get back to full Stamina and Sanity - not to mention she'd have way weaker equipment than the Investigator that replaced her.

Can you see the discrepancy in those two situations above? The latter is multiple times worse than the former - and it should not be so! There are times when getting an Investigator devoured is bad, but as long as there are times when the players cheer when an Investigator gets devoured it feels like there's something wrong with the game. It makes no sense that the replacing Investigators are basically always stronger (as they get all the trophies of the previous Investigator) than those that started the game originally were.

Having an additional Doom token added to the Ancient One's Doom Track whenever a new Investigator is brought in to replace a devoured one feels like the bare minimum for me. Another option that I hadn't thought before would be that every new Investigator brought in mid-game would start with one Madness and one Injury card.

-Villain

But, there are always going to be situations completely the opposite of this.

In one of my last games an investigator was devoured (we had equipped him with all our best gear to face off against the Dunwich Horror, but he managed to roll 2 successes on 12 dice while blessed), but then we had a new gate open during that Mythos phase, and in the next turn 2 gates opened due to encounters, and another gate opened in Mythos thus waking Nyarlathotep. At that late stage of the game there had been no clues nearby for this investigator to pick up, so he was immediately devoured by Nyarlathotep's start of battle power, leaving the rest of us in the last stand one man down, and lacking the gear from what had been our best equipped investigator before he was so rudely devoured. Suffice to say that lost the game for us.

This will be my third attempt to reply to this message, none of my previous replies appear to have survived my clicking on "Publish". I hope it's a case of fourth time lucky...

"Errr... Camping in the Curiositie Shoppe for Elder Signs isn't a game exploit, it's part of game design (it's why the rules have it so that you *must* buy an item while shopping if you have enough money to do so)."

Are you seriously saying you've never seen anyone exploit that mechanic? There is a very cheesy way to exploit having multiple people there at the same time but given your obvious dislike of exploits I won't go into any further details. :-)

"Michael's ability is powerful? On what planet? Bleh... I almost never lose combat checks, horror checks are another matter though."

As I said, they thought it was. I never did and hated their house rule so I just made sure I never played as Michael when playing with them.

Heh, one of them even had the audacity to try telling me that their "house rule" was an official errata. I guess he just assumed I had no access to this website. :-)

"::Shrug:: besides, it would be fun if a doom token was added when a player is devoured."

This is obviously some strange new usage of the word "fun" that I wasn't previously aware of. :-)

Yes, there will be occasions when being devoured is not as bad as all that. But then there will be occasions when it absolutely decimates a game.

There are games of chess when losing a rook can actually give you a tactical advantage. But other times it can be devastating.

It's swings and roundabouts and I don't think it's necessary to make it even worse because of those few occasions when it turns out to be a blessing in disguise.

Villain said:

::Mouthdrop:: Hoooooly craaaaap. I never realized devoured investigator's new players get to keep their trophies. That's crazy. Wow. I haven't done that in the two and a half years I've been playing. Yeah. Wow. I'm *definitely* house ruling a doom token for devouring from now on. ::Shrug:: or maybe I could just keep playing that they don't get to transfer trophies ;'D

Avi_dreader said:

Oooooo. I like the madness/injury rule... Although I think what I might want that to apply that to is retired investigators :') they should be replaced by one with a random madness (they tend to be more painful than injuries :') and I like them more).

Stenun said:

Oh! I totally agree that no "official" rule change is appropriate. For my part, I am just talking possible house rules. I have no desire to see any of the current official rules revised.

One of the things I love about AH is that it is in the "official rules" that "house rules" are encouraged. How cool is that?

While I agree that simple house rules are usually better than changing the existing ruleset, it may become awfully confusing if you have the chance to play with several groups: remembering the specific rules of each house can be a real pain in the ass with a game of this level of complexity. That's why I'd rather have an official change of rules in this matter.

That said, how about this: they should make a new Herald for the next big box expansion (Innsmouth, I suppose) and make the "Additional Doom Token for every devoured Investigator" be one of its abilities. Throw in a boost for some of the weaker monsters of the base game, like Ghouls or Byakhee (another pet peeve of mine - the monsters of the base game are too weak when compared to those of the expansions) and everyone would be happy - people like me could always use the Herald (house-ruling it so that two Heralds can be in the same game, if necessary) and others could just ignore it.

What do you think? Is there a creature in the mythos that would fit such a Herald?

-Villain

You could always just type out your house rules, and encourage others to do the same. That way it is on paper for all to see and there can be no discrepancies between the way different people remember it .

It makes no sense that the replacing Investigators are basically always stronger (as they get all the trophies of the previous Investigator) than those that started the game originally were.

I agree the rule about keeping trophies and being able to use them makes no sense. It makes so little sense that most of my group refuses to take advantage of it.

Having an additional Doom token added to the Ancient One's Doom Track whenever a new Investigator is brought in to replace a devoured one feels like the bare minimum for me. Another option that I hadn't thought before would be that every new Investigator brought in mid-game would start with one Madness and one Injury card.

What's really happening when one member of the group is devoured? Why should it bring the Ancient One any closer? (Adding Doom Token) or why should his or her replacement come in ready to retire (with 1 Madness and Injury card?)

More realistically every OTHER member of the group might gain a madness card, or lose some sanity as the realization that fighting the Old One is really no game at all, but could mean death.

Of all the rules mentioned so far, adding one to the number of investigators has the best feel. This makes the rest of the game tougher but doesn't leave an actuual player/person out in the cold. Adding one means there are more monsters in Arkham, Terror Level rises faster because there are fewer monsters in the Outskirts, the final battle is tougher, there might be more pressure on the number of gates and if the number moves from 4 to 5, more monsters to get in the way and rumors are more difficult to get rid off.

mageith said:

The new investigator should come into play with madness, considering that he or she had just heard the tale of the investigator they replaced and decided to do it anyways, they'd have to be at least a little mad ;')

As for why the doom rises, well, you can come up with your own reasons for that, or you could just assume extra time elapsed while the group searched for a fitting replacement, or coordinated their strategy, or whatever scenario you want to make up in your head to make a good rule "plausible" ;')

I don't see any problem with people having investigator's devoured on purpose. After all it's going to take them a few turns to transfer items and get the investigator devoured while in the meantime gates and monster are appearing. If power gamers want to abuse the rules let them. This game is geared towards more of a RPG feel anyways.

The new investigator should come into play with madness, considering that he or she had just heard the tale of the investigator they replaced and decided to do it anyways, they'd have to be at least a little mad ;')

As for why the doom rises, well, you can come up with your own reasons for that, or you could just assume extra time elapsed while the group searched for a fitting replacement, or coordinated their strategy, or whatever scenario you want to make up in your head to make a good rule "plausible" ;')

From your point of view, I guess your suggestions make sense. Although this is a cooperative game, I don't really see it as a team game. Each investigator pretty much is on their own. IMO, its not like the group has a meeting, takes resumes and selects the best of the applicants. The new investigator isn't really replacing anyone in an existentialist sense. My POV says there are lots of folks dealing with the horrors as best they can--off screen. Heck, s/he might not even know about his/her predecessor. Besides, death is all around Arkham by this time.

Well, I couldn't come up with any reasons for doom tokens being added due to devournment (unless the tasty human morsal would make the Old One anxious for desert). That's why I commented.

As I said earlier, I'm not nearly as concerned about devournment abusal as you are. I don't like the fact, nor can I see a reason for the new investigator retaining trophies. Stopping that and maybe making the player make coffee and sit out a turn seems plenty of punishment for me. So, in short, I hope your proposed rule changes does not become part of an upgrade.

I don't like power gaming and don't see or hear of it much in AH, but your punishment is too tough for most of the players (I think) who consider it a failure when their investigator dies an untimely death.

The floggings will continue until moral improves.

mageith said:

Yeesh, you think *that's* too tough? I didn't even mention my house rule where we remove a toe or a finger from a player every time their character dies. I was trying to make it more appealing to softcore gamers ;'D

mageith said:

That is why I thought being devoured should add doom tokens. A little ketchup, a slice of cheese and an investigator and the AO feels that much more fortified by lunch and better able to face the task of breaking loose into the mortal world and wreaking destruction and chaos on Arkham and other places in New England.

I always feel better after lunch, why should an AO be any different. As a matter of fact, by lunch time every day, I often feel like New England should be devestated by some ancient god from a distant or parallel universe.