Musing on whether this is a decent rule/ house rule.

As far as I can tell - a story Asset, like an Ally, uses up a slot when it first appears as part of the story flow. Once added to deck for later scenarios it of course should behave like a normal card. However I could see a justification for house ruling that the first time it crops up and a player gains control, that it allows you to exceed any slots if you already have it filled as much for narrative as anything.

Eg the new Ally is cajoled into joining your party, and it seems to be a bit rude to summarily dismiss Luca as no longer worthy and left behind.

Any card - Story Assets or player card or otherwise - will always take up a slot whenever it is in play if it has a slot symbol in the bottom corner. It doesn't matter if it's added during a scenario as part of encounter effect, or put into play from your hand like normal.

Edit: are there specific cases you're thinking of? I don't think we have any Story Asset with the Ally slot that you gain control of mid-scenario except Lita, right?

I can see using a house rule to allow something like this, such as when/if you parley either of the professors in the first two Dunwich openers, especially if you are playing it solo.

That only happens for Dr Morgan and Lita Chantler. And yes, you do have to make room for them. You're close to the end of the scenario in both cases, anyway.

The few story assets which will take up your ally slot give you very strong benefits for having them. Why would you think you could just ignore part of their cost/limitations while getting that?

He (and I) know that is the way the rules work, but what I believe he is asking is thoughts on an alternate house rule. I feel the change would be fine and, additionally, makes sense from the story aspect. I also feel that this makes a good house rule with solo play. As he said, you wouldn't just tell Leo to scram immediately after you talk Lita into helping you defeat the ghoul priest which he has already been helping you with.

Oh, God no. Story assets are often overpowered for their cost to begin with. No need to make them even better by taking away a disadvantage.

14 hours ago, AsahinaMaebure said:

He (and I) know that is the way the rules work, but what I believe he is asking is thoughts on an alternate house rule. I feel the change would be fine and, additionally, makes sense from the story aspect. I also feel that this makes a good house rule with solo play. As he said, you wouldn't just tell Leo to scram immediately after you talk Lita into helping you defeat the ghoul priest which he has already been helping you with.

Right, got this, I think I phrased my comment poorly.

The same argument could be made about the slot system entirely. Why would Leo leave just because Peter shows up, or you get a Guard Dog? Can you really not stick a flashlight in your pocket when you're not using it? Slot limitations are certainly gamey, but they're part of the game, the choices you have to make, and the game balance which surrounds them.

In the few cases where this applies, the ally you gain certainly provides a great deal of benefit on their own. To rephrase my previous comment, why would you feel like this situation needs or justifies you changing the rules around the slot system in order to gain an additional very powerful asset while ignoring the limitations of it?

On 9/3/2017 at 7:54 PM, Network57 said:

Any card - Story Assets or player card or otherwise - will always take up a slot whenever it is in play if it has a slot symbol in the bottom corner. It doesn't matter if it's added during a scenario as part of encounter effect, or put into play from your hand like normal.

Edit: are there specific cases you're thinking of? I don't think we have any Story Asset with the Ally slot that you gain control of mid-scenario except Lita, right?

New scenario Echoes of the Past has an essential ally that you gain who has an 'ally slot' icon.

Played this wrong just the other day because I had though all story assets did not take slots (apparently Lita being in the scenario I taught myself how to play on has given me bad habits).

This is just an update, it's entirely possible more have come out since then and I was just not aware of the ruling.

@Soakman This is not a ruling, it's a straightforward application of the rules (Learn to Play, p. 11).

Quote

Slots

Slots restrict the number of cards of a specific category an investigator can have in play at one time. If an asset has one or more slot symbols, it may only enter play if its controller has those slots available.

The slots available to an investigator are:
==1 ally slot, 1 body slot, 1 accessory slot, 2 hand slots, and 2 arcane slots.

The icons below indicate that an asset counts against an investigator’s capacity for the indicated slot(s). If an asset has no slot symbols on it, it does not take up any slots.

If an investigator wishes to play or gain control of an asset that requires a slot already held by a different asset, the investigator must choose and discard an asset or assets under his or her control to make room for the newly acquired asset.

2 hours ago, Soakman said:

New scenario Echoes of the Past has an essential ally that you gain who has an 'ally slot' icon.

Played this wrong just the other day because I had though all story assets did not take slots (apparently Lita being in the scenario I taught myself how to play on has given me bad habits).

I'm a little confused here - Lita takes the ally slot as well...

There are story assets with the Ally trait yet do not take the slot. But Lita is not one of those.

On 9/5/2017 at 0:45 AM, AsahinaMaebure said:

He (and I) know that is the way the rules work, but what I believe he is asking is thoughts on an alternate house rule. I feel the change would be fine and, additionally, makes sense from the story aspect. I also feel that this makes a good house rule with solo play. As he said, you wouldn't just tell Leo to scram immediately after you talk Lita into helping you defeat the ghoul priest which he has already been helping you with.

It sounds as though you would like to find an alternate approach to these situations.

Perhaps, one compromise to make would be to allow for the return of your ally in play along with the resource cost to put them out. Essentially, telling them to wait around while you and 'x story ally asset' handle a couple things. Then you don't lose all the investment in your ally that you had out; except for the action later to replay them if you would like for them to be out later.

This at least doesn't inherently break the in-game limits which could get overly powerful in some scenarios now or those of the future. I always get bitten with Marie Lambeau when the Baron comes out, so usually one of my first investments with her is Charisma for that reason.

I think its a fine houserule.

I wouldn't use it as all it does is make the game easier but if you feel losing Leo to Marie is too punishing, go for it.

I find the cards that make you reshuffle an asset in play back into your deck even worse, since it replaces it with nothing and if you pull it at he start of the 2nd turn after getting your lightning gun out, its brutal as you no longer have the card, and have lost the resources.

On 10/30/2017 at 11:29 AM, Khudzlin said:

@Soakman This is not a ruling, it's a straightforward application of the rules (Learn to Play, p. 11).

Yeah, that's what I originally referenced, but then somebody on a forum somewhere made it sound like there was some ruling that applied to all story assets. Specifically BECAUSE of Lita, which I then applied going forward. Not a huge or difficult adjustment, but apparently wherever I got that information, it was wrong, so good to know. Thanks!

@Soakman You're welcome.

Also, in my experience, unless you are running a heavy ally deck, it doesn't change much. Most of the time, to be honest, I didn't have a 2nd ally anyway. Echoes of the Past is maybe the biggest change so far as there is an ally that you MUST have to reach one of the resolutions. We added him to someone without replacing an ally, but I think if we had known we would have chosen another investigator altogether.