When you are playing with more than one expansion board you are to count the number of investigators as one less than the actual number of investigators being used. If I understand this right this applies to the monster limit, the outskirts limit, the number of gates allowed open before the Ancient One awakes, and Gate, Encounter, and Mythos cards (namely Rumor cards). Does this also apply to the number of successes needed when battling the Ancient One to remove a doom token? Could someone clarify what exactly this does apply to and what it doesn't apply to?

no it doesn't, everything except that. I think that was made pretty clear, if you read the rules.

I'm pretty sure if it made it clear in the rules I wouldn't be asking.

Official Answers from Kevin Wilson thread:

"[KH] 10. While using Kingsport and Dunwich together you count the # of Investigators as one less for monster limit, outskirts, etc. due to there being so much ground to cover. I take it this does not apply to the number of successes needed to remove a doom token in the final battle? (06/13/08)

Correct. Otherwise the final fight would be a lot easier than intended."

It's sticky for a reason .

I agree. So you treat the game as if there is one less investigator for all extensive purposes, sans the battle with the Ancient One.

The exception is not in the rules, it in the "rules from KW" stickied thread. Unless it made its way into the Innsmouth rules and I just missed it, but it wasn't in Kingsport's.

Note that this implies some strange consequences: When using two expansion boards, you don't put two monsters onto every opening gate until you have 6+ investigators, rather than 5+. To win the game by "all gates closed," you can have slightly fewer trophies than the number of investigators.

This investigator count also affects how hard rumors like Mad Bomber, Nightmare Pool, and Mistrust are to pass. This has actually been my single favorite consequence, because those rumors suck and are un-fun. they're like trying to win a footrace against a train that's already gotten a head start.

Tibs said:

Hi Tibs,

Could you link me to the page where it says the modified number of players is applied to rumors as well?

From my understanding of the rulebook, the modified number applies to the number of monsters and gates. From the KW thread, he ruled that this number does not apply to final combat. But I can't find where it talks about rumors, unless it is implied in the rulebook.

mzonic said:

It doesn't specifically (I think). Basically it was said to apply to everything and Kevin stepped in and said "everything but final battle."

Donut said:

One or two less, yes.

Donut said:

Okay so I know this is COMPLETELY off topic, but I'm insane, so forgive me.

Alright so the I know that the phrase, "for all intensive purposes" is a malapropism of "for all intents and purposes", but I have to admit, that the phrase "for all extensive purposes" is a new one for me. Is this an even further extension? Or did someone try to be funny by substituting extensive for intensive like one would use the phrase irregardless even though they know that it's not the correct usage of the word?

::Laughter::

What can I say, I find language and how it evolves interesting. I think it also helps that I'm an American dating a Brit, so there's all sorts of tiny language differences that I've been learning about in the past few years.

Lurker at the Threshold was published in 1945, based on some preliminary notes Lovecraft made in (assumedly) the 30s. The main character in that novel, I assume, lived in the same era, and was analyzing letters to his great-great-grandfather, who was alive in the early 1800s. If Derleth's writing was accurate to that era, then language has really evolved a lot over the century:

"Esteem'd Friend,

"Of matters concern'g which we have had certain converse, I have last night seen a Be'g which had ye appearance of such as we sought, with wings of dark substance and likewise as it were serpents running forth from Its body but attach'd to It. I call'd It to ye Hill, and contain'd It in ye circle, but onlie with ye greatest difficultie and hardship, so that t'wou'd but seem it is not likelie that ye circle is potent enough to contain such as These for long."

Note the liberal use of apostrophes, of capital letters for what are today not considered proper nouns, and the use if "ie" instead of "y" in some words (also use of the word "ye" as "the").

As a side note, the subject matter of the letter, independent of the style of writing, is definitely curious. But hey, this was a time before the internet; what else was there to do but to summon demons?

Ha! Yes, sorry. I forget that inside jokes are rarely funny to other people and generally make you look the fool. I will refrain from using inside jokes on future posts. But for other quite hilarious word exchanges, please ask, I have quite a few.

I've said "for all intensive" for THIRTY SEVEN YEARS. I was just corrected this year. I never knew I'd been saying it wrong all this time.

Magic Pink said:

I apparently had dodged the bullet as a child and somehow have learned the correct way. Never heard it the other way until I went to visit my girlfriend's family in Brooklyn. But it's BROOKLYN. Language obeys special rules there.