Some friends and I were playing this game tonight, and came to a fairly vehement disagreement on the usage of the Elder Sign item. I argue that if you use the elder sign item, you do not need to first close the gate. All three of my friends argue that you do have to close the gate first. It seems so obvious to me from the way things are worded that you don't have to close the gate first, but I suppose I could be wrong. You might be able to predict my question.

After emerging from a gate and marking yourself as having explored the gate, can I then immediately use my elder sign (and pay the costs listed on the card) to seal the gate without first having to close it?

So far as I know, the Eldar Sign is used INSTEAD of rolling to close the gate using Fight/Will. You spend 1 sanity and 1 stamina, remove a doom token from the track and instantly seal the gate without rolling nor spending clue tokens. That's my understanding.

One question I do have, however: If I exit a gate during movement and attempt to close said gate during the following encounter phase and fail, can I then immediately use the Elder Sign to seal the gate? I assume so, as the power is labeled as "Any Phase" ... correct? Generally, as per the FAQ, such cards can be used at any time.

Deek said:

I would be inclined to argue you can't. Why? Well, attempting to close a gate is your AE for the turn. You failed the roll, you had your encounter. You don't get two bites at it per turn.

As to the OP:

"To use an
elder sign, the investigator must be at the location of the
gate and must have acquired an explored marker, just as
if he were attempting to close the gate. The investigator
does not need to make a Lore or Fight check or spend
any Clue tokens to use the elder sign." (p. 18)

No need for the Lore/Fight check means you're not rolling to close the gate. Also, note that Elder Sign usage doesn't have costs, the Stamina and Sanity lost are losses (so Harvey, Michael, Leo, as well as Food, Whiskey, etc.) can negate part of or all the loss.

superhoss said:

All three of your friends are wrong :')

(quote function went bonkers) I would be inclined to argue you can't. Why? Well, attempting to close a gate is your AE for the turn. You failed the roll, you had your encounter. You don't get two bites at it per turn.

Indeed. Makes sense. I only wonder because the FAQ states that "any phase" cards can be employed in an out-of-turn fashion, for instance rolling for spells prior to making your evasion check, to determine whether or not you wish to fight or hide should you fail to cast them (I think that's the example, or something similar). Made me wonder if the any phase Elder Sign could be wedged in there after a failed gate check.

Regarding the stamina and sanity being losses as opposed to costs, good call. My use of the word "spend" was a tad misleading.

Yikes. Double post. My bad.

In this case, since the card doesn't specifically state, "You do not have to close the gate first", they were arguing that closing and sealing are two completely different things. Since, once the gate had been closed, we'd always sealed it using clue tokens (in the absence of an elder sign card), it seemed strange to me that the text on the card would explicitly state that you don't need to make a skill check when using the elder sign. So one friend said that it had to be a misprint and the other guys bought it. I threw up my hands and just let it go, then later he read the Elder Sign section in the rule book where it states that the investigator does not need to make a lore or fight check he argued that this proves his point. I was like, "Seriously, are we reading the same thing?" He said, "Yes, it says you don't need to make a check or spend clue tokens to use the elder sign. It's just telling you that you only have to lose what it says on the card (1 stamina and 1 sanity). You still have to close the gate before you use the card." He's killing me here. Why WOULD it specifically state you don't have to do something that you don't by default have to do anyway? It makes no sense to me. Not to mention that the rules specifically state that once you have explored a gate and have obtained an explored marker, "...as if he were attempting to close the gate", you may then use the elder sign. To me, this is pretty clear. "As if you were attempting to" implies that you have not and won't actually be closing the gate. Anyway, thanks for the feedback! I think I might be able to make a case for the next time we play. Of course, I like being right, but mostly I just like playing the GAME the right way. This game is hard enough as it is without making it even harder for the players.

There's no case to be made! The English is pretty plain. I'm not entirely sure what happy weed your friend(s) are smoking.

"You don't need to make a check or spend clue tokens" ... how is it possible to misinterpret that as indicating you must still close the gate (make a check)? In the absence of an Elder Sign, succeeding at the Will/Fight check IS closing the gate. As no check is required, you need not succeed at a roll prior to using the item. How could anyone think otherwise? Under normal circumstances, there's only one check/roll required to close a gate. If not that particular check, what check is the card referring to when it states "you do not need to make a check" ...? Check, check, check!

Afterward, assuming success, spending clue tokens IS sealing said gate. The Elder Sign supersedes both, it doesn't simply replace the 5 clue tokens as a means of sealing. The text is clear and concise. It automatically closes it (no check needed) and sealing requires no clue tokens (instead requiring 1 stamina and 1 sanity). As an additional bonus, you then get to remove a doom token from the track and place it on the board.

I too have a friend and fellow gamer who delights in twisting and mutilating otherwise clearly worded rules, to the point of violating fundamental tenets of the language. There's no basis for it. He seems to enjoy arguing for the sake of argument. It's about the most frustrating thing ever. You have my sympathy!

Deek said:

Agreed! I made this same point and that's when he said that it had to be a misprint. For some reason the other guys bought it. If it were a misprint ont he card, it must also be a misprint in at least two other places in the rulebook where elder signs are discussed. The thing that really blows my mind is that, even if we completely discard the issue of this particular bit of text and I erroneously agree that it's a misprint, the bit from the rules I paraphrased earlier where it states that you use the card right after having explored the gate- that part renders the point moot!

I appreciate your sympathy. We get into rules arguments in all sorts of different games, not just this one. Usually, when there's some ambiguity to the verbage (thus some room for interpretation), we just go with whatever the majority believes makes the most sense. There are times, however, when I get a deep intuitive feel that a certain interpretation is the correct one, and I'll continue arguing my side regardless of what the majority thinks. So far every time that's happened I've ended up being right after consulting rules updates, forums and the like.

The worst part is that this particular friend always ends up trying to make it seems like *I* am the one being difficult. Even if I can get him to see the logic of my position this time he'll no doubt be passive aggressive about it. "Fine, you're right. Are you happy?" *sigh*

Thanks again!

How do you calmly discuss anything with a guy that, when you make a perfectly valid point supported by the wording of the rule/card, insists it must be a misprint? I'd lose it. Clean snap. In the case of the Elder Sign, there is absolutely NO room for interpretation. Zero. Elder Signs have always been a part of the game, the game has been revised and has seen numerous rules updates and clarification. Fantasy Flight even went so far as to re-release certain cards like Flesh Ward and Healing Stone. Does your friend honestly think FFG would overlook a misprint on a card as vitally important as an Elder Sign?

Blows my mind, sir. I hope, at least, that my input aids you in introducing your friend the light of day, thus allowing you to play the game as intended. Cheers!

superhoss said:

:'P well, if he's being annoying about it, tell him that the three Editor/proofreaders of the comprehensive FAQ disagree with him (I'm sure Tibs and Coltsfan would back me up on this).

;') Arguments from authority. Fun, *and* obnoxious.

Also, here's the current text from the errata section of the Proto-FAQ (I want it edited to make it slightly more clear, so people will realize it definitely requires an explored token also-- so guys like your friend won't argue that ES can be used if an item or encounter causes a gate to close-- but it still responds to some of the things said above).

"Elder Signs
Those Items that are used when you are closing or
sealing a gate, and you can only do that during an
Arkham encounter phase. The Phase label on the items is
just imprecise that is all"

;'D Say hi to your friend for me.

superhoss said:

::Laughter:: your friend needs a good visit at Arkham Asylum :')

Deek said:

Same. I'd become a gibbering shrieking mess. Oh wait. I already am :'D

Avi_dreader said:

Haha, that night we almost got to gibbering and shrieking, but since I'd had this kind of argument with the same guy before and it got to the point where we just packed it in and stopped playing, I decided to take the high road this time and just let it go. I WANTED to gibber and shriek, though.

Not sure if any of you have played a game called "Last Night on Earth", but in that game there's a particular scenario where you have to blow up these zombie spawning pits, or something like that. The text of the scenario makes it pretty clear that you get to the spawning pit and you give up your next turn to set it on fire (I think). It says nothing about requiring matches or a lighter, but my friends all insisted that you had to have one of these items first (both items that are available in the game). I saw the point, but from a game design perspective, it would have made the scenario almost impossible to complete. You could use up all the available turns the scenario allows and never find what you need to set the pit on fire. It made no sense to me.

So... I looked it up online and in the errata for that scenario it specifically states that you don't need a lighter or matches. I felt vindicated. If you ever play that game and run into that situation, hopefully you won't have the same problem.

superhoss said:

What I would have done was pulled out a lighter, and set my friend on fire. Of course, I don't actually carry a lighter, or have any friends like that ;') at worst I have a friend who deliberately baits me with straight faced nonsense afterwards conceding that he knew it was nonsense all along. Shawn makes me wish murder were legal ;') or at least easier to get away with.

That's great, Avi. Always setting the bar high.

Tibs said:

I try ;'D