This is only my opinion. You are free to disagree and make your own list. Note: This is not "strongest mask" thread. Impact is more important than pure combat skills IMHO.

This is it: (first one being the deadliest and going down from there)

1.

Easily the deadliest IMO. If it would block my path I woudl think twice before battling it or trying to evade it unless I'm really well equipped.
Question: What happens if you try to evade it but fail? Normally you take stamina damage, but this one doesn't have any. You can just try to flee again and again? (assuming you passed to horror check after failing the evade check)

2.

Probably the best gate guardian in the game. Dark Young who?

3.

If it comes early it can really cause havoc. And disposing of it is no easy task; -3 evade check is very difficult and even after that it's not like he's your average Cultist...

4.

I would really rather not fight that thing at all, meaning it will forever hinge on the monster limit (unless he's in an expansion board, although there's still a slim chance for aquatic movement)

5.

If that thing pops out during an encounter and you're a spellcaster, you better start packing and start a new investigator.

6.

While you would probably won't kill that thing in combat, it is easily evaded.

7.

Same, although this one is even easier to evade and easier to battle against.

8.

Very underwhelming, very easy to kill.

9.

The fact you need to use lore instead of fight means little. Even if you're not a spellcaster it doesn't matter as weapons still work against it.

10.

By far the weakest one. Without Blackest Night it's cannon fodder. With it, it will still probaby hang out in the sky for most of the game, not to mention an environemnt can easily replace Blackest Night. Your only concern should be encountring it during an encounter with Blackest Night in play, but even then he's not so hard if you're well equipped.

These were my ovservations. Feel free to discuss.
p.s. anyone knows the answer to the question asked at the start of this thread?

If you fail to flee, you'll take the full combat damage, so I'd go for the hypothesis "you are devoured"

I duno I think Shugeron has a much higher impact potential, consider an investigator being ambushed by him via a "monster appears" encounter or an aquatic move he could easily add 2 doom which is pretty bad.

Julia said:

If specificly says "if you fail a combat check" not "if you fail an evade check" (like #2 says)

Tibs?

Veet said:

If you worry you won't beat him in combat you can try to evade (and hopefully fail) until his stamina damage kills you.

kroen said:

From the AH rules, pag. 15

"If he fails the check, the monster deals its combat damage to the investigator and the battle continues (see “Monster Damage,” below)."

Generally, you apply combat damage when you lose a combat check.
Thus the combat damage is being devoured
Thus the logic implies you're devoured even if you fail the evade check.

Seems to be pretty clear to me

Not clear to me at all. It doesn't deal any combat damage. If it should have killed you if you fail an evade check it should have said "If you fail the evade, the horror, or the combat check..." The rules talk about combat damage, and he deals no combat damage.

Please don't try to argue because the point of me saying "Tibs?" is that I want more opinions in this matter.

kroen said:

I do not argue with you, but this is a FREE forum, and I have the right to express my thoughts. You're not an orchestra director saying which violin has to play and the other stay still.

Learn some education, kid

First, I'm not a kid, I'm 22. Second, if I was an orchestra I wouldn't have said "please". Third, all I was saying is that it's futile for you to keep arguing because obviously I have read your opinion so there's zero point to keep repeating it. I don't owe you anything, and that includes trusting that you know the answer to the question. Stop acting like some infallible goddess and the rest of us are stupid mortals.

You learn some education.

kroen said:

Julia is right, it has been said numerous time along this forum. Make a search and be kind with girl.

Dietch said:

Thank you Dietch ::bowing::

Dietch said:

Search function is horrible. It shows you result as posts, not threads, and I'm not going to go over tens and tens of posts.

Btw I did search "skinless one" and after about 20 posts of nothing I gave up. Again, search function is horrible. So either give a link or I will resort to my previous statement: Tibs?

The rulebook was already cited. So let's see what the monster says:
Horror Damage = devoured
Combat Damage = devoured

Evade Damage = Combat Damage = devoured

By the way, this is not my, nor anyone else's, opinion, it's straight from the rulebook. So if you don't agree with it, then it sounds like you just made up a house rule.

He doesn't have combat damage, that's my point. Skinless One reads "If you fail either the Horror check or the Combat check against the Skinless One, you are devoured." It says nothing about combat damage. Would you also tell me that if I fail an evade check against Shuregon will I add a doom token in addition to taking stamina damage? Because the wording on Shuregon and Skinless one is the same, except of the outcome of failing the combat check. These are special abilities and not combat damage. If you would argue that Skinless One devours you by failing an evade check, you would also have to agree that Shuregon adds a doom token if you fail an evade check (in addition to his stamina damage). I will wait until I get an answer from someone of who I know knows what he's talking about, no offense.
p.s. yes I'm aware the AH wiki is with you but that wiki has been wrong in the past.

I'm sure you can agree the Nightgaunt is in the exact same situation as the Skinless one. No printed stamina damage, and only a special effect that reads "When you fail a Combat check against Nightgaunt, you are drawn through the nearest open gate. If two or more gates are the same distance from you, you choose which gate you are drawn through."

Now page 15 of the rulebook states "Note that some monsters have abilities that add some special effect to their combat damage. For example, the Nightgaunt drops the investigator through the nearest open gate instead of causing the investigator to lose Stamina tokens."

Add some special effect to their combat damage. So even though it is not a stamina loss, it is still part of the combat damage. So failing to evade means that special effect must still occur. Failing to evade a Nightgaunt will send you through a gate, failing to evade a Shugeron will give a stamina loss & add a doom token, and failing to evade a Skinless One will devour the investigator.

O RLY?

According to you, it's redundant that it says "If you fail a Combat or an Evade check" and it should say "If you fail a Combat check".

Lawyered.

kroen said:

I agree, it is redundant and unecessary to also include Evade Check to the special effect. But I still don't see how that negates the rule in the rulebook saying that those special effects are part of the combat damage. Redundancy won't change the fact that failing to evade causes combat damage including the special effect which is part of that damage.

The rulebook also says that gate bursts won't cause a monster surge when a gate bursts on an elder sign. This is also redundant. But it doesn't suddenly change the ruling that normal gates appearing on an elder sign will cause a monster surge just because it specifies that gate bursts won't.

Redundant wording is just restating the rules as already given. It doesn't suddenly change the rule for every past circumstance where it wasn't redundantly worded. If that were the case, this game would be unplayable.

Read the clarifications.

http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Nightgaunt

http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Shugeron

http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/The_Skinless_One

As I've said before, the wiki had been wrong many times in the past (it used to say that in order to seal a gate you only need to spend 5 clues and no check requiered- obviously it was edited shortly after I pointed that out, and there are similar cases). I woudn't use it as an argument. And the rules tend to be vague sometimes, like in the case of gate bursts. Why not here? Repeating your opinion won't suddenly cause me to agree with you. What I need is the opinion of other people, say Tibs for example.

Look at the nightgaunt entry and tell me what they cite as a source.

Kevin Wilson. Wait, you mean the same Kevin Wilson who designed Servitor of Outer Gods? Kool. It might be a special ruling for Nightgaunts, but it doesn't mean it applies to everything else, otherwise why would Servitor be worded the way it is worded? I'm trusting Tib's jugement better than Kevin Wilson's.

This isn't opinion. Rulebook says when you fail evade you take the combat damage. Again, nothing vague about it. It doesn't say take the stamina damage only, it doesn't say ignore damage that seems too extreme. It says take the combat damage and then tells you what the combat damage includes.

There is nothing vague about the special effect being added to the combat damage. Nothing at all. It is in the rulebook. There is never any mention at all about the special effect not being used as combat damage under any special circumstances. It doesn't say anything about ignoring it for evade checks. It is always part of the damage. There is absolutely no ruling anywhere stating that some monsters are exempt from this.

I repeat, none of this is an opinion. The rulebook clearly states what happens when you fail to evade. It clearly states what is combat damage. So I don't know what type of opinion your looking for. But the only opinion that isn't going to agree with this is one that doesn't want to follow the rules.

kroen said:

I'm sure Tibs and Kevin feel the same way

avec said:

Quote of the year !

DoomTurtle said:

Then explain Servitor.