kroen said:

I already did. Refer to reply #16.

I was unsatisfied with your expalnation.

I will wait for Tibs.

It is very clear to me that "you are devoured" is part of The Skinless One's combat damage.

Refer to the rulebook, under "Monster Damage". The second paragraph clearly states that being dropped through a gate is part of a Nightgaunt's "combat damage". It says that the ability is "add"ed to combat damage, not that it is a separate event.

The wording on Nightgaunt: "if you fail a Combat Check", is pretty much identical to that on The Skinless One.

Consequently, you are quite evidently devoured if you fail an Evade check against The Skinless One.

YellowPebble said:

kroen said:

First of all... FFG makes mistakes all the time. Arguably redundancy isn't even a mistake though— what was a mistake is their lack of clarification that a failed evade check equals a failed combat check. I'll try to remember to add this as a suggestion in the next FAQ draft.

Second of all the rules analogies provided above give pretty clear precedent on this subject.

Third of all (not that I think it's necessary— the prior answers should be more than sufficient), additional proof from the proto-FAQ

"Q: If you try to evade The Beast and fail,
does that count as failing a Combat check
and are you then devoured if you also fail
the Horror check?

A: Yes."

Not cool Tibs, not cool.

Personally I think the token was just redundant and you get devoured either way. If it makes you happy I'll propose a rare situation where it is not redundant and it actually does matter that he has both listed.

If an investigator has any item or ally that states "discard to avoid being devoured" and he fails an evade check against the Skinless One he can discard the item to avoid being devoured and continue the fight.

On the other had if the same investigator fails an evade check against SotOGs even if he discards the item he will still be devoursed unless he has a second item to discard that prevents it because after preventing being devoured for the evade check he then gets devoured for the combat check too.

allstar64 said:

Is that confirmed?

No I'm just using logic. i thought I'd try to make you feel better by ging it a reason to have both rather than "the creators were redundant". Since it's such a borderline case I didn't think anyone would have a problem with it.

allstar64 said:

If it's redundant, then there's no need to prevent devouring twice.

If it's not redundant, then it would imply that failing an evade check only deals you stamina damage, if there is one, and nothing further. Otherwise I doubt they would put it only for that ultra-rare scenario.

Lawyered.

Tibs?

kroen said:

kroen, you're wrong. Avi already posted the relevant post from the new FAQ coming up.

kroen said:

Seeing how I wasn't making an argument I have no idea how I could have been "lawyered". I already said I thought that the creators were being redundant (or more specifically just overlooked the fact it wasn't really neccesary) by putting the failed evade check is devoured as well. Redundant was just a nice way of saying careless but if you are going to pick apart every little piece of my statement I guess I can't leave anything to doubt. It would be like getting an encounter that said "you are devoured, if this doesn't devour you, you are devoured ". It's redundant in a sense but usually doesn't matter.

Failed the evade check uh oh if I fail an evade check I'm devoured"

is almost always the exact same as

"Failed the evade check, need to take combat damage uh oh if I fail a combat check I'm devoured (and by the ruling on nightgaunts this counts as failing a combat check) "

I don't think my ultra rare senario was the reason they did this. I think they simply overlooked that that 99.9% of the time its not neccesary. We've shown you in the rules and I've given you a scenario where its not the same. If you still have a problem with this then you can't really take it up with anyone but the creator as only he can overturn the evidence we've presented.

These so called "evidence" are clearly circumstantial and are not a definitive proof.

The interpretive principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, as described in Seward v. The Vera Cruz, (1884) 10 App. Cas. 59, states, "Now if anything be certain it is this, that where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any evidence of a particular intention to do so."

Lawyered.

You do know that circumstantial does not mean incorrect. From the wiki on Circumstantial Evidence:

"Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact. It is evidence that requires or allows a trier of fact to make a deduction to conclude that a fact exists. This inference made from a trier of facts supports the truth of assertion"

It goes on to say:

"Testimony that the witness saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant’s firearm killed the victim gives circumstantial evidence, from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred."

Exactly. Your answer is not 100% proven yet.

subochre said:

Good GOD, that was great.

No answer is ever 100% proven especially when you get into interpretation like this. What we have is corroborating evidence, that is pieces that support one another. We know that in the case of the Nightgaunt it's special power is considered it's combat damage and therefore applied when an evade check is made, the citation on the wiki suggests this is DIRECT evidence. The key phrase in the power that makes the power an addition to the combat damage is "fail a combat check". It is also not stated or suggested anywhere that this is an exception to any rule. Add those three things together and it is logical to assume that anytime a power states "fail a combat check" the power applies to combat damage.

It's not unreasonable to interpret the way you did taken each monster alone and without cross referencing however that interpretation does ignore the golden rule of Arkham Horror: "When in doubt interpret a rule in a way that would harm the investigators most".

Who said that golden rule anyway? Seemed made-up to me.

I like how you latch onto one little thing and completely ignore the logic argument presented to you. Of course I made it up, but it's based on countless iterations of that or similar statements made on these forums. Think about that statement for a little bit and consider that at one point or another everything like this is made up.

Argh!

I couldn't take it anymore!

I will admit- when ever I felt like posting, there he'd be trolling around in a thread and driving it offs the rails with a crazy pointless argument (Even in his own thread!).

EVERYBODY has explained to you exactly what the situation is like- and guess what Kroen: your argument isn't even an argument.

It boils down to "Well, I don't want to do it this way because I don't think it should be done this way."

Your making up an issue where there is no issue. You asked a question, you got your answer- and now you don't agree. Do you think anybody at all CARES how YOU play YOUR game?

The "When in doubt- Hurt the investigators" mentality is an unwritten rule. So much so that your ignorance of the fact surprises even me- for you are a self proclaimed great fan of the game that simply adores it and everything it stands for.

How about next time you play a game and you fight the skinless one, you can evade it- get stuck in an endless loop, and figure out by yourself how to get out of it. When you do, you can come back and tell us all about it like a big boy. Or, if you want to make things easier- simply remove the monster from the cup (Its obviously too complicated too handle.) You could do something productive and perhaps propose your point of view and your opinion of what would happen? Go ask your brother. Maybe he has a better grasp of the mechanics of the game.

I honestly don't understand WHY you would argue a point like this- there's really NOTHING to be gained from it.

The big question here is: what do YOU think the creators of the game are going to answer you when you ask them this question?

"Oh yeah, you know, the mask deals 3 stamina damage, but you know- we didn't print it: its just in the Errata." OR a more Plausible- "You are devoured- as per the other clarifications we gave for, say, the night gaunt."

Bottom line is- for someone who has played tons of Arkham, I am surprised this hasn't come up in your games before in one way or another. And if it has, and you have clearly survived the logic bomb that it implies, than just deal with it the same way you dealt with it then.

You were probably right. Even if you decided that the appropriate answer to constantly roll evades until you succeeded without even taking any damage because its not printed. [And hope that you never run into a situation where you run into the mask with less sneak than you would need to get at least a single Five or Six- or that you don't run out of clue tokens before you do.]

For the rest of the people- I apologize for my little outburst there. But you know.

As for the Original question- My favorite Mask has to be Skinless One, mostly because I am currently in a Call of Cthulhu group and were playing Horror on the Orient Express- so he hunts us even when were not playing Arkham.

And when you fail a evade check In that game, he kills you.

Dude what happened in this thread? Apparently as it got bumped it never highlighted for me on the main page. WHAT HAVE I BEEN MISSING? Kroen, I saw your comment in another thread about commenting in here but I misunderstood which thread you meant. "Surely," I thought, "whatever thread he meant will be highlighted as new." D'oh!

Anyway, when you fail an Evade check against a monster, you suffer the same penalty as though you had failed the combat check. So: failing an evade against a Nightgaunt means an Other World visit, and a Dimensional Shambler means a trip to Lost in Time and Space.

However, there are weird implications with this.

The Beast says you are devoured if you fail both the Horror and Combat check. But failing the Evade check counts as failing the Combat check, you could fail the Evade check and then the Horror check and be devoured. This has been clarified in the updated FAQ. From this answer we can extrapolate that the penalty for failing the Evade check is ALWAYS the same as though you failed the Combat check. The Servitor of the Outer Gods was likely just being redundant.

There was a thread on BGG that grappled with this same issue. Here is the link to it:
boardgamegeek.com/thread/518902/a-few-rules-questions-thanks/new

Also, failing Evade or Combat against a Child of the Goat ends the combat in addition to delaying you.

Sorry again everyone. Hope this helps a bit.

Soooooo

Um

Yeah

Just wondering Kroen was it?

Do you act like this in life or just on forums?

Good lord man...I hope you just do these debates for fun.

If you want a direct answer from Tibs, without bugging a community for it and making enemies out of the people you expect feedback from, then you should consider PMing Tibs.

Just a thought.

Guys this is how he sees the rules...at least we can feel good that he will never break them. Doesn't make him a bad guy...just paranoid.

Tibs said:

Thank you.

Now people, please stop changing the subject of this thread (read headline to know what it is).

@Curator: How the hell do you PM in this forum anyway?!

Tibs said:

Wow, Kroen, it's almost as if we had read the rules from the basic rulebook and said the EXACT SAME THING for 3 pages.