jgt7771 said:

Gross.

YellowPebble said:

I never realized there was an interpretation that thought this. From page 16 of the rulebook: "To pay the Sanity cost of a spell, the player simply
removes a number of Sanity tokens from his total equal to the cost of the spell. Players must always pay the Sanity cost of a spell, whether or not the investigator subsequently passes the Spell check."

If you have less than the cost, how are you able to remove sanity tokens equal to the cost? I can see going insane from casting if you have the exact amount needed to cast, but I can't see how you're able to pay the cost when you have less.

DoomTurtle said:

I agree with this logic. Just because there's a mechanic for what happens if you run out of sanity doesn't give you license to spend more than you have and "go into debt" as you apply those rules. You don't have to buy your way out of negative sanity at the asylum - once you go insane you are set to zero. Unless I'm missing some aspect of the game that shows you can continue to lose sanity after you hit zero, I would be inclined to say that any effect which causes you to lose more sanity than you have simply stops when you hit zero, and then you go insane. You certainly can't spend sanity you don't have.

@ Doomturtle

"The key word there is "casting". Casting, being present tense, means you must start the casting by announcing what you are going to cast. Clearly, you can't start to cast a spell that costs more sanity than you are able to pay, nor use more sanity than you have available to add infinite bonuses to a variable cost spell. Once the casting has started, you then avoid paying its cost."

That is exactly what I want a rules clarification to say, and hopefully we can persuade someone at FFG to make this change; however, unfortunately, currently you *can* pay more sanity than you have available (there was an official clarification on this subject a while ago, from Kevin Wilson, I think— that I have come to absolutely hate), and there's no rule about not being able to spend more than your maximum sanity.

Does anyone remember where the ruling saying that you can spend more sanity than you have is?

---

I do think it's a legitimate argument to say that you can't use more than your maximum sanity for Shroud of Shadow (it's an obvious eratta). I'm going to insist on this reading in home games. That will weaken the crowbar combo quite a bit. Although it's still fairly abuseable (especially with Ashcan Pete, and I still want the hole plugged).

http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Shroud_of_Shadow

Avi_dreader said:

If Kevin actually said you can spend more sanity than you have, that's a problem. I would personally be inclined to ignore said statement for my own games, but I would also concede the general point for this ruling.

Saying that "there's no rule about NOT being able to spend more than your maximum sanity" as a defense for doing so is tomfoolery. There's no rule that says I can't take a huge steaming dump all over the board and declare myself the winner by virtue of my reeking turd. Would you allow that as a fair and legal play if I did it to your board? The absence of a denial is not equivalent to an allowance.

This thread's gotten a bit harsh...

Avi_dreader said:

I think it's odd that a clarification had to be made. The rules said you had to remove the # of sanity tokens from your character EQUAL to the sanity cost of the spell. Equal only means one thing, so why would a clarification be needed? And then, for him to actually change the rule in this clarification.

I understand being able to use the Flute of the Outer Gods with less sanity, because that is a loss. It says lose 3 sanity (and stamina), not spend 3 sanity. You can clearly take a loss of more sanity than you have, for purposes of determining if you go insane. It's not like you can fail a horror check, the penalty is 3 sanity, and say "well I only have 1 to lose, so it's ignored". A loss is a loss, you pay what you can and go insane when you reach 0. They've made quite a big deal about being sure that everyone understands there is a difference between a loss and costs, especially for the purpose of some investigators powers.

But then, to go back and change the ruling of spells costs to be treated as losses, and still allow the spell to work with less sanity is given up? That right there is insanity. Why should, say, Bless (cost is 2 sanity to Bless any investigator) work if I only have 1 sanity left, but it doesn't work if I have 7 sanity, and only want to spend 1? [To borrow from jgt7771] Can we spend our last 2 dollars on a Tommy Gun and still get it, but go to jail because the cost was beyond our means? Can I seal a gate with only 3 clues, but say, get Lost in Time and Space for not having the full amount?

Well, I guess I don't have anymore to say on the subject, you all know how I feel about it. And if the ruling by KW or whoever can be found to explain how the rulebook's explanation of "equal amount" can be changed to be less than that for a cost, I would be curious to see that explanation. Because to me, equal only has one definition.

By the way, Steve-O, good use of the word "tomfoolery"

Kevin's been wrong before...Hey! Not in the face! Not in the face!!!

Seriously though, Kevin is just as human as the rest of us, and Arkham isn't the only thing on his plate. I think there's a reason Kevin isn't around much right now, and he might not be as close as we think to the upcoming FAQ. He has made judgments before that we, the unwashed masses, have made him rethink and change by virtue of our evidence and explanation. (Lily comes to mind, and maybe the encountering-monsters-on-the-board-during-the-Arkham-Encounter-Phase situations.) I think we have a valid case here, and I'm not blindly following Kevin's "law" until I know he's heard us out.

jgt7771 said:

"The boss isn't right all of the time, but he's the boss all of the time." BB King (I think)

The official rules are whatever Kevin says they are. Everything else is an optional rule and/or a house rule. I agree that some kind of correction is probably in order. But it will be a "house rule" until Kevin makes it official (assuming he ever does).

avec said:

Heh. Like I'd have a problem with that.

The main point I want to make here is that this entire thread is making me cry. Why are we already judging the Lurker expansion by how well it meshes with the BGotW? I mean think about it, if Lurker had come out first, and they were just releasing BGotW, you'd all be like "zOMG! Call AO, wtf were they thinking? lolz! Just think of it w/ soul pacts!!"

I mean seriously. Call AO was a bad idea. We know that. We've been over it. But it's not like they can go unprint it now is it? Does FF really have to design all their future expansions so they will line up nice and neat with one poorly written spell from one of their expansion sets that most players don't even own? I have to agree with the poster who said "just take call AO out of your deck". Or better, just remove BGotW entirely, there you solved your Call AO and your Crowbar problems in one swell foop. If you're too stubborn to do that and absolutely insist on playing with both BGotW and Lurker all the time, then.... suck it up? Considering the fact that you obviously know about the problem, insisting on playing w/ all cards from all expansions is allowing it to happen.

Now then, lets talk about the more interesting things in the preview...

Blood Pacts, for example. Interactions w/ Michael McGlenn? If you can take a pact at any time, could a 7 stamina character (lets use Mark Harrigan), enter a gate w/ no clues, get out, on the upkeep phase take a blood pact, then immidiately lose 5 stamina and have enough clues to seal? Soul Pact works in a similar way. If Mark (w/ blood pact) is down to 1 stamina and visits the Hospital and pays $2 can he immidiately gain 6 power instead of 6 stamina? If you have a Bound Ally and it is Duke or Brinton and you discard them (to restore your health) , what happens to the dark pact? discarded? Would be allright w/ me, since these are by far the weakest allies. Are there any ways to undo dark pacts? Naturally its tough to say much about any of these situations w/o knowing the consequences of the dark pacts but... any opinions?

Doomturtle, I don't essentially disagree with you, but the ruling was put out that you can spend sanity you don't have. No one's found the source yet? I'm hoping to have that ruling officially revoked in the faq.

I've tried searching the forums, using different key words and haven't been able to find an actual ruling. I've seen different discussions on it, but not an actual ruling from KW or anybody citing the worked on FAQ. Under spells, the Wiki just says the same exact thing as the rulebook, so no one added it there.

It's good to know there are other supporters of the "must have to cast" ruling, and I'm not just some upstart trying to go against "the man".

Hah... Don't worry, FFG rulings are notoriously screwed up. If they weren't, we wouldn't have the need to be working on a giant FAQ four years after the original game release ;'D

The search function doesn't really work properly (as far as I know— it's possible there's some way to get it working, but I can never find anything with it).

The only thing I saw was thecorithian stating that Kevin had said that was legal on the old old forums, so we probably don't have access to it anymore.

Ah, crap. For the a while the old forums were available at http://app.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/. Looks like they got removed again.

Are you sure? I remember him saying that you may cast a spell even if it drives you insane doing so, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can cast with less than the required sanity (e.g. costs 2, have 2).

This "ruling" is resembling a Lovecraftian concept itself: very few know where it is or what it really looks like, and anyone who does is either missing or insane.

Or Avi...who, in many ways, is both.

jgt7771 said:

;'S

O-O

:'_»

I mean... ;'D

---

@Tibs

I remember the spell ruling as well (that insanity inducing spells are cast). I suppose it's possible that I've confused that ruling with this ruling. But I wouldn't count on it. Let's just get an official clarification that brings this matter to a close (hopefully in a way that makes exploiting X cost spells impossible in the future).

Brian just commented on the BGG forums that he's still working on the proto-FAQ. So when he's done messing with it it'll probably come back to... you I think. Perhaps we can get this thing out in time for a new expansion to be released, making the FAQ instantly obsolete

Tibs said:

Delightful ;') considering how late this has been though... I'll probably drag my heels a little at this point so we can include lurker questions.

Might as well.