One of my Investigator's was Devoured during his movement turn. When l take a new lnvestigator do l start again in the movement phase or do l wait till the encounter phase or do l wait till the start of the next turn.

If I'm not mistaken, it should be the start of the next turn.

no, it's always start of the next phase

The rules do in fact say that you should discard your old one and create one right away.

I would prefer that a new character started in the next round, but the way the rules are worded its not even next phase.

Lets say Montery Jack is devoured during his movement phase (his movement is over and he had a battle). Dexter Drake then enters the game as the same player during the SAME phase. The player might have moved Jack but Dexter still has his movement left and since its still the same players turn then Dexter should be entitled to finish his turn as well.

Unless this has been clarified in a FAQ then there is nothing stopping the investigator from having the turn the player was in (basicly the player going twice, once for each of his characters).

AH Manual, page 17, "Devoured Investigators": . . .The player then draws a new investigator at random and sets up the investigator as if he were starting a new game (as described in "Game Setup" earlier in these rules).

That's all it says. It doesn't say anything about WHEN you start playing the investigator. If one follows the Game Setup section, it seems one could make the assumption that you begin playing your new Investigator right after a Mythos Phase.

It doesn't matter what ANYONE says about this, because ALL OF US are making assumptions. Until a FAQ narrows it down, Alboy, play it however feels right to you.

It's never been really clarified in FAQ. I assume that they are put in the spot but don't have their phase (or perhaps I should say I play that way, I don't really know how it should be).

@Tibs

The timing for this really ought to be in the FAQ.

FAQ's going to you next I think, so you should add it. I'll probably forget :-/

Given my understanding of the rule (start again in the same phase you are in) I still want it cleared and offical in a FAQ, its not really explained in the rules properly and quite possibly the intention was that a game always starts in upkeep (and so do new characters).

In a way being devoured and then playing someone else right away is compensation to the player. Then again Arkham Horror really doesnt feel right when its being forgiving, its an evil bastard of a game and its more fun that way.

I hope a future FAQ clarifies the intention behind being devoured, until then I´ll sticking with a literal interpretation.

I'd also like to see some kind of penalty for being devoured. I seem to recall that someone once made the suggestion that you add a doom token whenever an investigator gets devoured. I think the idea was strongly criticized, but I can't remember why. I guess it would make Quachil-Uttaus even tougher. And it would nerf Silas and Tommy.

avec said:

Heh... I like making that suggestion, so it might have been me ;'D I think it'd probably be more reasonable to just raise the terror level by one.

Unlike most people, I don't like being devoured. I get attached to my characters, and to their stories, even if they fail it. For better or for worse I would always like to see my investigators through, even if they are mad and injured. To me, being devoured is enough penalty as it is. I would never add another penalty to that.

Crazy, I know, someone who play AH for the theme and for fun and not for sheer-winning-and-combo-exploiting-that-take-the-fun-out-of-the-game (I'm looking at you, avi)

Wrong again Kroen. But okay, whatever you say.

Avi_dreader said:

You said more than once that you're playing to win. if a broken combo is out there you will use it and you will exploit every little thing that can be exploited (e.g. get devoured on purpose :/)

You play to win. As for me I play to have fun.

We have to be careful when identifying what it means to "play to win." Avi and I are very mechanics-minded, so we're sensitive to broken combos.

Personally, I play to win. If I have access to a broken combo, then I have access to it. If my investigators were in the same situation, they wouldn't refuse to use the combination because it didn't feel "like the intent." However, if the combo is broken because of poor wording or a rules or situations oversight (Call Ancient One anyone?) I'm likely to house-rule or modify the problem cards. But I don't always make the best winning decisions because I do identify with the characters on a level, so the fact that there's a slight devouring penalty in Lurker has got me interested.

Now if you want a prime example of a player who plays to win, look at Dam. He gets right down to the seals right off the bat, never stopping for leisure encounters. Get in, get out, seal. Which is okay. Since he plays with all the expansions he has, that can be a really difficult task.

At the heart of it, we're all playing to have fun—hence the forum participation.

kroen said:

As usual, your reading comprehension skills need work, assuming that what you do can even be properly called reading— considering that you don't process information correctly. I'm not going to bother listing why you are wrong. If you want to waste your own time, go through my archived posts, you'll eventually realize how absurd what you said is. Maybe. Then again, you are you.

Tibs said:

So if you investigator was in the same situattion, he would feel its in his best interent to be devoured? :/ Any player who thinks being devoured is an advantage is not playing to have fun. His investigator is nothing more than a cannon fodder ready to be sacrificed on the altar of victory. I feel sorry for you. And I pitty avi.

Spare me your "pitty," and your equally erroneous notions of "fun" and willingness to do anything to win. In fact, spare me anything about you.

What Elder Gods I wouldn't sacrifice to for an ignore button...

Avi_dreader said:

No one's forcing you the acknowledge me. Except, maybe, your over proportional-sized ego.

Next time a larger sacrifice perhaps?

Tibs said:

I'm glad you brought this up because I actually have a question about this card. All of my expansions that I ordered have finally arrived and one of my friends was looking through everything as I was trying to fit it all within two boxes. What he asked me was basically, 'What's keeping someone who gains this spell as a random possession from using it right at the get go and killing off the AO before everything gets underway?' My response was that it should be shuffled back into the spell deck and they draw a replacement spell. And then upon reading Daisy, he asked 'What's keeping her from drawing it after reading her tome?' So I thought I'd ask you all what your thoughts on the card were, since I figured someone probably had a remedy for this.

Mighty Maltim said:

I do indeed. Go find some old game in the bottom of your closet (Yahtzee...or Clue...or Candyland...), bury "Call Ancient One" inside of it, and forget about it forever.

It's a stupid card. If you cast it early, you just ended the game. Oh, hooray. If you cast it late, what's the point? Casting it this late means you were going to lose anyway; you should've sucked it up and taken your medicine like a man, instead of casting this stupid spell and weaseling yourself a victory. As much as Dam hates Kingsport, I hate this Spell.

Wow...that wasn't really that productive, was it? Sorry, MM.

Kroen: Your accusations are hilarious

I suppose its easy to assume that avi and tibs (and possibly dam and colt) have failed one to many sanity rolls during their many many plays of this game. Its also quite possible that at this point that they have turned to the dark side and regularly sacrifice investigators to the Ancient Ones (complete with an evil muwhaha each time). Its also safe to assume they havent admited as much and it is also worth considering that self sacrifice is part of the game and Mythos.

The whole being devoured on purpose thing is highlighted in a mission where you win the game but the player finishing the mission is devoured (and also wins the game post mortem). The idea is that the world is ending and the investigators know it, using an elder sign when you have only one stam and sanity is a legal move and a really good one if it greatly increases the odds of winning for the rest of the team (in a close game).

If selfless sacrifice is so alien to you that you consider it game breaking then by all means house rule it out otherwise for all intents and purposes its both a valid tactic and very fitting of the mythos.

jgt7771 said:

Heheh, it's fine. I asked what other player's thoughts on the card were and I got an honest opinion. Nothing wrong with that |D

Mighty Maltim said:

I just view the card as a mistake. I basically ban it (it's the only card I ban). I mean, people can draw it ;') but I don't allow anyone to use it. Maybe I'll allow it against Atlach, only because I hate Atlach as much as Call Ancient One ;'D

jgt7771 said:

That's a great way to start descriptions of hatred. It's a shame I can only use it on this website ;') off-site people will go "buh? wuh?"