Hello there!

Played my first game yesterday with 3 other players. I was playing Ray and was obsessed with Mark Henry.
The game dragged for a little too long for a game night (4 hrs 30 including rules) and we could not complete it unfortunately.

I think we all got a great time nonetheless but one of my friend and I got into a small argument about obsession scoring.

Here's the thing. From page 39 of Android rulebook:
"An obsessed detective’s hunches pay off normally, with the innocent hunch paying off if the suspect is innocent and the guilty hunch paying off if the suspect is guilty. However, if the suspect has a total guilt that is at least 5 higher than every other suspect’s total, both of the obsessed detective’s hunches are considered to be correct, and, furthermore, he receives an additional bonus of 3 VP."

My friend believes the obsessed investigator only gets the 3 VP bonus if his suspect's guilt if at least higher than every other suspect's total.
And I beg to disagree.

From page 32 of Android rulebook (Scoring example, Ray obsessed with Eve):
"His guity hunch are wrong, so he gets only 5 VP from his innocent hunch, bringing his final tally to 29 VP. If Eve had been the murderer, he would’ve received an extra 18 VP (15, plus 3 more for being obsessed). "

So here, I believe the player gets his 3 points bonus if his guilty hunch is indeed guilty, suspect's guilt 5 higher or not.
I think the example makes it pretty clear, but well...

So, how do you see this? +5 guilt needed for the 3VP bonus or a mere guilty verdict is enough ?

You have both the guilty and innocent hunches for Mark Henry. This is how scoring would break down:

• If he is innocent , you get +5 VP per normal scoring rules.
• If he is guilty , you get +15 VP per normal scoring rules.
• If he is guilty AND has 5+ evidence above every other suspect , you score +23 VP (+15 per normal scoring rules for being guilty, +5 per normal scoring rules for being "innocent," and +3 for the Obsession rule).

The example on Page 38 is incomplete. Not only would Eve have to be guilty, she would have had to have 19+ guilt (based on the example of p. 37 since Mark Henry had 14 points of guilt).

Despite the example, I think one needs the +5 guilt for the obsession bonus. Can't site any reason other than: it seems like it should be that way. You interpretation is just as (if not more) valid. As I've said before......

FAQ! FAQ! FAQ!

TK

Right, it seems my pal was right according to the general opinion.
The example pretty much contradicts the rule.

However, my opinion is that getting your suspect guilty when obsessed is enough of a feat to justify the 3VP bonus.
FAQ indeed !

Seboss said:

Why?

There is no one actively trying to prove him innocent as you have that card. Everyone else is working on two different suspects.

ColtsFan76 said:

For the sake of completeness:

• If he is dead , you get 0 VP per normal scoring rules.

ColtsFan76 said:

The example on Page 38 is incomplete. Not only would Eve have to be guilty, she would have had to have 19+ guilt (based on the example of p. 37 since Mark Henry had 14 points of guilt).

Then it's not only incomplete but just plain wrong. If we stand by the "+3VP only when the suspect has +5 guilt than any other" rule, there's no way to gain 18VP from the murder.

ColtsFan76 said:

Well, it seemed to me that an obsessed player have less options than non-obsessed players and that his guilty hunch can become obvious to other players pretty fast.
Besides, it's sort of a "all your eggs in the same basket" situation. If the suspect gets killed, these hunch cards won't bring you any points.

I might be wrong about that. I don't have much experience on the game and I admit I haven't thought that through but I believe getting the suspect you're obsessed about guilty should net a small bonus on its own.

Always depends on the players. Yesterday, with three players, we were all obsessed about our respective suspects. Nobody suspected that, however (pun intended). In the end, the obsession netted me a nice 23 VP for a total of ~67 VP in the end.