Good evening! I had an encounter in the Witch house which moved me in another space with a monster.I defeated the monster.Do I have a new Arkham Encounter in the new space?In my example there is a gate on the space,do I have to move into it immediately?

Generally<when an encounter card moves you do you have a new encounter in the new space?

Thank you very much!

I believe that you draw a second encounter card only if you are specifically directed to by the first encounter card.

Also, monsters on the board are fought only during the Movement phase, which takes place before the Encounters phase. So if an encounter moves you to a location that is occupied by a monster, you wouldn't fight the monster until the next Movement phase.

The card instucted me to move to the closest monster and encounter it.I defeated it and now there is a gate left.The card is from an expansion.

If the card specifically tells you to fight the monster, then yeah, you should do it. But ordinarily you only fight monsters on the board during the Movement phase. Say, that card wouldn't be from Curse of the Dark Pharaoh, would it? There's a lot of cards in that expansion that do weird things.

I would say that you do not move through the gate unless the encounter card specifically tells you to have an encounter at the new location. Moving through a gate counts as an Arkham Encounter.

Update: It looks like it's from Kingsport. What I said still applies, I think.

Thank you very much!!!

avec said:

Hello.

Basically I agree with you. But considering the following cases I am not so sure:

- During Phase III one might have an Arkham Encounter which tells him to open a Gate and a Monster. In such a case afaik the character gets directly drawn into the Other World by delaying the character as well. So - where is the difference to the raised question with moving someone into a location with an open gate? Isn't it the "same" somehow?

- During Phase V one might be unlucky that underneath his feet in his location a gate opens and draws him directly into the Other World with delying him instantly.

So my point is - the gate overrules anything else and a character gets drawn into it "immediately", with maybe fighting/ evading the monster(s) in front of it first ... But I am not so sure about it and just raise these questions in addition to the first one ...

Ia! Ia!

Mad

Hmm. The rules seem ambiguous here. These are the rules as written:

During the Arkham Encounters Phase, each player
whose investigator is in a location (not a street area or
Other World area) must take one of the following
actions. The action the investigator must take depends
on whether his location contains an open gate or not.
1. No Gate
If the location has no gate, the investigator has an
encounter at the location.
...
2. Gate
If the location has a gate, the investigator is drawn
through the gate. (pp. 8-9)

Based on the rules, it sounds like simply being in a location with an open gate during the Arkham Encounters phase is sufficient to get you drawn through the gate. Along the same lines, simply being in a location without an open gate during the Arkham Encounters phase is sufficient to have an encounter at that location.

On the other hand, there are a few encounters like this one, from St. Mary's Hospital:

"The ambulance crew is heading home for the night and offers you a lift. Move to any street area or location in Arkham. If you choose to move to a location, immediately have an encounter there."

If simply being in a location during the Encounters phase was sufficient to have an encounter, then why does the encounter above specifically tell you to have an encounter at the new location? Wouldn't it just be assumed that you would have an encounter at the new location?

Also, I seem to recall that if an encounter tells you to move to a location and have an encounter at that location, and if there's an open gate on the location that you move to, then you are sucked through the gate. According to a literal reading of the rules as written, it's technically impossible to have an encounter at a location with an open gate. Therefore, technically, nothing would happen if you moved there. But in this case, I don't think that a literal reading of the rules is correct.

Also, the situations that MaddockKrug points out are special cases that don't seem to be covered by the rules.

Waagghhh! Losing Sanity!

Well the way the rules state it being drawn through the gate takes place in place of an encounter so there are timing issues involved. I've always interpreted it as being drawn through is your arkham encounter, no encounter you don't go through, but it's actually never come up in a game I've played that an investigator would show up at a location with a gate and not have an encounter, so it all hinges on weather or not its intrinsic to being moved to a new location in the encounter phase to have an encounter or only if you are instructed.

After looking through the Innsmouth cards (encounters move you around a lot there) I'm convinced that you only have an encounter when instructed, Most of the cards tell you to have an encounter there but a few do not. All of the cards that don't, give instructions to do something else once you arrive though.

Hello.

Yeah, the first scenario I mentioned seems to be "not directly" by the rules; but the Gate appearing during the Mythos Phase at the same location with an investigator immediately swallows him and drops him into the Other World (AH Core Rules pg 10 par "Gates Opening On Investigator") and thus pushing him into the "delayed" status.

I am very thankful that you have "reactivated" this topic; it has slipped of my mind although I have thought about it for a lot more time. There was the argument about the activities in Phase III - Arkham Encounters that one might only have one Encounter (, if I understand it correctly).

Now, if one draws an Encounter card at one place that tells him to change the location immediately, would it be really wrong to have another encounter on the given location? The rules are clear on that one: "During the Arkham Encounters Phase, each player whose investigator is in a location must take one of the following actions." (AH Core Rules pg 8 par. "Phase III: Arkham Encounters" right column) And this depends on the availability of a gate or not.

Considering the appearance at a second location as being covered by the rules in the sense that the character "is" in the location, then the player is entitled to have (a second) Arkham Encounter in Phase III. And if there is a gate, the character would move to the proper Other World rather then having to draw a location encounter card (gate overrules encounter card (AH Core Rules pg 9 par "2. Gate" in the left column).

And as it seems: the question is, I think, not so much about, whether a character has to enter a gate at the new location, but rather: Has the character a "second" activity in form of any Arkham Encounter during the same Phase III? And I think: Yes, otherwise the "teleport" to the new location due to the on the first action drawn encounter card would be nothing more then that - a teleport; but then it would have been enough to simply put the character on one of the streets in Arkham. And this makes no sense to me, actually, since there are several encounter cards which state exactly this: Go to street "gibberish blabla".

What do you think about this idea?

Ia! Ia!

Mad

My inclination is that encounters such as the St Mary's encounter that I cited above make sense only if it is not a given that you would have an encounter at the new location during Phase III. What I find interesting is that nowhere do the rules specifically state that getting sucked through a gate replaces having an encounter. Instead, the rules say that if there is no gate, you have an encounter, but if there is a gate, you go through the gate. But there's no explicit relationship between having an encounter and getting sucked through a gate. So in cases where a card directs you to have an encounter at a location, but there is an open gate at that location, I do not see the rationale for concluding that you should move through the gate instead of having an encounter.

Anyone else want to weigh in on this?

Actually the bit you quoted before says otherwise. You either must go through the gate if it is there or you must have an encounter if the gate is not there, they may not exactly be linked but the end result is identical. And it has been specifically stated in the answers from kevin thread that you follow the same progression when an encounter moves you and tells you to have another encounter.

I've also asked for clarification on encounters that don't tell you to have an encounter so we'll see how long it takes to get an answer.

Hello.

I think I read it "somewhere" on this forum - a gate "replaces" the location; therefore you have no encounter, if the gate is already in place when your character gets there afterwards.

Ia! Ia!

Mad

MaddockKrug said:

A gate indeed replaces its location. Your encounter in such a location is to enter the gate. So if you get an encounter that says "go to the Woods and have an encounter" and the Woods has a gate, you will enter that gate.

The difference between doing this and moving to a location where the new encounter is "a gate and monster appear" is that in this case you will be delayed, since the gate opened on you.

Kevin has gone back and forth on whether monsters can be fought or clues can be collected when an encounter moves you. On the one hand, "monsters can only be fought during movement" is easier to remember. On the other hand, it makes sense that you have to fight monsters because they are waiting for you in the location. Additionally it makes sense that you can take clue tokens, because you are moving there to investigate, after all. I don't remember whether or not the new FAQ is supposed to state one way or the other.

I play the latter way: if an encounter moves you, you must deal with monsters, then you may collect clues. Then you get an encounter.

Veet said:

The end result is not identical in all situations. A gate may replace a location, but I don't see any rule that says that "going through a gate" replaces "having an encounter." It appears that encounters can occur *only* if there is not a gate at the location. This is a problem if a card tells you to move to a location with gate and have an encounter. However, it's only a problem if you attempt to follow the rules literally, like a computer program. The consensus seems to that "going through a gate" should replace "having an encounter." That's actually how I play the game. I'm a little disturbed now because it doesn't seem to be exactly right, but oh well.

But if you check the second half of what I said I mentioned that it has been ruled that you follow the same progression when an encounter moves you and tells you to have another encounter. So we've been doing that part right. The only question currently in my mind about this is when an encounter instructs you to move and doesn't tell you to have an encounter weather or not you get drawn through a gate.

Tibs said:

Tibs said:

Tibs said:

Hello.

Phase V Step 2 says that one might collect a clue token which appears in his location (AH Core Rules pg. 10, left column). That's why I conclude that you may collect clue tokens any time between the end of a movement in phase II during round one and the beginning of a movement in phase II during round two.

About fighting the monsters during Phase III: Arkham Encounters ... Well I suggest to play it that way (after many, many thoughts):

The general rules on the different phases are more or less crystal clear; here the combat against monsters is only mentioned in "Phase II: Movement" and therefore should happen in this phase, which also seems to be general consent. But we also have special conditions under which combat occurs. And this is basically why I think that there is no problem in having combat in different phases as well - especially since the combat rules are not a fixed part of phase II.

I consider combat as a "special" rule as it is described and "ruled" in an own chapter afterwards, after the complete rules of all the different phases - let's call it "lex specialis" (special rule which overrules general rules). Therefore: Since a character has to evade or fight a monster in a location in general during phase II, before he is entitled to draw either an Encounter card or to enter a gate to an Other World, I would handle it exactly the same way anytime else then phase II. Exception: Phase V, as it is explicitly mentioned that there won't be a monster encounter during this specific (monster movement phase in the Mythos) phase (pg 11 AH Core Rules) and Phase I since nothing happens here at all. So I have no serious doubts that monster encounters in Arkham locations during phase III and IV are absolutely valid under the combat rules. Consider these two cases, which support this "analogy":

- I compare it with the case that an Encounter card let's you shriek in terror while a monster appears; the AH Core Rules state that the monster has to be fought or evaded (pg. 8, right column). Therefore we have combat in a phase that is not the movement phase - it is phase III.

- And in the other case the character "moves" as part of "Phase III: Arkham Encounters" (actually the case we discuss on this thread) or by casting a spell/ entering a gate leading him out of the Other World; so the character "moves" - not in terms of the Phase II: Movement rules, but still the character "moves" by changing the location (i.e. doing what is the exact nature of movement); therefore he approaches a new location, which is already occupied by a monster. If you were in phase II, you would have to evade/fight the creature in order to get access to any kind of encounter in phase III; that's why I have no trouble in applying this same rule here as well, when the character "moves" in phase III/IV and enters the already infested place.

In both cases you have a monster encounter which is actually part of the complete encounter - either by drawing an encounter card or by having an exceptional movement due to an encounter card which leads directly into the fangs and tentacles of a biest.

There is no doubt: this is a very difficult situation, a "special" case which seems to be a challenge for everyone's mind, even for Kevin's.

Ia! Ia!

Mad

P.S.: One might argue: Why not having a monster combat then when the monster happens to move into the field with an investigator? Well, because here, again, the rules are crystal clear (look at Phase V monster movement); also - from the perspective on the "story arc": the investigator notices that "some thing" approaches his place, and at first he hides ...

(Sorry for this wall of words ...)

avec said:

Hello.

Mh ... I think what you are looking for is hidden in the meaning of pg 8, right column right underneath the title of the chapter Phase III: Arkham Encounters.

• During the Arkham Encounter phase each player, whose investigator is in a location must take one of the following actions. The action the investigator must take depends on whether his location contains an open gate or not.

And under sub para 2 on the following page the rules explain what happens/ has to happen, if there is an open gate. And there you have no mentioning of having a standard location encounter.

Also all these rules don't give you a choice - it is more a "forced alternative" - You must choose case 2; and if there is no gate available, then get back to option no 1.

Ia! Ia!

Mad

Veet and MaddockKrug -

Maybe I'm being dense but I'm not seeing the logic. It was previously my assumption that, if you are at a location with a gate, your encounter is to move through the gate. But now that I look at the rules, I see that encounters are possible *only* if there is no gate at a location. So if you draw a card that tells you to move to a location and have an encounter, and the location has an open gate, then you *can't* have an encounter. It's not possible. You'd move through the gate only if being on an open gate during the encounters phase is a sufficient precondition for moving through the gate. But there are reasons for thinking that this isn't the case. Namely, being on a location without an open gate is not a sufficient precondition for having an encounter. If it were, then encounter cards wouldn't tell you to move to a location *and have an encounter.* It would be a redundancy.

Hello.

- Ok. You cannot have any other encounter except for entering the gate, if there is a gate at a given location. (And even if you have explored an Other World, returned and placed the exploration marker on that gate, you won't have any encounter at that location as long as the gate remains there.)

- If you narrow the word "encounter" on your first encounter card down to an encounter in the sense on an encounter card for the given location, you won't have any kind of encounter, if there is a gate at the location. But what would happen then? Nothing? Nothing at all? This would be the only known case (for me) where you don't get sucked in by a gate although you have entered the location most recently, because you cannot have a standard encounter from. (Weird.)

- If you understand "encounter" on this card as encounter in the meaning of "encounter in general" - like it is described more generally as phases III and IV - , anything likely on pg 8 or 9 of the rulebook applies, whichever case you face (gate, or encounter card). And I think this is the most likely understanding of this card you have drawn in the first place.

Ia! Ia!

Mad

Avec, are you just "hazing" new acolyte MaddockKrug? Or are you really getting bogged down with this?

MaddockKrug, your grasp of all this is way impressive.

Maybe he just wants me to teach how to write more meaningful stuff with less words.

I like making investigators deal with monsters when an encounter moves them to a space with a monster, because otherwise they could get a free ride into the gate without dealing with the monster. Plus, the monster's there, waiting for the investigator to arrive.

I would not want to make investigators immediately deal with monsters during the movement phase, because then the investigator would have to deal with those same monsters immediately again during the next movement phase. This results in an investigator having to evade a monster twice in a row (essentially), or being able to kill a monster and be freed up to move away next movement.

In other words, to me, combat with a monster has to be initiated by an investigator action: either entering the space with a monster, or drawing "A monster appears!"

Well, first of all, I must admit that I did not see the examples of the bottom of page 8. Specifically, the example marked "Location Encounter (With Gate)." Still, if you look at the actual rules (not the examples), there is no mention of the word "encounter" applying to getting sucked through a gate. If you go by the text of the rules, there is nothing that says that you have any type of encounter if you move to an open gate. The examples provided at the bottom of page 8 suggest that getting sucked through a gate is a type of encounter, but there is no rule -anywhere that I can see- that actually says this. Sorry if I'm being annoying. It just strikes me as significant.

MaddockKrug said:

Saying that the "gate overrules anything else" isn't, strictly speaking, accurate. When a gate opens it draws investigators through it and delays them. This condition specifically does not apply when investigators merely move onto a gate.

MaddockKrug said:

I think the use of the word "one" is pretty explicit here and not open to a lot of confusion.

Basically you're saying this:

(1) There is no gate, so they have an encounter.

(2) At the end of the encounter, they're still in a location without a gate.

(3) So they have another encounter.

But that's silly. If I have an encounter in the Woods that doesn't move me out of the Woods, then at the end of the encounter I'm still in the Woods. That doesn't "entitle" me to have a second encounter just because I'm "in the location". I had my one encounter.

Tibs said:

I can understand Clues being confusing: The rules for collecting clues clearly place that action in Phase II. But, OTOH, the precise wording is "any time an investigator ends his movement in a location that contains Clue tokens, he may immediately take any or all of those Clue tokens" I think an equally legitimate interpretation could be made that the Clue token is collected (since the investigator is explicitly "moving" according to the encounter and ending their movement there). Adding weight to this interpretation, Clue tokens which are placed in Phase V due to a Mythos card can be immediately collected by investigators in that location.

Ergo, I think the logical conclusion is that you can collect Clues when you get moved to a space due to an encounter.

OTOH, when it comes to monsters I think the rules are equally explicit that they are only fought during Phase II (unless an exception is explicitly made). This applies to monsters who move onto you during Phase V. It also applies to monsters who appear in your space due to a Mythos card. I don't see any reason why an exception should be made for investigators being moved onto monsters. I understand the appeal of "the monster is waiting for you", but I think it's equally plausible to say "you get there and realize there's a monster hunting you" (that you're going to have to deal with next turn).

This may be advantageous to the investigators in certain circumstances (a "free ride" through a gate, for example). But it will also be disadvantageous just as often (finding yourself stuck in the space for your next turn while you deal with the monster).

avec said:

The entirety of the rules for Phase III: Arkham Encounters describes exactly what Arkham Encounter you will have, depending on whether there's a gate in your location or not.

I don't think there's really anything particularly confusing about this. And if there were, I think the example stating "Location Encounter (With Gate)" clarifies it to the point where any and all doubt should be eliminated. (And clarification is, after all, the point of having examples in the rulebook.)