Justin Alexander said:

The only point that I'm trying to make is the rulebook is imprecise on this point. Your logic is a bit fuzzy also. The fact that Phase III is labeled "Arkham Encounters" is neither here nor there. The label that is attached to a phase is not a rule. Phase III could be labeled "Happy Fish Dance" and it would have no bearing on the rules.

It's also annoying that nowhere in the description of Phase III does it refer to the examples at the bottom of page 8 (or vice versa). They're just floating there. The examples on page 8 refer to Phase III only implicitly and by virtue of their general physical proximity. Compare this with, e.g., the example provided for flying monsters on page 14. The rules for flying monsters contains the text: "Flying monsters are explained in more detail in the 'Flying Monsters' diagram." There is no such text in the rules for Phase III that refers the reader to the examples on page 8. I agree that in general examples clarify rules, but an example cannot clarify a rule if the rule isn't there. In that case, the example is standing in for the rule.

In the course of my work I parse logical statements that are sometimes quite subtle. The "location encounter (with gate)" rules require the player to make assumptions that are based on tacit knowledge that comes from playing games. I'm simply reporting that I came across the absence of a rule - one that I assumed had been written down but it turns out that it hadn't. I accept that I'm apparently the only person who cares about this, but the absence of the rule is still a fact.

Hello.

I have written a lot about the raised question, and it seems as things start to get confusing; my fault, maybe I have written to much. But I would like to clarify some of my thoughts:

Justin Alexander said:

You have connected it with the case that someone is in the Woods and Remains in the Woods and this would be quite "silly". I agree on that, but actually, that is not what I was saying. I said this:

1. You are at a location A and draw an Encounter Card.

2. The Encounter card says: move to location B and have an encounter.

3. You move to location B.

4. You now have your "second" encounter.

(If there was no change in place due to the first drawn encounter card, there would be no second encounter after all.)

Now to my opinions:

About par 2: If you draw an Encounter card that states that you have to move to a different location without adding "have an encounter", my opinion is that you still will have a second encounter as well on the new location B, because otherwise it is somehow senseless to move someone to a location without giving him the opportunity to have any kind of location interaction. But I admit it: You could handle it differently by simply ignoring the new location and treating it like "a street" (which is quite often an outcome of encounter cards: Move to the streets blablabla).

About par 4: Your second encounter is exactly and completely what is being described in "Phase III: Arkham Encounter" - either have a gate or, if no gate is available, draw an encounter card.

About monsters and combat: I understand your point that there is no dire need of having any combat if you have to move to a different location during Phase III which contains a monster, because normally combat occurs at the end of Phase II or as the result of encounter cards. And I would acknowledge this, if I was not entitled to have a new/ second encounter on this new and second location. But as I have described above: I think someone has a new location encounter, when he gets moves to a new location. And here things become "interesting":

To me it seems that the monster combat is some kind of "trigger" that tells you, whether you may interact with a location or not. I take this from AH Core Rules pg 14, middle column, 3rd para: "If the investigator passes the Evade check, he evades the monster and the player may continues his turn as normal, whether continuing movement or interacting with the area."

OK, I give it that, this is described in the Evade step right ahead of a combat. And within the combat rules you have nothing like this mentioned. But since the option to evade may lead to combat, if an investigator fails to evade; but then the investigator would still have the opportunity to interact with the area after a successful combat; so this rule (continuing with interacting with the area) would also apply if the character decides to fight immediately rather then attempting to evade at first.

Bottomline: During phase III location A encounter card moves you to location B with a monster, then you have to evade/fight the monster in order to interact with the location afterwards, but still during the same Phase III.

@avec:

There is nothing with being persistent, since all of us think about something more or less vague.

Let me rephrase what you say:

At location A you draw an encounter card that tells you to move to location B and to have a new encounter there; but at the location there is a gate. So the question is: Do you have an encounter or not? (this is how I understand your question)

In my opinion: No, you don't have an encounter because there is a gate which "replaces" the location and by that deactivates the location's attributes; but gate interaction is part of the context "Phase III: Arkham Encounter" and is to be handled as an encounter as well (systematic approach), therefore you get drawn into the Other World, which is in the end "your encounter" (and which leads you to an Other World encounter on Phase IV).

With the more strict interpretation you provide us and your remaining doubts about the others' thoughts: You still have no encounter, because there is a gate which deactivates the location's attributes; but you also don't interact with the gate, so nothing happens, because you say that gate interaction is by no means an encounter. (Actually I admit that this seems to be a likely solution to your question as well, but still I have doubts about it myself because it still would be the only single case in which an investigator would (get) move(d) to a location with a gate and the investigator would not interact with the gate (or vice versa)).

In the end I think: It is your choice what happens. *g*

Ia! Ia!

Mad

Avec, I honestly see your point exactly, but I think it's kinda negligible. And I think you see that too.

You're not being annoying. I'm more concerned that this is driving you to being that wild-eyed scholar in the middle of his room with the entire AH Manual scrawled on his walls in black marker, hissing quietly to himself.

avec said:

And your point is wrong: The rulebook is not imprecise on this point.

You are correct, however, that if this section of the rulebook were called "Happy Fish Dance", then the rulebook would be a "bit fuzzy". Fortunately, it's clearly labeled "Arkham Encounters" and, like I said, the correct (and, frankly, obvious) interpretation of the rules is than clarified to complete irrefutability by the example on the same page.

"What's an Arkham Encounter?"

"It's described in the section called Arkham Encounters."

"That's really imprecise and fuzzy."

No. It's not. It's actually the opposite of that.

MaddockKrug said:

Well, actually, no. That's not what you said. You're noticeably skipping over your completely flawed rationale for #4. What you said: "...the character "is" in the location, then the player is entitled to have (a second) Arkham Encounter in Phase III."

There's a reason why I quoted you saying it. Because what you're saying is self-evidently wrong. Being in a location does not entitle you to a second Arkham Encounter in Phase III.

The rules are explicit on this point, as well. They use the word "one" for a reason. And, as confirmation, you can see that there are some cards that tell you to move and have an encounter and cards that only tell you to move. There certainly is imprecision with some AH encounter cards, but when that distinction is confirmed by a quick perusal of the core rules there really can't be any doubt left.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules that suggest when you get to the end of resolving Phase III that you should go back to the top of Phase III and start resolving it all over again.

Hello.

@Justin:

I see where you are coming from. And basically I can follow and understand this way of interpretation, which it is. Let me quote the roles here at first, which you refer to and which are basically everything else but clear:

AH Core Rules Pg. 8, left column, par 2: "During the Arkham Encounters Phase, each player who is in a location must take one of the following actions."

AH Core Rules Pg. 8, left column, par 3: "If the location has no gate, the investigator has an encounter at that location."

The player's character's activity starts at any one location he/she is in. In this particular location the character is entitled to enter a gate, if available that is, or to have an location encounter. The general case is that, if one character ends his Phase III in the same location he has entered, he will have only one location encounter. In this I absolutely agree with you, and with the rules I wouldn't dare to interfere with.

But the question remains and is still not finally solved: If he is entitled to change the location, would he receive another location encounter there or would he have to enter an open gate at this second location? Again I agree with you - if the first encounter card at the first location during this same Phase III for the same character explicitly says so, there is nothing to discuss about. But the case I refer to is about the question, what would happen if the first encounter card at the first location during this same Phase III for the same character only phrases that the character is bound to change the location.

What you state as obvious and clear is not so clear actually. Because the rules don't imply that you have just one encounter; you only have one action at a same location. Therefore a valid understanding could also be: For each location a character visits during the same Phase III, this character would have to choose from one of the two given options - gate or location encounter.

Again - this is what I speak about all the time; and still it is only an opinion, and I am willing to give it up, if there is a striking argument against it; but I don't see it yet - especially since neglecting another "activity" (pg 8, left column par 2) at the new location would also mean that in case of a gate being there (which is btw. the original question in this thread btw) and a character being moved there from the first location due to a first location encounter card, the character would not be drawn into this particular gate - and this would be as a matter of fact and rule the only case in the Arkham Horror Game where a character would not enter the Other Worlds, which would be weird, because this game is all about getting in and out of the OW in order to close gates and compete with the Awakening of the GOO.

Ia! Ia!

Mad

Hello.

I have some more information to add to my last post in order to show that all of this is not "pure academic". And promissed - this'll be a lot shorter then usual ...

1. The rule clarifications in the rule-book of Innsmouth Horror (pg 12, right column, par. 4) tell us that Phase III is fully applicable to the general question raised in this thread - if an location encounter card mentions movement to and encounter in the new location, all the rules of Phase III apply; also, if there are monsters, they are to be evaded or to be fought.

2. The described case with being moved due to an location encounter card without the explicit mentioning of having an encounter at the new location exists on 5 (7?) cards - Y'ha-nthlei 2 (IH), Wireless Station 3 (KH), maybe Devils Reef 1 (IH), and maybe Science Building 1 (AH). Tthe two latter ones may overrule the encounter rules by what they describe as well. All other location encounter cards in AH and all its expansions explicitly say: move to X and have an encounter.

3. The case I write about (having an encounter in location A, being moved to location B without the explicit mentioning of having a new encounter, and then finding a gate and a monster => what happens? Really no encounter?) may occur in one specific situation: The character is in Y'ha-nthlei (IH), draws the only location encounter card which tells him to move to Devils' Reef, and the card does not speak of an encounter. But what exactly happens if there is a gate at Devil's Reef? The card does not mention "have an encounter", but do the Phase III rules still apply? (And this is by the way the complete discussion all about.) What is the answer to the same question, but Devil's Reef has no Gate on it? And what is the answer to the question, if there are monsters at this location?

Ia! Ia!

Mad

If you move your investigator to a location with an open gate, you're automatically drawn through the gate(so, no encounter at the new location, even if the card instructs you to have an encounter there).If there's a monster guarding the open gate, evade or fight/defeat it first, and only then you're drawn through the gate.

If there's no open gate at the new location, draw an encounter card. If there's a monster at the location, evade or defeat it first and then have an encounter.

Additionally, if you move to a location with a sealed gate and the encounter at that location tells you that a gate and/or monster appears, then neither happens, because monsters can't enter/appear in locations with the elder sign token,nor can gates reopen there(unless there's a gate burst)

MaddockKrug said:

Exactly

MaddockKrug said:

Justin -

Here are the rules as written:

Phase III: Arkham Encounters
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.

It doesn't say "At the beginning of the Arkham Encounters Phase." It says "During the Arkham Encounters Phase." Nor does it say "each action may only be taken once per phase." I don't see anything in the RAW that explicitly excludes drawing a second encounter card if you are moved during the encounters phase. However, as MaddockKrug and myself have pointed out, there are encounter cards that specifically direct you to have a second encounter after being moved. This implies that it is not normal to have a second encounter after being moved.

I would actually go a step further and say that, according to the RAW, you cannot move through a gate as a result of being moved to a location and having an encounter there. However, I've been assured that this notion might be accurate, but it's crazy.

St. Mary's Hospital: One of the staff physicians talks some sense into you. You are disabused of certain crazy but accurate notions. Lose 1 Clue token.

Hmm. I'd say that if the card does not say to have an encounter, you don't get one. The investigator goes to Devil Reef, but does not enter the gate.

avec said:

Here are the rules as written:

Phase II: Movement

During the Movement Phase, each player takes one of the following two actions, depending on whether his investigator is in Arkham or an Other World.

It doesn't say "At the beginning of the Movement Phase", it days "During the Movement Phase". So clearly, once I've finished moving once, I can just move again, right?

Well, no. Obviously not. Anyone who can parse simple English sentences can figure this one out. Only you and MaddockKrug would suggest that the rules should be interpreted to include an invisible, nonexistent "repeat the phase all over again" clause.

avec said:

Yeah. We've already established that this isn't true, either.

I think we're done here. You guys are so eager to conclude that there's a non-existent hole in the rules that you're actively ignoring what the rulebook actually says. Since you refuse to acknowledge what the rulebook says, you're operating in a completely fact-free zone. Nothing useful can result from continuing this discussion with you.

Justin Alexander said:

Thanks for checking in. Always a pleasure.