Also, the elder sign appears because the investigator physically created it. They should not be able to seal a closed gate from across the board; it should be on their own space only.

In response to the original question absolutly not. This would be identical to 5 players jumping through a gate, all 5 going through and then each trying to make the check untill one succeds yet only 1 of the investigators actually having 5 or more clues at the time and being allowed to seal it.

My biggest problem for the second issue is that most encounters that instruct you to close gates also say wether or not you can seal them. I'd rule that no in this case (most) investigators can't seal because they aren't teh ones doing the closeing

However to muddle the situation up more suppose that Akachi Onyele is the one working the machine. If she has 8 clue tokens could she close the 2 gate and seal them at the same time?

I'd say no, she can't seal, because nothing is preventing her from sealing; sealing is just not allowed in the first place. In other words, this isn't a situation where an investigator would normally be allowed to seal, and some game effect is preventing it.

But still, I'd argue that she's not the one closing the gates in the first place.

Aside: Hey Justin! Welcome to the Carnival!

I just want to point out, from a nostalgic standpoint, how much Justin is demonstrating how desperately we need an updated FAQ. Justin, the people that are providing your counterpoints have had these same debates several times over the last 4-5 years, and for the most part, came to a general consensus that has sustained us without any FAQ or Manual really backing us up. Every so often, someone new comes along and uses the befuddled FFG manual to shake us up.

It's both refreshing and disappointing that the same debates keep happening. When the Stars are Right, I suppose.

jgt7771 said:

This. I've been away from this forum for nearly half a year (hi to all who still remember me), and came back just a few days ago wishfully expecting "surely the new FAQ is ready by now". Ha! No such luck in FFG-land. This is really frustrating for people like me, who'd like to finally play some of the expansions according to non-arbitrary rules that make some overall sense. I see there's a new expansion out - well, I'm not buying it before I get the FAQ for CotDP, KH and IH.

-Villain

Villain said:

Hah... How do you think I feel? I've been working on this project for nearly a year now... Well, no, I technically did most of my work on it in November and May, but... I often feel like the FAQ is LITAS...

Page 17

"To seal a gate using Clue
tokens, a player must:
1. Succeed at his roll to close
the gate.
2. Spend 5 Clue tokens.
3. Claim the gate marker as a
gate trophy.
4. Take 1 elder sign token
from the pile of unused tokens
and place it on the location
where the gate was sealed."

In the case in question

1) The investigator never succeeded at "his roll" to close the gate. (He only succeeded) at being allowed to play with the machine.

3) Couldn't claim the gate marker as a gate trophy.

mageith said:

Aha.

mageith said:

To play devil's advocate:

1) The investigator succeeded at a roll to close the gate. There doesn't seem to be any reason the quoted text couldn't be applied to that roll.

ALSO 1) Let's hypothesize an ability or card that stated, "You don't have to make a Fight or Lore check when closing a gate." Would one reasonably conclude that such investigators can't seal gates? Or would we logically conclude that exception-based rules should narrowly apply their exceptions and not negate all subsequent actions based on the original, non-excepted portion of the rules?

3) If there was an ability that was triggered "when you defeat a monster", I don't think anyone would reasonably interpret that ability as not being triggered by monsters who can't be claimed as trophies.

This is why I think the effort to disallow the investigator responsible for closing these gates from sealing these gates will set some very poor precedents with far-reaching consequences. It's an activist attempt to bend the rules to fit a desired conclusion ("I don't like that this encounter card lets you seal gates") rather than a constructivist approach of interpreting the rules to reach a conclusion.

Justin Alexander said:

1) Except that it wasn't a roll to close the gate. It was, in this case, a lore check to help the student work the machine, followed by rolls that aren't any sort of skill check.

3) If the rule for that ability specifically stated that you have to claim a trophy for the ability to be triggered (as the rules for sealing specifically mention aquiring a gate trophy in order to seal) then yes, I would interpret the ability that way, although I must admit that in the middle of a game I might not notice the precise wording.

In addition, it's specifically been mentioned in an errata for at least one other encounter card that results in a gate being closed that you cannot seal that gate (sadly turning a card that could be benificial into one that is detrimental). This does set something of a precedent for other encounters of this type not being able to be sealed.

Hello.

First off: the outcome of this discussion convinces me that the science-building encounter in question does not allow anyone to seal the gate, since no character actively closes the gate herself.

About the trophy:

a) The mentioned "ruling" on pg. 17 seem to me as not being the "rules" about sealing a gate, which are described on pg 18. The yellow box on pg 17 only clarifies and simulates the very standard case step by step; and looking at the real rules on pg 18 you will notice that getting the trophy may occur after the sealing as well (line 5 on par 1 left column: "The player still claims the gate trophy." Meaning: If you already closed and sealed the gate, grab the trophy as yours!), therefore it is not mandatory that you receive the trophy right before the sealing.

b) Also in general: the one who closes a gate automatically gains the trophy as a (side-)effect of closing the gate - unless a special situation from an encounter card, mythos card or whatever-card mentions otherwise. Therefore I don't consider the "trophy" being anyhow relevant in the case of sealing a gate. the important thing is that the character Mr./Ms./Mrs. X actively uses his/her own skill and closes the gate by the means of this specific action, then s/he may use his/her clue tokens to seal the gate, which is absolutely not dependent on the gate-trophy. And that's exactly the rule on pg. 18 about sealing a gate - nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway: Thank you very much for revealing "the truth" behind these ideas by quoting the "ruling" on pg 17; this underlines the idea behind the sealing rules a lot.

Ia! Ia!

Mad

Let's all agree to disagree. Its up to people playing at the time. My group will probably say no to sealing the gates, but if others want it to be sealable let them. That's what makes Arkham Horror great: HOUSE RULES!!!!

Joseph_Lavode said:

Quit trying to bend the rules, you activist! This clearly isn't what the Founding Fathers intended!

avec said:

.... Founding Shoggoths.

Joseph_Lavode said:

The rules about sealing gates don't say "skill check". They say "roll".

I also agree with MaddockKrug re: the necessity of claiming a gate trophy in order to seal a gate.

Avi_dreader said:

Founding FHTAGN!

Tibs said:

Niiiice :')

I wonder if it would make it any more clear if we knew in "reality" (ha!) the process WAS to close and seal a gate. I mean, storywise. If I go larking off into an other world, and get back to this world, through some kind of wormhole, and having "clues" helps to seal that hole, I'm assuming that I have gathered some sort of ritualistic or scientific knowledge out in the town of Arkham that gives me specific knowledge about the nature of this rift. Is it a spell I cast to try to shut it? I can use "fight" to try to shove it closed (through brute strength?), too... maybe a narrative sense could help us make our decisions in such cases as these? Any thoughts?

Zozimus said:

It's a good thought, but I think it runs into problems with the basic notion of "clue" tokens. Clue tokens are predicated on the assumption that any one piece of information is interchangeable with any other piece of information. The collection and use of clue tokens defies any kind of narrative translation.

avec said:

I don't see them in that way. I imagine clue tokens as being specific bits of information, not interchangeable. If for example an investigator uses a clue token to pass a combat check against a Shoggoth, then I assume that from the moment he acquired that clue it was some kind of info on Shoggoths. Had he not used the clue token to pass the check, then the clue token would have meant something else, precisely, something regarding the thing he would later spend it on. I think clue tokens are a very elegant gameplay aspect of the game and one that lets you use your imagination.

As for the thread's topic, my 2c is that since the investigator doing the gate closing through the machine is far from the gates he's actually closing, and any investigators that are on an explored gate would be caught off guard, he (and them) shouldn't be able to seal. That's not a bad thing for me, since half the times my AOs awaken, it happens because too many gates are open

Tox said:

I'm all for using imagination, but the context in which clue tokens are acquired is irrelevant to game play. Every clue token is the same. Therefore, it's hard to say specifically what kind of information is necessary to seal a gate. Is your ability to seal a gate related to the information (i.e., the clue token) that you picked up at the Unnamable? Maybe it is, maybe's it's not. Sure, you can make up a story in retrospect. I just think it's very difficult to do what Zozimus suggests and think about sealing a gate from a narrative perspective. Do five clue tokens=knowledge of a gate sealing ritual? If so, it must be a pretty modular ritual, since you could have five clue tokens ready to go, then lose two clues in the other world, but then gain two different clue tokens and still be able to execute the ritual. It's weird.

Hello.

When you throw in the idea behind clue tokens being any kind of information, material, and advice a character has and thus giving the clue-token a descriptive and imaginatory power regarding the outcome of a game situation, then under this specific "ruling" you may very well argue that a character having this particular science building encounter may seal gates after having closed it with this encounter card, although the card describes that it is the machine that closes the gates.

Why is that so?

Because the character gets information, and material from the encounter itself (i.e. clues in the game-material presence of clue-tokens); and with involving this character in the encounter with his Lore-skill-check he participates in closing the gates; this may be concluded as closing the gate by the character, and this would allow him to seal a gate or gates of his choice as long as he would be able to provide the amount of clue tokens needed for the sealing(s).

Such a "ruling" by adding this level of imagination, or better: this meta-level to this special location-encounter-card raises the question, if this is the purpose of this special card. And from what I read so far I have doubts, because there is no equally powerful item, or card in this game adding a similar or in some way comparable option to the flow of the game. And that's why I think that such an assumption (giving the clue tokens a "story-teller" approach being able to interfere with game-mechanics, or game-results) is far too powerful in the means of destroying the balance of the game, if there is any. And that's why I recommend not doing this.

Ia! Ia!

Mad

This is kind of the point. Page 18 is much more generic and Page 17 is much more specific and expands on some of the murkier assertions of page 18.

Of course, page 17 is not a "ruling", it is rules. There's really nothing I can see that makes it less real than page 18.

As to the "still claims the gate trophy" I think all that refers to is the fact that investigators claim a gate trophy when closing a gate and since sealing is an added step, the author just wanted to let us know that sealing doesn't cost us the gate trophy.

The trophy, the side effect, is relevant in that it shows/means the investigator was physically there at the gate closing.

My first question on the forum many years a go was "What exactly is a gate trophy, that is, is it bigger than a bread box?"

Can you wear it around your neck? Can you sling it over your shoulder? Is it the crystal/residue/whatever that's left behind when the gate vanishes? Apparently it can be dissected, sold, used as a religious artifact and two of them are so impressive you can draft any available ally, get your own starship to caption and become significantly changed in the Strange High House in the Mist.

Again, all I took the relevance of a trophy to mean was that you were there and got whatever that trophy thingee was. And unless you were there and actually obtained that trophy thingee (should have gotten the trophy thingee if there was one), you couldn't seal the gate.

And what exactly is "sealing"? It was a debating question for a while whether you could call a gate with a Naacal and seal it in a street. That question has never been directly answered but we now know that if the moving gate moves out of unstable location, it can no longer be sealed. So what is being sealed is not really the gate but the stability of an unstable location is restoredat least in the case of the moving gate.

But a trophy thingee isn't really required, its just required that you be there. The infinite gate does not yield a trophy thingee, yet it still can be sealed. You just can't prove you actually did itno thingee.

Of course, of the above discourse, has no bearing on the rules.

Hello.

An example, even if it is only the very standard case to a given rule, only "repeats" the rule and shows are the rules are applied. Therefore I consider the "yellow boxed entry" to this as the "ruling" - the handling of the, as you absolutely correctly call it, general rules on pg. 18.

I like your ideas about the "concept" or "ideas" of sealing and the trophy. And thanks for clarifying that these has nothing to do with the rules.

Ia! Ia!

Mad