So we were playing a game the other day, and a situation came up for the first time leaving us all a little confused as to what precisely should be done. I don't recall seeing it in the FAQ, so I put it up for group consensus.

The issue was this:

A (read: several) monster surge occurs. At the time there are open gates (6) in both Dunwich (1) and Arkham (5). The monster limit is set at 5, and there are 4 monsters in Arkham itself. So the question was: since the monster limit does not apply to Dunwich, do we put 1 monster in Arkham (meeting the limit) and 5 monsters on the one gate in Dunwich? Or do we put 1 monster in Arkham, 1 monster in Dunwich, and the rest in the outskirts?

We played the second way because we were in a hurry to finish, but I personally thought the first way would be what an FAQ answer would be. When a monster surge occurs you are supposed to divide the monsters as evenly as possible on all open gates, with the Mythos-specified gate having at least as many as the next most-monstered gate. So I figured "no monster limit in Dunwich = put all the extras there". Confusion arrises from the Mythos-specified gate needing to have the highest number of monsters.

Any thoughts/has this already been addresed?

From page 9 of the AH rulebook:

"If there are more monsters to be placed than allowed by the monster limit , the players should decide where monsters will be placed. The players must make this decision before monsters have been drawn from the cup. If the players cannot agree where the monsters are to be placed, the first player decides the placement."

Personally, I'm not sure whether this is meant to supercede or to work in with the bit about splitting up as evenly as possible, but I play it that this effect includes the even split.

So, my call would be this: split the number up as evenly as possible, place monsters on Dunwich gates as decided by the group/first player, place monsters on Arkham gates as decided by the group/first player, remainder go to the outskirts.

MrEntity said:

Since you don't mention the # of investigators, I'll assume that 6 open gates is the higher number. You'd try to place 1 monster for each open gate, so you'd drop 1 into Dunwich and 1 into a gate in Arkham, the gate that surged. Rest would hit Outskirts, probably even overflowing it.

You "temporarily assign" monsters to all gates as if there were no limits and restrictions. So monsters are distributed as evenly as possible across all gates. Then based on the situation of the Arkham board, you treat those monsters at Arkham gates independently of everything else. As Dam pointed out, you would then leave the 1 monster in Dunwich, 1 in Arkham, and the rest to the outskirts, most likely tripping the Terror level.

Now, this "temp assignment" is just figurative so you can see the logic behind intended distribution vs. city limits. In reality, you have to figure out the condition of the gates before drawing any monster. So go through this mental exercise first, realizing you have 1 in Duniwch, 1 in Arkham, and 4 in the outskirts before any monster is drawn.

Heh... Over a year ago, I thought that you could place *all* the excess monsters in Dunwich ;') it was really fun making stacks of six monsters. Gave fighters alot to do there occasionally.

Okay, so we were playing it right apparently.

Sticking all the excess in Dunwich would have made for a very interesting game though, considering we got ~6 monster surges in a row.

MrEntity said:

Learn to shuffle better.

ColtsFan76 said:

Wow, sarcasm from Coltsfan? That's rather unusual.

I will now proceed to throw myself on my sword and admit that I have been playing with the Kingsport Board for the past month and have been counting the monsters on KH board against the monster limit. This thread inspired me to actually recheck the rules last evening and I realized I had been unintenionally driving the terror level up far beyond where it should have been. Oops. I did beat Glacki playing that way over the weekend, though, which was surprising.

Nghtflame7 said:

You must not read all of my stuff.... Or are you being sarcastic too?!?!?

ColtsFan76 said:

I always read what you write, and am impressed by your knowledge of the rules and how you explain paatiently regardless of how many times you see the same question over and over, so no, sarcasm was only peripherally intended. Generally you save the zingers for people who have sniped at you first.

That said, this particular zing was pretty cute and non-confrontational. And I am also a crummy shuffler so it could easily apply to me, too.