Played a second game last night, with one buddy this time--even that sure made managing monsters and such easier! Terror Level only rose to 3, as opposed to like 7 the first game when I was alone. Unfortunately, we ended up getting eaten by Yig (neither of us had a blessing going into the battle, so we both got cursed, and then we just couldn't roll those 6's).

Anyway, another couple questions arose during this game...I'll include what we decided to do for that game, but I wanted to see if I could get a more official answer.

1. Mists of Releh...how is this actually used? Here's what we ended up saying:

Mists of Releh can only be used once you have decided to Evade. Bonuses to Evade/Sneak do not count towards casting the spell. However, if you fail casting the spell, you may still attempt your normal Evade (you may not just decide to forgo the Evade and fight instead, because you have already decided to attempt to Evade).

2. Encounters and choice

Certain encounters use language like "If you do this" or "Investigators may," which imply that you get a choice in the matter. We allowed the player to choose whether he even attempted the action in that case. Is that correct?

Also, certain encounters do not use this language, but concern actions that in investigator takes, rather than actions that seem required due to creatures or cultists and such. Does an investigator have to take the actions noted on that encounter card, then, or can he just ignore it?

For example, a Celeano encounter reads: "That's it! That's the document you need. Quietly, you reach for it, trying not to disturb its guardian. Make a Sneak (-2) check. If you pass, search the spell deck and take 1 spell of your choice. If you fail, lose 2 stamina."

Could a player decide not to attempt the check, to give up the chance to earn a spell but also avoid any chance of losing stamina? Or has this particular card already decided for him?

We ended up saying that this type of card did indeed make the decision for you, and you had to make the attempt, but we really weren't sure on that...I understand when it's worded like "The arch falls! Jump out of the way!" or "Monsters are coming! Make a sneak check to hide!" But when it's something that it sounds like would only happen because the investigator decides to do it, I wonder if we should still let the player choose.

Sdrolion said:

To answer your questions:

1) Ok, this is how it works: The only use for Mists of Releh is that you substitute your Lore stat instead of your Sneak stat when trying to Evade. If you fail the spell check, then you basically fail the Evade check and have to resolve combat normally. This spell doesn't give you two oppurtunities to Evade at one time.

2) You are forced to follow all the directions on the Encounter cards, UNLESS it specifically states you have an option to opt out. So, even for the Celeano encounter you mentioned, you have to execute it. It gives you no choice.

Hope this helps!

Sometimes you're not yourself in Arkham ;-) Besides, they're documents you NEED, not want! But yes, you've been playing right for #2. It's very specific with "May" or "can try." But sometimes even the benefits of winning checks your forced to aren't always the best.

As for #1:Another way to look at it is, Make the check, pass or fail, then enter combat as normal if you want. It doesn't say to make an evade check, you make a spell check that allows you to auto-succeed on an Evade check if you pass. If you fail, then you're STILL at square 1. You can still choose to Evade/fight the person, because you haven't actually made an Evade check. Does that make sense? This makes it a little easier, but also seems to make sense, rules-wise. I'm sure most don't play it this way, though

If you fail Mists of Releh, you then get to attempt the Evade check normally. All Mists does is pass the check for you if you cast it. If not, then you haven't yet failed: you conduct the check normally.

Hey! I've been playing it right I figured since with some other spells you can cast preemptively (like Red Sign of Shudde M'ell). Would Markings of Isis work that way, too? Cast the spell, fail, then make a horror check as normal?

Yes, but with Markings of Isis, you have to commit one hand. So if you're using that spell, you better make sure you don't need both your hands—at least for that first combat check.

Tibs said:

Is Markings of Isis covered in the proto-FAQ? In official answers from KW thread, KW wasn't sure it was a misprint or not.

It's not in the last draft. I'm not sure if its omission was noticed and sent in. I hope so.

I don't think KW was involved with Curse of the Dark Pharaoh, so he probably didn't know the cards extremely well. Personally I think the hand use is deliberate.

It says to ignore the "Hands" symbol in the Clarification of the Wiki, and Kevin Wilson mentioned it in passing, saying he'd "take a look at it" and "it was probably a misprint" or oversight or something. Paraphrasing, of course, but I play it "handless" :-x

Well I'll go ahead and change the wiki, because that has not been clarified anywhere.

Tibs said:

Oh, never knew that! Thanks for correcting me Tibs.

Tibs said:

jhaelen said:

Heh... I love that spell...

Yeah. Feel free to house-rule Mists so that failing it fails the Evade check—because it really feels like a very cheap spell, giving you 2 attempts at evading at no sanity cost.

Sdrolion said:

Hopefully you realised that you can roll to attempt lose your curse at each upkeep phase of the Final Battle?

Tibs said:

Or you could look at it as a really powerful spell and one of the incentives to shop for spells. Is there any rule that says all spells must be weak?

But what's the cost? If you fail the spell, you get to evade normally anyway.

Here's another 0-cost spell: Wither. If you fail that, you lose a hand. There is a cost involved.

Tibs said:

http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Revelation_of_Script

:')

Leave it to Dark Pharaoh to embarrass me publicly.

Tibs said:

The curse of the Pharoah strikes again.

I guess it makes sense, yeah...it appears to be intended to be a pretty powerful spell as long as you only have one monster to evade and your character has better Lore than his current Sneak rating, anyway (and even if he doesn't, at least he gets two chances at it). Thanks...from the look of things, it is intended to be powerful.

One more question on it, though: would I be correct in assuming that you are not actually making an Evade check yet when you cast the spell, and therefore you do not receive Evade bonuses of any kind when you are doing so? (This would lower the spell's power a bit, I think, and may help with some of the concerns, since you aren't getting two Evade checks with full bonuses. You're getting one attempt based on Lore but without Evade bonuses, and one based on Sneak but with full Evade bonuses.)

To the one who asked about removing the Curse during the Yig fight...yeah, we did realize that, we just rolled badly every time. :-P

I do have another question, that arose after games 3 and 4 (we won both of those...Yig in Game 3 by beating him in combat, and Nyar in game 4 by seals...we got dang lucky and got all the Elder signs really fast). I drew the spell called "Bind Monster," and I'm not entirely sure what would make it different than the active combat spells like Dread Curse or Shriveling. Does "Bind Monster" work like "Mists of Releh" and effectively give you an extra attempt? (Though in its case, it takes 2 hands?)

Bind Monster -

No it works differently, the wording on the card is pretty clear I think. After successfully casting it you lose the spell (discard it) and the monster you are fighting is claimed as a trophy. There are no combat checks involved, you automatically defeat the monster.

Yes, it is a powerful spell. But it's a one shot cannon, after casting it you lose it.

Arag said:

Right, I got that part, but my question is what happens with it if you fail? Do you take damage as though you'd failed a combat check, or, like Mists, do you still get to roll the normal combat check?

Sdrolion said:

Well, you cast the spell and in case you fail, it's a failure on a spell check, not a combat check. Thus, you can still do your combat check, but beware that for this round of combat you don't have any free hand to use weapons or other spells. It's just your fight skill then (plus eventually bonuses some very rare items; not knowing whether you play just the base Arkham or you do have some expansions, I won't go deeper on this issue), so probably you won't have any chance of beating the monster, but nonetheless you're allowed to try