If someone explored one Outher world for example the Abyss and he is returned to Arkham if someone cast spell Control gate (to switch that gate with some other) does he loose explore marker? Or he can close that gate even its changed?

mrzimsvee said:

Good question! My guess is that since the gate changed, you do lose the explored marker, but I can't be too sure about that.

mrzimsvee said:

I'm not sure if there's been an official ruling on this :'/ even in the proto-FAQ. My presumption would be that the explored marker would be lost, but then again, maybe FFG intended to allow gate-swapping while a person was out of a gate. No idea really. Probably something you should houserule and play consistently until there's an official answer (ha!)

The only precedence for this is Daoloth, who's not exactly official yet, anyway. It says that the investigators lose Explored Markers when Daoloth's gate-swapping ability happens, however, it SAYS it making it seems as if it's one of two things: It's an exception to the rule, like taking an Endless Monster from the Graveyard. Or! It's a clarification, saying, yes, you do lose your Explored marker.

I'd personally say you lose it, myself!

That's a very interesting question, in that the game is ostensibly cooperative in nature...thus, changing a man's gate right out from under him is just wrong...

Except if he keeps his "explored token" and if:

- The new gate is easier to close

- The new gate banished more creatures on closing

- Someone needs to come back from the actual gate...

Sure your can found a lot of situation where it could be useful... If he keeps the "explored token"...

Hugues said:

yea i was not sure and spell would be quite useful if you can keep token and if you cannot keep it spell is very useless (except someone enter wrong gate or 2 people enter same gate and you change next gate to be same like that 2 investigators entered)

Anarin, control gate is still an incredibly helpful spell. It's much safer IMO, to change a gate leading to Rl'yeh to the Dreamlands. Not to mention that the Rl'yeh gate has a -4 modifier, and the Dreamlands only has +1! You need not need to use this spell just before you seal a gate.

mi-go hunter said:

that is true but if you change gates for dreamlands and close em - that will leave you Rl'yeh for later. When we play we usually use elder sign or some other item which give you "auto-close" -4 gates (but i agree it can be used even for that).

Rules for closing say :

Before he can close a gate, an investigator must enter
the gate, explore the Other World it leads to, and then
return to Arkham.
When an investigator returns from an Other World, as
described earlier, the player should place an explored
marker under his investigator marker. This gives the
investigator an opportunity to destroy and close the gate
during the next Arkham Encounters Phase. If the investigator
leaves the gate’s location for any reason, the player
must discard the explored marker – the investigator has
missed his opportunity and must explore the gate again
if he wishes to close it.
If, during the Arkham Encounters Phase, an investigator
is on a location that contains an open gate and that
investigator has acquired the explored marker, he may
now attempt to close the gate. To do so, the investigator
must choose whether to make a Lore check or a Fight
check, using the number printed on the gate marker as
the modifier. If the investigator succeeds at this check,
he closes the gate and takes the gate marker as a gate
trophy. If the investigator fails, the gate remains open.
The investigator can try to close it during the Arkham
Encounters Phase next turn (and in subsequent turns, as
long as he does not leave the gate location).

So it should work even if you change gates. But logic say - if you change gate then its not explored/

Anarin said:

Rules were written eons before Lurker was published, so I'd not follow them that closely. Besides, at that time only investigators were allowed to move from locations, and on leaving the location, they were forced to discard the explorer marker. Things have changed a bit during the years ::smiling:: Now, here we have a different thing. More similar to Daoloth's power than anything else, as Ecno wisely observed. Not having an official general ruling about this, I'd follow strictly the rules for Daoloth. Thus, you lose the Explored Marker, but you are not sucked again through the gate until it's your AE phase. In this way, if the spell is cast by someone else before your movement phase, you're allowed to move away from the new gate.

Anyway, there is a point missing: I don't see why Control gate should be cast on a gate where an investigator with an explorer marker is ready to seal /close. I mean, I understand the spell can be useful (for all the reasons Hughues pointed out), but I don't think this is the best time for casting it! Not to mention that if you're unlucky, the new gate can be a Gate of Doom or a Devouring Gate. Unless you have Mary in the party, and you want to get rid of her.

The only situation that might be useful (I say might because it's a speculation, I haven't reflect accurately on the wording of the cards) is that the investigator sitting on the gate is Kate, and that gate is the only one still open in Arkham. If you cast Control gate, you should switch the gate beneath Kate, but maybe her power can force the new gate not to appear, and thus you win by closing. Maybe. Or maybe you can't. Yeah, probably you can'.t. But it could have been a nice strategy

Julia said:

no reason for switch is cause (for example) there is 5 circle monsters on board and when you switch it and gate is closed they are gone

Anarin said:

I'm not so sure that if you remove a Gate from the board by using the Control gate spell you remove monsters with matching dimensional symbol as well. I'd say you are not allowed to do so, there is nothing in the wording of the spell implying that you close a gate in order to reopen a new one. Fortunately, otherwise you'll have to add a doomer. But anyway, monsters are removed even if you close / seal a gate normally, so there is almost no sense in doing this via that spell. And the cons are in any case greater: you will send that poor investigator again in the OW, thus vanifying all the work done in the previous rounds (at least, according to the way I'd play this situation). Considering the fact that the longer is the game, the lower is the chance you have to beat it, it's a non sense sending one of your pals again in another OW, losing at least other 3 rounds only to return to Arkham and then perform the very same action he was able to do 3 rounds before, only to have some monsters less on the board (the tougher the scenario is, the quicker you have to be in order to beat it. 10 - 12 Mythos is a time long enough to win the game by sealing, sometimes it takes you even less if you're good and lucky enough to go for a closing victory). After all, the game is about gates, not about monsters. Sometimes you have incredibly bad luck with monsters, but you still must be focused on gates, otherwise you'll lose.

Julia said:

Heh, first by a Moonbeast, then by a devouring gate. How many practical ways can you find to kill Mary?

mi-go hunter said:

Uops, I wrote a sentence with no sense at all again! Yeeeh! Correct sentence: "[...] or a Devouring Gate. Which isn't the best thing to happen, unless you have Mary [...]" Sorry! And well... every method you have for devouring something is good for getting rid of Mary ::laughing:: Dunno... I was talking about this with Avi some time ago... I believe my hate for Mary roots deep in Desperate Housewives season 2 ::shrud::

On behalf of all Americans, Julia, I'd like to apologize to you for that show's existence...

EcnoTheNeato said:

::laughing:: it's better if I don't say publicly I'm almost addicted to it ::wearing sunglasses and an innocent smile::

Julia said:

... Wait, and you have problems with me liking Buffy? WHAT?! ;'D

Avi_dreader said:

It's completely different. At least, the Housewives series offer a better acting :-D

For the first three seasons of Buffy, the acting was really quite good, except for Juliet Landau and David Boreanaz. And even Boreanaz had his moments. But after season three, the actors, writers, and producers all stopped caring.

Yep, basically I was pulling Avi's leg. I was never into Buffy that deep. I saw some episodes here and there (I think from almost all the series, but I'm not sure), and simply it seemed to me not interesting. That's all. Generally, I'm not into "modern" tv series. No CSI, no Dr. House, no Scrubs and so on. The only "on-air now" thing I watch is Desperate Housewives. Basically for Marcia Cross & Felicity Huffman. I'm more into series from the past, being Cheers my fave of all time (yeeeh! sorry, this is not the official non-official OT thread)

avec said:

I'd argue that they took the show in another direction after season three. But I have to admit, back in the day (when it was first on the air). I kept pining after the first three seasons. Especially in season six (which I hated at the time— so much so that I stopped watching the show and only watched season seven for the first time a few weeks ago). Evil nerds... Seriously. ::Eyeroll::

Season Six: Season Sux

Season Seven: Season Sux More

Is season seven the one where they're on the bus during the apocalypse? If so, yes. Season Sux More...

EcnoTheNeato said:

I liked the cultists in season seven. Very inspirational.

Julia said:

Then you did better than I

I never managed to watch a single episode of Buffy completely - it's just too terribly bad, imho. Unfortunately most TV series are. For some reason I cannot really explain, I do enjoy watching Dr. House, though. I also found the the first couple of episodes from Dexter and Heroes interesting, but neither managed to get me to watch them completely.

Another notable exception: Battlestar Galactica: At least the first two seasons were really great.

There may have been other TV series I enjoyed, but I cannot think of any, right now.

Ah, btw. did I mention this thread got completely derailed and off-topic?