I apologize if this has come up already. I've only gone through the first couple of pages.

Kate's ability Test Theories allows her to "read the Objective card" if she passes. This raises some implications. Firstly, is the objective revealed at this point? It doesn't specifically say it is, so as far as game terms go, I could see it going either way. It is obviously "revealed" at least in the sense that the investigators now know what's going on, but I can't really tell if it should be revealed by the game definition. This has a pretty big impact mostly because, if it is revealed, investigator deaths are permanent at this point.

Secondly, and this only matters if it's decided the Objective card is not revealed, since the card says specifically "You may read the Objective card," does this mean not aloud? I like the idea of one investigator knowing the objective without being able to tell the others. I feel like there would be some hugely entertaining roleplaying opportunities there. Unfortunately I can't think of any good thematic reason they wouldn't just be able to tell the others and carry on as though it were revealed to everyone.

Any input is greatly appreciated!

We have never had anyone use that option in one of our games - or at least not succeeded in it.

I would think it would be a game ruin-er if it was 'revealed'. In several of the scenarios that triggers an endgame state that the investigators won't have the clues or might not even have access (becuase of locks) to get to where they need to be to not lose quickly.

I'd be interested to hear how others have played it too.

If you want to go strictly by how it's worded, I would say that only Kate Winthrop reads the objective. It's not revealed. Once she has read it, and the objective is returned face down, the player can relay the information. The player wouldn't be allowed to read it out loud since that's not what Kate's ability says. Also once the objective card is placed face down Kate can't go back to reread it.

Ultimately I think it's up to the Keeper to interpret and choose an interpretation that would balance the game and provide the most fun for everyone.

ETA: I've never had anyone choose Kate Winthrop, so I don't have any real experience dealing with that ability yet.

Actually, I really like that idea Furin. Considering some of the objectives and how involved they can be, it's possible they'll only get part of it, anyway.

The way I played it on the fly was to just reveal the objective card, which I honestly don't recommend. In the game I played, at least, it was used after 2 clues had been found in a 4 clue game (don't really want to throw spoilers in) and to win, the investigators still needed to find the final clue. This basically handicapped the investigators a lot in that, now they had to do everything they were going to do anyway, but death wasn't an option.

If you wanted, you could just say that's the investigators' choice to take that risk, but personally I don't think Kate's ability is worth it at all at that point.

I ran a game of 'The Green-Eyed Boy' - Scenario 5 - and after finding 2 clues Kate Winthrop had a suitably high skill that she attempted to use her ability, and was successful.

This led to a slightly tense discussion, as using the Objectives that I had chosen...

--- SPOILERS ---

Their objective involved escaping, and mine was to get one of them to specifically enter the Freezer. As Keeper and trying to keep in the spirit of the game, it was decided that the Kates player was the only one who could read the objective, it wasn't revealed, and the information couldn't be relayed. This might be a misinterpretation on my part, but like when characters are attacked by monsters, only the player being attacked may look at the underside of the monster token, I've always assumed they shouldn't really pass on that kind of information. In the end I think people were happy with the decision, just, but I dunno, perhaps more for that specific objective, it seems like a real game ruiner.

--- End Spoilers ---

To continue on Kate related questions... and possible 'game ruiners' though this is less of that and more of a confusion.

Her Flux Stabilisor - I may be misremembering the name of it - says that the if possible the Keeper 'may not summon monsters' in the same room as Kate. Now though it never came up where I 'had' to place a monster in Kates room, what happens if I did? The player thought that it meant that I couldn't summon the monster at all, I was of the opinion that if there was no other option but to summon it into Kates room, then it would be summoned into her room.

Also how does one define 'had' to? Because if it's an Event card that states the summoning/placing of a monster in the room, that makes sense as something you must do. However, one might also say that in attempting to use a Keeper Action card - Witchcraft for example in the game mentioned above - to summon a monster into a room. Now if I'm wanting to use it, and I need to do it such that I'm placing the monster in a room with an investigator - though for the case of Witchcraft the summoning of the monster is a consequence of a failed roll by the investigator - now if all the investigators are in different rooms, this isn't a problem, I just target a different investigator, but if they're all in the same room, can I use any summoning cards on that room, or am I forced to not act in that way because of said Flux Capacitor ( )?

Using the specific example of Witchcraft, as it's mildly different. If I use the Action on Kate - which I can do anyway as all I'm doing is forcing a Willpower roll - and she then fails it, am I then able to place the Witch, or is it a waste of threat as I'm not actually allowed to summon the monster into the room?

It all seems a bit odd, and I'm a bit iffy with Kate... to be honest in Arkham Horror her ability has led to some dull games, I'm wondering if thats a potential problem here as well?

I am away from my cards, but I thought the Flux Stabilizer said that you cannot summon a monster into her SPACE, not ROOM. Thats a big difference and just means that unless you can move the newly summoned monster it won't be able to start munching on her right away and she won't have to evade to do something else or leave.

The only time that was used in one of our games was the very first one and I was the keeper... might have been first time learning mistake but that is how I played it after a quick read of the card.... or what the player told me it did.... I forget!

Hmm... I haven't played Scenario 5 yet (working my way up to it) so I don't know what kind of material the keeper has to work with, but just looking at those objectives that really does sound like it would ruin the game if revealed early. I'd say you probably made the right choice as far as how to handle the situation. As was said before, I think I'll probably let whoever plays Kate tell others about the objective after they finish reading it, but I'll definitely not count an objective as "revealed" with her ability. In the event of investigators escaping from the mansion, the FAQ online states they can't escape until after the objective's been revealed (on the second page), so even if they're aware that's what they have to do, they still have to either reveal all the clues or camp by the exit until the event card reveals the objective.

Fortunately, Kate's Flux Stabilizer specifically says, "Whenever a monster is placed (not moved) into your room, the keeper must instead place the monster in an adjacent room (if able)." That's pretty clear cut, really. If you choose to, or are required to, summon a monster into a room with Kate, you simply place the monster in an adjacent room, keeper's choice. If you're unable to place the monster in an adjacent room, too bad for Kate, it's coming into her room.

Ah okay, thats good to know. Hopefully that'll resolve the Flux Stabiliser issue.

As to her ability it was the case that had I allowed actual sharing of the information then the investigators would have sat in the Foyer, expecting the final Event to reveal the Objective and letting them leave.... not the case in that scenario. Now fair enough the game might not have been terrible, but it would have been a bit dull, but I think thats just a case of all us players getting used to having to hunt down the all the Clues and possibly accepting that the game isn't going to be a walkover for anyone.

I think having Kate's player have to relay the information after having read the card is probably the best situation. In scenario 5 this means that Kate is a prime candidate to play a "face down" mythos card on early on...

And thats exactly what I did....

Led to Kate getting gunned down by Sister Mary, aaah the Nun with a Gun, always fun to see.