Warning: Thread hijack in progress. Land this thread in Cuba!

Avi_dreader said:

Are you sure about that? This is page 17 of the rulebook:

"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."

If a Reckoning card had to be drawn whenever a gate closed, it wouldn't be hard to specify that it is drawn between Steps 1 and 2.

On page 18:

"SEALING GATES
If an investigator successfully closes a gate, he may
immediately spend five Clue tokens to permanently seal
it."

The language here implies that you can't spend Power/Clue tokens before closing the gate. Of course, it says that you can seal the gate "immediately" after closing it, which may be construed to imply that nothing can happen between closing the gate and sealing it. But that can be dealt with easily with a house rule like "A Reckoning card must be drawn after a gate closes, but before it is sealed."

It seems like either trigger effect would work fine: an attempt to close a gate, or a gate closing

Tibs said:

Who are you again?

avec said:

You're rules lawyering over something that has no rules precedent regarding its timing and that as far as we know FFG has no interest in clarifying since there are no situations using non-custom materials where the timing there matters. So, yeah, don't expect a real answer to that to be given, ever ;'D

Avi_dreader said:

I'm not looking for an answer. There is no ambiguity in the rules regarding the sequence: close first, then spend Clue tokens to seal. I was responding to a statement you made that players could spend tokens to seal a gate before the gate is closed.

avec said:

I came to the same conclusion before but if you use the sequence in any custom stuff I would still clarify it just to avoid confusion.

avec said:

What I tried to convey is that you're assuming there's no ambiguity based on that being in a numbered sequence, but you're assuming that FFG wasn't just providing procedural suggestions and that those steps are not considered as taking place simultaneously. There's no point in the game where it actually matters, I think. You're quoting from a rulebook that's over five years old to rationalize a situation that the game designers had no concept of when writing it. I.e. I think you're reading too much reason into the numerical order there and I don't think you should unless it was ever clarified (which it never has been, and it probably never will since there's no point for FFG to do so at this point and possibly ever).

In my experience, it's best to not presume that FFG has worded something logically...

Tibs said:

Have you tried it yet ? There are tons of interesting idea in this other arkham game. Though, its linearity may become disappointing in the end. Still, it is a very good game.

I've played someone else's copy once. I was Kate Winthrop, because I'm a scientist.

We lost, but it was a close call, so I'd say the balance was good.

Right now I'm in the middle of painting my figures. Kind of wish I had the pre-painted minis now...

With regards to the replayability: even though there are only five scenarios, there are multiple story paths the Keeper gets to choose. By the time all the official scenarios are exhausted, there will be tons of fan-made scenarios and perhaps even an expansion.

Tibs said:

While true, there is still only one choice that sets up the Objective. I've played Scenario 1 with A and B options I think, but I'm not keen on bothering with C, it just doesn't seem to go with the ending. Playing each of the Objectives once gets you to 15 plays, I'm doubtful I'll get to that number, maybe something like 13. After that, probably heads back into the pile to wait for an expansion with new scenarios, never have been very interested in revising scenarios in a fixed-setup, scenario-based game like MoM, Battle Cry, Memoir 44, etc. I always feel like I've seen it already, what's the point. In comparison, AH has basically 1 scenario, but its setup is vastly more varied just for the Mythos deck since you never know how those cards arrange themselves, whereas in MoM each card has 1-2 places it might be, but the Clues will lead you to the next place you need to go.

Tibs said:

we are colleagues, then :-)

Tibs said:

Agree. Though, I was complaining about the linearity of the stories (basically same as Dam). From point A to point B then to point C, etc. There is no room for parallel path, substories or unexpected unfolding. The Arkham investigations (i.e. book cases) have the same structure but allow for much more flexibility (it is however so much work to write one that I am not sure I want to write a second one). This is a motivation for me to merge the three games: AH, MoM and AI.

AH has the most open structure but lack the story coherence. MoM introduces a keeper and a has a better turn mechanics. AI is best at story telling and provides an excellent framework that can be used in both games.

As a first step, as you may know, I introduced the keeper into AH . This works great. I am now in the process of writing a scenario that uses a mini book-case based on both boards (MoM and AH), uses the keeper variant and that provides a not-so-linear (hopefully exciting) story.

Avi_dreader said:

Indeed there are a fair few cards which say "when making a [check] to close or seal a gate", which suggests that one can make a check to directly seal the gate (but if as a result of making that check one no longer has five clues to spare, or a pre-declared parchment, the gate is merely closed)

cim said:

That's not the point I'm trying to make, what I'm saying is that whether it's considered a set phase order type issue is doubtful (I don't think FFG thought it through one way or another besides giving a guideline for how to play). I don't think they really thought about whether it ought to play simultaneously or if it's actually a completely separate step. They might have, but there aren't cases in the game where it matters, so I doubt they did one way or the other. There's a reason they've had to do timing errata before.

Avi_dreader said:

There's also an if...then sequence in the rules on page 18, but I take your point. I agree with Veet - when making house rules, just include a statement that sealing is assumed to occur after closing. If FFG later makes it clear that sealing sometimes occurs before closing, I'll sulk for a while and then change my house rule.

amikezor said:

Mansions of Madness is a fun game, but it really could benefit from better scenarios. The game doesn't even have to be linear. That's just the way the five scenarios work.

avec said:

very true, indeed.

avec said:

Yeah, but my whole point is that FFG does sloppy writing without thinking through so making assumptions about their intent can be a mistake ;'D I suggest sulking preemptively. I sulk all the time. And not just evil skulking sulking, regular sulking too. This is the result of being exposed to Arkham Horror radiation for five years.

Only five, eh? Give it two more and you'll reach enlightenment then.

Tibs said:

What?! I'll give you enlightenment!

...

Where's my flamethrower?

Why can't we all just get along ?

Saikoro said:

I think most of the expansions for the big box stuff will be mostly new encounter cards, to help distribute gates across the boards the way they were intended.

JerusalemJones said:

Burn! Burn! Everything must burn! Flamewar! ARRRRRR!

...

What was this topic originally?

Speaking of the original topic, I notice that all the MH previews came in order of expansion release, except:

• Dark Pharaoh, which they had to withhold until the revision was announced (or else the preview wouldn't make sense)
• Black Goat, which was previewed first along with the MH announcement
• Innsmouth, for who-knows-what reason

I have two predictions for the new Innsmouth Look cards:

1. They will be a complete replacement for the existing cards because they use a new tiered function: each is numbered from 1 to 10 and you apply the effects of the highest one you drew. For example, a low number might involve nightmares or skin conditions, losing sanity or stamina appropriately. 10, of course, is full-out Innsmouth Look.
2. They will be additional cards like those for the Epic Battle deck: immediately when drawn, they apply their effects (nightmare/skin condition) and then have you draw a new one to replace it. This way they could be added to the existing deck without diluting the titular card.

Tibs said:

Oh what a fishfrogtastic feeling the thought of that gives me! It makes me feel like ribbitribbit singing!

I'm excited more so for the KIY additions, mainly the Act Cards. Having that extra time limit is what makes the game interesting. Our group usually plays with his AO card anyways; 8 Clues is a pain.

Blights are terrible, always the ones I don't want seem to hit (Father Michael..*grumble*)..but aside from that, KIY stuff seems the most interesting for me. I mean come on, Hastur is pretty ballin', not gonna lie, and he's the final boss in the PC game Magicka. Winning.

KIY Is pretty awesome, yeah. I played about 20 games with it permanently shuffled in the Mythos deck, but now have taken it out to try new combos. I do have one question about it, though: if you play the Touring Performance (I've never tried) how can you ever possibly go beyond the KIY Mythos cards? The third Act will be activated for sure before you run through all of KIY Mythos cards. Surely you can't bounce the first act for 6 times! That's 12 doom tokens!