There's going to be a few of them, so it probably makes sense to start a thread for them.

Here's my first three.

1) If Silas Marsh draws an Innsmouth Look card, and one of the new MH cards is included in his draw, they all say "draw an additional Innsmouth Look card". Does he draw 1 extra or 2 extra as a result of this? (2 seems to be the literal reading, 1 seems to make more sense)

2) If the Agency Institution is in play, when an Ally would be returned to the box, it may instead be placed by an expansion board, to be collected later by an Investigator for 5 clues. If you have all three expansion boards in play, does this mean that - assuming no other "return to box" effects happen - Glaaki's first servant only enters play at Terror Level 4? (I expect it does mean this, but it would be a significant boost to the Agency's effectiveness)

3) If the Miskatonic University Institution is in play, are all its various abilities for "instead of an encounter" options also blocked by Tsathoggua? (I assume so, which would make this institution basically useless with Tsathoggua)

The Agency could use a boost. 2 Clues per bureau token is a joke.

I imagine, for Tsathoggua, it'll wind up being, "use a different Institution." That's (sadly) how they handled Abhoth and Tulzscha.

Tibs said:

That's how they handled Abhoth and Tulzscha in which situation/circumstance?

cim said:

Here's how I understand each of your questions:

1. With Silas Marsh, the draw an extra Innsmouth Look card ability applies only to the first draw. If an encounter tells you to draw 1, you draw 2. If one of those 2 tells you to draw X additional cards, you still only draw X additional cards, not X+1.

2. That's exactly how I understand it. As Tibs said, the Agency could use a bit of a boost.

3. I don't see Miskatonic University's "instead of an encounter" abilities as location abilities, but as Institution abilities.

Yes. Same with Rhan-Tegoth/Tulzscha, although Kevin Wilson offered a suggestion to treat Deep Ones like Cultists.

Here's how I've been playing with them:

With Abhoth: leave all Cultists in the cup. They are cultists of Tulzscha, not Abhoth.

With Rhan-Tegoth: Cultists stay in play instead of being annihilated (draw again of course), but mark Rhan-Tegoth with a token (brood will do) that represents the eaten Cultist.

And yeah, I'm going to modify the Bureau to cost 1 clue per bureau token.

Musha:

1. I like that justification for Silas, in the same way that Gloria shouldn't draw two OW cards, and note that one is an Innsmouth "discard and draw again" and draw two more (ending with three).

3. Right, Tsathoggua cancels all location abilities, and I suspect that the Institution's allowances do not count.

It's definitely a pain to pay two clues per agent, but it's worth noting that the agents are somewhat sticky, in that you only remove one agent when a monster is removed. So if you keep "feeding a location" you get a better return. For instance, say you pay four clues to put two agents on a location to clear out a toughness monster. After the monster leaves you remove one agent - so you end up paying four clues to clear one monster with toughness of one: a return of one monster per four clues (ouch!). Now pay another two clues in order to get rid of another monster with toughness one. Now you've gotten rid of two toughness monsters and spent six clues: a return of one monster per three clues (better, but still ouch). Of course, take this to the eventual extreme (pay two more clues, clear one more monster) and thing look better [i'm not mentioning toughness since if you increase the original number of agents you can handle monsters with toughness two , three, etc.]

All that said, I think their price is too high to make it worthwhile for most cases; one clue per agent sounds more appropriate (or how about two for the first agent and then one clue per additional agent?).

Last thought: even at two clues per agent, they can be worthwhile given the right situation. In my first (and only game so far) with the agency I was up against Eihort and Tzulscha. Rather than try to hunt the sneaky cultists down and get brood tokens when I finally catch up and kill them, I just placed agents right outside my elder signs and Let the feds deal with whatever was implanted in them. (Worked too: managed to stop two cultists.)

But agents are removed when they don't kill a monster. Plus, you need more than the monster's toughness: all the monsters of interest have three toughness, so that's four agents—eight clues—and you'd better hope that no other monsters waltz by and whittle them down!

I don't like "right situation" because this is supposed to be a universal component. I don't want them to be truly worth their cost only with a couple AOs and one herald.

No one ever said the feds were cheap.

Anyway, as I said, I basically agree with you and already trying to think up house rules to make the Bureau more useful. I'm torn between either making them more powerful once they are in play by stating agents aren't removed when a weaker monster shows up (but keep the cost at two clues per agent) OR making them cheaper and still having monsters remove them.

Tibs said:

Okay, so if Tsathoggua doesn't cancel the Institution abilities, you can put an Expedition down. One of the Expedition powers is to use the Science Building powers (both the 5 toughness for 2 clues trade in AE, and the 1 or 2 clues for being there in Upkeep as a Miskatonic Student/Alumnus) from the Expedition site. Clearly the Upkeep power still works, but does the "use the Science Building from here" power work? (I'd say "no", but if Miskatonic Alumnus works you can trade in trophies for clues pretty effectively that way, so that's not a big loss to the Institution)

Tibs said:

Two heralds. Getting them to arrest the riots might be quite handy. But again, 4 agents needed.

Putting a couple on Joe Sargeant's Bus Service or outside Wizard's Hill might let you ignore Dunwich/Innsmouth for a couple of extra turns later.

Arguably the ally-retrieving powers are the more effective half of the institution anyway, though. (That said, if 5 clues for an ally was a good deal, Jenny and Hank's personal stories would see a lot more passes, and Ryan Dean - "only" 3 clues - would join the team far more often. On the other hand, if you can keep William Bain, or Granny Orne, or Professor Rice around that way, perhaps it is worth it)

Another question: the same Investigator gets the Madness that forces you to attack, and the Madness that forces you to run away. What happens if they meet a monster?

(Madness that forces you to run away versus a monster with Ambush has already been asked, I think)

Agents can't arrest Riots because Riots are spawn monsters.

As for the MU institution, I haven't actually read the sheet. I just detest material that is rendered useless. I suspect that you can't use the modified Science Building's special ability with Tsathoggua in play (because it's still a location ability—more of nothing is still nothing), but can use the Miskatonic Alumnus ability.

As for your last question—since you're stuck with zero possibilities, this should probably be treated the same as an infinite loop: combat immediately ends and you go insane. So if you get both of these, avoid monsters at all costs!

ricedwlit said:

I'd say keep them at their current price, but make them so that they're only removed when you want them to be removed (i.e. for the monster you're targetting with them). I mean... They cost *a lot* of clues.

Tibs said:

From the sheet:

"[...] and then return the monster to the monster cup (or, in the case of Spawn monsters, to wherever the token was placed during setup). [...]"

So I think they're one of the few special effects that can get Spawns. I suppose that makes them a little less useless, but most Spawn monsters are themselves really tough. Servants of Glaaki are only two toughness, but that's still six clues to get rid of them, and they're relatively easy to fight.

Still, the rate is still pretty bad. Fisticuffs will swap 2 clues for one combat success, so worst case it takes 6 clues to kill a 3-toughness monster. Agents take 8 clues at best, and there's no guarantee the monster you want killed will ever go near them. One clue per agent would make far more sense.

Of course, Roland Banks, quite thematically in fact, can put quite a few agents down without really wasting clues - especially if he can pick up one of the "exhaust instead of spending a clue" powers. But still, 2 clues is too much even then.

Reading the MU sheet more carefully, you can't do the trophies-for-clues trade on an Expedition anyway - just use the other powers of the MU institution. So that's not actually an issue.

Woo! I didn't have the sheet on hand. Although I could have looked at my uploaded pic at BGG. D'oh.

Good, they can tackle spawns. That makes them unique in that aspect.

cim said:

And what was the answer to this?

Musha Shukou said:

Nevermind. The answer is clear. Ambush doesn't take effect until combat has begun, and with this madness, you can't initiate combat, and if you fail the evade check and combat begins, the madness becomes irrelevant anyway.

Musha Shukou said:

I didn't say it was answered... Presumably you just automatically fail to evade, and so either eventually get beaten up, or end up in an infinite loop (e.g. Michael McGlen gets ambushed by a Ghoul with that madness) and go mad.

cim, see Musha's reply above. There doesn't seem to be a conflict between that madness and ambush.

I just played with the Bureau of Investigation institution for the first time this morning, and I agree that two clue tokens is too steep a price for their function. Had one of the players not drawn Patrice, that half of the institution would have been entirely useless. Paying minimum six clue tokens to tackle a monster (because, lets face it, there is probably never a situation in which paying four clues to kill a monster of 1 toughness is worth it) is not a fair return. And eight for a 3 toughness monster is just ridiculous.

However, I think 1 clue token per bureau token is a little too overpowered. I think a middle ground would be better, and so in my opinion, the best solution is thus:

Amend the rules so that equal toughness to bureau monsters take out the monster. It just scales the bureau tokens down by one, making it four clue tokens for some of the tougher 2 toughness monsters, and six clues for 3 toughness baddies. I think that strikes the best balance.

Next time I play with the Bureau, that's the house rule I plan to adopt.

Hyoushitsu said:

I like it. And it gives a bit of..."experience" back to the Feds, thematically.

When I first read the card, I had a first impression that there was an implication that the Feds were "ill-equipped" to handle Mythos horrors unless they outnumbered it. That no matter what training these guys had, they were just a bit too bumbling to innovate a defense against...wait, they need TWO Agents to take on a Cultist? Or a Zombie? (So what makes Roland so superior? He was by-the-book until he came to Arkham, and now he's "making it up as he goes along". Why can't the rest of the agency?)

So I'll try it your way too, and see if that makes the Institution more attractive.

I was toying with the idea of 2 clue tokens for the first agent, but 1 for any additional ones in the same space.

Please, everyone needs to playtest these different variants. I want to know which one works best before I send a revised version to the printer. I hate to make an extra trip.

Also, I played with the MU institution tonight. Expeditions didn't get any attention at all, but the Student cards proved to be enticing enough to convince two players to spend trophies despite the fact that our AO was Bokrug.

I mean, why use the science building to get two clues when two spaces away, with Advanced Classes, you can get at least three?

Is there anything, that prevents Lola Hayes from acquiring an exhibit item every two turns, by discarding and recovering the “Egyptologist” skill (“When you receive this card, draw an Exhibit Item.”) over and over? (Same goes for passing the skill around using the revisited “Psyichic” benefit.)

Not officially, no. I guess you'd have to rely on the skill's relative rarity, someone else obtaining it first, Lola's untimely demise, or the Dark Pharaoh herald to sit comfortably with this.

Best-case scenario: If Lola got this as a starting skill, in an average game you might be able to obtain 8 exhibit items with it. Well, then there's final battle too, but there's not a whole lot that can help her there. Eight exhibit items may seem like a lot, but there aren't any weapons in there and the three Elder Sign Parchments (the only reason you used to hit this deck) have been reduced to one parchment spread out to three cards.

So, it'll be a delightful rarity more than a game-breaker.