Celeano : "Pass a Luck (-1) check or the book is a prison. If you fail, roll a die. On a failure, a monster appears from the book. On a success, you are drawn into the book for a time. Stay here next turn."

If i don't pass Luck check, i roll a dice. I am delayed only on a success or on a failure also ? Or the failure trigger "only" a monster to appear ?

-- -----

Yuggoth : "Exposure and fear weaken your mind. Pass a Will (-2) check or you must lose either 2 Spells of your choice or lose 2 Sanity."

If i miss the Will check and :

- I have 2 Spells or more. Have I the choice between losing 2 Spells or 2 Sanity or losing Spells is mandatory ?

- I haven't 2 Spells or more. Can i chose losing 2 Spells ?

I have a doubt because of the second "lose" i was expecting something like "lose either 2 Spells of your choice or 2 Sanity"...

-- -----

Curiositie Shop : "A sale takes place. All players may participate. Turn over the top 3 Common Item cards and the top Unique Item card. Any player may buy one or more of these cards for their list price. If there is a disagreement over who gets to buy a certain card, you decide. Any items not sold are discarded."

If the investigator having the encounter is one of those : Pete Ashcan, Bob Jenkins, Monterey Jack, can i use their ability when revealing the cards ?

-- -----

Yuggoth : "Pass a Sneak (-1) check or the creatures capture and experiment on you. Lose half of your items, then immediately return to Arkham with no memory of the experiments."

Do I get an explored token ?

-- -----

Thanks

To be continued...

Hughes,

I've had both of these cards at one time or another. Here's how I've played them...

Celeano : "Pass a Luck (-1) check or the book is a prison. If you fail, roll a die. On a failure, a monster appears from the book. On a success, you are drawn into the book for a time. Stay here next turn."

Actions: Roll the Luck(-1) check. If it's a success...turn over. If it's a failure, roll another die, but this time it's not against a particular skill. On a success, you are drawn into the book. On a failure, a monster appears.

--------

Yuggoth: "Exposure and fear weaken your mind. Pass a Will (-2) check or you must lose either 2 Spells of your choice or lose 2 Sanity."

Actions: If you fail the Will (-2) check you must lose 2 of either Spells or Sanity. Generally speaking, you have to fulfill the requirement. Thus, if you have two spells, you may certainly opt to lose them and save your precious sanity. However, if you less than 2 spells, you may not choose to lose two spells.

-------

Curiositie Shop: "A sale takes place. All players may participate. Turn over the top 3 Common Item cards and the top Unique Item card. Any player may buy one or more of these cards for their list price. If there is a disagreement over who gets to buy a certain card, you decide. Any items not sold are discarded."

Actions: As you are "drawing" cards from the respective decks, I have allowed those players use their Special Ability. It would make no sense for the card to read as it does, with the following comment, "unless you're Bob Jenkins, Monterey Jack, or Ashcan Pete, as they may use their Special Ability.

-------

Yuggoth: "Pass a Sneak (-1) check or the creatures capture and experiment on you. Lose half of your items, then immediately return to Arkham with no memory of the experiments."

Actions: Absolutely! Whenever and however you Return to Arkham, you get an Explored Token, even if your Investigator is a half-beaten to death, naked, mumbling imbecile

The Professor

ha! I meant ALL of the cards.

To add one more thing to the Curiositie Shop encounter, it might be beneficial to add that Jenkins, Jack and Ashcan probably should be the character to have the encounter. Just having them among the players (though they are affected by the encounter) wouldn't be enough to justify adding extra items to the pool of things to buy.

Ipitythefool said:

Sure, I thought that way, forgot to say it. Thanks for the answers. I'll be back soon enough with new questions

Well...the card does say "turn over," making this yet another vocabulary issue. Personally, I'd play it that you can't use abilities as a result, but on the other hand, "turn over" as used here has no real mechanical difference from "draw," so I suppose you could argue either way.

I was thinking much the same thing. I'm not sure I'd want to let it rest on the possibility of a distinction between drawing and turning over, but the effect does generally seem to be less like "drawing three cards" than it is like "searching the deck for the top three cards and looking at them."

It's...it's an easy search.

Walk said:

Yep, that's the "Turn over" issue which cause me wandering.

Well, just to be nitpicky, according to the notes on Y'Golonac, searching for a card does constitute drawing it....

Walk said:

So triggered abilities from drawing are back in the game :/

Really, no one can say for sure. Terms are very inconsistent, and it's possible "turn over" is entirely different from both "draw" and "search." Thematically, these abilities represent the investigators' skill in finding or gaining access to better items. The sale is for everyone, not just for them.

The Dreamlands : "The stone face reveals to you one of the deepest secrets of the Dreamlands. Pass a Lore (-1) [2] check to gain 4 Clue tokens. If you fail the check, however, the sight claims your last shred of sanity. Lose all your Sanity."

I guess that Harvey Walter do not lose all his Sanity reduce by one because of its ability ? He's going insane like every other investigator, right ?

Hugues said:

You guessed almost right, MNT. I was going to say that, but now I'm not certain.

Usually, when an encounter says " go to 0 sanity ," it cannot be prevented, because anything Harvey or an item could do would make it so that you aren't "going to 0," which means the text has not been fulfilled, which means you must still go to zero. In other words, it can't be prevented for this wording.

However, in this case, it says " lose all ," which is a bit trickier. "All," in this case, may well mean "5" if you have five, which means it becomes "lose 5" and Harvey can cut that down to 4, leaving him at 1 sanity. Here's why I think this is correct:

If an encounter told you to "lose 2" sanity, and you were Harvey, you'd lose only 1. You no longer would be "losing 2" but I don't think this is a fulfillment; otherwise, forcing Harvey to lose 2 to meet the text exactly would render his ability worthless. There's a distinction between going to an amount and losing an amount. Similarly, some item that allowed you to "prevent all sanity loss from one source" would stop you from losing 2 sanity, but I don't see a problem with it stopping you from losing all . The same concept applies.

tl;dr I think Harvey survives this at 1 sanity, because it says "lose X." He would not survive "go to 0."

Okay so, Harvey could resists to a "lose all your Sanity". Lucky him

-- -----

Other : "You stare into the face of madness. Roll 1 die for each point of Sanity you have. Lose 1 Sanity for each die that does not roll a success. If you do not go insane, gain 1 Clue token for each die that rolled a success."

Let's say Harvey has 5 Sanity. He rolls 5 dice and got :

- 3 fails and 2 successes : He lose 3 or 2 Sanity ?

- 5 fails : I think i can guess the answer when i'll get the answer from the previous question

I think, he will prevent 1 of the losses, but i'll be glad having a confirmation.

Ah, this one's one of my favorites. It's analogous to "You push yourself to the limit" and the effects of Blood Magick and The Man in Black. Anyway...

Harvey rolls 3 failures. This means he has to "lose 3" which is bumped down to "lose 2." His ability is still active, but he doesn't consider each sanity loss as individual (and consequently blocking all of them).

Where I'm unsure, though, is how Michael McGlen's ability works against Cthugha's: I don't think the stamina is lost, all at once, after you're done moving, and thus reduced by 1 for Michael. I think each space is its own stamina, meaning Michael is unaffected. It just makes applying the effect easier, as you lose one stamina per space moved. I'd like to hear thoughts on this.

For Cthugha and Michael, i'm not sure they are individual losses. I think that, when your movement is over, at the end of the movement phase for example, you're losing the appropriate amount of Stamina. And so, only one prevented.

If Michael enters combat, then, would he lose the stamina immediately, or when combat was over?

Waiting until the end to move produces a very odd mechanic. You have to keep track of the movements you've made, and only suffer the effects of the extreme heat after your run around town, and never during .

My 2 cents: movement points are spent one a point by point basis (you dont' allocate them in advance). So, after spending three movement points, investigators pay a cost of 1 stamina per movement point, which for Michael means he pays 0.

ricedwlit said:

Two problems with that:

1. If the payment is made after spending the movement points, then that would be reason to bundle the stamina loss and have Michael lose one fewer than the total. I'm of the opinion that this transaction isn't made after the movement, but during , which would make it 0 points per movement.
2. If it's truly a cost , then Michael can't prevent it, similarly to how Harvey can't prevent sanity costs .

I agree with both your conclusions. I just still have a doubt about when the stamina loss take place.

At each step of the movement or when the movement, aka changing place, is over :/ Will it be before a fight or at the end of the movement step, whatever.

Tibs said:

I'd have ruled this differently. "All" implies "all", not a specific number. We use numbers to measure things, but "all" I'd say it's above numbers. I don't think it matters whether you have to lose 6 or 7 points, or whether an investigator is more resistant to being damaged or not. "All" implies something superior. IIRC the limit theory from the highschool, "infinite + 1" counts as "infinite". So, "all -1" equals "all" anyway (just to quote Tibs properly, "All" in this case may well mean "5" if you have five, but also "6", "7" or whatelse if you're in some ways resistant).

An easy one... well nearly easy.

-- -----

Newspaper : "You earn a hefty fee for a story and get a ride with Doyle Jefferies, the editior. Gain $2 and move to any location or street area in Arkham. If you move to a location, immediately have an encounter there."

- If I go to a place having a gate. I'm going through the gate, right ?

- If I go to a place having a gate and at least one monster. I think i read in the Dunwich expansion FAQ, that you have to fight/evade those monsters, before going through the gate ?

- Are they some place where you are not allowed to go ? (Kingsport Head ? Innsmouth Shore ?)

Hugues said:

a) yup. Having an encounter to that location forces you to enter the gate

b) errata, contro-errata, FAQ guessing, non-official revisions, it's a mess. IIRC, the latest (non-official) version is that you have to deal with monsters only if you enter a location during the movement phase. Thus, no monsters. I play you have to encounter the monsters, since you enter a location as if you were during Phase Two

c) I tend not to go in restricted areas. No Devil reef, no Y'hanthlei, no Kingsport Head. But it's just the way I play this

Thanks for the answer Julia.

So a) is validated. b) seems annoying and c) undecided. I mean you tend not to go in those locations because you think it's forbidden or you think it should be that way or because it is that way ?

For c), i'm tending to think that it should work the same way than the patrol wagon. But i don't know for sure how it works But anyway, i think restricted area should be allowed to be reached via those encounters.

About b), it sounds annoying having to deal with a fight during the encounter phase instead of the movement phase. I think i'll have to wait for the FAQ to have an answer.