Last game we had an argument during our final battle with Nyarlathotep. We couldn’t agree on his attack.

Nyarlathotep attack:
Each Investigator must pass a Lore (+1) check or lose 1 Clue token. Any investigator with no Clue token left is devoured.

So my friend miss is Wiil check and lose his last clue token. He says he’s still alive I say you’re dead!

My pick:
Read the rules has written. First sentence make youre lore check Miss. Lose Clue token. Second sentence check your clue token, none left, you’re dead.

His pick:
If you lose your last clue token, you can play until you miss ANOTHER lore check, then you won’t have any clue token left to lose and die.

Who's right?

Makiavel said:

You are right. I can't see why he is arguing against "any investigator with no Clue token left is devoured".

Dam said:

I understand it to be "His Pick." Hence, one more turn.

Yeah, there's nothing there to suggest that the player has a choice. If you fail the Lore check, you lose a clue token. If this happens to be your last clue token, you are devoured immediately after the check.

If you spend your last clue token for a combat check to hit Nyar or a spell check (assumedly to hit Nyar), you won't be devoured until he actually goes to attack you. And then, it won't matter if you pass or fail the Lore check, because you'll be at 0 anyway

I retract my original response, based upon this being the Nyarlathotep Attack Phase!

As such, this is not the Player's Attack, but the GOO's.

I'd go with the original poster's interpretation. The instant you're out of clues, you're gone. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with Nyarly's attack phase, since you're dead at the 'Start of Battle' if you have no clues also. Futhermore, taking turns to attack is merely a game mechanic. I doubt that, in the unlikely event that people would actually enter combat with an awakened ancient god, people would line up to take turns attacking and then politely stop and wait for Nyarly to take a swing at them.

Esslercuffi said:

If Nyarlathotep was meant to devour investigators anytime they're at 0 clue tokens, then he wouldn't have his printed "Start of Battle" ability because it would just be redundant.

You're only devoured with 0 clues at Start of Battle, or at Nyar's attack, but not in between. This also goes for Shub-Niggurath and a Serpent Man monster trophy, if it's your last. You can explain this temporary immunity in the same way you explain why investigators don't just drop dead while attacking: Nyarlathotep is recoiling and preparing his next strike.

Furthermore, the situation becomes more acute when you're in Epic Combat with the Ancient Ones, as turn order becomes a sometimes unpredictable sequence.

Tibs said:

I don't see how that would explain any temporary immunity. When fighting a GOO who attacks a character's stamina, if their stamina is reduced to 0 through something other than the GOO's attack, you wouldn't keep them around until the next attack. Also, I think an investigator would drop dead while attacking if he/she used their last clue during the attack.

Esslercuffi said:

It's not comparable. An investigator who goes insane/unconscious in a final battle is devoured, no matter who the AO is. That's a built-in mechanic. Using your last clue, however, does not render you incapacitated, which is why you aren't devoured until Nyarly actually attacks.

In any case, you all seem to agree that during the "Ancient One Attacks" part of the final battle, if you have 0 Clues or lose your last Clue, you are Devoured right then.

I can't bring myself to agree with you. It seems that both readings can be right. It makes as much sense to me to see the second sentence as an explanation of what happens if that clue token can't be given up.

If your interpretation was the only viable one, the second sentence should have been more like "If the investigator loses his last clue token, they are devoured." But it's not, so both interpretations are possible, imho.

Additionally: You neglect to provide the third sentence from Nyarlathoptep's card, which continues to further refer to the actual attack. It tips the interpretation towards His Pick for me personally... but "My Pick" is harsher...

noth1ng said:

FWIW, I think your interpretation is wrong. I'd never have thought it could be interpreted that way.

But if it makes more sense to you that way, play it like that, by all means!

noth1ng said:

There are Ancient Ones in the Dunwich expansion that have special effects and combat attacks that clarify an effect happens if you can't meet the ordinary condition. For Shudde M'ell, each time a monster surge occurs, or he goes to attack, you remove one of the 7 rubble tokens from his sheet. If none remain when you go to remove one, the investigators lose the game.

Nyarlathotep's attack is quite clear: if, after the Lore check, you have 0 clue tokens, you are devoured. In other words, if failing the Lore check made you lose you last clue token, you are devoured. You do not get another round. Same goes for Yog-Sothoth and Shub-Niggurath with their trophies. You are making a check too keep from running out a certain resource, under penalty of death if you do.

On the other hand, final combat attacks from Abhoth and Tsathoggua force you to discard a resource, under penalty of death if you can't.

"Attack: Each investigator must pas a Lore (+1) check or lose 1 Clue token. Any investigator with no Clue tokens left is devoured. This check's modifier decreases by 1 each turn (+0 the 2nd turn, -1 the 3rd turn, etc.)"

Looks like you loss the clue token then if you have no more your devoured.

I agree with your friend and here's why...

The rules are written using a boolean logic if x condition then y outcome. That seems to be consistent throughout the rules.

So in this case it reads something like this:

If the investigator fails the Will check then lose a clue token. If the investigator has no clue tokens then the investigator is devoured.

In reading it that way, there are two separate statements for which the investigator only needs to satisfy one result.

The original poster's interpretation would read:

If the investigator fails the Will check then lose a clue token and if this is the last clue token or the investigator had no clue tokens then the investigator is devoured.

Given that the rest of the rules are written in such a way that there is a prescribed 1 condition to 1 outcome the original poster's wording wouldn't make logical sense as it causes a 1 condition to 1 outcome with 1 conditional and a possible 2nd outcome.

Our "house rule" for rules disagreements is that each players gets to give 1 interpretation. If everyone doesn't agree then the 2 or 3 camps are divided up and the dice determine the interpretation used for the rest of the game. It tends to keep things moving, civil, and removes the "you screwed me!" argument.

Tibs said:

>grunt< I don't think that's really fair, to be comparing Nyarlathotep's text "as written" to Dunwich AO text "as written". Until there's a reprint, the original Nyarlathotep card can never be rewritten or clarified, whereas the Dunwich AOs could easily have had a moment during creation where the FFG Powers-That-Be mused, "Well, the forumites have really been battling about the vague wording of Nyarlathotep, so let's make sure we're absolutely clear about the timing on these new guys."

The only reason I bring that up is because I originally played Nyarlathotep just as Makiavel's friend suggested ("His Pick") because that is how I read it. (Just as Noth1ng said above.) And this was back when us grognards were still fighting about whether or not Final Battle successes carried over from round to round. Two years later, Nyarlathotep's text can STILL be interpretted either way, no matter which side one has chosen to be right for them.

I only changed my mind to play the other way ("My Pick") because (a) it seemed that I was in the minority, and (b) while I may not always agree with the "Whatever Hurts the Investigator's More" unwritten motto...during a Final Battle, I do.

I'm still prayin' for ya, FAQGirl...

Personally, I just follow the text as it is written.

Effect 1, resolve.
Effect 2, resolve.
Effect 3, resolve.
ETC.

So, for me, I would play, make your Lore check. Check to see if you still have Clues. And then continue.

dkw said:

I can see that. But I can also see, "Effect 1, resolve. If unable to resolve Effect 1, then resolve Effect 2." I play your way now, but it is not how my mind perceived it initially. It's all in how one reads it, and since this dilemma has persisted since the base game hit the market, there are still brains that snap to either explanation as dominant.