Okay, so in regarsd to these two cards:

Bargain of the Gate: The Investigator with the most Power moves to the Other World of his choice

Prisoner's Dilemna: The investigators must choose: either the investigator with the most Power is devoured , or the investigator with the least Power is driven insane.

What happens if no one has any pacts or power?

Wolfgar said:

No power equals to 0 power, which is a number.

Hence, Prisoner's dilemma: you can choose any of the 0-power investigator to be devoured or to be driven insane

Bargain of the gate: you choose a 0-power investigator and move him to any OW

Zero is a number, but it has to be treated specially in this game. If a card says, "you must lose all your money or your most expensive item," and you have no money, you can't opt to lose zero dollars: you must lose the item.

It's tough to tell, though, if these cases are similar, or if you can just move forward with Julia's interpretation.

Tibs said:

Yeah, but here you're given a choice. Choosing to lose the money you don't have feels like cheating (to me, at least), so, agreed, you have to lose the item. It's quite different (again, to me) reading "the investigator with the lowest something goes insane" as "if you don't have, you're safe". There is no choice given, so the investigator with the lowest power must suffer some consequences. Hence, zero power should count for this.

Additionally, the Lurker is such a weak Herald that some cards hitting people with no power should really be welcomed.

(anyway, I'm pretty sure you ruled this differently some months ago, Is it possible? the dam(n) search function of the forum seems not to work)

Well I think I'm siding with you in this case. But I wanted to point out that "zero is a number" will get you into trouble in at least one scenario.

Tibs said:

Agreed, could be tricky to use as a general rule, good point

I tend to tread very carefully with this one. I'm not going to start penalizing Investigators who don't have Pacts. Thus, I would ignore the Reckoning card if no one has a Pact.

Personally, I like ruling it the way Julia has, myself. Most people I play with refuse to take pacts when playing with Lurker cause they're too scared of something bad happening. So I like it when Lurker does do something bad to them, even if they don't have pacts; it encourages them to go ahead and utilize what the herald has to offer, cause they can be hurt regardless.

I think the overall reaction by my group would be to decide it's just something to screw them over with no benefit and never play with the Lurker again.

Musha and Julia hae very sound ways of interpreting the Lurker rules. He is there for a reason…however, I'm in the camp with Wolfgar, though I play solo and I have no intention of ever boxing this game, but I do utilize the Lurker's gifts from time to time…sometimes it is of a great benefit , other times, I question the cost .

tl;dr, my oppinion : dilemma - no power, no devour, but someone goes insane, first player's choice; bargain - no power, no effect

Regarding prisoner's dilemma , I would rule it as a tie, so players decide what happens (like when you start a new character mid-game and you can choose to fail or pass your your personal story, because both criteria are met). Which most likely means someone goes insane (or the least satisfied character may choose to start anew). In fact, no power should mean not getting devoured. Insanity however, is always welcome in Arkham.

Bargain of the gate is a bit trickier. It's a huge benefit usually, you're getting a free ride to an other world of your choice and you can even close/seal a turn earlier than normal (reckoning happens in mythos phase, you don't get delayed, thus you can move to the second area next turn). Or abuse it with find gate, but that would be heresy! It's a benefit, so you should have at least some power (= taking a risk) to be able to utilize it. Lurker works that way.

In fact, no power should mean not getting devoured. Insanity however, is always welcome in Arkham.

Bargain of the gate is a bit trickier. It's a huge benefit usually, you're getting a free ride to an other world of your choice and you can even close/seal a turn earlier than normal (reckoning happens in mythos phase, you don't get delayed, thus you can move to the second area next turn). Or abuse it with find gate, but that would be heresy! It's a benefit, so you should have at least some power (= taking a risk) to be able to utilize it. Lurker works that way.

I think out of all of them, I like this notion best since it's the most thematic. The Lurker is obviously a loan shark of eldritch proportions. He wants people to get suckered into the loop so he owns them and can do what we wants with them. Thus, when no one has a pact (and thus he can't do what he wants i.e. Devour) it means he throws a temper tantrum and causes someone to go insane. If this came up in a game I was running, I would likely say the person with the lowest current sanity would go insane out of thematic reasons and leave it at that. Keeps it simple and if push came to shove, we could just let First Player decide that way, if it ever came up /again/ it would still be thematic because it's rare that a situation like this would occur, let alone occur with the same First Player twice in a row.

I agree with Julia's interpretation. Something similar happens with flying monsters: they move to the investigator on a street or the Reef with the lowest Sneak value. If they all have the same Sneak value, the first player chooses (but of course it's always a group choice), so the action (the monsters moving) does take place instead of being ignored (everybody has the same power -none-, so no effect).