While playing today, I came across a couple things I was unsure about and couldn't find answers in the rules or FAQ.

1. When a Mythos card opens 2 gates, do you draw 2 Reckoning cards, resolving them both?

2. The Reckoning card, Devil's Bargain , says, " The i nvestigators must choose: either each investigator with Power must discard a Common or Unique Item , or add 1 doom token to the doom track ." This has been asked before, but it was long before the FAQ was released, so I'd like to hear people's opinions now.

If no investigators have power, is this still a choice? Or does this force the investigators to add 1 doom token?

3. We played with Zhar and Lily Chen today and Zhar woke up. With Lily's personal story, we immediately removed 2 doom tokens. If you defeat Zhar the first time, do personal stories like Lily Chen's or Norman Withers' reapply on Zhar's 2nd phase?

1. Yes.

2. I think this forces a doom token because the investigators can't fulfill the other condition to its minimum (one investigator getting penalized). I'm hesitant to reference the FAQ because it has mistakes so I don't even know if that's what it says.

3. No, they don't: the AO is already awake. In addition, the pass condition and effect have both been met instantaneously, so they can't happen again.

I'm hesitant to reference the FAQ because it has mistakes so I don't even know if that's what it says.

Fascinating. I'd be very interested to know what mistakes the FAQ has. Could you please share these mistakes with me here or in a private message?

I'm hesitant to reference the FAQ because it has mistakes so I don't even know if that's what it says.

Fascinating. I'd be very interested to know what mistakes the FAQ has. Could you please share these mistakes with me here or in a private message?

There's no mystery around this, Musha, everything was debated to death when the FAQ was released. The biggest thing popping to my eye is allowing investigators failing the combat check against a Nightgaunt and entering an OW to cast immediately Find Gate and returning to Arkham the round they entered.

But there are several other minor things that could have been considered better.

2. The Reckoning card, Devil's Bargain , says, " The i nvestigators must choose: either each investigator with Power must discard a Common or Unique Item , or add 1 doom token to the doom track ." This has been asked before, but it was long before the FAQ was released, so I'd like to hear people's opinions now.

If no investigators have power, is this still a choice? Or does this force the investigators to add 1 doom token?

As for this question, I haven't found an entry in the FAQ, but still, I think it should be ok playing like Tibs said. This card offers a choice: investigators with power discard items, or the doom track is boosted by one. If no investigator has power, you cannot choose the first option simply because you're not eligible to. Hence the boost to the doom track is compulsory. It's like when encounters instruct you to discard clues or lose an item: you can't choose to discard clues if you don't have any.

Yeah, that does seem like a pretty gross oversight. By chance, are you able to re-discover the thread where the FAQ was debated? I'd like to see more of these and any discussion on them in case I ever encounter such things.

I don't like the Nightgaunt/Find Gate entry, but the bona fide mistake is with the Martial Law rules: the FAQ says that you have to check Martial Law before dealing with monsters. This doesn't make sense because you only make the evade check when you're done moving—but what if you're evading a monster to move past it?

The only answer that doesn't cause a contradiction is that you deal with monsters before the Martial Law check.

Aye, this was another bad one. I'm happy we have an FAQ addressing some of the problems, but still, I'm not ruling as per FAQ 100% of the time.

I think that's it's important to distinguish between mistakes in the FAQ and things that you don't agree with. Largely because not everyone necessarily agrees that things regarded by some as "mistakes" are actually that and labelling them as such is - IMO - both disingenuous and misleading those that may not have been involved in the original discussions.

mccrispy,

I do appreciate your point and while words do matter, there are some clear mistakes in the FAQ...and several of the people voicing those concerns actually were involved in the original discussions. Also, on a forum, one gains credibility over time, and Tibs' and Julia's combined posts numbering almost 10K, warrants an attentive ear...even if, as you say, you don't agree.

It's great to have you out here after nearly a year or so on the Arkham threads on BGG ...Happy Holidays!

Cheers,

Joe

Nice put down, thanks. Bit more than a year, but I'll let it slide. I am aware who I address my responses to and need no guidance in that regard thank you - I didn't realise that there are people with whom it is unacceptable to disagree. My bad, sorry.

I am aware that there was a lot of to and fro on the compiling of the FAQ and I'm pretty sure that not everybody agreed with everything that eventually got published and that leaves room for disagreement and discussion, which is fine by me. I'm just a little concerned with wholesale dismissal of a document that - for many - is the reference guide that AH never had. I have no problem with debate, it's part of what makes a community strong.

I stand by my posting: mistakes that can be illustrated can be recognised as such, disagreements should be labelled accordingly. (For instance, you and I are disagreeing, but you might believe that I made a mistake in posting my comment, that does not make it so)

As ever, a pleasure to cross swords with you

Happy Holidays.

mccrispy,

Please know that I had no intention of a "put down" in my comments. We simply see the document in fundamentally different ways. As for me, I see it as a ponderously long document which had taken an unacceptably protracted period to prepare and publish, only to have items contained therein which are patently wrong from a game mechanic perspective. As for you, it seems as though you find it to be infallible in its conveyance of rules-oriented FAQness. And there, we disagree...

Cheers,

Joe

You misunderstand. Infallible? Unlikely, as it was written by humans. The best starting point that we have? Most certainly. And not something to be dismissed out of hand. Nevertheless, we do disagree quite fundamentally on one thing: you have a preference to use Arkham Horror as a set of toys that come in a box for you to play with and I prefer to play Arkham Horror closer to the game defined by the rules. Partly this is because, although it is my favourite game, it only gets a fraction of my 5 hours a week gaming time (probably less than 20%) and so my RoI on messing around with the bits is too low to warrant exploring the space outside the envelope defined by the rules and FAQ.

But as I said, communities are stronger when healthy debate and recognition of alternative viewpoints is part of the dialogue. I'm happy to agree to disagree, so long as I'm allowed to state my opinion.

On the question about the "Devil's Bargain" card: it is tempting to assume that the situation should be handled similarly to the one with the "Pickpocket Ring" (KH) Mythos card --i.e., if you have no money, you must discard an item. However, I doubt that the analogy holds for Reckoning cards, because the theme is so obviously that investigators are often punished for having power (or at least for not using it quickly when they get it). Note, for example, that on the "Humanity Lost" Reckoning card, no one is Devoured if no one has power.

I believe the questionable answers in the 12/12 FAQ are an inevitable byproduct of the game's complexity (especially with all expansions) and having had so many "cooks" involved in the game's design; but it has some pure errata, too. For example, it says that the Implant Suggestion spell may be used in Other Worlds, though the card plainly says "in Arkham". For some conflicts, however, there may just not be a perfect answer. I noticed the problem with giving the Innsmouth Arrest check top priority over dealing with monsters, and wrote Tim Uren about it. He replied that this is the one situation in the game where you do not finish a combat with a monster before taking another action. If you fail the Evade check for the monster, you make the check for the Arrest, and if that succeeds, you pick up where you left off with the combat. This answer surprised me, but I suppose that FFG may have thought that it would be too tempting to fight a monster to avoid the Arrest check, since a loss in combat would allow the Investigator to go to the relatively safe haven of an Arkham hospital/asylum, as opposed to the Innsmouth jail.

Overall, I think AH is a work of art, but it's also still clearly a work in progress.

That probably makes the most sense in terms of trying to combine all the rules, but I have a problem with it thematically:

I attempt to sneak past the monster, but he sees me and deals damage.

I then fail my martial law check and am arrested, but the monster stays.

So what happened? The police ignored the monster that I was battling? Why wouldn't they help in the fight?

It makes more sense to me to have the police possibly notice and arrest you after you have avoided or beaten the monster.

The people of Innsmouth (or some of them) seem to be on the side of the Ancient Ones and their creatures.

So be happy that the police does not join the combat … on the side of the monsters

In my language, we have a curious expression to address Tim's answer: mirror climbing (no idea whether it exists in English, but I guess the meaning is clear). So, you fail the Evade, are dealt Combat Damage and then off to check for Martial Law. And the Horror check? Can you be damaged without having to check your Sanity Damage? Non sense. Should be Evade, Combat Damage, Horror Check and then Martial Law check. But at this point you probably have already been sent to the Hospital / Asylum. It's a very narrow margin that is actually over-punishing (for me at least). Not to mention that the autofailing check strategy to escape Martial Law ain't that good could because it could easily end up with monsters diving into vortices. No fun. Finally, having something interfering with combat... too problematic. I'll keep on playing monsters first, martial law later

Julia, your response waked me up to the fact that the entire reason FFG is so determined to have the Arrest check done first is precisely to make it harder for players to keep monsters from going into vortices. It just doesn't make sense to apply it to anyone who's attempting to evade a monster rather than kill it.

From now on, I'm intending to play that the arrest check need only be made first if the player has intentionally ended their movement in the area (with attacking a monster considered an intentional end to movement). Since this will never apply when attempting to evade a monster, it should do away with any need to interrupt a combat, which I don't like any more than anyone else seems to. Also, when the ending of movement was unintentional, the player can choose the order in which to deal with the rest of the threats, if still there after fighting the first monster.

Yes, that's the intention: giving a further edge to monster to dive into vortices, plus raising the odds of having investigators devoured in the Jail Cell / blocked for some turns to make the situation even more difficult. I don't have clearly anything against making the game harder, but dunno, Innsmouth doesn't need to become insane, especially if you consider the amount of Mythos triggering the nastiest things possible (includn the MH card making a monster appear in every aquatic location of every board in play). Your solution seems fair to me; it's just something more to remember, but hey, Arkham requires quite a lot of space on you hard drive, and a cluster more or less is really the same

Monsters before Martial Law! I see the banner, Julia...we can all support you!

(and in the meantime it's something like 2 months since my latest Arkham. Oh, well.... and you've got mail - at BGG)

Thank you, ma'am! It's been 2 months or so since my last excursion to Arkham, as well But, good news on other horizons.

Thank you, ma'am! It's been 2 months or so since my last excursion to Arkham, as well But, good news on other horizons.

If on March, 30th, it rains, we could host our first (annual) transcontinental Arkham party.

Yes! It will be the best celebration on the continent!