Jump to content



Photo

Encounters in sealed locations


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 ceridan13

ceridan13

    Member

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:13 AM

I was wondering how other players act when they get an unresolvable enounter, for example having a "gate appears" or "moster appears" encounter in a sealed location. Do you simply discard it or do you draw another encounter instead of this one? Until now I always discarded them, but drawing another card seems to be a better solution for me...



#2 Musha Shukou

Musha Shukou

    Member

  • Members
  • 452 posts

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:52 AM

I play that those are completely valid encounters. If an encounter at a sealed location says that a gate appears, it still affects the game (if you are playing with IH). In this situation, you would add a DOR token to the Uprising track. And monsters can still appear in stable locations; ie: a sealed location does not affect the encounters that state "a monster appears."



#3 ceridan13

ceridan13

    Member

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:58 AM

Yes, I forgot about the DOR track! So when playing with IH these encounters should not be discarded.

Though you are wrong with the monsters in sealed locations.

Rulebook page 18: No further gates can open and no monsters can appear at the location of the sealed gate for the remainder of the game.


Edited by ceridan13, 24 December 2013 - 02:01 AM.


#4 Dr.Faust

Dr.Faust

    Member

  • Members
  • 352 posts

Posted 24 December 2013 - 02:46 AM

What it amounts to is that you got lucky this time, at least from my perspective. And even luckier if you're playing with Mandy!



#5 Julia

Julia

    I survived Avi's apocalypse

  • Members
  • 6,215 posts

Posted 24 December 2013 - 04:24 AM

Yes, I forgot about the DOR track! So when playing with IH these encounters should not be discarded.

Though you are wrong with the monsters in sealed locations.

Rulebook page 18: No further gates can open and no monsters can appear at the location of the sealed gate for the remainder of the game.

 

Yes. But this implies that that encounter is still valid, and simply its effects are not resolved because something else happens. It's just like "the forces of the Mythos tried to do something, but then..."

 

Smilarly: do you draw another Mythos card when a gate that is not a gate burst opens on a seal? Do you draw another Mythos if Kate blocks it? Nope.

 

And finally: encounters opening a gate at a sealed location create a lot of damage if Atlach-Nacha is the Ancient One.


  • ceridan13 likes this
We have dragged Reason from her Throne and set in her place the Empress of Dreams [liber Endvra]
Custom Arkham Horror material / Arkham Horror Advanced Players League

#6 ceridan13

ceridan13

    Member

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 11:09 PM

Thank you all for the replies! 



#7 Musha Shukou

Musha Shukou

    Member

  • Members
  • 452 posts

Posted 26 December 2013 - 02:09 AM

Rulebook page 18: No further gates can open and no monsters can appear at the location of the sealed gate for the remainder of the game.

With the FAQ ruling that Elder Signs turn an unstable location into a stable location, I wonder if that's the driving concept behind this rule now. If so, there are a few encounters at naturally stable locations, such as the one at Ma's Boarding House, where monsters appear, that might be in conflict with this ruling.



#8 Julia

Julia

    I survived Avi's apocalypse

  • Members
  • 6,215 posts

Posted 26 December 2013 - 02:28 AM

A legitimate thought. Dunno. I've always seen "a monster appears" encounters at unstable locations as a tear in the fabric of reality from which a monster sneaks in, while similar encounter at "stable" locations could simply mean a monster strolling around and stopping by. Thematically, you can see an Elder Sign protected location probably as having much a "stronger energy" than a normal stable location, so that monsters cannot appear at ES locations but can at other stable locations. I agree there is an apparent contraddictory, though. Curious to hear Tibs' logic on this one.


We have dragged Reason from her Throne and set in her place the Empress of Dreams [liber Endvra]
Custom Arkham Horror material / Arkham Horror Advanced Players League

#9 ceridan13

ceridan13

    Member

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 26 December 2013 - 02:37 AM

I think the Rulebook refers to the "location of the sealed gate" on purpose, thus there is no contradiction here. But I agree that it is strange to have different rules for initially stable locations and those "stabilised" with an elder sign...


Edited by ceridan13, 26 December 2013 - 02:39 AM.

  • Julia likes this

#10 Tox

Tox

    Member

  • Members
  • 313 posts

Posted 26 December 2013 - 03:05 AM

My 2 cents on the matter: when in a location with an ES, I disregard gate openings (unless it's a burst, because of Atlach) and the monster that appears through the gate, but not "a monster appears!" encounters. In this case, I consider a monster "appearing" bound to the fact that a gate "appears", thus monsters just "encountered" (and discarded at the end of the encounter) are not monsters "appearing" (thus staying on the board).

Unless the investigator is Kate, because she prevents gates OR monsters from appearing at her location...






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS